Talk:Conventional PCI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

OFFICE action[edit]

The following were removed as a result of a DMCA takedown notice, per the office action policy. Please do not reintroduce these. The article remains open for editing, with the exception of any links to these specifications. If you'd like to appeal, please email your notice to me at

PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.1
PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.2
PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 3.0

Office actions may not be reversed except through the Wikimedia Foundation office. The pertinent policy lives at WP:OFFICE. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is quite pointless because you can still see it in the article history. --Hinata talk 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconding the previous' posters finding. Also, are you <censored by myself>? The original Document is still online, publicly available and a top hit on google. I bet this DMCA Notice was automatically generated. Furthermore, completely removing the reference is just stupid - wouldn't it suffice to just remove the link? Effin' lawyers.. --Roeme (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's not a valid DMCA compliant wouldn't it be possible to file a DMCA counter notice? --nn123645 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Since PCIe is quickly replacing Conventional PCI, and PCI-SIG should release the Conventional PCI spec for a reasonable price to non-members. • SbmeirowTalk • 15:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I've posted the DMCA take-down notice at this location on the Foundation's wiki. It specifically mentions the reference section and requires that we remove the specifications. At this point, until or unless we receive a DMCA counter-notice, those standards can not be reposted. If we were to allow that to happen, we threaten the immunity under which we operate through the Safe Harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I'd be happy to provide someone with instructions regarding where to send a counter-notice if someone has a valid couter-claim, but be aware that it would be a statement under penalty of perjury that you have a valid copyright counter-claim. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't you see that the one writing this notice didn't understand that it's not wikipedia that's hosting that PDF?! From my understanding of this notice and the DMCA in general, it would be completely okay to CITE the specification - without linking to it. Someone readded the reference in the mean time (even with a link to the pci sig), so further discussion is moot. Next time, I'd recommend just to break/remove the link. Removing the ref alltogether in my opionion is just excessive and feels like censorship. --Roeme (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I will execute a DMCA take-down exactly as instructed by legal. Anything else compromises our position. Your understanding may or may not be correct, but I will not follow your interpretation - I am duty bound to follow the interpretation of our legal team. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You should stop thinking so much about the law and start thinking more about politics. Linking or referring to a publicly available document for the purpose of journalism or encyclopedic reference should not be illegal even if the document was made available by copyright infringement. Otherwise, our First Amendment will be lost. We shouldn't allow copyright owners and others to use copyright laws for censorship purposes. We can stop them using copyright for censorship if we put limits to their power, even if we have to do some civil disobedience. Thinking too much about the law will result in allowing those who draft the laws to have control over us. The law isn't set in stone, it's the result of social warfare and can be changed when different social groups gain power over other social groups. We must demand to have the right to link or refer to anything available in public for journalism or reference purposes even if the material itself is illegal or unlicensed. It should be the responsibility of the copyright owner to find the uploader and take the material down. If you try to be on the safe side and you refuse to take some legal risks, then you will allow yourself to be bullied by copyright owners and other censors. Be more political and try to fight. Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
And you should read his post more closely. He is simply doing his job. Would you be willing to risk your job to engage in "social warfare" over a few bits of trivial information? Wikipedia does not have a political agenda. Beach drifter (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In particular, it is Philippe's job to decide -- in all matters legal -- when we put up a legal fight and when we comply and/or settle. Philippe doesn't tell me how to design toys and I don't tell Philippe how to make legal decisions. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Roeme, see Wikipedia:OFFICE#DMCA_compliance, particularly "the Foundation is required to comply with validly formulated notices even if they are spurious". I'm not saying this one is spurious. The point is that the Foundation complies to keep its safe-harbor status, not because it has independently assessed the merits of the claim (although they may do that anyway).--Chaser (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well this kinda depends. It can be argued that linking to copyrighted material in this way is not a copyright violation, and thus usage of DMCA for this purpose (getting a website to remove a link) is abuse of the DMCA system. The question of linking to copyrighted material is FAR from settled. While what the foundation is doing, is acting on the safe side, it is (as with the caving in to another user who didn't understand copyright [alexander liptek]) a dangerious precedent that we should keep a close eye on. I don't want to arrive at a place where the foundation always acts on the safe side, and leaving this battles of DMCA abuse entirely to its editors. (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (which would be User:TheDJ) (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I also think we should revisit wether we want these DMCA complaints marked in articles. A nice red meta template with "Specifications removed after DMCA complaint of copyright claimant" might be a useful addition to raise awareness -- TheDJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Raising awareness" is a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


Someone please file a DMCA counter notice with the Foundation. We need to be permitted to footnote the spec, without hotlinks. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We can cite the spec in the same way that we cite a print source or a paywalled online source. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"The article remains open for editing, with the exception of any links to these specifications." (emphasis mine) I interpret this as stating we can still reference the specs, as long as we don't add any hyperlinks to pirated copies. —Ruud 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
What makes no sense to me is that the notice cites only the standards, not hyperlinks thereto. The notice is "seeking the immediate removal of the Local Bus Specifications from the Infringing Entry" (emphasis added). The Specifications are defined quite precisely by the copyright registrations, and have never been part of any wikipedia entry. The notice does not mention links in any way, shape or form. Anyway, I'll replace them with Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" links. (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't. Hyperlinking to infringing copies of the specs, whether directly or indirectly through Google's "I'm feeling lucky" link, is still assistance in copyright infringement. The DMCA notice did not explicitly mention the URL exactly because it wanted to be wide enough to cover your "trick" as well. —Ruud 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Er, AFAICT, the original DMCA notice was not even wide enough to cover linking to the spec; I asked why Wikimedia legal made that extrapolation. (In my ignorance, I'm assuming it's, "they're pissed about something, so we'll assume they object to the status quo", but it also looked like a mass-mailed form letter, so maybe they didn't do careful review.) See the exact words I quoted (and I don't believe I took them out of context) from the notice above. They asked for removal of the specifications from the entry, and did not mention or even allude to pointers to the specifications or instructions how to find the specifications. (If they did, I'd wonder if we could not link to the PCI SIG's version!)
If Philippe or WMF legal thinks otherwise, they can say so. (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I have asked User talk:Philippe (WMF) for his input to arbitrate the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, there is absolutely no question is this case that we're not allowed to link to unauthorized copies of documents copyrighted by the PCI-SIG. We shouldn't have been doing this in the first place, we certainly shouldn't be doing this after they sent an, in this case entirely reasonable, DMCA takedown notice. Now I don't know which part of Philippe's: "The article remains open for editing, with the exception of any links to these specifications" and "Under no circumstance are editors to remove this protection or edit in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it. Any attempts to provide such information will result in the reversion and suppression of the edits made, and the user in question may be blocked for an indeterminate length of time." you didn't understood the first time, but for your own good I'd suggest you try to read and understand them once more. —Ruud 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
So I included a link to a link to the document. ("All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection.") I assume that Philippe is patrolling the page (there are exactly three office actions in progress, hardly a chore to keep track of), so I didn't notify him personally, but I announced it both in the edit summary and on the talk page here. Then when I disputed your opinion, I did notify him personally on his talk page. Because I might be wrong. I think this is reasonable evidence of good faith. (I am not trying to circumvent the spirit of the office action, but I am most assiduously trying to circumvent the spirit of Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt's "Take Down Notice Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)"; those who live by the letter may die thereby.) Have you actually read the DMCA notice itself? It lists specific documents. It does not list the PCI-to-PCI Bridge Architecture Specification, revision 1.1, so of course I happily included a link to that document. (I also included a link to the Revision 2.3 specification, which is not listed as part of the restrictions above, but was listed in the DMCA notice; this is perhaps questionable.) But the point is that it requested removal of the specifications. They're gone. They never were there. Despite the laywer's "reasonable belief that the Local Bus Specifications are being distributed and displayed as part of the Infringing Entry" (emphasis added), the entry never has included them.
There is mention in the DMCA about links. That's 17 U.S.C. § 512(d), not (c). It's definitely a hot topic of legislation (the DMCA does not establish liability for linking, only provides a safe harbor for whatever liability might exist), but in any case the letter, by specifying only (c), excludes (d). I think WMF legal's interpretation is already incorrectly overbroad, but I'm not going to argue that. I am going to go up to the line they've drawn. (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Now what ever flawed legal interpretation of this situation you happen to have is completely irrelevant. The WMF legal team has decided we should not link to any copy of these specifications. This obviously includes any other material infringing on PCI-SIG's, or anyone else's for that matter, copyright, not mentioned explicitly in the notice. Do not add such material to the article, this talk page, or anywhere else. I'm not going to warn you again. —Ruud 08:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*Sigh*. I have not now, nor ever included any copyright-infringing material in a wikipedia article. I don't intend to.
Whether telling people where to find (i.e. linking to) copyright-infringing material is a form of copyright infringement is a hotly debated and unsettled point of law. Your statement "This obviously includes any other material infringing on PCI-SIG's, or anyone else's for that matter, copyright, not mentioned explicitly in the notice." is, IMHO, completely and utterly unwarranted. The notice, and subsequent office action, was narrow and specific. There's no need to generalize to suppressing all material that might annoy someone. If wikipedia removed everything that someone somewhere wished it didn't include, it would turn into Newegg product reviews.
Find me one word, in the lawyer letter, or any office action notice, or anywhere else on wikipedia, that suggests that anyone except you has any problem with including a link to the PCI bridge architecture specification. The Office Action notice is at the top of this section, if you want to re-read it. (Also, find me one word that suggests that adding the link anywhere except in the Conventional PCI article is problematic.) As I said, my interpretation disagrees with WMF legal's, but I'm not challenging that. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation, and I am willing to challenge that. Unless you have some authority to speak for WMF legal that I'm got aware of.
I've explicitly asked Philippe for a ruling. Can we just wait until we get one? (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me quote Philippe (again):

The article remains open for editing, with the exception of any links to these specifications.

(Emphasis mine). That shouldn't be too hard to comprehend, right? If you link to material infringing on someone's copyright one more time, you will be blocked. This is Wikipedia, not the Pirate Bay. —Ruud 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
And I read that, and obeyed that. To the letter. I included links to other specifications (not the listed ones), and links to google searches for the listed specifications. As I said, up to the line. I was very careful not to cross it. If WMF wants to tell me the line has moved, okay. But I don't see why your personal interpretation deserves more weight than mine. (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm lazy to read the whole case and it probably isn't necessary anyway but is there actually any doubt the link above is copyright infringing? If so, I don't think any of us give a damn whether we were specifically asked to take it down. Our policy is clear and has been since long before this case, we don't link to copyright violations. The fact that this time it required a DMCA notice before we removed it, after they already asked us nicely is rather scary but if my understanding of what's going on is correct, it doesn't change the fact we are majorly in the wrong here and should have removed it a long time ago before anyone even asked nicely. If it's claimed the work is not copyright infringing, can someone briefly explain why? Is it that the work is not copyrighted or that the place we are linking to has permission from the copyright holder to host it? Or is it something complex like the place hosting it is located in a country where it's not copyrighted but it is in the US? Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Nil, thank you. I had never read that section. Or if I had, I forgot it. I'll have to study it in more detail. In particular, I'll have to read the discussion archives for limits on the threshold of "knowing". I have many times installed links to freely available versions of academic papers (e.g. on a preprint server or the author's own web site, as opposed to behind a journal paywall) or newspaper articles, in simple ignorance of the copyright status of the copies I'm linking to. I'll do a bit of reading. (14 pages of talk archives, here I come...) (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I think linking to an authors website for journal articles would generally be fine because journals often do allow authors to host the article themselves subject to some conditions so it's reasonable for us to presume these aren't copyvios. To be fair, I wouldn't say many authors actually know what they're doing (except perhaps for legal ones) so some of them are probably copyvios but particularly if they're on a university website there are people running them who do care about copyright and the journals themselves know that so it would usually still be fair for us to just presume there's no copyvios unless there is actually evidence something is a copyvio. In cases when it's not reasonable to presume the content we're linking to has the copyright holders permission (i.e. there's a reasonable chance it is a copyvio) we don't usually allow it. Youtube is the classic example when the content is apparently not uploaded by the copyright holder (nowadays the copyright issues is particularly for music is not always as clear cut but we usually still don't allow it) but it applies to basically anything. While there are potential legal issues relating to contributory infringement, I don't believe this is really the primary reason for our policy, it's more of wanting to respect copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe references can be simple "<ref>PCI Local Bus Specification revision 2.3 2002-03-29</ref>" instead of direct link with google?, any person can lookup these things anyway. The important point must be to point to what specification and what section that is referenced? Electron9 (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing sounds way overblown. The standards holder wants to keep access to its standards behind a paywall. Fine, so cite the standards holder with a link to its paywall. Now, was that so hard? DMahalko (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
With Professional Communicators on three levels (PCI-SIG attorneys, Wikimedia Foundation attorneys or Legal team, and Wikimedia Foundation's Head of Reader Relations), the PAID work they have done is embarrassing. Incomplete and unclear statements, followed by clarifications that don't. It is still unclarified, but us dumb editors SEEM to have figured it out what's really the issue -- it is kind of rude to link to bootleg copies of someone's $5000 spec, even if those bootleg copies are hosted on university web sites. Currently the article cites those specs (without linking to them anywhere), and Legal hasn't come to smash it, so that must be okay. However, if we are afraid to deep link to PCI-SIG's paywall page, then we are lying too low. Deep linking is used everywhere on Wikipedia and the web, so we must have a de-facto policy of allowing deep linking, whether the target sites like it or are stupid enough to dislike it. A876 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
They are lawyers, they like to keep everything as vague as possible. The PCI-SIG to make there takedown notice as broad as possible, the WMF to avoid losing their DMCA safe harbor status. To anyone with a bit of common-sense it should have been pretty obvious that what both parties where trying to make clear to us was that referencing the spec and (deep)linking to the PCI-SIG's website is okay, but linking to pirated copies is not. The article has been stable for months, so I'm going to prod Phillipe to see if the banner/protection can be removed from the article now. —Ruud 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that at least mentioning that it exists on the internet, somewhere is not a link. If it were, we should also be rev-deleting all comments on this talk page saying anything along the lines of "it is possible to link to it," since saying that a link exists means that it is on the internet. Between "speech" and "linking," I think this falls on the "speech" side of the line.--New questions? 09:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely unencyclopaedic information. Please, don't reinsert. —Ruud 22:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's 100% encyclopedic info. If we can't link, we should say explicitly that pirated copies of the spec exist on the open internet, without giving a link. Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would you say it is "completely unencylopedic information"? I would say it is completely encyclopedic.--New questions? 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In particular, I think that saying something along the lines of "there exists a genuine PDF of it, but it is not linked to avoid infringing copyright" is appropriate for an encyclopedia since it provides integrity to the connection to a possible source (i. e. if someone comes across the PDF, they would know that it is the genuine article), which is at least something that could be done even if it cannot be linked to.--New questions? 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly feel like arguing with you (it gets a bit tiresome to have the same discussion every other month, just read the rest of the talk page and use some common sense). If you insert such material into the article again I'll block you indefinitely and without further warning. —Ruud 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't really like that threat, and I have read the talk page and I am using common sense. I would like an explanation as to why it would be problematic to insert such material that is not links, nor even aiding anyone on how to find it.--New questions? 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In particular, I believe you are making an inappropriate threat to block. I do not believe adding a simple statement, "link removed due to copyright complaint," does any more than the very visible notice on the very top of the page.--New questions? 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's possible to link a official pdf document that explain differences between PCI spec 2.0 and 2.1? Is hosted on and intel is founder member of PCI-SIG... or the "smart guys" will try to sue also Intel? :) (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. In fact that document is already linked to from the article (Reference #12). —Ruud 18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative WP:OFFICE template[edit]

Hey Philippe. Posting here as I'm guessing you're keeping an eye on this page. I realize that the language of the current {{pp-office}} template is fairly vague about time period for protection. Still, in my experience, pages that have WP:OFFICE restrictions are often temporary (in the several months sense of temporary). For an article such as this, where it is essentially under indefinite protection (until someone properly files a counter-claim), I'm wondering if a template that indicates the indefinite period of the Office Action protection might be appropriate.

The simple reason for a separate template would be to alert users to the fact that they cannot simply "check back later" and expect the office action to be resolved. I doubt all users dive through the talk page. The extended reason for a different notice is that the DMCA notice, even if entirely valid, serves as on-going censorship of this page (in that it limits the content in a certain way). Just to be clear, assuming PCI-SIG's claim is valid, they could very well have the legal right to censor this article in the way they have. Still, since WP is not normally censored, I'm suggesting bringing to more prominence on the page itself that this page has been censored.

I'm suggesting nothing more extensive than something similar to the DMCA notice Google drops at the bottom of your search results when they've censored the results. New template could read:

The Wikimedia Foundation Office has placed [[ref/link to specific restrictions|certain indefinite restrictions]] on this page as the result of a [[link to legal notice|legal request]] by party making request under the DMCA. For more details, please see Wikipedia:Office actions, [[page?|how you can respond to this DMCA notice]], or the article's talk page. Do not remove this template from the article while these restrictions are in place.

I could do up the template, but as this is an Office matter, wanted to check in first. Again, even if a revised notice doesn't look like the suggestion above, I really think that this page should have a clearer notice about the indefinite nature of the restrictions on this page, as it does make it a bit of an oddity on the project.

P.S. Just as I was finishing this, I thought, "Maybe the article page doesn't point to the notice because the notice was less than absolute?" (I'm referring to the exceptions to the take-down mentioned earlier on this page by other editors.) That is, since they haven't come in guns blazing, maybe it's best not to be pointing editors directly to the means by which they could "pester" PCI-SIG, for fear of things escalating. (I realize escalation of any matter would be a first and entirely unheard of for the project.) I'm not sure if this played into WMF's thinking at all, but if it did, I think that moving the DMCA response instructions from talk to article page wouldn't have much effect given it would be the editor making the claim and it really is just one level removed from where the instructions are already located. Now that I've taken too much of your time, I'm off. Please hit me with a {{tb}} or something similar on my talk page if you respond as I'm not really expecting one soon. Thanks for reading!--Policy Reformer(c) 20:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks reasonable to me. I'll ask legal what they think.  :) -Philippe (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What about showing a small lock icon in the corner only and giving the full explanation only when editing the page using an edit notice? —Ruud 21:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
My thought was that this protection, even more than most office protections, should be highlighted rather than diminished. Here, an article is being indefinitely censored, and given that consensus typically beats censorship on the project, this instance where consensus cannot beat censorship (without going through the DMCA counterclaim procedures) should be highlighted both to alert the reader (99.5% of whom aren't editors) that they are looking at a DMCA-censored page and to serve the purpose that (I entirely agree) would be well served by an editnotice warning (i.e. alerting editors to situation and/or specific things they can't include).
Since this would be a change/addition to the pp-meta template, I'm sure there's some channels or proposal procedures this might need to go through anyway. Initially posting here to both get comments from WMF as well initial comments to see if this is a non-starter from the beginning.
If legal says, "Yes, do it like that right now period end of story," maybe public comments/consideration might be brief. If legal says, "Yeah, let's see what the community comes up with," then we toss it through the normal process, and probably ask for approval on whatever we come up with. Legal could also say, "That's absolutely foul language. What made you think we'd go with that? Although we do like the idea of a DMCA notice as opposed to other office actions. We'll give you some language." And finally, they could say "No, let sleeping dogs lie."
Before we go to any trouble (other than me writing this junk that you're kind enough to read), thought it best to check it to see where we fall in the spectrum. Thanks again for reading my novels. Happy New Year!!--Policy Reformer(c) 05:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If the article really was censored, okay, I'd agree there definitely should be a big and clear disclaimer targeted at the readers. But in the current version of the article nothing has been removed for which there wouldn't have been a strong consensus to remove it anyway based on our own policies. Cheers, —Ruud 15:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that links to copies of the specifications that are in violation of copyright laws also contravene WP policy and undoubtedly consensus. It's more the ongoing limitation (the need for at least a padlock). In order to avoid violations of the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, links to a legitimate alternative/proper copyright holder (ACH) are also impermissible based on the same need to protect WMF under DMCA. Before posting links to the ACH site, there needs to be a DMCA counterclaim. An editor who stumbles upon this ACH site likely does not have standing to file a counter-claim. In this situation (and perhaps others), the editor would be "censored" in that he is prevented from adding material to the site on the basis of the notice. "Prevented from" might be better. I was trying censored in the sense that when one is prevented from expressing a statement or idea by a third party especially under the auspices of a legal or governmental threat, one is censored. For example, when a radio DJ uses language to dance around the seven dirty words, I'd argue she's censored, even though it's not a case where they "bleep" her.
A side effect of this DMCA notice is that PCI-SIG makes their site the only source listed on the page, and in some way may funnel business to themselves through that circumstance. Not saying their claim is improper or that's not how it should be. Still, had they made an account here and raised the copyright flag, we probably would've resolved it ourselves in favor of them anyway and then it would be the community upholding the protection rather than WMF under legal threat. Again, something just feels different about this one. Most Office Actions: "Don't use that one picture, or say that one thing, or include that one page." This action, and perhaps broad DMCA notices in general: "Remove now and don't ever at any time possible in the future post a link to anyone other than us or we'll bring the hammer." I feel this one's an oddity due to it's indefinite nature. Office Actions are already pink elephants (thankfully - Philippe & rest of WMF, thank you for the freedom) on the project. Just thought it's worth pointing out this is a pink three-legged elephant. I'm probably running all over WP:MOUNTAIN right now, but thanks for entertaining my diatribes.--Policy Reformer(c) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the takedown, they first requested removal through e-mail. No idea why the Foundation failed to respond to this in time. The ongoing protection of the article, also seems to be a choice of the Foundation (it's a technological measure the MediaWiki software happens to provide, but I doubt it's required to prevent losing the safe harbor status.)
You rightly point out that there will be some indefinite restrictions on this article, but they are mostly theoretical and only affect editors. We're still presenting readers the article we would have wanted to present to them if the PCI-SIG wouldn't have sent a takedown notice. —Ruud 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Could be that they did respond to it and the response was insufficient, or that the response wasn't received. Thanks for pointing out the prior email as I didn't pickup on that part of the take down (the prior email). Based on that email, I'm wondering if there's more to this in OTRS than we know.

If this was just a matter of being as "polite" a follow-up as PCI-SIG could make based on a non-response or unreceived response to their initial email, and given that, as far as I know, they haven't tried to further affect the article, I agree that the indefinite restrictions are on editors rather than community created content. I do believe the restrictions on editors are real, but regardless, they're editor restrictions which could be served by an {{editnotice}} as you pointed out.

When I looked at this restriction, I assumed PCI-SIG was playing hardball, as I imagined that WMF would have lifted as soon as possible just like normal. Just knowing that PCI-SIG reached out first makes me rethink that premise. Moving forward, I'm wondering if what should happen here is the move of the WP:OFFICE notice to an {{editnotice}}. Saves all the readers that never hit edit from seeing the warning, since as Ruud pointed out they're not seeing different content anyway as of right now. If it is moved to an editnotice, I think it's just a matter of pointing out that these are WMF required restrictions instead of community based. Something like "WMF has placed the following indefinite restrictions on this article per a [[link to DMCA explanation and counter-claim instructions|DMCA takedown notice]] which you can find [[link to actual notice|here]]."

Normally office actions result in full protection of an article, but I don't think that's the case here anymore. If the article is left indefinitely semi'd though, maybe just included that in the editnotice as well. Could also maybe go with a small=yes protect (either office or semi) template, as you suggested, to avoid the issues of constantly revisiting to see if we could remove the large {{pp-meta}} template.

Finally, I still think there could be a circumstance where someone or some company could try to censor content through the liberal use of DMCA valid or invalid notices including threat a future action if the notice is not enforced on an ongoing basis. I'm guessing WMF doesn't want to do that enforcing nor spend time fighting them, and I'm sure we don't want to either. It looked like this was a case where that might be occurring on a small scale. It's probably not. Even in the face of legal threat, I shouldn't have forgotten WP:AGF. I also suppose it's a good sign that this issue hasn't come up before. As long as we continue to make clear the restrictions, and that the restrictions are based on something outside WMF and the project, doesn't matter where it is as long as it works, right?

Philippe - Thanks again for looking into this. Whatever legal wants to do goes, of course. I still think we should figure out a way to change this to differentiate it from the temporary actions. However, you can see that I'm questioning my approach of declaring the malevolence of all those bearing DMCA notices through a new notice. For me right now, I think it just gets down to effectuating the requirements by WMF without having this as a "Current Office Action" from now until the end of time. (you guys have the servers leased through then, right?)

Ruud - Thanks for making me rethink this. Take care.--Policy Reformer(c) 01:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks - Ruud rightly pinged me again today about this. We have an alternative that Geoff has cleared... how's this?
Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took down and restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice can be found here: xxxxx. For more information, including websites discussing how to file a counter-notice, please see Wikipedia: Office actions and the article's talk page. Do not remove this template from the article until the restrictions are withdrawn.

Looking forward to feedback. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks great to me! Thanks so much for the follow-up!--Policy Reformer(c) 05:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Philippe. Thanks for following up on this. The proposed text still implies the article is being "censored" in some sense. Yes, technically speaking content was removed, but this should have been removed in any case if we would have followed our community's content guidelines. I do think the proposed text is at least an improvement over the current banner, but I'm not sure if it will stop the occasional recalcitrant editor trying to insert a reference to the illegal copies of the specifications precisely because the banner tells him not to. Cheers, —Ruud 09:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that it's not perfect, but we're willing to give it a shot... I'll get someone to update the template. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I created {{pp-office-dmca}} and added it to this page. It substitutes notice into "notice can be found here: ..." Cheers, - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WMF Edit request[edit]

Wikipedia:Office#Process states "Office actions will be clearly indicated" and specifies "the template {{Pp-office}} will be placed prominently on the page." Please add the template. NE Ent 12:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two questions:
[1] Does this have to be done by the WMF? I have reviewer rights and can make the edit, but so can you. would I be violating some rule?
[2] It looks like that banner is already there. I would have to make the edit to make sure that what is there is identical to the result of adding Pp-office. I tried it at my sandbox, and got no banner at all, and it showed the hidden categories "Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates" and "Wikipedia Office-protected pages". I went ahead and added the Wikipedia Office-protected pages category to this page -- I can't see how anyone could object to that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the category.

No, don't change the banner. You will see above (and in the logs) that this article is not fully protected: the above link to 'process' does not apply here. Instead, with agreement of the office and the community, this page is under 'pending changes' protection and has its own custom banner. I think this is the relevant log entry.

07:29, 17 July 2013 Philippe (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for Conventional PCI [Auto-accept: require "review" permission] (WP:OFFICE) (hist)
07:25, 17 July 2013 Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) removed protection from "Conventional PCI" (Moving to PC) (hist)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that between the custom banner and the added category, we have accomplished 100% of what Template:Pp-office would have accomplished, and thus this request is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk)
No, it's not, it's a specific request to WMF staff to meet the obligations set forth in the office policy. NE Ent 02:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
...which they are not required to do. With all due respect, when you consider that an office action has violated English Wikipedia policy on PC2 when a non-violating alternative was available, the exact wording of the banner is a minor issue. Plus, you are requesting that a template be used that does not accurately describe the protection level. It is a longstanding practice when a template doesn't quite match the situation to substitute it, save it, and edit it to suit the situation.
For reference, here is what the two templates look like:
PC2 protection:
Full protection:
There is one problem that should definitely be fixed. The padlock is white when it should be orange.See below Given the recent unpleasantness, I am unwilling to change it. Unless someone gives me a better solution, I am going to ask Philippe to change the padlock color. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I know they're not required to follow the policy they collaborated with English Wikipedia to write. That's why it's a "request." NE Ent 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
(Knock on microphone) Hello? Is this thing on? In my opinion, this page should have two padlocks. Black, for office actions, and orange, for PC2. In fact I think that all Office actions should show a padlock with the right color indicating the protection level along with the black padlock indicating an office action. It appears that there is only one person (Philippe) who can change this without being reverted and blocked. See Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow? Are you proposing something such as this?
It looks a little odd to me when done that way. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking side-by-side, or perhaps one of my suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Padlocks, but above/below, while sightly weird looking, at least shows the proper padlock colors. We shouldn't have an office full protection look just like an Office move protection; the two have completely different effects on the average editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We've never had different colors of padlock icons for different office actions, so I'm not sure if people will go for it. The black padlock icon is currently hardcoded in {{pp-meta}} too. Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Padlocks may not be on many watchlists so you might get more of a response at Wikipedia talk:Office actions or Template talk:pp-meta. You might also consider leaving a note on Wikipedia talk:Office actions, Template talk:pp-meta and/or Template talk:pp-office to direct people to a discussion. I'm really not sure it matters all that much which icon color(s) we use, but it might not be a bad idea to use a more distinctive border color for office mbox templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @NE Ent: @Tothwolf: @Guy Macon: Sorry, I just saw this discussion here, as far as we're concerned the notice on the page is fine and fully within the office policy (thank you for adding the category Guy) but if the community wants tweaks (with such things like the padlock color or notice setup) that's also fine as long as we can get the message across. For small changes like those we are also happy to have the community make them per BOLD as long as they let us know. If it causes issues we'll say something and try to come up with a compromise but, generally, it won't.
Regarding the specific template used: Especially as we have worked towards fewer and fewer office actions (which was not completely the case when the policy was originally written) each individual action has been relatively unique. Because of that the actions taken and notice made have been adjusted based on our desire to try and do as little as possible while satisfying legal requirements. A single template is not very well suited for that hence the proliferation of custom notices and templates. If the wording of WP:OFFICE needs to change in order to make that clearer that is also, obviously, a possibility and I'm very open to hearing some suggestions to do that (probably best to do that on the talk page for the policy). Jalexander--WMF 00:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

revert of edit[edit]

I've restored this because a) there is no citation supporting the content and b) no reason was given for the revert. NE Ent 20:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"Undid revision 595348668 by NE Ent (talk) restoring content deleted without proper explanation, especially if it's of a single-edit user" [1]

"[...] Almost every time I saw a substantive edit, I found the user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account." Who Writes Wikipedia? - Aaron Swartz

Sigh. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)