Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:18, 15 January 2012

Call for comment from the community

Summary

There appears to be an emerging consensus that the community wants to do “something” to demonstrate concern about this bill. Questions remain as to whether that should impact just the United States or the whole world, and what the “something” is. Based on what the WMF believes is emerging as consensus from community discussions, we are asking your input on the following open questions.

Update: A first round of designs for interstitial "blackout" screens has been posted to Blackout screen designs.

Open questions

US only

Consensus appears to be emerging that this proposed action should target only users of the English Wikipedia. The blackout component would apply only to users geo-located to the United States. It's important to say that this blackout will be accomplished using a "splash screen". It will not remove or block any content - it will mean that there's one more click to access content. The banner component would display to all users, regardless of location.

To avoid clutter, please Support only your favorite option (do not Oppose), and if you wish state your feelings about other options in your response, referring to them by number.

(1) Blackout US only, banner for all users

Support (1) Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jorge Haddad
Support, but (2) is acceptable as well. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what some have said, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference to U.S. lawmakers if the site was blanked globally. Readers from other locations should be able to see the site. However, from what I've seen, most would be glad to join the protest so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - if there has to be a blackout, then it should only take place in the US, since there's no benefit to blacking out those in any countries (they can't do anything to solve the problem, since it's a US law that only US citizens can appeal against, so why punish them by taking away their Wikipedia access?). Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The header when I left this message was 'US only' rather than the current "Blackout US only, banner for all users". I was trying to make the point that if a blackout happens it should only cover the US, nothing more. I'm generally opposed to a blackout at all. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusion - maybe consider supporting one of (4)-(6) and then indicate that you prefer (1) or (3) to (2)? Dcoetzee 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Mike Peel. However, expatriats and citizens of other countries should be informed to take part in the conversation and the opposition to SOPA from abroad, for example by calling the local US embassy and mention the concern. Since many SOPA supporters are international companies, there are local offices of these companies abroad, too. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mathias Schindler's thoughts based on Mike Peel's comment. Reluctantly as I'd like a bigger impact but in this case targeting might be how to get that bigger impact. (Night w makes a similar point I have to agree with, too - US lawmakers don't seem to much care if the rest of the world disagreews when it comes to US security.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very slim banner only, "This is what's going on in the US, show your support". A "protest this legislation" or heavy duty banner note might be less effective. The message for the United States is "this is what you're doing to your internet. And nobody else is going to hear about it or have its effects, except as an item on overseas news". Slim banner to make the point that effectively, the rest of the world it's no effect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters so pointless to antagonise the rest of the world. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AlisonW. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Teukros (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jujutacular ^talk 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This strikes the right balance between involving the community but focusing the protest where it is directly relevant. Many users outside the U.S. will complain about any action (in my opinion not grasping its global implications), but in the interest of doing something we should focus where there will be less resistance. Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to support but prefer to minimize inconvenience for people when it's less likely that they can effectively respond to the call. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mike Peel. We need some form of action: short and clear. Greetings from Frankfurt Germany. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Jimbo said. A global blackout won't do us much good. A global blackout might even annoy some users. Nevertheless, I believe that non-US users need to see a banner so that they're aware of what's going on and why we're doing it. Some international pressure from the foreign press might do some good as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm also willing to provide some technical support in regards to this. If we don't make a stand, this bill will pass, and we'll be kicking ourselves for not doing enough to try to stop it. --Ryan lane (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps banners for those in other countries preachin' the gospel (like Mozilla did). SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shubinator (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoriLee (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for this. I'll be blacking out my own site (small graphics software developer) in support of Reddit and would very much like to see Wikipedia support it. Something needs to be done to wake up rank and file internet users in the US and time is of the utmost essence.Anarchistjim (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Anarchistjim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support. Best and fairest option. Banner needs to be in-your-face though to explain what's going on. Thparkth (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers. — madman 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jorm (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rayc (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most graphic method of driving home the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.124.154 (talk • contribs) — 173.11.124.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 on this --75.80.212.166 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — 75.80.212.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support as second choice to #2. First Light (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This needs to happen to sufficiently raise awareness Geekwithsoul (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Geekwithsoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since this seems to be the most popular option, I'll put my vote towards this. I think a worldwide blackout would be much more effective, however. SOPA impacts everybody, and I think non-Americans need to be informed. A global backlash against the bill will be very powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — DfizzleShizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support with (2) and (3) as second and third choices. This issue is critically important to our future. Jnork (talk) 22:34, 13 January, 2012 (UTC)
Support, very much yes. Teamsleep (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I would also like (2)--Blood sliver (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Raises awareness to users everywhere, but keeps the focus where the issue can be most directly affected.--JayJasper (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minimal banner for non-US, respecting that it's not their country, but they still may care --Ed Brey (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support followed by (3), (2), and (4). We should only be acting like this if there's a near total consensus here on the issue and the importance. I believe that's the case here with SOPA. Bennetto (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. – Joe N 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) lets run this into the ground and shut down the entire website. The only way to fight fire is with fire, I will go (2) as a backup option myself.[reply]

Support, but happy with the other blackout/banner options too. Witty lama 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 1 or 2, I do not think people will look at just another banner. Awk (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support AndrewPapp (talk)But, at least for the US, it should not be an easy click-thru. It should direct people to write to their Congress reps and only end their blackout early if they do. — AndrewPapp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support Sarah 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agent 78787 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The blackout should be a splash screen, and it should be targeted only to people who have representatives to contact (i.e. people in the U.S.) Even if foreign citizens contact Congress, they're not going to give them any impact. The splash screen should encourage people to take action, but not require them to do so. If they so choose, they should be able to decline and then use Wikipedia as normal. Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --SirGeek CSP (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aswn (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would be up for 1 or 2 --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Nascar8FanGA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1 or 2 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 1 or 2 ~Feedintm^Parley 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Requiem (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think a blackout is a good way to raise awareness about the bill, and I feel banners are more prone to being ignored (especially so soon after the fundraising drive). However, I don't feel that blacking out Wikipedia outside of the U.S. is necessary, as this is a U.S. law and the lawmakers responsible for the bill are U.S. It will affect people around the world, yes, but I don't think a global blackout will change any lawmakers' minds. I strongly disagree, however, with the idea of requiring a visitor to contact his or her Congressman before he or she can access Wikipedia. Those who support the bill or do not want to take action of there own should not be punished. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support We should do this on the mobile site too. Lucasoutloud (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Would also support global as well — the Internet is not just national, and if the US does this, there will be global effects as well. Additionally there are considerable numbers of voting Americans abroad. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This will allow us to raise concern well domestically with the blackout and internationally with a banner. --Kylalak (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The blackout will be unignorable. And I just think non-US users seeing a blackout pertaining to a US law might be made to feel like Wikipedia is not "for" them, like the assumed audience of Wikipedia is American. I don't like that idea, so that's why I support (1) rather than (2). Glowbee (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Glowbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support seems to me a reasonable response. of course, many us citizens read other wp's, and many noncitizens read the english wp, but since the servers are in florida, the english wp has got to be the focus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This being US regulation, makes sense to go US only. TNL (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as second choice, behind full worldwide blackout. This legislation will affect the Internet, which is worldwide, not just the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only an actual blackout for US users will have a sufficiently large impact to get this movement noticed in the way it needs to be.Dlswain (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Dlswain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters «»Who ?¿? 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a serious enough issue to draw attention, more in the US than elsewhere. As the bill(s) would have far-reaching effects that extend beyond the borders of the US, it makes sense for something to be broadcast outside the US as well. Spiffulent (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Farlo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support This is not a a purely "political" act, SOPA potentially endangers the freedom of Wikipedia by allowing pages to willy-nilly be shut down. This is a HUGE deal. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ktdreyer (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has the foundation considered moving the project to a more friendly environment?Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia should be more politically and legally active when the project is at risk. Savidan 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Doing so has my full support. We live in a democracy and we must make our voices heard. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia do your part. Mypagesarecool (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Mypagesarecool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support We need to express ourselves with a blackout, but we also need to explain to all what is happening in the USA. Etineskid (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still feel it would be more pointed to just target this at the U.S. House and Senate IPs, as well as those of the companies and organizations that support SOPA/PIPA, but if this coordinates with what other sites are doing, like Reddit, we're stronger doing it with them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support actual reddit style blackout. The whole point is to demonstrate what the internet is like without Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st choice. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support and make the American users unable to use Wiki with a big banner, for that day. Saffy21 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It is a global issue, no doubt, but the legislation is for America only, so we should keep the blackout to America. Jarmihi (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Jarmihi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Equaaldoors (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support but (2) is also an acceptable alternative. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blockout is our only weapon at the moment to protest this, let it be an important day el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Zhang5 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Edit: Also I support that we put up banners well in advance of the 18th. — Zhang5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Dkriegls (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Iconofiler (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support action needs to be taken. I signed the petition on sopastrike.com and demandprogress.org, I will sign here too. Akihironihongo (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Monowi (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia must take a stand to defend freedom on the internet. U.S. users especially need this message now, but all Wikipedians should be informed of the dangers of these censorship concepts. Sonicsuns (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support While I believe that too few people outside the US are aware of what's going on, I think a global blackout might confuse (what congressperson? I don't have a congressperson...) and annoy those who feel it is completely irrelevant. That said, failing this, I'd rather go big than tone it down: 2 is second choice. <edit: this for the splash screen, not full blackout.>sonia♫ 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 and 3 are both adequate. I agree it should be enwiki and geolocated in the US. I also like the banners, as otherwise, I wouldn't have known about this issue. Perhaps blackout to US users and banner for others. After reading the proposals, it's utter rubbish, and the US public should do whatever it takes to get their voice heard. Captain Courageous (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cybercobra (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Banners are often ignored, so more is needed, and as long as there is still access (albeit somewhat more circuitous) a blackout is sensible. I like the idea of warning about the blackout in advance. DopplerRadioShow (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perlit (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I find (2) also acceptable — Perlit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Let's not do that 'America thing' and plague the world with our problems. A banner is great, especially for US citizens living overseas, where they may not have been exposed to information about to SOPA. As for the US, let no American escape. Commander Ziltiod (speak) 09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support SOPA affects every person in the US, and our community must take a stand against it. The bill also has the potential to affect Wikipedia itself, so we should let the world know our stand... but not black them out, that's dangerously like doing SOPA's job for it. For those voting in support of (5), and (6) who are quoting WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, or similar (ad there are some), a question: How do you reconcile that stance with the fact that you're participating in this conversation? An assertion that WP:NPOV should extend to more than article content seems inherently self-contradictory. FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd love to see Wikipedia taking part in this. The blackout should be US only (I do like the idea of a clickthrough to allow people to access articles after seeing the blackout). Non-US countries should get a banner so that those in a position to affect US policy -- traveling or expatriate US citizens, for example -- should be a position to do so. Gaurav (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though, I would also support a worldwide blackout (maybe more, but not sure if it's "fair" since it is a US law) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support SOPA is way to vague if we want something like this to make sure creative people get what they deserve it needs to be more specific. although not the "worlds" problem i would appreciate what support we can get from anyone. however, international users shouldn't be punished for the US sucking, which is why i support here, but if they can help in anyway i'll love them forever (aka, be a better more involved human being, who continues to give a shit, but takes more action to help the world)i'm sure this makes very little sense but i just woke up for work at 5:40 am ESTKillemall22 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Politicians are out of control. They are here to sever the people, not corporations. I support US Blackout only pldinesh2 11:11 AM, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support per Mike Peel. -- kh80 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wvk (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Users outside the U.S. do not have any influence on U.S. politics. They should be informed about the protests, but they should not be hindered from using Wikipedia.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Blackout will have a massive cost to this project as it annoys millions of potential donators and editors, causing many people to make decision to never donate or contribute to Wikipedia. In fact, this blackout protest probably harms Wikipedia more than SOPA ever could. So please keep it as limited as possible. ML (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jo, US-only. push them back to reason but keep the (global) nuke in the base for now. sadly, we may need it soon enough, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Ed!^(talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support covracer (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wormcast (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have some sympathy for option (2) because the proposed legislation has global impact since the U.S. based servers have global reach. However, only the U.S. audience has significant influence on U.S legislators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--WTF (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Donald Albury 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) -Blackout US only, banner for all users -- Donald Albury 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am in favor of any or all options for expressing opposition to SOPA. -- Frankie1969 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. I oppose this option on the grounds that the copyright industry is pushing similar legislation in multiple countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This first question is multiple choice rather than support/oppose. There are six options, the last of which is to do nothing. Simply vote for the one you want. No need to oppose the others. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I still object to making some options multiple choice and others support/oppose. Such differences inject subtle biases. --Guy Macon (talk)

Very Strong Support. The click through idea is rather clever, and I think it would work very effectively. --Torchflame (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The threat to the free availability to information needs to be addressed --Trödel 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Narayan89 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Zinger0 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tobias (Talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

""Support"" -- Lets do this thing. The internet and wikipedia have brought enormous happiness and knowledge to my life and need to be protected.--Scarfieasbro(Scarfieasbro 11:15, 14 January 2012 (Eastern)

Support We need to take a stand on this important issue. It's too big for us to ignore it.--Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. --Gwern (contribs) 16:32 14 January 2012 (GMT)

Support Yes, people should be able to click through it but it really should be a LARGE, noticeable black landing page with an attention-getting white headline, a concise summary, and a call to action and how users can make a difference. It should provide outside links to how SOPA and PIPA could hurt the internet and an easy way to contact your local representative. The point is, people should be forced to read it and find a way to close out before they continue to whatever article they were looking for, otherwise what's the point.

Support Dan653 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Scokee 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Option 2 also okay. As long as content is accessible I have no problem with "consensing" with this, although the actual threat of SOPA to Wikipedia (as opposed to say YouTube or Archive.org) seems extremely low. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.

Support --Voyager (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algamicagrat (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support - Enkrates (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support with 2 as a second option. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- PaleAqua (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support de Mediātōre Scientiae (discutere) 18:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Time to make a stand and raise awareness, and in a way that ultimately does not harm the project. --McDoob AU 93 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, first choice, with 2 as second choice. There's no need to black out our worldwide users, but educating them about what's going on here can only help us. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This or (3). I don't think we should be forcing a blackout on people from other countries, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to let them know what's going on. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. James F. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support. This seems like a rational response to SOPA. Dmarquard (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Support"* Support per AJ Sethi. Wikipedia is used by a lot of non-technical folks out there. The need to rope in as many people who are not involved in Web/Internet fields is important. Wikipedia outage can help raise this cause.

Support SOPA and Protect-IP pretty much only extend to the US. Of course, there are already countries that considered the option of Internet censorship like Spain, so 2 is also a viable idea. --User:Mistermister93 (talk) 10:23 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support but (2) would be acceptable also -- Amillar (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blackout Wikipedia in ALL countries. US internet policy has a habit of spreading across the world, make the stand here and we won't have to worry about other SOPA bills passing in other countries. --User:If it bleeds we can kill it

Support Tinlash (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Personally, I feel that Wikimedia, as a collective foundation, must take every action in its power to oppose SOPA and PIPA, both of which I oppose because the consequences of them may violate our First Amendment rights, censor and cripple the Internet, and threaten free speech, thereby jeopardizing the quality of human life and liberty. That said, I also feel that Wikipedia should have the same restrictions on copyright violations worldwide as it has in the United States. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 18:29, Saturday, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support US-only click-thru blackout. Only US citizens have any clout when petitioning their Congressional representatives. A global full blackout would direct user anger at Wikimedia, not Congress, where it belongs.

Support User:Dachvid Saturday 14 2012 (UTC) Passage of this law and signature by OUR sometime president would be a disaster. This template must be substituted.

Support - the American people, the people that can influence their appointed leaders, need to be aware of what is happening and this is the best way to do it Taketa (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with AlisonW-2012 is an election year in the United States and we should a message to our public officials. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A black-out to US American users (IP type blocking?) or English version of Wikipedia. All that should be visible for the blackout should be a message about SOPA/PIPA and all Wikimedia pages (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikia, etc) should display a banner (like the fundraising ones) that warns about SOPA/PIPA and tells users/visitors how they can help. -- Azemocram (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support dllahr

Support Jeremyb (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This makes sense to me. --Talvieno (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Itu (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Me too.[reply]

Support - Limited support for (2) as well Ojchase (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - US only blackout makes sense to me.

Support - The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.

Support - I share the same feelings as the previous supporters have expressed. Since this is a law that would affect American citizens, I feel the blackout should only affect us. But, since it's such a major campaign, a banner should be displayed for all other countries, too.EMathison This template must be substituted.

Support - CaptainTickles (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Emw (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support RainbowOfLight ^Talk 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sargoth (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- A banner alone would not be enough to have a meaningful impact. Vencetti((spa|Vencetti}}

Support --KSnortum (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- While I do show solidarity to my US friends, I don't think we from the rest of the world should suffer because of the US politicians arrogance Deusdies 23:23, 14 January 2012 (CET)

Support -- Bab72 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Only US users will be able to influence the Congresscritters, so it's pointless blacking out the rest of the world, but leave the banner to let everyone else know what's going on. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- TransporterMan (TALK) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Geoff (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- User:Clementi 16:37 14 January 2012 GMT-7

Support -- User:Zaphraud 16:40 14 January 2012 GMT-7 (Arizona)

Support -- Crkey (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- — Ines (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- User:Prolixium 19:18, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Support -- User:LegacyOfValor 16:46, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Support -- Don't punish global users who have no democratic control over Congress.Erudy (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on much the same ground as others - I would oppose a blackout that affects people who have can no say in the process. But a banner to inform them of what is happening makes sense. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Nathan0n5ire (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on grounds that we need to make a strong statement in USA; banner raises awareness of the issue elsewhere, and for Americans abroad. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I heartily support a blackout, but feel that a U.S. only blackout would be most reasonable, since those users are likely the only ones who will be able to make a difference. Mesoderm (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Blackout and banner for all users

Support - I prefer a complete total global blackout. This is an issue that is focused on the United States right now but other countries around the world are considering similar measures. A global blackout would mean raising awareness so we don't reach this tipping point in the future. --Jasenlee (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. User: Radiomantx 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Radiomantx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stephan, I believe this affects all our readers, and that all our readers have the ability to make their voice heard to US lawmakers. So let's reach out to them all. I would however accept (1) or (3) as a compromise. Dcoetzee 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also opposed to a click-through workaround. It's a one-day stand against awful legislation. People shouldn't be able to work around it. --Straightbstudent (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dcoetzee, I would prefer a global blackout. However, (1) would be acceptable as a step down from that.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also support (1) and (3). Maplebed (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2,1,3 - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. First Light (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dcoetzee. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the fact SOPA gives the US authority to take down foreign sites, as well as the de facto lead the US has in the creation of internet phenomenons from Wikipedia to youtube, this is truly a global concern.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without any public display of the SOPA bill, most users will be left clueless as to what is going on. A partial-blackout is a good-idea, limiting certain features, or at least making it clear that SOPA could completely destroy this website that they love. Also, please make your SOPA banner distinct from the fund-raising banners so that users don't dismiss it thinking that they've seen and read it before. Thanks, happy anti-SOPA! --Jean Of mArc 15:46, 13 January 2012 This template must be substituted.
Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2012; 22:02 (UTC)
Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Support This would be my preferred action, as SOPA effects everybody, not just Americans. If all we can get is support for a US blackout, then so be it, but I think a worldwide blackout would be much more powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Support SOPA can and likely will destroy Wikipedia. We must take a stand against it as a whole community. While I would also find (1) agreeable, unless we have a way to hide the infringing websites from US users, this will affect all of us. If we stand united as one, our collective voice will rise stronger than any smaller group of editors. In this issue, it is prudent to ignore WP:SOAP because the effects of this bill could be as disatrous to Wikipedia as deleting the Main Page. Hamtechperson 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2,1,3. The WMF projects are under threat, and it is our responsibility to inform people of that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA affects the entire planet, so the blackout (click though is better) must be global --Jon889 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Support biggest blackout possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support DNForever (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA is an Internet issue and is a worldwide issue. Blackout everything. Drivec (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA is a global issue. It effects not just US web sites, but it also enacts US courts to take down foreign web sites and try them under US jurisdiction. Even if it were only US sites, people worldwide make use of them. Worse, if the US is successful in pulling this off it could spread to other nations as part of "copyright harmonization". My second choice would be 1 then 3. --Schwern (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, worldwide issue. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the outcome of SOPA hinges upon the actions of U.S.-based politicians and their constituents, the potential ramifications of the bill are global. Best to inform all users of it. Rivertorch (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Ziko (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, other people from other countries should also be inspired to prevent this sort of legislation in their own countries in the future.Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Wikipedia has a huge voice, and many people visit this website daily. In fact about 4 million a day. We should inform everyone on this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The bill endangers the foundation of the internet, for information to be freely available for all. The US government would be impeding the spread of knowledge for the whole world, and thus it is a worldwide issue. Captain Gamma (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I would also support (1) Csquest99 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Csquest99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The world is much more than the United States, but so much of what happens in the U.S. can affect globally; this is one of those times. (1) would be acceptable, but (2) is preferable. Benscripps (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with (1) being my second choice. Reasons: (a) SOPA affects sites and readers all over the world; (b) similar legislation has been proposed and enacted in other countries; (c) international treaties may in the future require similar legislation everywhere; (d) therefore maximal pressure must be exerted on all governments of the world. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we want as many voices in this as possible. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either global or US specific actions Varnent (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA merely begins in the U.S. but will affect the rest of the world. A true blackout, one that cannot be clicked through, is the best way of doing this. say anybob 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) anybob (talk) 8:19, 13 January 2012 (EST) — anybob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Support, I support a global blackout. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SOPA affects the whole world. --J (t) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA, and policies like it wherever they are instituted impact the whole world. The US often criticizes other countries for their Internet policy, time for the favor to be returned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support the largest blackout possible. No one should be able to access Wikipedia for the entire day of 18 January. This shows what every day would be like with SOPA- no Wikipedia at all. Fendue (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bcartolo (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so go big. I will add that I think an actual blackout would be better than the "blackout" with clickthrough that is planned.
Support Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is important to inform as many people globally as possible about this so that they can show what they think about this type of legislation before the politicians get inspired to follow suite... But it would be good if established users still had a chance to work on the backlog. Jopparn (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far too few people know about the possibility of internet censorship. Chillllls (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Others have stated my sentiments exactly: this bill could have worldwide consequences. Best to inform everyone, and foreign pressure could help pressure Congress to not pass it. Lordvader99 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with specific comments of AxelBoldt above. Particularly intellectual monopoly creep via supposed treaty obligations is a real concern. Huckfinne (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as we are based in the USA this really effects the whole world and we should make as much noise as possible!LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support global splash screen, although #1 (US only) is okay as well. While the content would have to be different (non-US visitors don't have representatives/senators to contact), the nature of the Internet makes this inherently a global issue. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for options (1) or (2) -- I personally prefer global as this legislation would have long-lasting effects on how services like Wikipedia can continue on as they presently exist. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a global blackout. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Allow Wikipedia to have a wide and strong impact as a protest against SOPA. Any Protest against this removal of freedom should not be lightly. I have reinstated my support for a full world blackout below --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need to make an effective stand on this, and there is no better way than showing the world what they are at risk of losing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Take a stand now or cry later. Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will send a message that we don't want anyone fucking with us, no matter what government. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If any community blacks out their part of Wikimedia, I'd want to see at least a banner on my part KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~Crazytales (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA affects the entire world, so everyone should know about it. Focus (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice. SOPA's impact would not be limited to the US. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that SOPA's impact would not be limited to just the US. The creator of Minecraft put forth his feelings on notch.tumblr.com. Yes, let the world know where we stand and the real consequences for SOPA. Jessemv (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA would affect more than just the US. Whether it's this or Option 1, Wikipedia should definitely do some form of blackout, as this bill would severely endanger the site. In other words, this issue is important enough to be worth the site taking a stand on.Yuuko41 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Yuuko41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support By far the most effective option, considering this issue affects all Wikipedia users around the world, not just those in the US. Having both the blackout and banner will show citizens and members of Congress that we are very serious about fighting this bill, and we will do anything to accomplish our goal. Alexroller (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Carlsmith (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bring out the big guns... oh, sorry, forgot about the NDAA. "Bring out the basket of happy puppies"! Tevildoii (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support (1) or (2) but prefer (2) Steevithak (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Steevithak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support Complete blackout, but suggest that perhaps some of the bots still be allowed to run in the background. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full blackout world wide. Other countries can exert economic and political pressure on the US even if they don't have legal voting power. This is a serious issue.Canticle (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that I am British and based in Britain. American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest. —WFC— 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just because the blackout would only affect US users shouldn't deter WP from drawing support from outside the US. There's always the possibility that similar laws could be introduced elsewhere. 3.14 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worldwide blackout and banner. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. Banner for persistence of information in the reader's working memory, because the vast majority of users automatically dismiss anything that looks like a pop-up without registering the contents -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an issue that ultimately affects everyone, not just the US. If a site as big as Wikipedia institutes a blackout for all its users, people are SURE to take notice, and word will spread that much more quickly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both banner and blackout worldwide. If SOPA passes, there is a very real threat that Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upstate NYer 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snackshack100 (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) SOPA MUST BE STOPPED!!![reply]
Support. It should be a full blackout. Jdm64 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Keraunos (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. Brandorr (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pretendo (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The ratification of SOPA would set a precedence for other countries to model. Toxic legislation in the US tends to have an unfortunate trickle down effect for the rest of the world.[reply]
Support. This blacklist legislation threatens to affect not just the U.S., but all Internet users who use services hosted in the U.S. (which is probably a large majority of Internet users) -- A.M. (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rami R 08:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Serve a truly helpful, informative page enabling people to take action if they want. They'll have enough extra time with no Wikipedia articles to read. -- Honestrosewater (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC) — Honestrosewater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support. This blacklist legislation threatens not only the U.S. but the whole world. Also, once this bill is passed the U.S. Government will for sure bully other countries to implement similar bills. That is already happening now before SOPA has even been made into law. XKthulhu (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~GT~ (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support highest exposure. Clegs (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let it be the talk of the whole world. Most SOPA supporters are big international companies, and it's much more effective if they feel the pressure all around the globe. -- Orionist ★ talk 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SOPA will affect everyone, so the blackout should be global. CT Cooper · talk 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SOPA will have an effect on everyone and every single user of the internet. It must be stopped. ZergMark (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The passing of SOPA will have global repercussions; a global blackout would help to raise full awareness. ~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk
Support from Norway. – Danmichaelo (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. --Ben Best 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Get worldwide attention on it. SOPA/PIPA aren't just a risk in the United States; similar bills are being passed at the United States' urging in other countries. Help raise awareness everywhere and get pressure put on this kind of legislation everywhere. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (1 as second choice, which is better than nothing), as what happens in the U.S. could spread like a cancer worldwide, and thus the entire world needs to understand the consequences. Also consider what expatriots can contribute to this. Last, consider how American corporate power reaches globally -- citizens of other countries, even if they can't properly contact our representatives/Senators, can vote with their money. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Object to misleading title; it is called "Blackout and banner for all users" but the description text makes it clear that it isn't a blackout at all. I oppose this option on the grounds that a clicktrough banner without an actual blackout will be perceived as not joining the other sites that have actual blackouts. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, in slight preference to (1). Full blackout would be even better. Hans Adler 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well.
Support. US legislation has a way of creeping itself into other countries by economic pressure etc. So, don't expect SOPA-style legislation to remain confined to the US for long once adopted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Germany --Oliver Tölkes (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm in the United Kingdom - this is a global issue tompagenet (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (1) or (2), but this is a global issue, so I prefer this option. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA threatens us all, US or not. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something similar should be done for the Spanish Wikipedia, as there is a sizable Spanish speaking population in the US that is also politically active. Separately, as a previous poster notes, this "US only" Legislation has a way of creeping into other countries. As I recall, there are banking regulations by the IRS that other countries must comply with or face consequences, all because they have US citizens as customers. Hires an editor (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SOPA affects all. Renwique (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanna Barberian (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kavi96 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC) As a Brit, this bill will affect every country, so we need to take global action. Everybody can do something, even if US citizens will have more impact.[reply]
Support either (1) or (2) but strongly prefer global. This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aude (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (1) or (2), prefer 2. (e • nn • en!) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm in the UK, and this will affect us as well. Wikipedia has the power to raise world wide awareness for this issue. I would shut down all languages, but I doubt that will happen. Skeletonboy (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support The issue is global, so this is the right balance of agitprop to reach, not just the American expatriates, but Netziens at large, some of whom have standing with our legislature as well as their own, and some of whom shall begin such involvement kencf0618 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like it or not, the world has to deal with whatever is going on in the U.S., in more ways than just SOPA. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the whole world needs to know what's going on here, not just the US. SOPA will cause ripple effects and legal repercussions all over the world. 24.228.164.210 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh, above was me, forgot to sign in. Macoukji (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support geo-location is evil, regions and countries don't exist on the internet, there is only one internet. Blackouts and banners should not try to discriminate between users based on their national origin. SOPA is a global issue that threatens the worldwide internet and would affect everyone. --memset (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Buggie111 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are all directly or indirectly impacted by SOPA Kelson (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if it affects Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects), it affects all users equally, no matter where they're from. Schneelocke (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for raising awareness worldwide -down load ׀ talk 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with (1) as an acceptable second choice. As much as I hesitate to support limiting access to a free encyclopedia, I am convinced by Geoff Bingham's legal analysis that we are justified in taking this action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but not as currently written. Strongly support a blackout screen that is NPOV, e.g., "SOPA could affect Wikipedia. Click to read analysis..." Since this would be purely educational, it is appropriate for non-USA users, too. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support since US legislation will have an influence to everybody worldwide. Many users from all over the world use content that is hosted or even routed through the US. We see people that are not breaching local laws even being deported for trial in the US (like Richard O'Dwyer). We cannot allow the US to shape the world even further to what they want. They're not 'God'! Users from all over the world must be made aware that they will be effected by SOPA. Jurjenb (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be the best answer, since SOPA would effect everyone in the world, not just Americans or English language users. (1) would be OK, but everyone needs to know what may/will happen if SOPA or PIPA pass. TEG (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As if people outside the US are not going to be affected... protest should be as big as possible. Von Restorff (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will garner more international press this way, and it's important to have other countries aware & equally outraged. -SColombo (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (American)[reply]
Support. Wikinade (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The U.S. government is more likely to listen if the entire world is angry at them, rather than just Americans. Merlin s orca 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. We also should protest the NDAA of Fiscal Year 2011, which authorizes the ability for the US President to abduct, indefinitely detain, torture and kill any one at any time in any part of the world, including US citizens captured in the U.S., without any requirement to show evidence of any kind. When the SOPA act is protested with a banner, protest in graphic format the NDAA legalization of indefinite detention!!
Support. mabdul 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SOPA crap is contagious, we need to warn everybody. -- Wesha (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Marktaff (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Though SOPA is US legislation, the effects can be felt across the web; hence I support making this a global issue. - angrytoast (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This legislation would come to affect the whole world. nonky (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely a global issue. I can only think of Holland and Spain off the top of my head, but US activity has definitely been influencing other countries to institute SOPA-like restrictions on the internet. music GUY GUY 01:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This will make a larger statement in the media than (1). asmeurer (talk | contribs) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is important to let as many people as possible about this. Mchcopl (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)![reply]
Support, I think the English-speaking world can live without Wikipedia for a few days in exchange for net neutrality. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Blackout and banner US only

Support enwiki only, limited to users geo-located to the United States. Oppose "banner component would display to all users, regardless of location" Bulwersator (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (1), (2), (4). I don't want propaganda about something happening in the US cluttering my usage of Wikipedia. [Editor's note: assuming 3, 5, or 6 are okay with Peter]. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No clear preference for 3, 5 or 6, that's up to US editors to decide, I'm opposed to anything affecting non US users per my previous comments, the evidence for this having much if a direct effect on wikipedia is limited so I don't see any reason why we should do this for all users as opposed to say for the Spanish law or any of the other laws out there. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perhaps there are better times for other locations. Should happen when there is an actionable item available for local government. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support a full blackout with banners in the US only. Would support (1.2.1.1), or (1.2.1.2) if enough (majority?) non-US users felt comfortable having a blackout or banner. Dkreisst (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support US only, for this, but I don't agree with EN: only. Apparently Americans only speak English? I don't think so. Anglophone-centrism not much better than Americentrism. Re what Nil Einne said, WP ought to do this for other laws, in other countries -- like UK's recent law that does pretty much the same as SOPA! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Sicherlich ^Post 10:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --YMS (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Object to misleading title; it is called "Blackout and banner for US only" but the description text makes it clear that it isn't a blackout at all. I oppose the "banner portion of this option on the grounds that a clicktrough banner without an actual blackout will be perceived as not joining the other sites that have actual blackouts. I oppose the US only portion of this option on the grounds that the copyright industry is pushing similar legislation in multiple countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a weeks-long straw poll on "do something" with 89.9% support. It's perfectly legitimate for the WMF to ask "ok, what?" Selery (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment appears to be unrelated to my objections. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a US issue; I think we should focus on potential US voters. Only a tiny sliver of Anglophones outside the US are US expats. Keith D. Tyler makes a good point about other US languages, but I don't know where the debate or process stands on that point. --Allen (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support U.S. issue --Aflafla1 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The US should know what going on with Wikipedia and SOPA, but the rest of the world doesn't really care, in my opinion. Chevsapher (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support So far it is US only. Few Americans recognize how dangerous this legislation is. We could be headed toward at worst a secret police enforcing copyright laws or at best exacting a private tax on anyone who uses copyrighted materials unknowingly without recognizing that one is using them. One could get slapped a $10 fine or tax for singing Happy Birthday at a birthday party. Because America is on the way to becoming a plutocratic oligarchy, anything is possible -- including the copyrighting of information itself on the ground that the first to discover knowledge is the only one with the right to disclose it. Fair use, which paradoxically makes copyrighted materials more valuable to a copyright owner and creates more material suitable for copyright, could also be at risk. Copyright should reasonably protect a copyright-holder from a blatant infringement (like downloading a whole feature film or book under copyright -- for gain or not) but it should never become an excuse for corporate control (a/k/a censorship) of culture. Pbrower2a (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. USA issue, not global. -SharonT (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a USA only issue. We should not extend the application of this law to outside users. They will not be affected by SOPA, so they should not be affected by the protest. JohnT (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No harm can happen to society or Wikipedia from a one day block, but massive harm can happen if the bills pass. However, there's no need to get other countries involved with a block. U.S. wikipedia would not shut down for some other countries' objectionable law. Wxidea (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(4) No blackout, banner for all users

Very Strong Support--LeslieCarr (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~# Support -down load ׀ talk 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)~~ Moving to support of blackout -down load ׀ talk 19:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wikipedia claims to be opposed to copyright violations. If they are, then they should support the SOPA bill instead of protesting it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No Bugs SOPA will do more than stop copyright violations, it will stifle our freedom of speech! --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom at speech at en wikipedia. Freedom of speech is irrelevant to creating articles by reporting what reliable sources have reported. If you are worried about your freedom of speech please do not used en wikipedia to vocalize your personal issues. - Youreallycan 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about wikipedia's, this is just like a massive superinjunction if SOPA passes congress will be able to dictate what information we can and can't have on here!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does Wikipedia actually claim to oppose copyright violations? As far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a published stance on copyright violations; they are removed for legal reasons, not because of Wikipedia's stance on them. To say nothing about how most opposition to SOPA is unrelated to copyright violation. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not really sold on the blackout idea and definitely oppose a full black out. That said, the SOPA and related bills have much farther-reaching consequences than just to the U.S. Think a banner is warranted for all users. Banners DO work and can be effective at reaching a lot of people. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm also not sold on the blackout idea, but putting a banner up that explains what this legislation will do is an important education tool. A banner can describe the implications of this legislation for sites, such as Wikimedia.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Effective enough without the annoyance. Rodri316 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also left an opposing comment to a full blackout below. I think a banner will suffice to all users. It's important to let everyone (worldwide) know about the situtation, however, I don't think a blackout or click-thru will really help, it will just be irritating to those using the site, and may backfire. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Support"-Banners brought me to this sight, banners work.
Support. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(5) No blackout, banner US only

Support This legislation is only taking place in the US, and many non-US users are not interested in fighting the so-called SOPA. A blackout is very likely to hit Wikipedia's image harder than SOPA's; the majority of the userbase, I believe, will read a blackout as site downtime. AUN4 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't really help for people on other continents and in other countries to pester US legislators' offices with comments because they aren't even part of that legislator's jurisdiction. A blackout is also a waste of time because it doesn't change anything. The best method is to call readers to call their Congressional leaders. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A banner calling attention to a Wikipedia article on the issue is the most Wikipedia should do. There is more heat than light coming from the anti-SOPA camp and Wikipedia shouldn't get swept up into the hype. Also, as a number of other people have pointed out, Wikipedia would be violating its NPOV policy if it openly advocated a political cause on its site. ProfGiles (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. I have seen other websites do this in response to SOPA, and I think it would be the most effective way to get the message accross. We can still keep the website open for people's use, but spread awareness at the same time. Samcashion (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support W i k i C o p t e r 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This issue is only in America, and isn't very relevant to other nations. Also, a full blackout would more likely irritate neutral people on the issue. Therefore, a banner could alert users of the issue without infringing on their viewing. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an political issue limited to the U.S. and blacking Wikipedia out, for those not yet concerned about SOPA, will likely only be seen as an unexpected outage. For those that are concerned about SOPA, Wikipedia's probably the first place for many of them to get the detail they want/need. Furthermore, Wikimedia should not suspend its service to make a political point, no matter how deserving. Wikimedia (and especially Wikipedia) is so valued because it doesn't take sides in disputes (even though, at times, it provides a rather public forum for supporters in those disputes). Blacking Wikipedia out would do more damage to its perceived impartiality than any benefit that could possibly come from it. mcornelius (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't like the idea of a blackout, especially a full blackout, but think a banner discussing the issue is fine. Dough 48 72 02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(6) No blackout and no banner

Support Any blackout as not being in the long-term best interest of Wikipedia and related projects. Collect (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - at this time. Youreallycan 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keep out of politics, WP:SOAP. --Pgallert (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ditto PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for now. --Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - let us be the 'bigger man' by not flinching to this. May we keep always a neutral point of view. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are many worthy causes in the world, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Taking this action would permanently politicize Wikipedia, and others and I have endeavored to explain in the previous discussions of this issue. Lagrange 613 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I strongly feel about this topic, we should not choose side in political debates, NPOV should not only be a guideline in our articles. Teun Spaans (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flies in the face of WP:NPOV even though it's not technically in the article namespace, there is an article on the bill that looks less neutral if there's a blackout. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Damages our much coveted neutrality, and frankly I'm not sure if I want to continue volunteering for a project overseen by a group which role seems to have changed over the years from it's formation - starting out as a means to handle press enquiries, manage funds and the technical side of things, to the one that now seems to be acting as some sort of political advocacy group. Harms our public image as well - keep Wikipedia out of politics! Acather96 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's stick to the Foundation's mission and continue sharing information while remaining apolitical. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political action group. We will be unable to claim with good faith that we are an objective source of information if we tie ourselves to specific positions, and especially ones that are mere stunts with no practical purpose. Most of the claims made about SOPA are simply misinformed to begin with. Save whatever point-making gestures we have up our sleeves for something that has a real point to it. 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support I object to any organization that solicits contributions and donations for one purpose and then uses its resources and influences to promote one side of a political issue. The Wikipedia SOPA article should present the facts in a neutral manner as is the goal with any other topic. Beyond that and perhaps a passing in-the-news reference, that should be the limit to coverage on Wikipedia proper. A press release by the foundation in the expected or likely effects of SOPA on Wikipedia may be appropriate, but I would hope that even that would not attempt to use fear mongering tactics. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP is a non-profit organization, it should not be making political statements, there is enough activism on WP the way it is already. Arzel (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support - While I am not personally against the WMF taking a political stand on this issue and even recruiting or hiring lobbyists that would represent them before the U.S. Congress, and certainly organizing volunteers and editors to petition their local representatives in America or elsewhere to take a stand on this issue, I think a blackout sends the wrong message. There are better ways to get this accomplished without trying to make the WMF look like a bunch of political nut cases. Maintaining the neutrality of Wikipedia is important, even on an issue like this. If anything, it was unfortunate that it.wikipedia pulled this stunt, and I'm not convinced that it is time yet to do a similar action here for en.wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation should be neutral in any and all political matters. Neutrality is very much valued on here and if either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation takes a stand on political issues, it loses its platform on which to be a legitimate and trustworthy source of unbiased, encyclopedic information. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely not the right thing to do. I have absolutely no belief that this will make a difference, and honestly, it goes against all the neutrality policies. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. We need to hold constant the values of neutrality that Wikipedia preaches.552Industries (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout

Consensus appears to be emerging that the community wishes to blackout the site using a click-through process, which would present the following work-flow: when a user attempts to access the English Wikipedia for the first time on the designated date(s), they are presented with a notice describing the SOPA threat and suggesting that they take action (see below, section “What action should users take?”). They then have the option to “click-through” the screen. Once they’ve clicked through, everything is normal: no content is removed or obscured, and normal editing applies. In addition, all users of the English Wikipedia would see banners at the top of each page with informational text that will include a call to action: links to locate contact information for local congressional delegations (if the user is in the United States) or U.S. embassies (if the user is outside the United States). The banners should be dismissable, as with the fundraising banners. Geo-located banners will continue to run for two weeks after the blackout period. The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this.

Support

Support As second choice to full blackout. Phearson (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-- Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bulwersator (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout, but better than nothing. --Rs chen 7754 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prolog (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The time frame for the blackout should be defined and limited. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A full black-out made sense when Wikipedia really was at risk of being taken down. A click-through is now more appropriate. A mere banner would be ignored. Dcoetzee 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Many users ignore web banners. --Teukros (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I would be okay with a full blackout as well.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jujutacular ^talk 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please. No protest was ever successful without being inconvenient.[EDIT]] The WH has issued a statement on SOPA, the DNS provision has been removed and hearings have been postponed. These may all sound like reasons to back down on the threat to blackout wikipedia but they assuredly 'are not. when the dragon is wounded you do not leave it be, you go in for the kill. The important thing to do is make it clear that SOPA and it's ilk represent an existential threat to user created content in the US and the readers of wikipedia (including the politicians and journalists who crib from it) must be made aware of this. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most interesting man in the world (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click-through is essential, this should be a protest, not a "we're taking our ball and going home" takedown. Making banners dismissable would also be helpful. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea, make it so! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viva la revolution! SarahStierch (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maplebed (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most effective means we have at grabbing the attention of visitors without denying them access to enwiki's resources. Our message needs to be noticed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification per Thehelpfulbot's request: I support the "soft blackout" option. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This informs readers without disrupting the core site function. Consistent with our mission of sharing knowledge in two ways. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoriLee (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Methinks that the worldwide press generated by a Wikipedia blackout will attract a lot of new lookers. After clicking through they will get to see what they are about to lose to SOPA. First Light (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but, actually, I would blackout *completely* the site, as we did on it.wiki, the funding idea of a strike is the let the people understand the importance of a certain service by a temporary denial of the service. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! Selery (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jean Of mArc 15:50, 13 January 2012
Support Weltweiter Blackout vier Tage bis zum Sonntag. Und darauf eine Linkliste mit den Unterstützern der SOPA. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)
Support richard4339 January 13, 2012; 22:21 (UTC)
Support Serves a critical policy/political goal while still keeping information available. Zachlipton (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadowjams (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Outa (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zenimpulse (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia should never become completely inaccessible (unless the site is in real danger (e.g. SOPA is passed),but banners are ignored --Jon889 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is indeed a threat to Wikipedia's existence, than a full blackout is warranted. If it's not, then we shouldn't meddle in politics. As has been pointed out before, if you want your protest to matter, make it inconvinient. /Julle (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'd like to see a full blackout, at least for a few hours. I think it's justified. While Wikipedia may not be at risk of being shut down, many sites would be at risk and so its worth showing the users what it'd be like without the internet as we know it. Anarchistjim (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support FyreFiend (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed Brey (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't mind a full blackout, but this works as well. AniMate 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Ziko (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cathartica (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly prefer full blackout as it would convey a stronger message to actually disrupt service rather than just make a statement. Walkersam (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captain Gamma (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarah 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pilif 12p 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I would prefer a full blackout in order to get the point across effectively. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support less than a full blackout will be missed by most web users, they're too conditioned by advertising to notice something which isn't highly disruptive Gmaxwell (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A full blackout in which content isn't in line with making information freely available. A click-through + banner + logo change will work nearly as well without making information inaccessible.Smallman12q (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aswn (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly believe a full blackout would be more effective, though slightly more controversial than a click-through. Zacmea (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will definitely get attention... and a lot of news coverage . --Kangaroopowah 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support for a one-time clickthrough screen and dismissible banners, but they need to cause enough of a disruption to a user's normal workflow to be noticed. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, would prefer a full blackout, but needs to be disruptive in some way. A clickthrough like a Wikia ad is just annoying. Make them sweat. dkonstantinos (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would support a full blackout. A strong signal needs to be sent. That it would be inconvenient for some only means that it would be paid attention to. Maybe lawmakers don't use Wikipedia, but their staffers do. Make it clear what happens if Congress breaks the Internet. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am much more comfortable with a click-through option such as this, and am willing to fully support it. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like Mr.98 above, I'd be more than willing to support a full blackout, for the same reasons. However, if this is the strongest we can get I'll take it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is compatible with the Wikimedia mission. KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~Crazytales (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The danger of SOPA passing as it currently stands is not imminent, we should save the full blackout for when there is serious a serious threat to the continuation of the Wikipedia project. At the moment, this alternative seems most acceptable. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Workflow makes sense in that it only partially cripples functionality while making the necessary point TNL (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second choice, but we need an option for a blackout, not a clickthrough. There was significant support forming for this at certain points at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, under concrete proposal #2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marlith (Talk) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support P4lm0r3 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jessemv (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zaixionito (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support I think a blackout would be the best option, as a simple banner might be ignored. Yuuko41 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the blue fuck are we having this discussion? It's time to paint Wikipedia black. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support People will more likely read obstructing messages, and will oppose the bill, even outside of US borders activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upstate NYer 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artoonie (Talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If SOPA passes I believe it will have an effect on the entire internet, not just in the USA. (Drn8 (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
support sonia♫ 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seewolf (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My favoured option. The Land (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the idea of a full blackout, but agree that it may be too reckless. Commander Ziltiod (speak) 09:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kainosnous (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support killemall22 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fair balance between getting the attention necessary and not being overly disruptive. CT Cooper · talk 12:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ed!^(talk) 12:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk
Support Capitalismojo (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a full blackout has more power (per my strong support below), but if the community chooses this instead, I'll be sanguine. This is way better than doing nothing at all. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fylbecatulous (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with click-through, but only if border of pages are changed, if they are not changed - would prefer full blackout with no click through. --Trödel 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ched : ? 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Daniel 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SOPA has the potential to negatively affect major international events such as the recent Arab Spring. As such, SOPA is clearly a move against worldwide free speech. While only Americans can vote for Congressmen directly, anyone with money can support organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Being SOPA will affect the entire world and the entire world can take action, it seems to follow that the entire world should see the blackout. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support AllenZh (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC). Keeps the anger on SOPA, away from Wikipedia.[reply]
Support --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scialex (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second choice to soft blackout. SOPA is a horrible bill, but too much action on Wikipedia's part could lead to it becoming a political engine, and lead to it losing viewers 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mchcopl (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)![reply]

(Section splits into full and soft variants below)

Oppose

.. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.. Collect (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as not being in the long-term best interests of WMF in any way[reply]
Oppose a blackout (or 'greyout' as this seems to be). We should be providing people with the information they're seeking, not forcing them to first read something else. Banners are a good way of pointing people to the information on SOPA without blocking their access to the content they're after (either via a click-through page or refusing to display the content). Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a sitewide en.wiki blackout. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.. Oppose. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose political action as an encyclopedia. I'm all for the WMF issuing a protest, but a reference work should be apolitical. Nathan^T 02:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Prefer Reddit Option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blackout only, because people tend to dismiss anything that looks like a popup ad, without even acknowledging the contents. A banner should be displayed throughout the user's visit on Wikipedia. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
..Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me.} _{Email Me.} 06:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose political action by Wikipedia. This is among the reasons we have a Foundation, to undertake political advocacy so we can, you know, build an encyclopedia. Lagrange 613 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
..Oppose ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Encyclopedias shouldn't be involved in any kind of advocacy. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is an encyclopedia; cutting off access to information would be ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel this might have negative consequences to Wikipedia and therfore shouldn't be involved in any kind of advocacy other than for individuals to keep calling Washington Committee members and our own Congressman which I have done many times and vehemently so. Sorry but we have a tax exampt status and I believe we must be careful though Mr. Wales does not see a problem in this area I must respectfully disagree with him on this particular point. Mugginsx (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Political activism. WP should lose it's Non-Profit status if it participates in such political activism. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. 552Industries (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Section splits into full and soft variants below)

Comments

Good suggestion Mike. We shouldn't block people from accessing articles on here. That doesn't seem to be a fair approach. We need to look over this more carefully. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note how many of the above votes express a preference for a full blackout (neither full blackout or Reddit option was available at the time they voted). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this point for consideration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SOPA blackout. Hopefully we can still prevent it from evolving into another controversial data convolution escapade. — C M B J 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why wasn't an actual "blackout" presented as the option under the Blackout heading from the beginning, and there was no legitimate "Blackout" option. This ain't a blackout that is being proposed. I call foul. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The lack of alternatives makes it hard to interpret the results and limits the debate, and titling the section "Blackout" (rather than, say "Click-through interstitial ad") is confusing. If the consensus for an interstitial was already emerging when this page was created, why was it called a blackout? Bennetto (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bad news is that this set of proposals is badly flawed. Some options have been up and gathering votes longer than others. Some are badly misnamed (calling a non-blackout a blackout). Some allow oppose votes, some don't. Some overlap. Some votes have been moved to another section without the voter's consent. Wikipedia really needs guidelines for taking user surveys without such obvious sources of bias.

The good news is that the Wikimedia Foundation is not composed of idiots. I have complete confidence that they will be able to take into account all of these sources of bias and ~~do things my way~~ make the right decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see section on the talk page regarding the effectiveness of using US Embassies as the contact point for banners (non-US located). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full blackout

Not only present an information click-through page, but close off editing and reading of the entire site. A message explaining Wikipedia's participation in the blackout protest will be displayed instead. The goal to achieve by a full, temporary blackout is to demonstrate to users what it is like to not have information available. Such a strong, immediate response may also have the effect of setting an example to warn politicians worldwide that they could be setting themselves up for humiliating defeat if they suggest similar laws in the future.

To show your support, add the following line of code at the bottom of the list below:

#'''Support'''. I support full blackout. ~~~~

Support

Support. I support full blackout. starfarmer∗talk 02:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, A full blown global blackout is the best way to raise awareness of an issue that most definitely affects the entire world. IMO, one day without wikipedia is a necessary sacrifice. --Pianoman148
Support, Wikipedia's full support would ensure that a large proportion of the internet community will be informed of the SOPA act, and how it would affect the freedom of speech allowed by the internet. --Asdfftw
Support Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Take action right now! Jonathansuh (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout - No sense going half way, if going to take action, then throttle up and do it right. Buthsop
Support full blackout - Italy Wikipedia did it to protest a law, so can we. Phearson (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout. We are a movement dedicated to the ideal of knowledge for all; it is blatantly obvious this bill seeks not only to limit that ideal, it seems to me it is a step towards another country suffering under a great firewall. We live in an age where our fundamental right of dissent is limited; an age where peaceful assembly is too often made violent by the authorities sworn to protect us. As of now they cannot do that here, and thus we must ensure the internet remains the one place we can stay free. Sovereignlance (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout. I support any opposition to more excuses for America to rob, imprison, torture, murder, rape, infect, etc. Let Godzilla off his leash and give him a truckload of adrenaline - no response is too harsh, it is literally going to save lives. (As long as we're not physically hurting anybody, nor advocating it, nor calling for overthrow of the government, nor expressing irreconcilable hatred. I am opposed to hate speech and revolutions in general.) Badon (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For all those who think a full blackout is premature, I disagree strongly. The time for action is long before this law is a serious threat and we become desperate. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The gladiator makes his plan in the arena. The best defense is a good offense. All cultures worldwide have proverbs indicating that waiting to take action until the threat is imminent is a poor strategy. We are educated people because of Wikipedia. We have the power to show the world how strongly we reject SOPA and any other law like it. It is a bad time to go limp and be the softspoken diplomat. We carry a big stick. Wave it around threateningly before you actually need to use it, and we will not only come out victorious, we will do it without a battle. Badon (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as first choice This is the only way to really get readers' attention. Although I don't know how I will survive WIkipedia-free for a whole 24 hours! Grover cleveland (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second choice. First choice: Reddit Option. I also would note that the other options have had a longer time to gather votes, and that some editors, having voted for the best choice available at the time they voted, will not come back and discover that a new option for a full blackout has been added. This may bias the vote totals. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No half-measure, plz. Tevildoii (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need to ensure that everyone hears us. Imaslee pviking ( talk ) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I agree, no half measures. This has to be defeated.[reply]
Preferred option. I know this won't be implemented on this occasion, but it certainly should be used next time around if Wednesday's action does not help bring about the necessary changes. —WFC— 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs to be done, ***. --Sje46 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. True blackout including restricted access to content is the only way to get real attention. If it has to be merely a splash that can be clicked through, I hope it will be visible to people who follow search engine links to Wikipedia articles and not just those who visit the Wikipedia main page. Gzabers (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only a full blackout would force the mainstream media to mention it (TV, radio, etc.,). Or force the user to close a full page banner on each and every page view. If the banner is only as annoying as normal ads on sites, then people won't care. Jdm64 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Anything less than full blackout will at best be ignored like common advertising, or at worst be rejected like irritating spam. Middle-of-the-road options are too ineffective to be worth the trouble, and may backfire. Badon (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout This is the only way to truly capture peoples attention. Splash-screens and banners will be clicked through and ignored. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The whole point is to demonstrate the importance of WP being available. Anything less than a full blackout, at a time when passage of the bill is still uncertain, would be useless. Concur with dkonstantinos, Mabuse, etc. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppoer This will maximize the impact of this action. --Wonderstruck (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout --Rs chen 7754 06:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout Dkriegls (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Make an impact to the maximum extent possible --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout Alyeska (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout Ironlion45 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout Robin klein (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout, worldwide Lets not underestimate the stakes, ladies and gentlemen. This is the goddamn free internet were talking about here, and this SOPA business is a worldwide issue seeing as similar laws have already been passed in countries around the world at the United States' "encouragement". Make no mistake, this SOPA bill is the thin end of a very thick wedge that we will never be able to shake off if this goes ahead. This is it, cyberspace is the last truly free space left for the people, there is no more land left to run to and start anew a la founding fathers. There has already been too much incursion by the establishment into this domain, DMCA, PRO IP, ICE seizure shenanigans. We need to draw the line and say "this far, and no further". We should make a BIG impact and get news media buzzing worldwide, Wikipedia had become so integral to how people learn and discover that turning it off for a day would dominate worldwide media the whole time, and for a significant time after probably. This could very well be the killing blow to the beleaguered SOPA, and PIPA and whatever form the legislation comes back as in the future, because it will, and when that happens people will still remember the great wikipedia blackout.......and so will legislators.
Support TotientDragooned (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout as first choice. -- A.M. (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seewolf (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout, worldwide Here are my reasons:
(1) Worldwide, because US citizens abroad can vote in US elections.

(2) Worldwide, because if citizens of other countries are inconvenienced by the (threat of) laws passed by the US government, then those citizens can put pressure on their countries' diplomats to in turn put pressure on the US government.

(3) Worldwide, because this will alert people outside the US to the likely effects if their own governments attempt to pass legislation like SOPA.

(4) A full blackout because I'm not convinced a mere click-through banner will sufficiently demonstrate to users just how much they would be inconvenienced if SOPA/etc are passed and sites based upon user contributions really do have to go dark.

zazpot (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...Sicherlich ^Post 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-jkb- (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC) +1 (:DE)[reply]
support -- southgeist (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --YMS (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as preferred choice. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It needs to be drastic so it can be effective. -- Orionist ★ talk 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout. The entire point of a blackout is to disrupt people's normal internet use. That's what SOPA would do permanently. We shouldn't have a click-through that allows users to get to Wikipedia with minimal disruption. That's not what a site taken down by the attorney general for alleged copyright infringement will look like! An option might be to host Wikipedia through a proxy IP address that isn't attached to a any nameserver, and post the IP address to various newsgroups that can be found with a bit of googling. That might more accurately resemble the internet of the future if SOPA is passed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong support: as we did for it.wiki.--Nickanc (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong support 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support full blackout What does it help, if people can still read Wikipedia during "blackout"? If SOPA is enacted, we might never read Wikipedia again! --Raphael1 12:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This approach has my strongest support, as I think this approach brings the most forceful punch, to make people see very clearly what the stakes are, which is potentially "Bye Bye Wikipedia". The inconvenience of not being able to access articles is the point! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Lets shut down the internet. The world can survive for 12 hours. Skeletonboy (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I believe shutting down Wikipedia completely will get the most attention. User:Ente75 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Everyone around the world will be affected by SOPA/PIPA by virtue of the size of the Internet in the United States. Everyone needs to know. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I assume that this would be for the English Wikipedia worldwide, as allowing only non-US editors to edit would be a rather strange experiment. (Partial blackout is also fine, but this is better. We should be fully solidarious with the other big sites in this matter.) Hans Adler 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Before reading Geoff's note I thought SOPA wasn't something that could actually concern Wikipedia. But the federal lawsuit as a first step for removing a link to some pirate site is ridiculous. Heck, someone added one of those in thier /Evidence in a recent ArbCom case, and it was probably by accident. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As first choice. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This proposed law would make Wikipedia as it currently stands untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Full blackout is necessary to raise awareness across entire spectrum of internet users. Mabuse (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very strong support - this will make a solid reason for voting against SOPA in the houses, and will show what will happen if SOPA passes. SiPlus (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Vaccines are always useful. A small dose of what would happen, in order to help prevent the full blown disease from occurring. - Sudo Ghost 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support bcartolo (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full please. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 14, 2012; 16:37 (UTC)
Support ~Feedintm^Parley 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support dkonstantinos (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 16:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is no impact if it's something that is easily dismissed. Will it make a lot of people angry that one of their favorite websites is gone for a day? Yes, excellent, then they can consider how pissed off they would be if it was shut down for good. DavidSSabb (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Support" I believe nothing short of a full global blackout will get this issue the attention it needs. Brandorr (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Mr.98. Carlsmith (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Support. I will miss my dear Wiki, but if we can spread a message this way and reach the majority of the web, then so be it. Lucasoutloud (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --J (t) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Applaud - Leave . A . Welt JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The only way to educate the common public is to shut down Wikipedia. In 2012, most people ignore banners and advertisements, but they can't ignore a site that is shutdown. Hopefully this will be enough to motivate people to contact their congressman. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wvk (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Barronitaly (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kangaroopowah 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support If we want to get the message across, we need to give people a real taste of what this bill could do; this is the best way to do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The only method to completely express the destruction this bill will cause. Action needs to be taken. Saffy21 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full Blackout, Worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8am–8pm EST --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full Blackout, Worldwide, on Jan 18th from 8am–8pm EST Designer1993 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:31, 19 Tevet 5772 / 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong support" -- SOPA is an existential threat to Wikipedia and the Internet itself. This vicious attack on the Internet from America threatens the global Internet and must be treated in the same manner as other attacks on global resources by rogue nations. Only full blackout responds adequately. I apologize for any formatting errors because I am an amateur editor at best who mainly corrects typos. Muldrake (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Blood sliver (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- If the law(s) are passed, there would be much worse than one day of unavailability. Snackwell (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the best way to raise awareness and give the public a taste of what censorship feels like. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout implemented globally as first choice, soft blackout globally second choice. I hope that's specific enough and in the right place. I already voted yesterday, am back due to the bot notification, and find navigating this page anything but intuitive. Rivertorch (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If we're not going to pull out all the stops for a threat like SOPA, for what exactly would we? There is no sense in going halfway here. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This bill is incredibly dangerous to the continued operation of Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to. The systems that would have to be installed to monitor changes before they go live would be extremely cost-ineffective and the alternative could bring down Wikipedia altogether. Thus, this stark action is necessary to bring attention to what things would be like if SOPA (or PIPA) passes, and pooling our collective effort into educating Congress on responsible legislation of the Internet. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The average American will begin to understand just how bad this bill is, and then we will be able to effectively combat these bills by getting more people to call representatives. I mean, just think about how many people who visit Wikipedia each day will be able to feel how it could possibly be in the future if we don't take action. I think we should follow reddit. Goat999 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we do a full blackout for 24 hours, that'll show what SOPA could do for years. Also, no vandals! Pilif 12p 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — people need to understand how dependent they've become on resources like this, which would be devastatingly affected by SOPA. They need a preview of what a broken Internet looks like. Congresspeople may not use Wikipedia, but I can guarantee that their staffers — the people who actually help them determine their position on issues — do daily (I know a few of them). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jesant13 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, soft is fine too but I think this is much more appropriate. Users will actually touch what the effect of SOPA on the internet might be. ~GT~ (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. James F. (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Danmichaelo (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear message: Full blackout for 24h. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will be the most effective option on people around the world, and people will truly see the harm that this bill causes. I think this is a great idea. Alexroller (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wendin (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upstate NYer 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support a full blackout for up to 24 hours. Constant314 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blackout für vier Tage bis zum Sonntag. Das bleibt im Gedächtnis! Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the "free knowledge" arguments against have some weight with me, but this option makes the strongest statement in a critical situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support jfeise (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout - We might as well show the actual results of internet censorship, no compromises with some banner click-through. Haku8645 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blackout - If SOPA is passed, freedom of speech is violated. What is Wikipedia? Okeekobee (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Perlit (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but I could also live with the soft option. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- L337p4wn ^{Talk to me!} 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Full Blackout. SOPA appears to represent the movement of old, past mechanisms of suppression into the publicly-accessible Internet, to keep doing onto us the same game played so effectively in the past. This is an issue that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Gzuufy (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout --Wikinaut (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support A full blackout would express our abhorrence of such a bill and express that the Wikipedia community will not allow such a bill through pass through the United States Congress. --Kylalak (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel like if this were up temporarily, followed by a message that said like "This is what will happen if...", etc. Or just have that up the whole time. Regardless, this will grab people's attention. Lordvader99 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - even though it would be drastic, a real wake-up call that shows people that this is not just yet another tempest in a teapot is necessary. The upside of a splash screen is that it only takes one click to get to the actual content as before; the downside is that, well, it only takes one click to get to the actual content as before. People need to take note, and a temporary closure of the English Wikipedia would accomplish that without really causing a lot of disruption in the long run. (In the grand scheme of things, it'd still just be one day.) -- Schneelocke (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support - A full blackout is the least we can do. People say it's an inconvenience, but that's the whole point. People aren't going to pay attention to this unless it's an inconvenience. If it's some click-through page they're just gonna click right through it. It's an Internet routine. Do you not think it's inconvenient for protesters to stand out in the rain holding signs all day and night? This is nothing in comparison. You don't have to do anything, except forego Wikipedia for one single day! And that's too hard for you? That is the worst kind of cowardice. People say we shouldn't keep people from information because then they wouldn't be able to learn about SOPA, but the blackout page would contain information about SOPA. People say we should save the full blackout for later, but that could be too late. Procrastination will get us nowhere. People say Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in politics. Give me a break! That's like the government passing legislation that puts your wife in prison without trial and you not saying anything because "you don't wanna get involved in politics." SOPA affects and hurts Wikipedia directly. Of course it should get involved. TharosTheDragon (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support - 100% agree with previous speaker --Niklas 555 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This will send the strongest message, and will more effectively demonstrate the consequences of SOPA. Drive the point home I say! Jessemv (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A strong message needs to be sent. Focus (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer a full blackout to a soft blackout, but a soft blackout is acceptable as an alternative. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A full blackout shows what the world would be if SOPA and Protect IP pass. Even though Wikipedia is against copyright infringement, SOPA and Protect IP could hold Wikipedia liable if some user unknowingly uploads one copyrighted file. Also, turning Wikipedia off for one day will not hurt ad-revenue (there is none), it will not hurt the user base (5th largest in the world), and it will have maximum effect in rallying supporters. Drivec (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Full support for a full blackout! Me and my wife will promise to donate if Wikipedia will go on a full blackout. Jurjenb (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I hate the idea of not being able to access Wikipedia for a bit... Maybe that same sentiment will get people to think about what's going on. --Talvieno (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A strong message is key. a13ean (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout, no to sopa This template must be substituted.

Strong Support per TharosTheDragon Aleichem (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout Hello32020 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few reservations. A simple click-through banner would be ineffective as almost all readers would not bother to read it before they closed it. It might even be counter-productive as a good few, not reading it would take it for advertising and think wikipedia had either succumbed to the desire to generate more revenue or had extended those ghastly 'Personal appeal from an author of 50 Billion wikipedia article banners. The blackout should only be applied in the presence of overwhelming community consensus as, if it as seen to be anything else we'll lose a lot of editors over the controversy. It's inevitable that a few will be disillusioned and leave, claiming that WP has abandoned NPOV but should it be seen to be rammed through by the WMF and Jimbo then the backlash could do serious harm to the 'pedia. Now We Try It My Way (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A full blackout is the only way "normal" people will understand the possible effects of SOPA/PIPA. TEG (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout. Cathartica (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Delfort (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout Purity is great, but we are not telling people which presidential candidate to support, we are pointing out likely consequences of law-by-lobbyists—that is our responsibility as all readers need to know what may occur. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most commentators are saying that anything less than full commitment will be ineffective. Marcus Qwertyus 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sargoth (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Von Restorff (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's the most effective message we can deliver. The date and wording may be moved around a bit, but the bill still isn't in our favor.Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that it's important that Wikipedia shut down totally so that it's a newsworthy event rather than just another banner ad. .froth. (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Make it the last US blackout we need -attack with overwhelming force. --Indolering (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although it would be inconvenient for a day, it would definitely show a message. And, if SOPA passes, then it could be a possibility that wikipedia gets shut down completely, so people could see what the horrendous almost-reality SOPA is. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Small sacrifice for what could come in the future. Marlith (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. It would raise awareness even to the laymen among us. Django the Duke (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Django the Duke This template must be substituted.[reply]

Support. I support the fullest blackout possible to raise complete awareness. Fendue (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This bill is not so much about Wikipedia as the future of the internet as a whole. The fact Wikipedia is so frequently visited means people worldwide will see what SOPA truly could unleash. Captain Gamma (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This sends a strong message. How is the world affected if laws and governments censor free speech similar to and including Wikipedia? Geoff (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This bill will basically turn the Internet into the playtoy of censors everywhere who don't like something for any reason. The US government needs to see that SOPA will ruin the Internet in the strongest possible way. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I won't like the blackout, no one will like the blackout; however, i believe this is a necessary action to raise awareness over such an important issue.--Stujames (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)stuartjames[reply]

Strong Support. Please support a full blackout. Protest is inconvenient. Action is much more powerful than a kind word of support. A click through is little more than an advertisement, which I thought Wikipedia was against.StevenPine (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support full blackout. Shubinator (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Better one day without WP than jeopardizing the future of the internet as we know it. --Dschwen 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. I believe that this will throw it into the faces of the masses and make sure they know what is going on with their internet. I think it should be active during 8am - 8pm like Reddit and possibly continue a soft blackout longer than that with a click-through page. A full blackout will be sure to get true attention to such an important cause. Hopefully I don't have research to do that day :LJosh (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Given this issue directly affects Wikipedia's ability to educate the world a world blackout seems appropriate. PeRshGo (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Kavi96 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I strongly support full blackout - we need to send a strong message. Drops in sente (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. ODonnellCiaran (ODonnellCiaran) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stongly Support. I support full blackout. Allowing a click-through can hardly even be called an inconvenience, as junk splash screens are nothing new, and the message will be ignored and go largely un-heeded. 75.244.112.66 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2012(UTC) This template must be substituted.

Support. Don't suppose it would be possible to allow people to log-in to access Wikipedia normally, which would give the side-benefit for the community to have the first ever day to clean out backlogs. Witty lama 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full and Total Support. I support full blackout. Mike44456 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is too critical of an issue to half-ass. I support full blackout. Riphamilton (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. People may be temporarily frustrated by the action, but if SOPA passes, the implications could be much worse. The only way SOPA passes is if people are unaware of the potential implications beyond it's seemingly innocuous name. A full blackout goes a long way towards raising awareness. Since Wikipedia has a massive userbase that extends far beyond the userbase typical of Reddit and other sites, it is absolutely critical that this blackout occurs in order to raise awareness to a much larger audience. Jason Smith (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Chitown03 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Steamfire (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support.You dont realize what you have until its gone. This is the way to go

Support. This action is analogous to a labor strike or a rent strike, and the strategy is the same. Circumspice 00:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. §Ariel (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. However, there should be substantial information about SOPA available for visitors (not just one paragraph). ypnypn (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Vitaebrevis (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Orashmatash (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support a full blackout. Dkreisst (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. full blackout seems best. It needs to draw attention. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. — Quicksilver^{T @} 01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If we are going to stand against SOPA, we need to stand strong. While having a click through option with banners can be effective, nothing would be more impacting than completely shutting off the site, showing our readers and editors what internet censorship is truly like and what could happen if SOPA is to pass. The downside of not having Wikipedia available for day is minuscule to the downside of SOPA passing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Actually, I Strong Support full blackout. People need to know that this can kill the internet, and they must be shown WHY, and they must be shown it strong enough to actually call their senator. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Support. The Internet is dead without Wiki. People need to understand this. music GUY GUY 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as first option. In fact, I believe this is the only option worth committing to. A banner won't do the job; we need to make it clear the kind of danger SOPA poses to all websites. We can do without Wikipedia for a single day, but if SOPA passes, we just might have to do without it forever. Luna ibis 01:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Salicaceae (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this will have the greatest impact and deliver the strongest message, unequivocally. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. WHPratt (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. 3M3RY (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout, but there should be a virtual link or frontpage explaining the reasoning behind the full blackout . el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. I doubt that a simple click through page will even be glanced at by most users, and will be ultimately ignored. Thatguy0900 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Tea Serpent (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I think only a full black out can draw enough media attention and illustrate the effects of the bill. Anything else will be ineffective.[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. What is one day without wikipedia, compared to a lifetime without wikipedia? My recommendation for the static splash would be a simple box that lets users enter their email address. On the 19th, we can email the users a link to the SOPA page. Andy17null (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If SOPA passes wikipedia will be shut down anyway. --Gary123 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout, with the caveat that explanation of why it's happening is important. Gus andrews (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Allicat323 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, anything less than full blackout is meaningless. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Axem Titanium said it best. ~Crazytales (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. This is NOT a political issue. We're defending the fundamental freedom that makes Wikipedia possible. All or nothing. BDS2006 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. noeckel (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Tgeairn (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support full blackout. Nut up or Shut up! Habodek (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)‎[reply]

Oppose

Oppose full blackout. This will only affect Wikipedia readers and editors, and inconvenience them. Do you really think that Congress even reads Wikipedia?? If they did, they wouldn't be writing up these ridiculous bills. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The goal isn't to get Senators to see it, but to raise awareness of SOPA among the general population so they can urge senators.--Sje46 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congress people and their staffs do use wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What includes editing (with POV pushing and vandalism) - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress Bulwersator (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for that information. I had often wondered what was going on. Badon (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the link to the POV problems with US staffers, etc. I didn't realize the situation. However, I was being somewhat facetious in my comment above. I still do not think a full blackout is wise, because as stated by others below, then the important information about the situation will not be out there, and easily found. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to say I would oppose a full blackout. We want to protest censorship with censorship? I understand the sentiment that it could show what might be in store (direct action can be effective), but purposefully depriving people of information would make us no better than them. If there is any blackout type event, I would favor partial over full and prefer just good, eye-catching banners. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blackout. This would prevent readers from reading articles about SOPA, DNSSEC, DMCA, etc. our protest will be more effective if we get their attention, then suggest articles to read on the topic. Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment. Perhaps it is appropriate then to do a full blackout, besides giving access to one or two pages explaining the purposes for the blackout. No one would come up with that conclusion on their own. I strongly support the full blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msheets1 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
It's completely inappropriate for one group of editors to tell all the other editors that they can or can't edit on a given day. Where I come from that's called disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lagrange 613 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This defeats the purpose of making information freely to all, and we do not know who will need it that very day. The partial blackout is more than enough to make our point. Kansan (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"we do not know who will need it that very day" - My suggestion is to make the user unable to access anything on the site unless their referrer is the SOPA article. If the user starts from the SOPA article, then they should be able to get to philosophy. Or, the homepage, search, etc. As long as they have to view the SOPA article page first, I think that is a poignant enough blackout. With that said, I still support complete, utter blackout for as long as it takes to defeat SOPA. Badon (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough Wikipedia mirrors available through Google so that if anyone really wants the info, they can get it. --Rs chen 7754 08:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Violates our core mission; due to mirror sites will not be an annoyance to the reader, but will encourage him to click elsewhere in future. Additionally, SOPA seems unlikely to escape the House unscathed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think a click-through information campaign will galvanize enough people to oppose the proposed legislation. I prefer to reserve disruptive protest for cases of actual, rather than proposed, injustice. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm very strongly opposed it it affects non US users, but although I've indicated I would let US users decide, I feel this is a bad enough idea I'm mildly opposed even if it affects US users only Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keeping in mind that a decision must be made by the sixteenth, we are talking about a complete shutdown of Wikipedia based on two days of gathering consensus. Not a good idea. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you're going gonna do a blackout, don't do this. Totally contradicts the mission of Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is an encyclopedia; cutting off access to information would be ridiculous. Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not likely to raise awareness much more than a click-through blackout screen, but much more inconvenient. --Zinger0 (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ched : ? 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blackout - click through screen should be just as effective. --Torchflame (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A full blackout intentionally hurts people without drawing significantly more attention to what can already be achieved with a soft blackout. A possible compromize could be raising the bar for accessing the acutal Wikipedia again, such as a tick box or a confirmation that the user has already called his congressperson before proceeding. As we all know, everybody reads the full EULA when installing software :) -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we need to save the full blackout option for later if it's decided to do this again. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - save it for if it passes. Selery (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Do we really need people to be irritated at what they will perceive as Wikipedian political activism? Schools and universities aren't going to black themselves out on January 18th; neither should we. AUN4 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Professors do walk out and students stage sit-ins when an issue is severe enough to warrant it. This is such an issue.--Circumspice (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Will cause significant disruption and won't raise awareness any more than a soft black out. Perhaps this should be kept in reserve in case SOPA makes significant progress. CT Cooper · talk 17:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - SOPA gives the Attorney General the right to seek an injunction to block foreign websites which (i) host a substantial proportion of infringing material (ii) refuse to acknowledge and/or take appropriate measures once they have been informed of its existence on the site. It is not for copyright holders to gauge the strength of evidence. It is a matter for the court. A judge needs to see compelling evidence that a site is operating illegally before an injunction is granted. You cannot divorce these two elements and pretend SOPA gives people the power to block websites willy-nilly. There are thousands of rogue websites that purposely host infringing material. DMCA is useless against them. I support people in the creative industries who choose to receive fair payment for their work. They need protection. — ThePowerofX 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Draconian action not commensurate with the minimal threat of SOPA as currently amended. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was willing to support a soft blackout because it educates people about SOPA but doesn't cut off access to Wikipedia. I had some qualms about Wikipedia becoming political, but a soft blackout seemed like a good compromise. Denying people access to information goes against the central purpose of Wikipedia. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - save for passage of the bill. for now, a soft blackout will be enough, i think.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose - It would undermine what Wikipedia is all about. Let's not initiate this, as we don't need to go to such a urgent matter right now. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think a click through combined with some visible changes to the pages ( border etc. ) once clicked through should be enough. PaleAqua (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What kind of example does this set exactly? Editors are not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, not use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and not present just one side of the issue. I am pretty sure this is suggesting we do all of those things on a site-wide scale.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Someone might really need the info we provide that day. (Especially info on SOPA itself). And SOPA has been revised to be less odious than it was. Reserve the full blackout option for more dire circumstances. Sonicsuns (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any blackout - let us keep a neutral point of view in all things. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict x3) Strong Oppose – While we may be temporarily using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and I think in this situation it is warranted, there is no need to disrupt our service. If necessary, it could be read-only, but I'd be concerned about BLP concerns and vandalism remaining in effect, getting in right before "close of business". — madman 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as per User:Arbitrarily0. Teun Spaans (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While a full blackout of Wikipedia would be the most powerful tool in our arsenal (you can't click through a full blackout), it's not what we should be using here. Wikipedia is an important source of information for millions, and a full blackout would deny them access to both general knowledge and knowledge on SOPA/PIPA as well, while going against the idea of free information. The time that it would be right to use a full blackout is when SOPA/PIPA poses an immediate danger to Wikipedia (i.e. going for a vote to pass the bill), and we aren't at that point yet. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Let's have only the pages about SOPA, PIPA and OPEN accessible. We need to attract people's attention to get government attention. SiPlus (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This kind of a harsh action is an extremely bad idea as it hurts Wikipedia probably more than SOPA would. It's like a man hearing that he may have a serious disease and because of that, commits suicide.ML (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. This idea hurts temporarily, SOPA hurts permanently. It's more like a sleep than a suicide. SiPlus (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree. We need to be ruthless in stomping this out of existence so no politician will ever again risk humiliating himself by suggesting another law like it. Support. Badon (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a full blackout. Our mission is to inform; besides, we should not risk coming off as petulant. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think a full blackout is premature. Wikipedia is too valuable a resource to be shut off on a whim. If it comes to a vote in the full House and Senate, then we should consider more drastic measures. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% Agree with that statement. We shouldn't go to such measures like this anytime soon. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with passion. The Wikipedia is a critical, world-wide public service. Perhaps the first of such magnitude. A full blackout would leave me rather disgruntled. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This goes too far for a free encyclopedia and a first protest. Wait until a bill passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How much influence do you think we will still have when someone besides us shuts down Wikipedia? The time to use the big guns is before you're desperate, not after. Badon (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a desperate enough situation to warrant a full blackout. We should not risk angering people who rely Wikipedia as a service. At some point, this goes too far as a protest. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Two wrongs do not make a right. Cutting off access to Wikipedia is called having a tantrum, in my opinion. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a full blackout right now. It hasn't come to that. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is not to be disrupted to make a point. These apply to the WMF just as much as its editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SOPA has not passed yet. If it does, it will merit drastic measures, aka a full blackout. -SharonT (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The time to protest is before SOPA is passed - afterwards is too late. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gw2010-11
Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A full blackout will hinder wikipedia users more than anything. Ajihood (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A full blackout is too drastic and will cause Wikipedia to lose users, as its more an annoyance to users than a propellant for them to become activists. I think this should be avoided this unless SOPA passes 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Do not think we need to go this far to address issue, a banner is fine. Dough 48 72 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Whether congress reads Wikipedia or not, voters certainly do. ---Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Same goes for the "US only" blackout. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some practical issues that come to mind here— how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down? The Wikipedia articles are some of the best starting points currently available, better than most of the anti-sopa sites. Likewise, to write a compelling letter I'm going to need to do some research, — again— Wikipedia. I'm very concerned that a "splash page" style 'blackout' is insufficient because people are so well trained by internet advertising, — but a full blackout might be counter-productive. A really hard to dismiss splash (I'd suggest making the user solve a captcha, except for accessibility issues) might be a reasonable compromise (esp in the case of this option ending up with strong mixed support/opposition). --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make the user leave feedback for their Congress critter to dismiss the blackout screen. Jehochman ^Talk 07:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down" - I think this is a valid concern. My suggestion is to make the user unable to access anything on the site unless their referrer is the SOPA article. If the user starts from the SOPA article, then they should be able to get to philosophy. Badon (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the very statement "how am I to learn about SOPA if Wikipedia is down" tells us something about the degree to which Wikipedia has become pervasive in our society. Everybody I know who wants to quickly check a factoid goes to Wikipedia. Many academics I know use Wikipedia as a starting point for preparing lectures or seminars, or even for getting background knowledge when they seriously start working on a new topic themselves. Anyways, I think the idea of allowing access via SOPA is charming on first sight, but will rightfully alienate users. We are not their mommies who tell them to first do their homework, however sloppy, before they can go play. It will also be perceived as ineffective - it's equivalent to making people tick a box on a 20 page service agreement before allowing access. HumancentiPad aside, few of us read those, much less in detail. A simple splash screen will have the same effect without the inconvenience. A real black-out would demonstrate how critical Wikipedia has become and how serious we are about this. Either is preferable to the the "click through SOPA" option, in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I support full blackout, over any other option, for the same reasons you mentioned. Badon (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make two points. First, recognizing that Wikipedia searching is a reactionary impulse executed immediately and swiftly by a very large number of people when they encounter something they do not know or understand. As mentioned above, if Wikipedia is completely blacked out, accurate and unbiased understanding of SOPA may be difficult to find, which could easily result in either dismissal of concern, or, perhaps worse, propagation of more accessible but biased or inaccurate information. Second; food for thought: I feel that the debate over whether or not Wikipedia ought to take action on this topic is fundamentally a discussion over whether Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopeida for people, or a people's encyclopedia. Happy voting. Commander Ziltiod ^Speak! 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft blackout

(click-through option cont'd from #Blackout)

Support

Support – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Save the full blackout for if it passes. Selery (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Better as a first resort and will raise awareness just as effectively without completing cutting off access to the encyclopedia. CT Cooper · talk 17:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A full blackout denies people the access to information, something that goes against Wikipedia's purpose. A soft blackout educates people about the bill without denying access, and is the best option. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
/Support, but use full blackout if it passes (assuming passage w/o major alterations)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, last choice. Better than nothing but prefer full blackout. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a soft blackout is enough. PaleAqua (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — This is was what I was supporting above. Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers (and even then, the encyclopedia should be readable, if perhaps read-only). — madman 18:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not convinced this is as effective as a full blackout, but it also is less disruptive. And it's much better than nothing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think the Foundation taking a political action on an issue with such direct relevance to its mission compromises the NPOV of Wikipedia's articles. I think the click-through is appropriate; I fear a full blackout might do too much harm to people who need information urgently. And I think selecting certain articles to make available would blur the line between a Foundation action and articlespace POV. --Allen (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A full blackout is necessary only in case it passes. -SharonT (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a soft blackout. We should raise people's awareness without stopping them from getting the information they need. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Save the full blackout for if it gets to the full House and Senate for voting. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't like the idea of denying our users access to make a political point. An inconvenience, yes, but not a complete denial of service. User:Kaldari also makes a good point that things can get worse, and it would be helpful to have a way to up the ante. -- Gaurav (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support at this stage. Consider a full blackout only if it passes Congress and is on the President's desk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tryptofish. --Narayan89 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Madman et al. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Allen hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support elektrik SHOOS (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support click-through blackout as a first choice, with limited support for a full blackout as well. Ojchase (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we should deny access to the site. We should have a screen to click through but not a denial of service. What if someone needs some information on that day are we really going to stop them from using Wikipedia just because some congressmen want to censor the internet? Remember the users of Wikipedia can complain to congressmen as much as they want but the congressmen are going to have the final call and we have no control. Punish congress not the general public. When you e-mail a congressmen who doesn't agree with you they basically tell you to go fly a kite. I know this from when I was fighting The Freedom of Choice Act both of my senators supported it, and they told me many times that they really didn't care that I opposed it. Etineskid (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only if content of the blackout screen is made NPOV, no lobbying. Clicking through an extra screen is no major inconvenience. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also support this option, mostly because of other parts of the web will be blacked out at the same time and the internet community will likely turn to us to get information about SOPA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a firm blackout. Access is still possible, but every page will have some sort of splash screen or large banner that makes the wiki clunky to use. Also, link to related articles within the messages. I agree with Kaldari that a step by step approach would be prudent, but think that a middle ground approach should be adopted rather than the relatively weak "soft blackout" Hamtechperson 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The blackout should take up the whole screen (at least on the first visit), but you should still be able to click through to the site. It should encourage people to contact their senators and rep, but it should not be required to see the site. Per Tryptofish, we should consider escalating to a true full blackout if it passes Congress. Superm401 - Talk 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although I understand the appeal of a full blackout, i feel that might disrupt wikipedia users that have no control over the outcome of SOPA/PIPA (non- US residents) (see WP:POINT). -TinGrin 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An effective way to raise the issue of the bill without inconveniencing wikipedia users. Ajihood (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Support soft blackout. I'm not fully opposed to a full blackout, but I feel that a soft one is adequate to get the message across. Then again, I am one who typically ignores the "personal appeal" banners, so... Spiffulent (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Aschmidt (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I support a soft blackout, because a full blackout is much more likely to inconvenience viewers than it is likely to create more activism. Many viewers use Wikipedia as an impulse search, notably for last minute research reports and a quick but detailed summary of someone/something. These people will likely stray from Wikipedia if it starts to delay content at any time, as they will instead find another source of information that doesn't delay information... if you get what I mean. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A full blackout would have the perverse effect of preventing users from reading our articles on SOPA and related topics. Short of putting together a complete list of articles to save from the blackout (which would be difficult IMO), this is the best option. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong Oppose - if Wikipedia institutes this blackout that really isn't a blackout at all, there will be multiple news reports that we did not join in the blackout but rather chose to add a banner without blacking out the site. This will only encourage congress to press forward with SOPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would that encourage Congress? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I think I've seen enough banners on Wikipedia that I'd mentally zoom out and not read it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The soft-blackout option doesn't describe just a banner. As stated above, it'd be a landing page with an explanation of why this is being done and links to information about SOPA, which the user would have to click through to reach Wikipedia. (There would also be banners, once the user proceeds to the main site.) Some people will still tune out and not read it, certainly, but it wouldn't be presented as "just another banner", in the same form as the ones most of us subconsciously tune out by now. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Juxtaposed against a hard blackout, I oppose this as weaksauce. The inconvenience of a hard blackout makes the point we need to make better than anything else. But if this option is what the community decides, it's far better than nothing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think Wikipedia should stay out of politics for the stated reason in my above votes. Think we should call our Congressman and members of the Judiciary Committee that drafted the bill. Mugginsx (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose - Wikipedia must shut down temporarily in order to threat the Houses and attract people attention. SiPlus (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the way that I think that Wikipedia should not go in soft-blackout, but in full blackout! Jurjenb (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Do not need soft or full blackout, rather have simply a banner describing issue. Dough 48 72 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Request: Could those saying that this option is a second choice or last resort please consider changing their vote to "Weak Oppose"? From where I'm sitting, the vote for this option appears to be more lopsided than it really is. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What will be shown on the blackout page?

Information given will include a brief description of the issue, with links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation and provide sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill. The Wikimedia Foundation will support the development of the necessary software for this purpose. The purpose of this action is to capture media attention and drive a significant volume of telephone calls from constituents.

Support

Support Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 18:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereignlance (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orashmatash (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
– Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prolog (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More or less. I think driving personal, heartfelt e-mail, mail, and phone communications should be the main goal. The template should be just a starting point. Dcoetzee 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Teukros (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally with things like this, numbers are the most important thing, since congressional staff will be far too overwhelmed to read many individual emails. Of course, we want to give people the ability to articulate things for themselves if they want, but a basic template that will appeal to most Wikipedia readers (once they understand the stakes) will probably be most effective for effecting change.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
---Not every email needs to be read for an influence to be had. A large quantity of emails will likely have much more effect than one or two well-written ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msheets1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas Werle (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an important step in making the effort worth its while. LoriLee (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but users should be encouraged to personalize their message. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. First Light (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selery (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support jfeise (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nothing else works. --J (t) 01:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Revelian (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Information should relate to both SOPA and PIPA TNL (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only the SOPA and PIPA articles open for people to learn about the issues. Marlith (Talk) 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If a Wikipedia blackout doesn't get their attention, this most likely will. Jessemv (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first choice. TotientDragooned (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support --JohnnyLurg (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upstate NYer 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Persons from outside the USA should be urged to contact their lawmakers with concerns they might have about how SOPA would effect commerce, freedom, and the internet in their own countries.(Drn8 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Well, um, this makes sense. The message should be different for US and international visitors if a global blackout is implemented though. sonia♫ 07:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seewolf (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support elektrik SHOOS (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support killemall22 (talk) 010:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If possible. CT Cooper · talk 12:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially as part of a full blackout. Any blackout would be useless without giving people instructions on how to help turn back this horrible legislation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any reasonable text is fine. The most important part for me is an explanation of SOPA. Hans Adler 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously informing the public about the issue and helping them easily make their voice heard is integral, and in my view the only reason for having the blackout. --Trödel 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Drn8. Carlsmith (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support People should know why WikiPedia blacked out the site. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The inclusion of information about SOPA (whether it be on the blackout page itself or as a link to the Wikipedia article) is very important, in addition to the take action instructions. Perlit (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This allows users to know who to contact in opposition to this bill. Etineskid (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ofc Von Restorff (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

.. Youreallycan 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.. Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.. And not mention the OPEN Act? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second mentioning the OPEN Act per the rationale I've given previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried that fighting for something that really doesn't affect us has very different legal implications than fighting against something that could hurt us. Selery (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only advocating allowing visitors to know that the OPEN Act exists as an alternative to SOPA. A mention of it won't hurt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: It would also be against Wikipedia's principles to hide or exclude information. Not allowing visitors to learn of the OPEN Act's existence would be both non-neutral and manipulative. Our task should be to place all relevant information about SOPA at the fingertips, so that visitors could make complete, informed decisions on their own. Without knowledge of SOPA alternatives, visitors won't have a full picture to base their decisions on. Excluding any mention of the OPEN Act would be the same as Wikipedia manipulating visitors not to mention it in their messages to Congress. Instead, we should allow visitors to chose whether or not to mention the OPEN Act, but they can't make that choice if they don't know about the OPEN Act. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sample text. This could be interpreted as going against the foundation's charity-status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to say that the Foundation's general counsel will clear/screen the text. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming as much; I still do think that it's risky no matter the wording. (btw, it's not the only reason I oppose a sample-text; I do believe people who read wikipedia are literate enough to write their own short rant) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can WMF legally advocate for/against legislation in the US? I support the blackout and raising awareness on a coordinated day, but I think "call Congress and tell them what you think" is about as political was WMF can/should get.KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written ("sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill"). It seems clear that WMF can legally do minor lobbying, but to do so would destroy the reputation for NPOV that we have worked so hard to maintain. I would support an NPOV blackout screen with links to impartial analysis of how SOPA would affect Wikipedia, and links for contacting congress, with no recommendation as to what people should tell their representatives. Res ipsa loquatur (let it speak for itself). Peter Chastain (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What does it mean to 'oppose' this? That there should be no information given on the page - that it would just be a blank screen? Or are people opposing certain aspects of it - e.g. opposing the "links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation" but supporting a brief description of the issue? Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OPEN Act should really be mentioned as an alternative action. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that the title and opening paragraph of the page is designed to be large and brief enough to grab any reader's attention. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain for international users what SOPA is and why it affects Wikipedia. --Dial (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to proceed and go through with this, and at this point it appears quite likely that we will, then the Foundation's execution should be reflexive of our core community values to the greatest extent possible. As was once articulated by Karada and subsequently espoused by one of our most fundamental policies: You won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. The same maturity and discretion should be exhibited here if we're going to take this stand. All associated material—including "sample text"—should strive to be candid, concrete, objective, and strictly informative. In the event that we decide to educate readers about alternative legislative proposals, such information should not be presented in a way that implies endorsement. And lastly, drafts should be written up now so that the material can be available for open commentary before and up until the last minute. — C M B J 09:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This I am fully in agreement with. Though I argued in my Suppport comments for (1) above that WP:NPOV shouldn't restrict the community itself from having a viewpoint, nor prevent our mobilizing on actions such as this, our execution of those actions should exemplify the highest principles of the Wikipedia project. The anti-SOPA information at plenty of other sites is understandable (and justifiably) alarmist and opinionated. Ours should, in contrast, reflect the same neutrality we all (ideally) strive for in each and every article edit. FeRD_NYC (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why develop new technology? While I do not agree with all postures taken by the EFF, I think that working with them by having a link to [[1]] prevents waste due to redundant Wikipedia technology efforts while it also shows a more unified front to the proponents of SOPA. The EFF also allows non-US citizens to donate money to the EFF. While that money can't even be earmarked for SOPA-only issues, I think that SOPA is a big enough problem that cooperating with an organization such as the EFF is simply the smart thing to do. Isn't there some saying about my enemy's enemy... SOPA is a big deal and we should treat it as such. Neil Smithline (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My user page describes a situation of how I responded to a temporary Wikipedia outage. Perhaps a collection of quotes from users about what it would mean for the Wikipedia to be down or sufficiently diminished in quality would have a powerful affect on the blackout page or the banner ads. (Whatever you do, no more faces of Wikipedia employees though.) They can be labeled as "From a real user like you" or something. This would allow a wide and disparate range of motivations to be stated, hopefully allowing more users to relate to the motivations. Perhaps this can go in banner ads instead or in addition to the blackout page? Neil Smithline (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Readers in the US should be encouraged to telephone or mail their Congressperson and Senators, not email them - it's known that email is regarded as something it's all too easy to get a campaign to generate, and consequently emails are easy to discount and do not carry nearly the same weight as the volume of physical mail and telephone calls. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages once clicked-through

Added since "click-through" seems to have traction.

In the event that users can click through and read normal pages, shouldn't the border or background of our pages be changed (via css) for the day? This would mean that visibility (separate from the banner) is prominent on every page read. Examples might be, a black background where text is not affected, or a fainter font, perhaps a modified logo or a prominent "Protest SOPA" button under the logo. But something. - FT2

Comment from WMF

This is not currently on the tech roadmap, and is not something we can allocate any resources to. If there's a community decision to do this, that's fine, if there are community resources to do it. But from the WMF side, I can not commit any resources to anything other than what we originally had on this page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support changing the borders, as a form of mourning or notice, and a reminder for people who were too busy to take action when they first saw the banner but just clicked through and went on with their tasks. --Trödel 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added Support/Oppose sections here, and moved your response up from Comments since it explicitly states that it's a Support vote. I hope that's OK, my apologies otherwise. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a soft blackout, along with any nondestructive changes in the appearance of pages that will not cause layouts to be rearranged (ie., scrambled), aside from possibly moving the content up or down. Dratman (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a good point, assuming a soft blackout. Human nature being what it is, a lot of readers will impatiently click through, then have a "wait a minute, what was that?" moment, so if we do this at all, we should really make it easier for people to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI like the idea of having something on the page for the day after you click though the blackout. Etineskid (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a pretty simple site css change that the community could do, or maybe just swap out the background image (the book texture thing in monobook) with a tiled [stop sopa] text that would appear behind the page.--Gmaxwell (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A border edit seems like a good way of keeping the sustained (but background) attention of a user throughout the particular day whilst not impacting on the usefulness of the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this is admittedly a crappy "vote-only" post, Support --Dial (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

(Soft) Oppose. While not strongly against this, I think the "blackout" page is a powerful gesture, even if click-through, and makes an unmistakable statement which should have a huge impact all on its own. Anything more than that is likely to be of greatly reduced value in terms of raising SOPA awareness (especially given much of the rest of the 'net will also be hammering that point home), and will probably serve only to antagonize — and possibly further alienate — those Wikipedians who are already uncomfortable with what we're discussing. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose of modified border, for the reasons that FeRD gave. Strong oppose of faint fonts, colored backgrounds, etc., for the same reasons and because it is inconsiderate toward those of us with visual impairments. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd support a faint modified border. However, nothing jarring. For the same reasons as Peter Chastain, I'd rather not be inconsiderate towards those with visual impairments. 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not entirely sure how I feel here. I'm all for a Wikipedia stance against SOPA, and for a visible show of support/solidarity with the greater movement across the Internet, especially on the January 18 action date. However, given that there are a significant number of Wikipedians who are uncomfortable with this action (as the body of responses on this page clearly indicates), I want to be respectful of their views as well. FeRD_NYC (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the action

One suggested date is January 18, 2012, which is the date around which the internet appears to be gelling for action. Other dates are possible. Do you support the January 18, 2012 date?

Comment and explanation from WMF

I was asked why the 18th should be the date. The conventional thinking among those on the Hill who were following SOPA a week ago was that the mark-up hearing would be scheduled for the 18th. However, we should understand that, given how politicians have recently reacted to the converging opposition to the bill (as evidenced in the recent news articles and White House blog), we cannot guarantee that the hearing will take place on that date since all variables seem to be in flux. The recent political maneuvering and statements, as the foundation of SOPA cracks on the Hill, might suggest that politicians may seek to avoid embarrassment and schedule the hearings for a later date. This is a community decision, but we believe that the 18th still represents the date when the tech players will converge to protest this proposed legislation and that our participation on the 18th would be furthering important momentum against the legislation. I will ask that someone from our team post a list of known sites to the talk page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Solidarity in the tech community is helpful for the cause. Geoff (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 18:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per other websites. Phearson (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bulwersator (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to coincide with other sites protest action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, best to time this with other sites' protests for the greatest impact. – Andrew Hampe ^Talk 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mass action is better than scattershot actions across the web. Multiple sites going down or taking this action together will have a greater impact on the general public. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rs chen 7754 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid action is critical, while we still have an opportunity to influence the bill. The 18th gives just adequate time to assess consensus; it is a happy coincidence that it also matches other sites. Dcoetzee 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the date that has a rough consensus among other sites (e.g., Reddit will have a blackout that day).--Ragesoss (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jan 18th to coincide with other sides including reddit (and minecraft!). Later dates to coincide with specific congressional timeframes will be less effective. The idea is to both mobilize users and push the news cycle. Reddit and friends going black will get the tech press talking but they have been going on about SOPA for months. We want the regular press to take notice and for that we need a coordinated blackout. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever date makes the most sense for coordinated action, but 24 hours should be the maximum if we do a blackout. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to show solidarity with Reddit and other protesting websites and businesses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Best time. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to January 18t. Coinciding with date of other blackouts will increase the overall profile of the action. Ironlion45 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jan 18. SarahStierch (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maplebed (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support LoriLee (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Teukros (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sends a message of massive opposition to the bill on the day when experts from the internet/tech community will be testifying to Congress. Amplifies the actions of other websites such as Reddit. Early enough to impact the language of a bill well before an undesirable version comes to a vote. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this date, if WMF deems it the most effective (because of the Reddit blackout). But I think the WMF should be empowered to change the date if events on the ground change suddenly. We might need to move quickly in such a case. First Light (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thparkth (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vituzzu (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that it runs 17th-19th, because Occupy Congress starts on the 17th. Selery (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this date if other sites who may join are also on board with it. Many internet giants have voiced potential support. Now I don't know how much we can rely on Facebook, Google/youtube, Amazon, Ebay and the such to follow though. However sites like Reddit, Tumblr, Imagur, Photobucket, ect I assume would gladly go along, so a consensus with their leaders should at least try to be reached. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I think banners should be used leading up to the blackout to try and initiate action prior. The 18th may be too little time to achieve the end result of "kicking people into action" otherwise. Veled (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the day a lot of sites are doing things as well, so if we're going to act we should do it then. The internet should rally against this in unison, it will make us much stronger. This template must be substituted.
Support. Zenimpulse (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support blacking out multiple sites at once has a greater effect --Jon889 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solidarity w/ other sites will make for greater impact.--JayJasper (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support jfeise (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sooner is better. --DrCruse (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blacking out at the same time will have a more profound effect. --Schwern (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the coordinated date. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Ziko (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Captain Gamma (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarah 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orashmatash (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Robin klein (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We're strong, and our project is important, but the internet community is stronger together Gmaxwell (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a coordinated endeavor (18 January 13:00 UTC to 19 January 01:00 UTC), though if the Foundation finds another date would be more effective, that should be done. Banners can (and probably should) last a bit longer than the blackout. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Feedintm^Parley 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support January 18 seems like a good, strategic date to get the most attention for this. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Revelian (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A coordinated effort is the best shot we have at this raising awareness. -anabus (Talk to me) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support KevinCuddeback (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support haha169 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support TNL (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support P4lm0r3 (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds like an appropriate day, but it's rather soon considering that we are just now discussing this. Hopefully Wikimedia can get everything in place by that date without any major issues. Still, if you're right it will be very well timed. Jessemv (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for at least the first stage of action. Here's hoping it will also be the last. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support TotientDragooned (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support sontuk96 Sontuk96 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Twistie.man (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same hours as Reddit and the Cheezeburger network. A unified effort among many websites has more impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first choice. byelf2007 (talk) around 4:45 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support Steevithak (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no way we can agree on another date in this forum. It's best to follow reddit's date. .froth. (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—WFC— 05:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All websites participating in the strike need to all stick with the same date, making it hit hard for browsers activeradio (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support upstate NYer 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most effective when coordinated with other efforts. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snackshack100 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC) - Jan. 18th[reply]
Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Monowi (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sonicsuns (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support for maximum impact. sonia♫ 07:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cybercobra (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seewolf (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to better build solidarity, which seems to increase effectiveness of action. Dkreisst (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commander Ziltoid (speak) 09:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 18th of January in solidarity with other sites. It will be more powerful if internet users encounter SOPA blackouts multiple times on the same day.
Support Solidarity has greater impact. Of course, I would also support further action if the legislation progresses. Kainosnous (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We take a stand with the rest of the Internet community, or not at all. (Not to say the action can't extend beyond the 18th, in either direction — but that date should be the focus.) Fracturing the opposition in any way does more harm than good. FeRD_NYC (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In line with other sites for maximum impact. CT Cooper · talk 12:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stand with Reddit! 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~ BIORAN23 - ^Talk
Support. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Follow Reddit - Don't miss a golden opportunity to bring about the highest possible impact, given this is really happening Internet-wide. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming the technical issues can be resolved by then --Trödel 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The most effective date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a stronger message. Albacore (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be essential in allowing everyone to understand about SOPA and PIPA.
Support Jujutacular ^talk 16:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Carlsmith (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Solidarity!
Support The other geeks are counting on Wikipedia to help make a HUGE statement. 11:23am US Central Time (Nebraska)
Support - Symbolic protests work because they concentrate public attention on an issue. This implies a unified moment of newsworthiness — something the anarcholiberals of Occupy [YOUR TOWN HERE] never grasped. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Voyager (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Coordination is the key to success.[reply]
Support killemall22 (talk)
Support – It would be more symbolic on that date than any other. — madman 18:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Taketa (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Okeekobee (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support January 18th this the best day because it coincides with other blackouts. Imagine what it would be like to go to your computer to open Wikipedia, but it is down. Then you go to Reddit, but that is also down. Then you go to any Cheezburger site like FailBlog or Memebase, but they are down. Drivec (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bearian (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sooner, the better. But... Why just 24h? I don't use wikipedia every day. I would feel okay with going on blackout for a week. Jurjenb (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, provided that the other sites continue to use January 18th as well. Ojchase (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I support the date, but to really make an impact, a long-term black should be considered. Perhaps the Week of the 18th, or until the 1st of February would really hit home how bad things would be with SOPA/PIPA. TEG (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with this date. Etineskid (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support By using the same date as other sites, we can maximize our impact. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone else is doing it on that date eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Logical date choice. -SharonT (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Coinciding with other blackouts seems like the best thing to do, to further show the effect that SOPA may bring. - Sudo Ghost 00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the entire net does this at the same time, there will be a CLEAR message to the population at large. Fieari (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solidarity is best. Whatever date the other websites blackout would be the best, but if that doesn't work, whatever date the hearing occurs, would be my second choice 173.188.59.151 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The long-term political safety of Wikipedia could be endangered. Consider the (admittedly imperfect) analogy with U.S. public radio, whose effectiveness as an information medium was severely impacted, beginning in the 1980s, by politicians seeking revenge against an organization perceived to oppose certain policies and viewpoints. I am strongly in favor of protest against these terrible bills by individuals and by other organizations which are not constrained to provide a neutral point of view. I am also mindful of the successful policy of political non-involvement adhered to for many decades by Alcoholics Anonymous and related groups, which, like Wikipedia, are non-hierarchical, as a key organizational principal, not because of some theoretical or ideological concept, but because the task of the organization cannot be effectively performed in a top-directed manner. I may be wrong, and I do not take a dogmatic or unyielding position on this question, but I beg those participating in this decision to consider the risk versus the reward. Wikipedia is a global project, which cannot be thwarted by any one country, but its operation could be impeded within one country's borders. Since political advocacy is not the purpose of Wikipedia, why should it become an advocate? Dratman (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Public radio's vulnerability is that it was (and is) very strongly funded by the government (and still is today via the CPB). Wikimedia is not, and avoiding the risk of that kind of influence has been a long term component in the fundraising strategy.
  That is why I pointed out in my original comment that the analogy was imperfect. It was exactly that, an analogy. Your argument shows that Wikipedia is less vulnerable than NPR. However, political foes do not necessarily restrict themselves to de-funding. They might try to pull the nonprofit status.
- Wikipedia is global— but today US law is uniquely compatible with our mission. For example, we would have to be a very different project in the UK (unflattering statements reliably produce successful libel litigation, no protection for ISPs in that area), in Canada and much of Europe (well meaning but poorly constructed anti-hate speech laws prevent writing factually about some opinions). In past analysis, nowhere came as close as the US in terms of public policy that promotes our mission, and we have a large number of common allies here who depend on the same protections under the law. A reduction of those freedoms would not kill Wikipedia, but they would be terrible indeed. Moreover, Wikipedia depends on other sites all over the world having the freedom to publish in order to use those sites as citations. Wikipedia cites Wikileaks in over 1000 articles. If it became unlawful to do so that would terribly degrade the projects, or even if we moved to avoid the law and simply a large portion of our readers/editors lost access to the citations.
  Your paragraph above seems to support my contention that U.S. political interference is a serious potential threat. Possibly I was not clear. I mean to say that, although the U.S. doesn't control everything, nevertheless any sanctions imposed by the U.S. government could be potentially very disruptive, and therefore the organization should refrain from provoking certain elements in the government who can be vengeful without regard for the consequences of their demagoguery.
- Your argument with respect to WP:NPOV was countered quite thoroughly on Jimmy's talk page discussions: Yes we use NPOV to write our articles, but Wikipedia itself, the idea of people having free access to knowledge of all kinds which is assembled by the same people without officially appointed curators, is a very radial and non-neutral thing. The very idea of NPOV as a goal and golden standard is itself quite radical and more or less incompatible with the ideologies strongly held by many millions of people. This project exists because of many strong principles, strong principles which we must stand up for if the project is to survive. This fact is not diminished in the slightest by our equally strong belief that we should put those principles aside when we write and edit the project's articles. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  My use of the term NPOV was intended to be suggestive. I understand that Wikimedia's public positions and actions are not bound by that principal. Preceding unsigned comment was left by Dratman (talk)
  
  The distinction between articles and a Wikipedia official position, expressed on interstitial pages and banners, will be lost on many, perhaps most, readers. Moreover, if the blackout page links to other pages, will those be articles or more editorial pages? Jimbo can make public statements and highly visible appearances before congress. Wikipedia can tell us how to contact our representatives, but for it to tell us what we should say to them is a violation of NPOV. Let all of the pages linked by the blackout screen be educational, with NPOV analysis of how SOPA will affect Wikipedia. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, public radio took stands on things that were unrelated to public radio. Taking a stand on an issue that relates directly to wikipedia's continued existence is much different --Trödel 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.. Youreallycan 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No point in demonstrating during the bill mark-up. It should be done before the date if at all. Kansan (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the mark-up has been postponed til after the 18th now. Kaldari (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC) as above. This action is contrary to rational self-interest of WMF and Wikipedia[reply]
I consider 2 days of discussion too little to make a decision of this significance. Most of the other discussion has been fairly fragmented and also mostly of a general nature, and not always well advertised and it seems clear interest died down for a while so I don't think we can read any clear consensus from any older dicussion. (BTW I've been monitoring this discussion on and off. While I never actually mentioned it, I've always felt anyone developing a concrete plan should allow at least 1 month from first proposal to planned implementation.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Lovibond (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it could have negatively repercussions for reasons already stated in above vote. Mugginsx (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nil Einne. Lagrange 613 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As an operator of a Web site that legally provides copyrighted content, I have been quite eager to research SOPA and PIPA. There is little more than hysterical hype coming from the anti-SOPA camp and Wikipedia shouldn't get swept up into it. The Obama Administration has come out against against SOPA and PIPA for rational reasons and if Wikipedia wants to act rationally themselves they will adopt the Administration's stance on the issue, rather than succumb to the hysterical mob filling this page. Besides, Wikipedia would be violating its NPOV policy if it openly advocated a political cause on its site. DJProFusion (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should not get involved in political action, and stick to NPOV. Teun Spaans (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Oppose WP Should not be used for political activism, if it does it should lose it's non-profit status. Arzel (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I assume by "day" we mean 00:01 EST to 23:59 HAST? James F. (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

"The Wikimedia Foundation would develop technology necessary to implement this." - And you've studied how this demand would affect their tax status, I'm sure. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) Please see Geoff's comments at Wikipedia:SOPA#.22Lobbying.22_and_Government_Affairs. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMF and Wikipedia should work with the legislative process, and not try to play the martyr. We are not Becket - and the Congress would listen to reasoned positions far better than to posturing here (popular as posturing is with some). I suggest that the obvious change to the legislation would be an exemption for all sites which have a "direct and active anti-copyright-violation process visible within the site" which would take all of ten minutes to get introduced into the legislation, and would avoid the "dramah" currently seen. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - FAQ on this subject here; note that several amendments to lessen the impact of the bill, including one exempting nonprofits, were already proposed by various congresspeople and shot down before the recess. It's a difficult process. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of us including myself don't consider this bill salvageable, even in principle. However, if we are forced to compromise, I agree that we should have some ideas about how we would alter the bill. I don't imagine your proposal would be accepted by the bill's proponents, since it offers an out for any site with any degree of legal oversight, no matter how inadequately skilled or staffed. In light of the fact that links to infringing sites are already illegal as contributory infringement, I would seek to exempt Wikipedia (and other sites) from being compelled to remove any content whatsoever, while still supplying a channel to request voluntary review and removal. Dcoetzee 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If all it takes is 10 minutes, why don't you do it? I'll pay you EUR 50 (which would come out at EUR 300/hour) if you achieve this. Not that it would make the law much better, but any improvement is worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - I have absolutely no standing with the WMF - and thus no ability to reasonably expect to be heard. Else I certainly would. I do know, moreover, that not talking will ensure that the bill is not changed. Did you talk to your local legislator about how legislation is written, by the way? At this point, there is almost a 100% likelihood of passage of SOPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My "local legislator", in so far as that concept is applicable to a mixed proportional election system, is Ingo Wellenreuther, possibly the most censorious member of the German Bundestag. I don't know if he has heard about SOPA, but I doubt he can do much about it. Indeed, you have no reasonable expectation of being heard as an individual. But collectively we all will be heard (if not necessarily heeded) if we go through with this protest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alas for you then - but then SOPA has no actual direct connection with you, in that case. In the US, you will find most Congressmen (and women) handle a great deal of interaction with constituents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about timing? How long will we hold this? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great question. I've added a poll on this above, Radiokid1010, please express your opinion there. Dcoetzee 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The WMF moved this to the talk page. Dcoetzee 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question that somewhat bothers me. I can see supporting this if the WMF were the initiating group - since yes, SOPA would affect all WMF projects, and thus is harmful. As I'm reading it, however, the WMF doesn't seem to be necessarily backing the idea but instead saying they'll support en.wiki if there is consensus for this action. From a political nature, this isn't the right message. I think I would be better behind the idea if WMF says "We want to black out en.wiki per SOPA in this manner, but only if there is consensus to do it"; they are sending the message with the support of the WP community (presuming consensus) which is a much stronger impact that us collective editors making the decision. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't disagree more. What is stronger, the voice of millions or a few hundred? It has to come from the community. It's our future and our protest.Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except its not our servers - it's the WMFs. It would be akin to staging a rally in a private business that agrees to let you be there by effectively discouraging people from using that business otherwise. Yes, you the rally-er, are making a statement, but the private business is not. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WMF is against the bill, and has spoken out against it, and is willing to support a protest; but project-wide action needs to come from the project. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did any one manage to count how many websites selling counterfeit drugs, watches, and other products wikipedia links to? John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one article that links to such a website: eBay. Dcoetzee 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is wikipedia doing linking to tat bazzar auctions, and why isn't eBay reacting to DMCA takedowns? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Initiative_gegen_den_SOPA#Europa_verhindert_SOPA_nicht:_Spanien, the spanish gouvernment passes an anti-piracy law only a few days ago. Perhaps we should coordinate our activities with the wikipedians internationally. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I my view we should do a banner and a blackout. The banner should describe the problem and announce the blackout a few days before the blackout. The blackout will be a few minutes before midnight and at one minute before midnight wikipedia will be switched on, with a new banner. In this way, the blackout won´t harm anybody, but it is something the public will notice. --Goldzahn (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that sentiment, if only because the real danger in SOPA is for international/URL-shortening domains, and the Chilling Effect the passage of a law like SOPA has on their ability to be accessible (both within their own countries and by the US) should other countries follow suit. Because of the nature of the internet, SOPA is everybody's problem. Veled (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If conditions for Wikipedia become hostile, move the servers to another country. THAT would bring press coverage. If we start protesting one proposed law in one country, we will soon be drawn into all sorts of activism, I think it is better we do not start at all. Besides, how can a consensus emerge after such short time? Much of the wording above is POV. --Pgallert (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the Servers to a country outside the US will make things worse! -- Andreas Werle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it funny? The Author of SOPA Is a Copyright Violator :) -- Andreas Werle (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SOPA article needs bringing up to a high and complete standard. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's something I learnt from it.wiki's strike, which I'm proud to bring you in support as a fantastic success we owe to the entire WikiWorld. First and foremost I learnt that Wikipedia is now definitely part of the Society, therefore its rights deserve respect and protection just like anyone else's rights. We have the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits; and we have the right to the protection of our moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which we are the authors. Sometimes it may happen that unexpectedly we need to be protected from laws that could put at severe risk the free exercise of our rights; but we are entitled to this free exercise by something which is undoubtedly more important and longlasting than a local national act. Well, Wikipedia, the first fully-free content provider in the World, cannot be damaged by any local national law. Of course an unsustainable damage occurs when substancially no antagonist human right would ever be equitably protected by the mere imposition of an undue interference on Wikipedia's contents. Furthermore, nowhere on the planet did any dictatorship go beyond a simple censorship of Wikipedia: in some Countries it is forbidden to access wikipedia.org, but even in those Countries there isn't any law issued to influence Wikipedia's contents. In Italy there was an attempt, recently, but Wikipedia is the first fully-free content provider in Italy too, and when its voice was heard, it was the voice of this wonderful Project. No one is sufficiently entitled to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms granted us by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We still are in the Society to participate in the cultural life of the community, it won't be by local national laws that we will stop doing it. We are building together the hugest literary work ever written in history, and we are doing it to give every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
Be proud of this, be bold for this, be Wikipedian for all those who need free knowledge! ;-) --g (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone has the right to the protection of the … material interests resulting from any … production of which he is the author. Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 27. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This includes Wikipedians - protect our work ;-) --g (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, this should be world-wise. This has directly effect on all of us. So the world pressure = better than just the USA.Pendragon5 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International users who seem to believe this wouldn't affect them are taking a very narrow view. As the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the USA, any SOPA issues would affect ALL USERS. And contrary to popular belief, outside pressure can be very effective in altering legislation in any country. The threat of action from many of the major sites has already turned quite a few lawmakers off of supporting the bill. Keep it up and force more legislators to closely examine the bill and IT WILL fail. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not blackout, but blacklist (that is, block all SOPA supporters)

As per a section of my user talk page, I would definitely support a protest, but not a full blackout. Instead, it would be nice to use a blacklist (preferably in the MediaWiki namespace to essentially give all SOPA supporters (and organizations of supporters) on the blacklist who try to access Wikipedia a 403 error. Basically, they censor us, we censor them. Hopefully some of us agree. Kenny Strawn (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this would be possible. How do we identify the SOPA supporters? The corporate supporters of the bill? And when (the ones that have since withdrawn support)? And we block their IP ranges? That could very well be huge swathes of the Internet, collaterally damaging many users who strongly oppose the bill. (e.g. I edit from a GoDaddy IP, but I'm in no way affiliated with GoDaddy and I in no way support the bill.) — madman 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Blackout (limited time) and blacklist (permanently) all SOPA supporters, such as sponsors of the bill, effective immediately, related article would show congressman's name, district, photo, and message "This person is permanently barred from Wikipedia". --SergeM256 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

That would be discrimination. Besides, it's hard to identify supporters and opposers (and they'll have their ways to get around it). Besides, this doesn't contribute to creating awareness under all Wikipedia users. I support full blackout. Jurjenb (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother?

I honestly don't have the energy to spell out, again, all the reasons this is a bad idea. It's pretty clear from the way this idea is being shopped between Jimbo's talk page, the (still open) RFC at the village pump, and WP:SOPA and its subpages that the proponents are determined to tire out the opponents and ram this down the community's throats, with the encouragement of the Foundation, irrespective of the actual status of the bill, and regardless of counterarguments. Anyone who's actually interested in deciding whether Wikipedia's the right place to do something like this can read the RFC linked above. I doubt very much that many of the support !voters here will bother to do that, since judging by their contribution histories a great many of them are users rather than editors of this encyclopedia, likely drawn by the banners. Rehashing the opposing arguments here will only provoke lectures about the values of this community by politically motivated fly-by-nighters who've done next to nothing to build content, and I'm just so not interested. Especially since, like I said, this seems likely to happen no matter what anybody says or does. This will be a different place after we do this. We'll still be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" but also "Wikipedia, the crusading encyclopedia", expected to take stands in future debates. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering whether I will want to contribute to that encyclopedia. Lagrange 613 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, and re-read it just now. The process has been pretty standard. An idea is mooted on Village Pump or Jimbo's talk page, there seems some (or considerable) interest informally in it, so it moves to its own page for more in-depth discussion. It gets supported or opposed, and changes may be made. Nothing unusual here at all in terms of process, no evidence of anyone being "tired out". If there was a much larger view against, it would show up above. It hasn't. If you want an example of a really tooth-and-claw RFC look at the many RFCs surrounding flagged revisions/pending changes. Apart from its subject matter, this one's actually boringly routine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your other point deserves a thoughtful answer. I can't speak for anyone else but mine was in this reply at the WMF blog and this comment above. I hope they explain the reasons I (and perhaps some others) feel this is important for Wikipedia/Wikimedia and for our educational mission. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Lagrange613 contains some very *cough* interesting arguments, starting with the POV section title. First there is the accusation that this is being "rammed this down the community's throats", ignoring the overwhelming consensus, then there is the elitist discounting of the opinions of those who read but do not edit Wikipedia, as if only the opinions of those who build content matter. Then there is an accusation that community input is being ignored ("this seems likely to happen no matter what anybody says or does") which is rather ironic, given the explicit rejection of consensus that precedes it. Then there is the claim that Wikipedia will be "expected to take stands in future [political] debates", ignoring the fact that this particular bit of politics is a clear threat to Wikipedia, and lastly there is the threat to stop contributing if he doesn't get his way. I don't find any of these arguments to be particularly compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire effort is POV; if you object to users contributing to this discussion based on their personal POV, then you're on my side. I do think that people who participate here regularly and are more familiar with what's actually done here on a daily basis should have more say in questions of what Wikipedia is about fundamentally, which is what this is. You can call that elitist if you want, but as I've written before you're opening the door for Bill O'Reilly to change Wikipedia by getting 1% of his nightly audience to register accounts. Wikipedia's Alexa rank is 6; every bill about the internet concerns us. Finally, I'm really not threatening to leave, just expressing my level of sadness and frustration with this, uh, process. It may cause me to leave, but that shouldn't influence anyone's decision; whether it could cause many other content-driven rather than politics-driven editors to lose interest probably should. Lagrange 613 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long term editors and contributors have even more of themselves vested in the project, and in seeing it not put at risk by poorly drafted legislation. And even if the legislation is changing, speaking out against it in force will encourage it to change in a direction that will protect our efforts. --Trödel 15:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my why bother, is - why allow the rent seeking activity of the congress, drive activity here? you do of course understand that this "issue", lobbyist written bill, is calculated to polarize, inflame, generate funds. this is how the political system exacts rents from productive society. i wonder if they also shorted isp's, (covering on backlash), and went long studios. clearly the isp's are not investing enough in political "investment". a better wiki would be serene, and have an off-shore contingency plan. British Virgin Islands anyone? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything Wikipedia does has got to be able to take into account last minute changes to SOPA. It is already reported that one of the founders of SOPA wanted to remove the DNS blocking provision. If it's out of the bill, Wikipedia could end up looking very foolish unless we carefully update exactly what our complaints are about the bill. It could even backfire if our page stresses a removed provision too much, making it look like we have few complaints with the rest of it. And any arbitrary part of the bill could be changed five hours before we go live with the anti-SOPA page. This is not to say we shouldn't do something, but we *need* to be *sure* that we can rapidly respond to changes. Also, this really needs to include Protect IP as well, not just SOPAKen Arromdee (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. The official reports I can find all say that the sponsors has said they will concede "postponing" only (not removing, much less "wanted to remove") one part of the protested issues.... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really accuse something of being forum shopped for its benefit when it finds more or less overwhelming support in every forum it shows up in? If anything I think you could only argue that if there were shopping here it would be shopping for a forum which didn't support it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White House stance on SOPA et al

I received an email this morning from the White House regarding its answer to this petition on its We the People page. Here is their view on SOPA and related legislation. upstate NYer 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give you an "A" for effort but the reply to you is so worded as to be for it and against it. Typical. Better off trying the Congressman, especially your own from your state, as well as the Committee on Judiciary. Mugginsx (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama can be commended for throwing us a bone. But the stark reality is that it's the Congress where we have to maintain our focus. SOPA/PIPA have to be stopped cold in the Congress at the earliest possible point, and whenever any of its embers get sparked again. In short, let's stay vigilant. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I just meant for that to be an FYI. Don't forget, he's the last step in the law-making process. upstate NYer 20:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama said that he was against NDAA 2012, yet he signed it and the power to detain US citizens indefinitely into law after a tiny modification. We can't depend on Obama and his veto powers. He, as with most other politicians, isn't dependable. Stay the course; sent a message to Congress via the blackout. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions

It's been mentioned that some folks might welcome the chance to provide a few general thoughts and alternate suggestions, mostly for discussion. Some of those suggestions might not play out directly to this action, but would give us ideas for advocacy down the road. JayWalsh (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are suppose to be BOLD, I suggest the "English Wikipedia" in USA goes "TRUE DARK" on January 18 from 11AM to NOON (EST), then again from 5PM to 6PM (EST). By "TRUE DARK", I mean provide only a simple web page protesting SOPA and zero access to wikipedia content. One step back from this would be to lock-out everyone that doesn't have an account, and disable account creation during those "true dark" hours. I prefer the Reddit protest hours, but I'll back shorter hours or an hour here and there if people think its too long. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it even MORE unavoidable and inconvenient. Random 5 minute periods of "TRUE DARK' throughout the day, several per hour. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we mirror the actions of Reddit[2], the Cheezburger network[3][4], Minecraft[5], Tucows[6], and other websites[7][8] by blacking out the English Wikipedia worldwide on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC), replacing Wikipedia with a simple message. This is not the time to negotiate a bunch of details amongst ourselves that we simply cannot reach agreement on by January 18th.

If you agree, add "Follow Reddit" or "Reddit Option" to your vote above. If you disagree, add "Don't Follow Reddit" or "No Reddit Option" to your vote above. This will indicate that, in addition to your support of a specific proposal for, say, a US-only blackout, you either support or oppose following Reddit's lead as a second choice. If this is your first choice, vote below and add "second choice after Reddit option" or "second choice after following Reddit" to your above vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 18 hearing on hill,[9]; [10] attend, then sit down in street; get arrested. should be $100 post & forfeit. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that this page will be flooded with people against SOPA, and there's probably going to be a "silent majority" of non-editors who are angered when the site goes down. So don't read too much into the votes. I think the WMF should just perform whatever office action it thinks is right, and not try to hold a kangaroo court for justifying its tough choice. (BTW I voted for the blackout!) .froth. (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate point, in the future I think it should be clear in the voting headers that people voting for a full blackout are also voting for a click-through, should the full blackout not be accepted. Then you don't have to deal with the "1 prefer 2" or whatever. .froth. (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA cuts both ways. Lawmakers need the internet community (and its free generous help) more than they seem to realize. I'd be interested to see discussion of a formal 24 hr block of House + Senate + other relevant IP ranges (supporting businesses?), to drive home this point: - that if lawmakers don't act nice, the internet community might decide not to either.

After all, if SOPA passes the pirates will just use other routes. But where will legislators find replacements for the sites they have come to rely upon for work, if sites freely providing services, decided to forbid lawmakers and their departments or offices using them? A formal 24 hr block notice for federal IPs might really make a few people think very hard about what the internet community gives freely and generously to all. It would certainly gain coverage of a different kind than "Lots of sites including Wikipedia shut down for a day". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (being controversial for the day and having been nudged to post this thought!)[reply]

Congress can hurt you far more than you can hurt it. Don't imagine you can play that game. And worse, such an idea would make Wikipedia into a political battleground far beyond anything that has ever been seen on it before. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I last heard that sort of reason not to oppose bad law during the civil rights movement. Without getting into politics, let's just say my own feeling is that the signals being sent are pretty strong (although you don't like those either), but stronger may be needed since this directly impacts our belief in free accessible knowledge and mass collaboration. I seriously doubt we (or anyone else) will get warred upon for a 24 hour block, much the same as people don't get warred on for supporting other parties or appealing federal decisions to the courts. If the law gives a right of refusal to provide a service, that's the law. I didn't notice any worries about legality of withdrawing services to protest other countries' policies doing harm, or against other laws in the U.S.. If you think it would be that significant, that's almost an argument you're advancing in favor. Either way the point should be made that the internet ecosystem isn't just the United States, nor is it obligated to abandon its sense of freedoms to harmful ideas. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe such an action would be needlessly inflammatory while serving no positive purpose. It would certainly undermine much of Wikipedia's positioning as a project which is not a political football (and make no mistake, that is what's going on here, and members of Congress are quite skilled in analyzing such situations). This would be risked for no significant reward. The backlash would likely be more disruptive than SOPA. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are far more worthy points than a mere "You'll get hurt if you protest". In the parlance, they "speak to the point". Thanks for that. The points you make are possibly accurate, or possibly not. One reason for the original post is so that these possible routes can have daylight and have those different perspectives considered.

There are times when it's best to stay silent (or "choose one's battles"), and times it's incumbent to speak up with as much force as can be found. A lot of times are in between. A concern with this legislation is it's a defining moment for the freedoms achieved through this medium. It's a defining moment when we say to other countries "follow our lead" and state clearly what our lead will be. It's a point where bad law is going to have a disproportionate effect and the people guiding it don't seem to appreciate that.

The hearings of December disparagingly and repeatedly referenced "nerds" - in fact some of those concerned are world famous names. It says a lot for the ignorance going on here. Hence it's worth suggesting how they may be helped to understand how seriously others they represent, are taking it. The internet ecosystem itself has the right to make clear its stances, and to add such pressure as it may hold, if it so chooses.

As a charity we have only a limited part in that. As a worldwide community with a mission of free knowledge and mass collaboration, and with specific interest in places where exactly this activity already takes place, where the very ecosystem that makes our work possible is at risk (and noting circumvention is federally funded and endorsed by human rights bodies where it does occur) - it's in our ballpark. Our editors, our readers, our mission, and the work of others in similar missions, are at risk from this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find something appealing in the idea of a total blackout for legislative offices, because I suspect quite a number of legislators have no real conception of how much their staffs depend on internet services like ours for day-to-day operations, and this would open their eyes. However, targeted interference could easily engender hostility toward, rather than support for our cause. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the most [messed] up "ballot" I've ever seen. Question 1 should have been: "Should there be action on SOPA?" — yes or no. Question 2 should have been — "If yes, should the action be taken on Jan. 18 or some other date?" Question 3 should have been — "If yes, which of these options should be employed? Please support only two." And they should have been listed simply, in logical progression of severity of impact. Group sourcing ballots is clearly something that doesn't work. Democracy good, structure good. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that more forethought into the structure would have been useful. I boldly instituted the multiple-choice structure for the first question because we had a bunch of people opposing for totally different reasons, and it was pretty confusing. I don't think your proposed structure would work though, because people opposed to a SOPA protest action would be upset by having questions they're "not supposed to answer" because they didn't answer "yes" to previous questions. For whatever reason, I think everyone wants to add their opinion to every question. Dcoetzee 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. We're short on time and expertise. We don't have a month to debate the process. Even with it's deficiencies, we such such a clear consensus that even if the format of the ballot were changed, the result would very likely be the same. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea is to oppose what is essentially censorship, by voluntarily shutting down? It would make more sense to remove all product and business references to new products sold by SOPA supporters for a fixed and lengthy period of time. A monetary impact if you will. And not accept their apologies or flip-flop on policy until the establish timeframe has completed.

Self-harm has a storied history as a mode of protest. .froth. (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 429: / Line 429: @@
 #'''Strong support''' - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation should be neutral in any and all political matters. Neutrality is very much valued on here and if either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation takes a stand on political issues, it loses its platform on which to be a legitimate and trustworthy source of unbiased, encyclopedic information. [[User:Illegitimate Barrister|Illegitimate Barrister]] ([[User talk:Illegitimate Barrister|talk]]) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' - Absolutely not the right thing to do. I have absolutely no belief that this will make a difference, and honestly, it goes against  all the neutrality policies. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black"><b>32</b><sup>([[User:Mitchazenia|Never support those]] [[User talk:Mitchazenia|who think in the box]])</sup></FONT> 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
-#'''Strongly support'''. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. We need to hold constant the values of neutrality that Wikipedia preaches.[[User:552Industries|552Industries]] ([[User talk:552Industries|talk]]) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
+#'''Strongly support'''. Wikipedia just got done asking for donations, one reason of which is that Wikipedia self proclaimed 'advertisements do not belong here'. Don't get me wrong, I oppose SOPA but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral ground, and should follow the same policies that articles must be written in. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia with political favoring is propaganda, intentional or not. We need to hold constant the values of neutrality that Wikipedia preaches.<FONT FACE="Sans-serif" color="#0088cc">[[User:552Industries|552Industries]]</FONT> ([[User talk:552Industries|talk]]) 03:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 ==== Blackout ====