User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

Hey Jimmy, I hope you can empathise with me on this. Jkadavoor's talking about this because of me. I'm getting irritated and very disturbed with my image being used, and Commons as well as Commoners' lack of respect (especially to contributors) and morals. I will be sending an email to you within the next 2 hours. Please keep your inbox checked. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Arctic Kangaroo; my comments here are no way related to your issue; it is only a simple matter that can be resolved with sympathy and empathy, considering your younger age. I too have younger brothers. (My/our topic is well described here and somewhat here.) JKadavoor Jee 05:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talking about poor morals, and no respect towards fellow contributors, I'm very disappointed to say that Geo Swan is a fellow en.wiki contributor who is part of that group on Commons. He's also carried his very good values with him when he works on en.wiki. Perhaps, you also want to read the discussion conversation argument that I had with him. diff ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

About User:Arctic Kangaroo above, Jimbo don't be swayed too much by that.If you have a look you find that s/he's just complaining because s/he suddenly changed mind about the copyright of some pictures of butterflies. That is obviously an impossible-to-honour request -if it was, I could revoke my contributions from Wikipedia at any moment, and WP should be obliged to comply. The whole point of free licences is that of giving up some of your intellectual "property" rights on a work. If the creator still holds the power to revoke, then s/he holds all power on the work, and thus it is not free anymore. We've banned users that refused to comply with license requirements, and rightly so. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all related. And Cyclopia, I haven't sent the email. Inside there will be whatever reasons I have to say. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of permanence I added a diff after Arctic Kangaroo's link to my talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've noted here that Arctic Kangaroo asked in all good faith about how to upload the image without others using it, he was given very very bad advice here on Wikipedia as part of a formal adoption process, and appears to have followed that advice in good faith. I'm seeing this issue as being largely the result of that very very bad advice, not a result of any bad faith or incompetence on Arctic Kangaroo or Geo Swan's part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is very relevant. Cyclopedia, your concern that if we allow one user to delete a file based on a change of heart, we have to do so in all cases, is simply not true. We can and should make exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. In the vast majority of cases, one picture is worth being jerks about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is evidence he followed bad advice, a case could be made for him not having actually understood the CC requirements, thus invalidating it for his pictures. This is fine by me: he simply did not consent to a contract, de facto. So no exceptions to be made. Then I apologize, and this makes it clear we have to be clearer on what releasing with CC means during upload.

However what I worry is exactly the "make exceptions" issue. If you summarily understand the CC license, then there cannot be turning back, because to do so means the author has full power on the work: and that undermines the whole concept of a free license. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That the CC licence is irrevocable does to compel us to irrevocably host the image or irrevocably use it on Wikipedia projects. We can choose to remove the file from our servers as a result of community discussion. Too often the slippery slope fallacy is used to justify taking a hard-line position. This makes it very hard to remove material because it is the right thing to do rather than because some law or policy absolutely requires it. That attitude needs to change. Commons is not compelled to host anything. An example of a user taking a hard-line principles-first approach is Geo Swan's discussion with AK (linked above). Geo Swan's uploading of AK's picture to his Flickr account not only breaks Flickr's terms and conditions but is a really nasty way of proving one's point. Colin°^Talk 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a slippery slope argument, because one case where we guarantee this is enough to formally dismantle the whole concept of a free license. Free license = you do NOT have anymore full rights on the work, only those preserved by the license. There is no turning back. This case may be an exception only because the uploader did not actually know about what the license meant really in advance, and it perhaps can be proven by the discussion linked by Demiurge1000 above. But if there is no sound proof of that, going back is a no-no. Even doing it once would immediately make all free licensing moot: it would show they have no bearing whatsoever anymore, even if nobody else asks to revoke them again. Which, however, will most likely happen, if we create precedents. This may look like a one-time mistakes-happen let's-do-the-decent-thing occurrence, but it is instead deeply ruinous. It threatens the very foundation of the concept of a free licence. Don't underestimate that. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the requirement or policy on Commons that says that because the image has a CC licence, Commons must host it. Too many admins and others have got deletion review upside down when they assume that because there is no policy that says we have to delete it it follows that we have to keep it. Time and again you see deletion closures saying that if the image has a valid licence and is in use then and doesn't clearly break COM:IDENT then there is no valid argument to delete. This is wrong. While the consensus at a deletion discussion shouldn't be allowed to decided to keep an image that is illegal or against policy, it must surely be allowed to decide to delete an image that is legal and complies with policy. -- Colin°^Talk 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There may be remote edge cases in which a deletion may be required despite policy compliance. In any other case, yes, it does follow that we have to keep it, otherwise policies etc. are just nonsense. For sure "uploader changed her mind" cannot be a reason to do so, because it would imply the uploader maintains more control on the image than the one allowed by the CC license. If an image is free once, is free forever. This must be as crystal clear and iron strong as possible. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion from Commons does not change the license. It changes how easily the image spreads (which is still desirable for many editors) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Technically correct. But a deletion from Commons on request (with perhaps the exception of a "dammit, I uploaded the wrong image, sorry" request a few minutes after upload, or similar obvious mistakes) still acknowledges exceptional control by the uploader. This makes the image "free", but on a leash. Which is not very free. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I agree with your arguments; which are part of the free concepts. But I don’t think raising them on every courtesy deletion request is very helpful. This is not a case like a long time established user who wants all his files get deleted; when he changed his mind. He has only a few media contributions so far, all are very recent, and all uploaded through en:wiki upload wizard. He may not even notice that they are uploaded to Commons; not to Wikipedia. His first visit to Commons (other than a few POY votes) was when I made a notice on his talk page regarding the FPC nomination. JKadavoor Jee 13:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cyclopia, you are confusing the requirement to relicense the work under the same CC terms when copying, modification, or redistribution occur, with the fictitious notion that the CC license compels Commons to redistribute the work in perpetuity. Commons is not obligated to continue publishing works; it is only compelled to publish them under the same license terms if it does publish them at all. The decision whether or not to publish a work licensed under CC can be made for any number of reasons (one of which might be that the author does not want the work to be published at Commons), and that decision can be changed anytime; what cannot be done is revocation of downstream users' rights to continue to copy, modify, and redistribute under CC terms once they received the work from Commons. alanyst 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of this distinction. This doesn't change that, de facto, complying to such a request implies that, practically, we give the uploader a level of control that is not present in the license. We may well decide to delete something free from Commons, but setting a precedent where such a decision is made only because of a request of the uploader without extremly good reasons is noxious, because of what it implies -namely, that the uploader has a special level of control on the work. That's exactly the opposite of free content, regardless of how technically it still complies. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. Imagine that when the person uploaded the file to Commons, they also gave a copy to a friend under the same CC terms, and when they asked Commons to delete it, they also asked their friend to do so. Commons and the friend are equally free to accede to the uploader's request or to ignore it, and enjoy the exact same degree of control in their decisions. Commons does not need to be bound by precedent any more than the friend does the next time someone gives them a CC-licensed file. alanyst 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What seems absurd to me is your analogy. A personal friend is not a public, open website hosting thousands of images that makes a point of being a repository of informative free content, run by a consensus-driven community, where anybody can see what happened before and what precedents have been set. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And you believe we should place the free-content crusade before all else. Some of us believe there are other things equally important, such as editorial and publishing discretion, and moral concerns, even. I'd rather 'anybody' could see that we did the common sense, human, decent thing after due consideration. You never know, that might encourage more people to donate more content to a responsible host. I doubt the two points of view will ever mesh easily, so it seems tedious for us to repeat it all again, no? We can does not mean we must. Begoon ^talk 15:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, no, it's not matter of a crusade. Nor it is a matter of "we can therefore we must". It's a matter of what does free content mean. In other words, things have to be clear for users of Commons. In the moment I see an image on Commons, and it is obviously compliant with policies, I expect to be able to use it in any way that is compliant with the requirements of the license. That's what free content means: it is something that we can relink, share, reuse, rebuild upon, while keeping only a minimum of clear obligations, because the author explicitly relinquished (most of) her/his rights on the image, and cannot complain if it happens that he does not like what I do with it. If, instead, in any moment the copyright owner can decide to change his mind, then it has never been free: it was only "on loan", something like "hey, I'll give it to you to play until I decide it's fine". And so we jeopardize the whole concept of free content. It's not matter of crusade, I am not a free-culture-Taliban, frankly (heh, I worked for closed-source companies). But if we say that is free, then it has to be free, not "free unless uploader has a change of mind". And it has also nothing to do with "decency" and "common sense". Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "common sense", because what is "common" in my culture can be far from common in yours, there is nothing in the notion of "decency" that requires us to abide to every whim of uploaders. If there is some serious privacy or real-life complain, then decency may play a part. It doesn't with contributors that want to pick up the ball and suddenly decide that we can't play anymore - it's not their ball anymore, once under CC. I hope I made myself more clear. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

More clear, no. But you used a lot of words. I already knew where you stood. I disagree. Begoon ^talk 15:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that you said that I "believe we should place the free-content crusade before all else" -which is nonsense- I'd say that no, you know really nothing of where I stand. So you're disagreeing with some figment of your imagination, not with me. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about Commons. You say we should not delete a file from our collection if the uploader has simply changed their mind. But is there a WMF directive or Commons policy that forbids it (that says we may not)? If I add a page to Wikipedia that no one else has added to and ask that it be removed, that will usually happen without any fuss. I'm fairly sure the licensing and ethical issues are much the same, so I'd be curious to know if the two projects' written policies are different on this issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about the articles removal on WP. It should not happen as well. It is a shame it does. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect your right to the view that this kind of thing shouldn't happen, and your right to argue from that position. But I'm asking you, may it happen. I'm asking if it is permitted by Commons policy for a file to be deleted for no other reason than that the uploader requests it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To clear up, Commons has a policy that we may delete images whose uploaders have requested deletion. We do it fairly frequently actually. But we generally draw the line if the image is used on other projects. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you sometimes delete files upon the uploader's request but the only such deletion discussions I've seen have required the uploader to justify it, beyond simply requesting it. So to be very clear, if the file isn't being used on another project and the uploader gives no reason, or simply says they've changed their mind, policy permits deletion and the uploader's wish is usually respected, without them having to provide any rationale. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It does depend on the image in question, and timing. If you ask for deletion after a few days or a month or so, then it's more likely to be granted. If the image is something that is easily replaceable and/or low quality, again, more likely to be granted. But courtesy deletions are not generally granted if the image is in (mainspace) use, and especially not if it's widely used. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. That seems to work.^[1] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not doubting for one moment that your actions are motivated by fairness and good faith, but I am surprised such decisions appear to be based on wholly subjective personal judgements. And individual ones at that. I must have imagined that deletion policy, like determination of copyright, was based upon strict rules that had been refined over the years and tested by particular edge cases. If a contributor disagees with your judgment, I assume they have no recourse to any kind of arbitration. Or does such arbitration always have to happen, in public, here? p.s. whenever I upload an image to Commons I never have to go through a step which explictly confirms the fact that "I am aged 18 years or over". I guess that little detail is carefully hidden away in the CC license? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had contact by email with Arctic Kangaroo and he's apparently well under the age of legal competence for this sort of thing anyway. So there's a good case to be made that the license has not actually been granted, period, despite whatever checkbox he may have clicked. For me, this seals it, and I've asked Wikimedia Legal to comment on the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• |It's interesting to note that this point was made in the deletion discussion, and that one response was "if there are legal issues here, it's the WMF's lawyers who should tell us so. Not some random users who probably aren't lawyers." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. That's encouraging. I do a lot of image work for the project, and it's important to me that there is some common sense involved somewhere along the line. It really is important, and it's good to see. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, thanks for your understanding. I will be sending you another email, hopefully by tonight (UTC+8). Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pour cold water on things, but if we are saying that Arctic Kangaroo is not of legal competence to release images, then they should be globally banned and all their edits on all projects revdeled (and all subsequent revisions as derivative works). There is no difference between the CC-BY-SA the user released the image under and the CC-BY-SA they released those edits under (By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.), other than they don't like the consequences of that particular edit. If you're arguing from a legal standpoint, then you need to be consistent and delete everything. If you argue from a moral standpoint, then the DR was already closed as keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with mattbuck here as well, it's all or nothing. _→AzaToth 00:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a HUGE point in terms of Wikipedia and it would be nice to hear from house counsel on the matter. Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV: in the United States, those under age 18 are not legally able to enter into a binding contract. Every single saved edit is a small contractual release of automatic copyright via Creative Commons license. If those under 18 have no legal standing to make such a release, they should theoretically retain copyright to the content they have created. They should theoretically be able to force its removal. They should theoretically be prohibited from editing until the age of legal majority. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But is a release into a free license a 'binding contract'? I don't think so, although I'm not an expert in USA laws. A contract normally requires two parties, but in case of releasing a file into a free license, there is no other party. Wikimedia doesn't have any contract with the author, they are just storing the text or file, after release by the author. Also after the release, the author doesn't have any binding obligations. He can even use his released work as before. Jcb (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I note that one of those giving you a hard time here has uploaded your image to a flickr account. That is contrary to the flickr terms of use

Don’t upload anything that isn't yours. This includes other people's photos, video, and/or stuff you've copied or collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be deleted at any time.

and flickr will delete the image from their site if you contact them. If you do so then I recommend that you go to the page and click the link at the bottom that says "report abuse". Choose "Other concerns" at the bottom of the list rather than "Someone is posting photos that I have taken ...". In the email explain that you are a minor and the person uploaded the image as a form of revenge in order to "teach you a lesson", add links to the Commons discussions where he did it. If you do it that way and emphasis the bullying aspect Geo Swann's flickr account and his 11,000 images will most likely be deleted, as Yahoo will not countenance bullying of minors. Alternatively you can click the "copyright/ip" link bottom right of the page and just get the one image deleted. John lilburne (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• We might wish to get legal to review this; this is certainly something that has huge potential to change Wikimedia. If no one who is not of legal age has legal competence to free license their work, that would of necessity include text as well as images. That being the case, I have a hard time seeing how Wikimedia could continue to allow anyone not yet of legal age to edit anything on Wikimedia. If that were so, I'd presume it would have to lead to some sort of identity confirmation of logged in users, and the end editing by users who have not logged in. (IMO this might in the long run do more good than harm, but it certainly would be a major change.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we need legal to review the wider implications of this issue, not just the limited question of whether this file should be deleted from Commons as requested by Arctic Kangaroo (AK).

First, is it sensible to keep the image hosted on Wikipedia (as AK wants) if the reason for deleting it from Commons is that AK wasn't legally competent to license it freely?

Second, what should be done with other images uploaded to Wikipedia by AK?

Third, do we similarly need to delete AK's other edits to Wikipedia and other WMF wikis? If AK isn't legally competent to license images freely, would the same be true of text contributions?

Fourth, what should we do about potential future edits by AK? Are blocks on all wikis required until AK is old enough, or until we have OTRS confirmation of his parents' or guardians' agreement to freely license his contributions?

Finally, what are the implications for edits and uploads by other people, including those who we suspect may be under 18, and those for whom we have no idea (including people who aren't signed in)? --Avenue (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to speak for Jimbo, but my take on it is that the only precedent we would be setting is that of having respected the wish of a contributor not to host his image any more, and taking into account that he may not have fully understood the rigidness of the terms he agreed to when uploading it. There don't seem to be any licensing implications - anyone who acquired the file under the license offered is unaffected - we just agree to not host the file any more out of consideration for the users wishes. Sure, people will cry "slippery slope", because that's the way of it here, but I think it does us no harm to be seen as responsive to a reasonable request from a good faith contributor. Opinions will, of course, differ. I wouldn't still be contributing images to this site or Commons at all if the rules had been rigidly enforced in a recent deletion discussion which I initiated (although that was more complex, with other reasons to delete), so feel free to see my point of view as "involved". Begoon ^talk 04:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier granting such a request if I believed that he had good reasons for making it, that he now understood the implications of the licenses he has agreed to, and that he wouldn't be making such requests without good reason in the future. Keep in mind that this is very different from a prompt request to remove an unused image that was uploaded mistakenly. The image is used on several projects and has been promoted as an FP on both WP and Commons, after review by several editors.

But the fact that he wants us to remove the image from Commons while keeping it on Wikipedia seems to show that he still doesn't understand the license he applied to the image (or the aims of our movement more broadly), and that he doesn't really have good reasons for its removal. (That's not to say that there aren't good reasons, such as his being a minor, just that he didn't present them in his request.) If we do decide to delete it from Commons, it won't simply be to fulfil his request, but because of these other reasons, and I think the consequences should extend at least as far as also removing it from Wikipedia. I also have trouble understanding why we'd want to risk keeping AK's other uploads unless he changed his tune dramatically. If you think that means I'm crying "slippery slope", so be it.

The implications for his other contributions are messier, and I don't claim to fully understand them, but I would certainly like some legal input on the issues. I'm concerned we could create a lot of unnecessary trouble for ourselves later if we don't. --Avenue (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

he still doesn't understand the license he applied to the image - that is the issue. He doesn't understand the licence, and isn't legally competent to enter into a irrevocable agreement. In any other situation if an organisation were to maintain that a U16 was to be held to a contract there would be a page on this site about it. The concerns expressed about his other contributions are ill founded as it is highly unlikely that any of his written article work will be copyrightable. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation fixes rarely rise to the level of obtaining copyright status. I'll note in passing that Geo Swann has wisely removed the image from flickr. John lilburne (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The comments he made here are certainly eligible for copyright. There is no substantive difference between text and images. It is my view that if we accept that (even just under Singaporean law) minors cannot release things under CC, then at the very least Arctic Kangaroo must be banned from all WMF projects, and we should probably follow suit with everyone else who may not be legally compos mentis. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The retention of comments here and elsewhere most likely falls under fair use. They aren't being sold, they aren't being used to promote the site, the chances of anyone putting his comments onto a tea towel, or mug is remote. No the issue is with media files, and your insistence that they be kept against the wishes of a child, who clearly wanted them to be used solely on WP. It is your, and others, grasping nature that is the real problem here Matt. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it best to wait till we get the legal answers before speculating on the consequences both for AK and other child users -- I would hope Jimbo and WMF are considering the consequences too and not just one butterfly photo. But regardless of whether the licence is valid, I think we should appreciate that children-users are more likely to misunderstand/make mistakes and so we should be more sympathetic in our handling. While AK's behaviour has made it difficult to be sympathetic (myself included), we should rise above this rather than let it anger us to being stubborn. Mattbuck mentions courtesy deletion but it appears Commons has no written policy on the matter (that I can find) -- so I suggest we consider documenting this area in the Commons deletion policy pages. Colin°^Talk 11:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Everyone in this discussion except Jimmy: My text contributions have been OK so far. It's just a misunderstanding of the whole CC thing that made my image contribution bad. Anyway, as long as I learn and fully understand any licence before uploading anything again, then it's absolutely fine right? Blocks are for prevention, not punishment. I've already promised to learn up those stuff, am I not right? Anyway, you guys don't understand the situation fully. Almost everything I need to say is stated in my email to Jimmy and you can ask him if you like to understand the full situation. Anyway, I'm never uploading anything to Commons again. You have my word on that. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is prevention. If you are not legally competent to release images under free licences then you cannot be allowed to upload anything on Commons, and any significant textual contribution is similarly unallowable as they are under a similar licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have no complaints about my text contributions being used. Images are things that I treasure, and thus are very picky about it. Although that doesn't mean I don't value the articles I create. However, I am actually more open (more accurately, 大方) when it comes to articles. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That you value text and images differently is completely irrelevant - if we accept the argument that as a minor you were not legally able to release images under CC licences, the same is necessarily true of your text contributions. As I said earlier, this is the difference between legal reasons and courtesy reasons - courtesy can be applied to different contributions differently, but legal reasons must be applied to all contributions equally. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I've spotted this discussion via another user's talk page, and it raises a question from me; if it is ruled that minors are not competent to understand licenses and thus their Commons uploads are invalid, what happens when a user uploads something as a minor, this change comes in, but they're no longer a minor? This doesn't affect me (I didn't upload anything before I turned 18), but it definitely is an interesting problem, at least in my eyes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your pictures are wonderfully fine, AK. It's good to be charitable and donate such vivid, well-shot images to Commons. What's frustrating you? Because of some miscommunication and misinterpretation of licensing, we have landed into some mambo jumbo about the competency of minors and legal rights, stuff like that. Wiki-drama indeed. Good luck, AK. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think for this case we should disregard whatever license AK has chosen. As a minor, holding him at fault for not understanding all these legal licenses is like letting him stand trial in court. What a dilemma -- if the pictures were removed for him being a minor, what happens to the textual contributions? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The text contributions and media contributions of own works are entirely different.

Text contributions: Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1: “One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material. This also means that ‘’’this is no place for original work’’’, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published.” So what?

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing: “The following list sets out some basic things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work. 1. Make sure your work is copyrightable. 2. Make sure you have the rights.

Here you are only developing an article with third party contents that are verifiable in reliable source. That source is not owned by you; so you can’t grant any rights that you don’t have.

So what may be the text “By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. “ above the “Save page” button mean? Probably it means that you have to ensure that the contributions you made are freely available in a reliable source. I can’t see any problem in such edits by a person below Age of consent as far as the edits are not harmful for this project. (Disclaimer: I’m not an article editor; my area of expertise is photography. So this is my limited understanding on this topic. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Media contributions of own works: Here you owned the media you created. You hold the copyright irrespective of your age. But can consent of a person below Age of consent to grant/give-away his rights can be considered as a valid consent? No; probably. Hope legal team will answer it. JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, text contributions are not "contributions you made [being] freely available in a reliable source", that would mean we could only ever reference anything which was freely licensed. And furthermore, you can have copyright on third party contents which are verifiable to reliable sources, since you make deliberate compositional choices. The FACTS cannot be copyrighted, but your presentation of them can be. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Many of AK's text contributions would be above the US's low threshold of originality, and we need them to be freely licensed to continuing hosting them. This doesn't apply to uncreative edits such as fixing typos or simple reverts of vandalism, but I think it probably applies to most posts of new content or commentary as long as a sentence. --Avenue (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattbuck and Avenue for correcting me. I’m not fully convinced; but my knowledge about page editing is limited, as I stated above. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: AK got blocked from Wikimedia Commons yesterday (not by me, but I fully support it), due to disturbing editing and also due to the very dangerous Jimbo Wales comment. ("I've had contact by email with Arctic Kangaroo and he's apparently well under the age of legal competence for this sort of thing anyway. So there's a good case to be made that the license has not actually been granted, period, despite whatever checkbox he may have clicked."). Following Jimbo in this very weird comment, would endanger the entire project. I hope WMF will not delete the files, because that means that any user can get his licenses revoked by convincing Jimbo Wales of a low age. And we know how accurate Jimbo can judge people. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really; that seems only a procedural block; as commented by Russavia there. JKadavoor Jee 17:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It was more than just procedural. Yesterday AK removed the featured awards from his butterfly then attempted to change the licence terms to "all rights reserved". That is "disturbing editing" and a sign he still doesn't get it. Colin°^Talk 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm; it seems he is too young to understand anything. :( But I can’t see any point in Jcb’s bla bla bla. JKadavoor Jee 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Entire story. JKadavoor Jee 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the Russavia person that blocked Arctic Kangaroo on Commons, a friend of the Mattbuck person? Has there been any dispute between this Russavia person that blocked Arctic Kangaroo, and Jimbo who has exchanged thoughtful emails with Arctic Kangaroo?

What is the status on English Wikipedia of Russavia? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Such things don’t matter; I think. He is a 'crat on Commons; so he has every right to make a procedural block till they get a reply from WMF-legal. JKadavoor Jee 02:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK formally changed his mind on 27 July 2013; which is valid per Geoffbrigham. commons: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_28#Underage_uploaders: “WMF does not have liability on this issue for the reasons stated above and because we are only a hosting company. On the contract issue, the answer depends a lot on the jurisdiction at issue, but, as a general rule, a minor may make a contract in the same manner as an adult. However, a minor usually may disaffirm a contract during minority or within a reasonable time afterwards.” So Denniss’ attempt to revert it is totally illegal. Now Commons is risking in the act of encouraging piracy; as anybody can now reuse that file even outside WMF projects. JKadavoor Jee 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it fair or proper to accuse Denniss of illegal actions. As is pointed out frequently, a copyright licence is not a contract so I do wonder if Geoffbrigham's comments are actually relevant or worded appropriately (because it appears "contract law" is quite specific to contracts, and here we are dealing with "property law"). Maybe it makes not difference, and a minor can "disaffirm" a licence too. The CC licence states "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below" (my bold). If such a licence, issued by a minor, really means "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, provisional (until I grow up) licence to exercise the rights or the Works as stated below" then we have to wonder if this is any use to us. It might suite BBC News to show a picture for a day, but we'd like a bit more permanency, and it would indeed be a problem for wiki text. None of this, however, requires Commons/Wikipedia to perpetually host the image, nor does it prevent us to choose to delete the image. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither party challenges the absolute right of a minor to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of items which 245*245 are not necessities. That right, variously known as the doctrine of incapacity or the "infancy doctrine," is one of the oldest and most venerable of our common law traditions. See: Grauman, Marx & Cline Co. v. Krienitz, 142 Wis. 556, 560, 126 N.W. 50 (1910); 2 Williston, Contracts sec. 226 (3d ed. 1959); 42 Am. Jur.2d Infants sec. 84 (1969). Although the origins of the doctrine are somewhat obscure, it is generally recognized that its purpose is the protection of minors from foolishly squandering their wealth through improvident contracts with crafty adults who would take advantage of them in the marketplace.

The above is from a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Is a copyright license a contract? Well the Creative Commons License considers that it is. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a statement that CC consider their licence a contract, more that if someone does consider it a contract, these would be the terms. Whether it being considered contract is their intention is hard to determine. We need clear wording from legal that they are considering the issues with copyright licences (such as CC) not not some general statement about contracts. And they should also think about the rather unusual mixed-authorship issues that wikitext gives us. Colin°^Talk 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The best thing for AK to do would be to send a DMCA takedown to WMF. Then they can decide whether they want fight a child over the issue. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The (official) reply I got from info@creativecommons.org for my question “I know CC licenses are not revocable. But if a N year boy granted a CC-BY-SA license for his photographs and later changed his mind, within a few months; is it acceptable?”

Hi Jee,

All CC licenses are non-revocable, meaning that if your content was ever available under a CC license, licensees can continue to use it indefinitely under the terms of the license. However, that does not mean that you need to keep publishing the content yourself indefinitely. There's nothing to stop you from removing the content from your website or removing the CC license badge. But again, others can continue to use it under the terms of the license.

If you don't like the way in which someone has used your content, you can ask that they remove your name from it so that it doesn't show up in Google searches, etc. See these two questions from the FAQ for more information:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Faq#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_can_I_do_if_I_offer_my_work_under_a_Creative_Commons_license_and_I_do_not_like_the_way_someone_uses_my_work.3F

Cheers,

With disclaimer: "Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal advice. Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal advice from a licensed attorney."

JKadavoor Jee 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here the problem I see is that Commons is not just a re-user, it acts as a central repository for free media (somewhat like Flickr). Anyway, I would like to leave this to the decision of WMF legal and office. I don’t think a courtesy deletion by Office_actions needs any consensus of the community; nor it creates a bad precedent. JKadavoor Jee 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed they didn't directly handle the concern that the owner is is under age. But suspect, like their disclaimer, that they aren't really willing to offer legal advice any more specific that what is already in their FAQ. Colin°^Talk 07:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes; they can only advice as I quoted above: "http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing: The following list sets out some basic things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work. 1. Make sure your work is copyrightable. 2. Make sure you have the rights." I assume only judiciary can say whether he has rights to grant his rights. JKadavoor Jee 08:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually want that damn license revoked, as I have mentioned in my email to Jimbo. CC may be polite in their response, but it appears that they have also lost their morals. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons cannot 'revoke' your license. It is either legally valid, or it isn't. That is a matter of law, not something that Commons can decide for themselves. And if it isn't legally valid, you won't be able to comply with the Wikipedia/Commons terms - so you can't be permitted to contribute further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it looks like this is not really possible. I may be wrong, but it seems there are two possibilities: ither you never could have agreed to the license as a minor (and in this case we would be forced to bar all minors to contribute to Wikimedia projects: has WMF commented on this?) or, if it comes out that you could have legally consented to it, then you can't have it revoked. It's not a matter of morals, it is a matter of how it works. They cannot revoke anything, as far as I understand: CC has no control on the license of your picture. It is simply in the nature of the CC license that, when you upload something under it, you do something intrinsically irreversible. So even if your image is removed from Commons, it will be still, forever, a CC image, and if someone uses it on their website there's little you can do to avoid it. I'm sorry, but some things do not have an "undo" button. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never approved of CC licenses, and it was all a mistake. I'm not sure how many times I've gotta emphasise this, that mistakes can, and should be forgiven, especially for first times. Anyway, I have already mentioned to Jimbo in the email to just delete the images, revoked the licenses, so I can have a peace of mind to understand those licenses, before I decide whether or not to upload those images to Wikipedia again. If I upload them again, I guarantee that I cannot revoke those licenses again. Anyway Jimmy, could you delete those images ASAP and revoke the licenses ASAP? Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, all my works are always All rights reserved. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not a side note. It is an assertion that you are claiming rights incompatible with the CC licence. On that basis, unless you withdraw that claim immediately, I shall be starting a thread at WP:ANI asking that you be blocked indefinitely. I suspect that the blocking will be a formality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be sleeping soon, so may not be able to continue talking about this until the next time I log on. Just to clarify, what I mean by that is wherever else I upload them. Here though, how I wish it's the same as well. Anyway, I did not know that the consequences of a CC license can be that serious. I simply can't believe how immoral people are. Just 1 simple mistake, it's so hard to forgive and forget just "because CC said so, so I have to dump my morals into the bin". ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that response, I can only assume that even after all this time you have failed to understand what the CC license entails. It applies everywhere. It is irrevocable. You cannot impose conditions on it, or limit where it applies. Anyway, I can see no point in arguing any more - your self-evident failure to understand the licensing conditions by which you are permitted to contribute to Wikipedia seems entirely sufficient grounds to ask that you be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE. You have wasted far too much of far too many people's time, and I can see no reasonwhatsoever why you should be allowed to do so any further. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For this issue you have mentioned, I think the above thread is more suitable for discussing. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AK, it is not a matter of morals. It's the law. If someone uses your image, as long as they comply with the CC license you used, that someone can do that, legally, and there is nothing you can do about it. People can refrain to use your images, to respect you, but since you used a CC license, it is now simply impossible, legally, to force them to do so. That's what it means by "irrevocable". You have no more legal grounds beyond those of the CC license, on those images, ever. If you disagree with this, you have to convince countries to change copyright laws. Is it clearer now? -- cyclopia^speak! 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ATG, He may be (clear from the comment above) talking about his media files. He was already blocked on Commons. He already said he has no problem about his text contributions here (see above). Please give him more time to understand things. JKadavoor Jee 15:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never approved of CC licenses : You did when you uploaded them to Commons under a CC license. You specifically chose a license. You consented to it. You may have done it by mistake, but you did.

that mistakes can, and should be forgiven : It is not matter of "forgiveness", it is that, as far as can be seen, you did something irrevocable, legally speaking. Even if Commons erases all these images, this doesn't change their CC status. Commons can delete the images, but nobody can revoke the license. Not you, not me, not Creative Commons, not Jimbo. It is beyond them all. It is simply done. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AK, Are you already contacted the office? If not, do mail to Philippe_(WMF) or info-en-c@wikimedia.org and wait patiently.JKadavoor Jee 15:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to overwrite the file with an image which says that there previously was an image which was under xyz licence but the uploader requested it no longer to be used on a wikimedia project. If anyone is using a copy of this file they can verify the licence status my sending their copy to ORTS and then revdel the others. Also ban the original uploader as a pre-requisite of such an action to be taken, unless a very good reason for a particular image can be given. Agathoclea (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note. Given Arctic Kangaroo's self-evident failure to understand CC licensing, and attempts to claim the rights to limit it, I raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arctic Kangaroo (yet again). I think we've put up with this nonsense for long enough, and if AK is incapable of understanding it after all this time, this is one contributor we can manage well enough without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• AK, Jimbo has no power to delete your images from Commons. On Commons Jimbo is just a regular user just like you, except he's not yet blocked from Commons :-) 76.126.34.42 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• On the ANI page someone posted User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 6#Minors entering into contracts. From Rkwon (WMF):

It’s a somewhat complicated issue that to date has not been directly addressed by the courts. The short answer is that it’s possible a court could find in favor of disaffirming (i.e. voiding) the license itself, but it’s not very likely that a minor could use it as a method of removing selected content. You are correct that a minor can make a contract and void that contract at any time before or within a reasonable time after reaching majority (subject to some statutory modifications). But under our Terms of Use, all users agree to license contributions under Creative Commons or GFDL. So in order to revoke the license under CC or GFDL, the minor would have to disaffirm the entire TOU. This is unlikely to occur, because California common law recognizes that it would be unfair to allow minors to void a contract while allowing them to reap the contractual benefits. If a user can’t give back the benefits, courts are disinclined to allow them to disaffirm. Because it’s difficult to give back the types of “benefits” derived from Wikimedia, such as education and international recognition/exposure or reputational benefits, the Terms of Use would likely stand and an attempt to revoke the license would be considered a breach of contract.

This discussion links to Wikilegal/Removal of photos of minors which is about photos of minors by minors -- and I think it should be deleted as a confusing mess that confuses licences and contracts and has the additional issue that the photo is also of the minor. The above text is better. In my mind, this seems to settle the matter. There is no legal basis for deletion. However, Commons, no matter how pissed off with AK's behaviour, should as a goodwill gesture, with no claim to set a precedent, choose to no longer host the handful of images, because it recognises this child made a mistake. Whether AK should be allowed to continue edit/upload on Wikipedia/Commons is a matter for another forum. -- Colin°^Talk 19:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

When Dcoetzee ripped off the images from the NPG the NPG complained that he had broken their Terms of Use. The lawyers at the EFF, that the WMF provided for him, pointed out the case of Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp which basically says that unless a user has unambiguously agreed to the terms of use they are not enforceable. So we have a situation here where WMF lawyers are bullshitting knowing full well that they cannot hold anyone to the Terms of Use, particularly not a child: reprehensible behavior 1. Additionally encouraging stealing from a child is reprehensible behavior 2. John lilburne (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to describe the lawyer comment as "bullshitting". They are obliged to be dispassionate about these things, which can seem cold. We on the other hand, have no obligations whatsoever to host these images. I do think this whole thing means we should reconsider the upload form and upload wizard and any other (mobile phone, API) to ensure anyone uploading images to Commons/Wikipedia is fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and any contract they have entered into. Colin°^Talk 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that, I've long wondered how well those not intimately involved actually understand the licences they're agreeing to for their content. Somewhat unrelated but it's been a particular concern of mine when people request external parties to relicence their content. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have been following this discussion and taking some time to think about this. Big picture, I believe that, in the end, this is a community issue, and the community should seek to find a non-legalistic solution which may take into account concepts outside the law - like forgiveness and second chances. That said, this decision rests within the community’s prerogative, not mine. So, with that as introduction, here are some high-level considerations:

• Minors are important to the Wikimedia community and vice versa. There are fantastic learning opportunities in participating in the Wikimedia projects. Contributors gain knowledge through research, develop reasoning skills, and grow as individuals as they contribute to the wealth of publicly available information. One growth area is comprehension of free licensing, including its value in the promotion of one’s works. As I see it, our projects should welcome everyone - young and old. And, as minors benefit from international recognition and exposure of their work, they are also entrusted with the responsibility of complying with our terms and policies. Like all of us, they may make mistakes, and, as a community, we need appropriate tools and attitudes to educate and encourage their continued participation without sacrificing our framework principles.

• We want to clarify that, as courts have recognized, minors can indeed enter into contracts and terms of use and they can insist on enforcing those terms. (See E.K.D. ex rel. Dawes v. Facebook, Inc., 885 F.Supp.2d 894 (S.D. Ill 2012)). As we previously noted in a different context, our Terms of Use - which all users consent to - specify that users may “not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that (they) have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Wikimedia Projects.” Our terms are consistent with the reply from Creative Commons staff, posted above. This is an essential part of the free knowledge movement as well as our projects. It allows the community to collaborate in creating new freely licensed content and to share it without undue friction in and outside the movement.

• I think most of you are aware of my often-repeated caveat: because of restraints under the legal code of ethics, I cannot give legal advice on the issues in this thread. I only represent WMF, and any legal dispute would be between the minor and a licensee. Only a lawyer for a party may give legal advice to that party. We are certainly sensitive to the unique nature of this case. And we support Jimmy’s gracious appeal to the common sense and understanding of the community. As s a technical legal matter, the law sometimes allows minors to revoke contracts in certain contexts but only under certain circumstances that vary by jurisdiction. They however cannot generally pick and choose to comply only with select terms in a contract. (See E.K.D. v. Facebook.) So, while we often sympathize with our users, they cannot use our site and not observe all of the ToU provisions. In other words, despite some colorful characterizations in this discussion of the position of the legal department [ :) ], to benefit from the publicity of our internationally popular website, minors who use our site need to honor their licensing obligations under the ToU.

• Fortunately, this issue rarely comes up on our projects because the Wikimedia movement has selected a creative commons license that permits contributors, of any age, to freely license their work and also sell it for a profit to others, if they so desire. The CC FAQs specifically provide that an author can license a work under a free license and also sell it under the regular copyright regime (non-exclusively). Indeed, this cc license was designed “to encourage creators and rightsholders to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.” The user can therefore promote his work by distributing it through the Wikimedia projects, which have around 500 million unique visitors per month, and then sell copies (non-exclusively). Again, this is not legal advice, but merely observations regarding the relevant cc license.

• Finally, as I said at the beginning, in my opinion, this is ultimately a community decision. Though we can endlessly discuss legal nuances, we need a community solution here. My personal opinion - which the community may accept or reject - is that our communities need to show forgiveness and allow second chances in appropriate circumstances. Jimmy is absolutely right that the community can make exceptions to delete content for various reasons. Indeed, showing empathy and understanding is what makes us a community. In deciding to delete an image from a project, the community could take into account a number of factors, including the age of a contributor. And WMF would obviously not interfere with that decision.

Thanks for this opportunity. I so much appreciate the dedication of our volunteers in helping resolve tough issues on our projects in an appropriate and equitable way. Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clear reply. Like the statement from Rubina Kwon above, it appears our discussion-focus on whether CC was irrevocable by a minor or whether CC is a contract or licence is a red herring and is anyway a legally untested issue. The point is our terms of use (contract) requires users not to seek to revoke their licence, so AK would be in breach of that contract. I do however, hope that the community will agree with your personal views on this matter. Colin°^Talk 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"The point is our terms of use (contract) requires users not to seek to revoke their licence". No. Absolutely not. The license cannot be revoked. It is AK's continued failure to grasp this point that is the problem, and the reason we cannot in good faith continue to let him/her contribute. Please do not confuse the issue by suggesting that s/he was in any way ever in a position to revoke anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realise that the link you provided to photographers "to encourage creators and rightsholders to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.” is in reference to CC-NC? Regardless, the notion that photographers can use WP or Commons as a tool for promotion of their works is baseless and bankrupt. Heck, even top photographers are harassed for trying to promote their works: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Link_to_Facebook_account Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Geoff for your detailed reply. Saffron, the matter he provided in the Author field is perfectly OK for me as a pseudonym per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4c.) JKadavoor Jee 04:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

All he needs to do is issue the hosting site (that's you at the WMF is not?) with a DMCA takedown. Then you (the WMF) can decide whether you are going to fight a child (with the attendant publicity) over whether you can enforce your Terms of Use, which you cannot show that he unambiguously agreed to, (in fact when he uploaded the work he said he didn't) or remove the content, which if the WMF office had any honour they would have already done. John lilburne (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that sending a DMCA notification will get the works taken down. It will also probably get AK banned from the site for life. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I read the suggestion by John lilburne over a day ago when it was the latest (well lowest down) post to this thread. I was thinking of saying at the time but in the end didn't bother. Then the thread to ban AK came up and based on comments here and in that discussion, I misunderstood and thought AK had already taken that cause of action and voted to ban accordingly. It seems I was mistaken but my comments there that I've now struck out express my views on this. While it AK's right to issue any takedown request as allowed under the law, they should recognise that doing so may result in a indef ban from both en and commons (indef as long as the takedown notice is in effect or perhaps if the foundation decides to fight it which I think we all agreeing is unlikely pending the outcome of that process), similar to the way we handle other legal threats. Note as I said there, I personally, and I expect others, would support such a ban even though I would also suggest a removal of the images from commons as a once in a lifetime courtesy. It is unfortunate that people are suggesting this course of action without mentioning the possible outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

1) No one can ban him from here for life. 2) He is young way under 16, a child. If my child had been treated the way that this one has I wouldn't want him interacting here in such a toxic bullying environment. A simple request of his to have an image removed because he'd been badly advised at the outset has been turned, by grasping Commons bullies, into existential attack upon the entire site. John lilburne (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have just a claim he's underage but no verification of this claim so somewhat hard for a definitive decision what to do with his contributions. Images won't be deleted without a verifgication via OTRS, only then a deletion may be possible. I doubt images will be deleted if he's 16+ (or even 14+). --Denniss (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[1] JKadavoor Jee 07:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is the usual failure to get any sense of perspective. It is a handful of images, nearly all of which are either unused or replaceable from our stock [I found one butterfly and accompanying article that is here solely because of AK]. For example the particular butterfly that started this, is replaceable with File:AutumnLeaf20.jpg, which is just fine. For some things, I might want formal age verification, but asking it for this just makes us look ridiculous. This isn't the next Essjay controversy, nor is it the end of child-editing on WP/Commons, it is just a schoolkid who made a mistake with a few pictures. Do you seriously think this isn't a child -- that perhaps we're being taken for fools by some 30-year-old professional photographer who wants to make $$$$ from some butterfly pics? If that's the case, he's made a complete fool of himself online, and for the sake of a few pictures I'd rather be guilty of being gullible than of being a jerk. Colin°^Talk 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The age of majority in the US is 18, and if a 17yo can return a damaged car and repudiate the purchase agreement, and that the dealer suck up the damage costs, then a 16 yo can request that a website deletes a butterfly photo. Its this grasping lack of common sense that makes wikipedians look like jerks whenever they open their mouths. John lilburne (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If that were true under US law than it would be stupid for any cardealer to make such a sale. Equally a ban on all under-age users should be called for here. I guess though that laws on minority are similarly graded as they are in other countries. Agathoclea (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Here Lemke seeks restitution of the value of the depreciation by virtue of the damage to the vehicle prior to disaffirmance. Such a recovery would require Halbman to return more than that remaining in his possession. It seeks compensatory value for that which he cannot return. Where there is misrepresentation by a minor or willful destruction of property, the vendor may be able to recover damages in tort. See, e.g., Kiefer v. Fred Howe Motors, Inc., supra; 42 Am. Jur.2d Infants sec. 105 (1969). But absent these factors, as in the present case, we believe that to require a disaffirming minor to make restitution for diminished value is, in effect, to bind the minor to a part of the obligation which by law he is privileged to avoid. See: Nelson v. Browning, supra at 875-76; Williston, supra, sec. 238, 39-41.

Indeed it is the law and I linked to it above. Additional case here. John lilburne (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AK's files have now been deleted from Commons. Colin°^Talk 12:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sense at last. I predict that WP will not cease to be tomorrow. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh "common sense", the worthless shortcut of putting your gut feelings above logic and reasoning. Anyway. No, WP won't case to be tomorrow, but a very ugly, very dangerous precedent has been set. Now every contribution to WMF projects is in jeopardy, because hey, if AK had his contributions revoked, why shouldn't anyone else? -- cyclopia^speak! 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand English? I don't mind my text contributions being CC-0. Absolutely fine. But my images are treasured, so I'm very fussy about it. Get it? ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand English. What you do not understand is that what you "don't mind" or what you are "very fussy" about is irrelevant legally, and it should also be irrelevant here as a matter of policy. What happens when some next guy instead is "very fussy" about their text contributions? -- cyclopia^speak! 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That is always the danger when one relies on the work of children. But its not the child's fault that is the fault of whomever it is that is doing the relying. When the GNU and CC licenses was drawn up they most likely had no concept of children being the major contributors to some work. Most likely when Larry Sanger first proposed sourcing an encyclopaedia via a wiki, he wasn't thinking of children being the main contributors either. Once again that isn't the child's fault and the law has been in place since the 1200s. So if you don't like it get the law changed, or arrange things so that the site isn't dependent on children being misled into licensing content they had no intention of doing. John lilburne (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Even though AK is sadly Indef blocked; it made a result: Commons:Courtesy_deletions. JKadavoor Jee 09:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Though surely unintended, this might be misleading, as AK's uploads were not deleted out of courtesy, but as we had to consider them as never been validly licensed due to AK's ongoing not-understanding of CC licensing (similar to WP:CIR). --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio, you've got that completely backwards. AK's uploads were deleted as a courtesy -- in the sense that Commons freely chose to do so, recognising this was a child who made a mistake. The legal advice we got was they were validly licensed and that AK could not legally require us to remove them or change the terms. See deletion closing comments. Colin°^Talk 13:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As I was the one who finally pushed for these deletions[2], please don't you tell me my rationale, especially as it is open to read for everybody[3],[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The files were deleted by A. Savin with these closing words. Everyone can read them. I'm not telling you yourrationale because your rationale isn't worth repeating -- it is wrong, as clearly stated by legal council. Please just let others read the legal statements and closing words without adding your own misinterpretations. Colin°^Talk 14:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems you didn't care to read Geoff's statement: I cannot give legal advice on the issues in this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't see the "My personal opinion" part? Further, you didn't see this edit? JKadavoor Jee 15:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio, *sigh*. I read all of Geoff's statement. Of course he can't give advice that appears to be specific to that thread, that's something he legally can't do. But his general legal comment is quite easy to apply to our situation. The statement "as we had to consider them as never been validly licensed due to AK's ongoing not-understanding of CC licensing" is utterly utterly wrong. To say such after Geoff's statement must be making him shake his head and wonder why he bothered. And then there's also the personal opinion part, which is where he encourages us to consider a courtesy deletion, which we did. Please, rather than fight this, just find a friend to explain it to you. Colin°^Talk 19:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Tut tut tut Colin. The one legal case that Geoff brought to the table was E.K.D. ex rel. Dawes v. Facebook, Inc. That case deals with whether a minor can pick and chose parts of a contract to disaffirm. They can't they have to disaffirm all of it which is what he did, he disaffirmed the entire contract. John lilburne (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

John, you appear to be conducting original research from the legal document, and not from what Geoff said. And AK has not "disaffirmed the entire contract". I'm really disappointed that despite clear wording from legal (both Geoff and Rkwon) and the clearest possible courtesy deletion, people continue to spread confusion here. I fail to see what purpose there is to that. If you remain confused about it, go ask a friend please. I'm glad that finally Commons has the beginnings of policy/guideline on courtesy deletions and that we can work on that rather than the mess that amateur lawyering and hard-nosed bullies have brought us. Colin°^Talk 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

read carefully what he says, 1. minors can void contracts, 2. If they do they have to void it entirely, 3. You lot had better find a way to remove the images (call it a curtesy) before we have to wipe every trace of him from the site. 4. Capice! John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Carefully then: JL: "minors can void contracts" GB: "the law sometimes allows minors to revoke contracts in certain contexts but only under certain circumstances that vary by jurisdiction". JL: "If they do they have to void it entirely" GB: "They however cannot generally pick and choose to comply only with select terms in a contract... they cannot use our site and not observe all of the ToU provisions...minors who use our site need to honor their licensing obligations under the ToU". Rkwon puts this another way "If a user can’t give back the benefits, courts are disinclined to allow them to disaffirm. Because it’s difficult to give back the types of “benefits” derived from Wikimedia, such as education and international recognition/exposure or reputational benefits, the Terms of Use would likely stand and an attempt to revoke the license would be considered a breach of contract." So your first statement is an over confident generalisation. The second is misleading because he can't "void it entirely" -- perhaps he could do this after agreeing to the ToU and before actually editing/uploading, but once he's benefited from the site, he can't decide to reject the few terms he doesn't like. And AK wants to continue editing so he certainly hasn't torn up the ToU. But what Geoff and Rkwon and Newyorkbrad (below) are saying is that some of this is untested in the courts, WP is a bit unusual, and the courts aren't really a desirable way of handling this: the community should have seen common sense long before anyone starts burning cash with legal teams, or issuing take-down notices (which would get them banned). It is only a few butterfly pictures. Let's move on. Colin°^Talk 07:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And Jimmy, is this the way we treat a kid here? JKadavoor Jee 10:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly lost my temper when I saw that. @AndyTheGrump:, what a disgraceful comment. Insulam Simia (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: Perspective needed

It is time to regain a sense of perspective here. I'm an attorney myself, but the legal angle is often not the best starting point for framing a wiki discussion, and it certainly isn't here. If we are doing legal thought-experiments, the chances that the free nature of the Wiki(p/m)edia project(s) is going to be impaired by minors withdrawing their consent to licensing, are about the same as that odds the free-content English Wikipedia is going to collapse when editors or their heirs start to become entitled to assert their termination interests under the Copyright Act beginning in 2036.

To the extent a minor, or for that matter any other, editor wants to withdraw an isolated image from Commons or En-WP or any other project, or perhaps a short article that no one has touched, and the content is not irreplaceable without undue effort, we should accommodate the request as a courtesy. Of course, to the extent the contribution is textual and it has become embedded in an article, we need not accommodate a belated request to remove it. Relevant factors in evaluating any such request include the good faith of the request, the effect that allowing it would have on the content, and any other surrounding circumstances. I would consider reevaluating my views on this topic if it were shown that these requests are beseiging the projects and actually causing disruption, but no one has claimed that is the case.

Short of service of a formal DMCA notice, legal considerations such as capacity to contract will rarely, if ever, play a dominant role in this analysis. Indeed, although Geoff and Philippe have made good points, the entire legal discussion is fictive: Just because a court would not enforce a 17-year-old's contract to buy a house, does not mean it would not enforce his or her "contract" to allow some sentences to be included in an online encyclopedia.

The edge case, in which a 17-year-old writes The Great American Novel and naively uploads it to Wikisource before his agent finds out about it, is left as an exercise for the reader.

Whether Arctic Kangaroo should be allowed to continue editing and on what terms is a separate matter on which I make no comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to hear ArbCom is seriously discussing this matter than leaving him to the mouths of some disgraceful. JKadavoor Jee 04:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems sensible and I have been wondering why a simply request of the uploader and author would not be treated with the same consideration as would be with text when a good faith request is made to delete an article that has few to no other contributions. As for the whether the editor should be allowed to edit here or not, that would seem to be a matter of out terms of service. What does it say about age requirement for registration?--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It neither lists a minimum age nor a maximum age. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad and note he is talking about "withdraw an isolated image from Commons" (in our case, it started with one and became a small handful). If a user got into a huff with WP/Commons and wanted to revoke hundreds of their contributed images, that would be a different game altogether. Doing a courtesy deletion will always be an ad hoc small-scale thing, and us doing it for one or a few images for one user does not compel us to doing it for hundreds, or for everyone who asks. Colin°^Talk 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Evil world views"

In the previous discussion on Wikipedia and racism you hatted the discussion with: "We have the right and the ethical responsibility to ban people who bring evil world views to Wikipedia".

Care to clarify what are the "evil world views"? Sure, racism enters into it, and I agree, personally, that racism is evil. But what else? Is belonging to the Catholic church, a frankly not-so-nice towards LGBT people organization, an evil world view as well? I would say so. Who is going to decide what world views are good and what ones are evil? Is communism allowed? Anarchism? Paleoconservatism? What does Wikipedia consider good or evil on abortion? What about euthanasia? (An editor, User:Count Iblis, just got blocked because he made a comment in support of euthanasia, a few days ago, by the way). And what about eating dog meat?

I am asking because I'm frankly terrified of the idea that Wikipedia only allows people who think in a certain way to edit. Sure, I should feel safe: I am a fairly liberal, run-of-the-mill Western editor who despises racism,pedophilia,homophobia etc. But who knows what of my political or philosophical opinions will be considered evil tomorrow. You know, First they came... -- cyclopia^speak! 10:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I firmly oppose Jimbo's view that we should ban people who have a particular ideology, no matter how horrifying. I accept that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, but I really do not see the harm in someone on the far-right editing if they are doing so objectively and with a neutral point-of-view. — Richard BB 11:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Who decides? We do. Through thoughtful and kind conversation exploring the pro's and con's of drawing the line in different places, taking into account all the relevant facts. My point is that neither extreme is a viable or productive option. On the one hand is the extreme view that no matter how vile and reprehensible one behaves outside Wikipedia, editing is still welcomed as long as it doesn't technically break any already-written rules. On the other hand is the extreme view that only a narrow range of people of appropriate opinions can edit Wikipedia. We want to have diversity and thoughtfulness. Some views, though, are simply and plainly lunatic and beyond the range of reasonable, and we can and should take a very dim view of people espousing them.

In general, it's worth adding, this is a fairly academic or purely philosophical question. As a matter of empirical fact, people who hold destructive philosophies generally find themselves unable to function well in a community based on reasoned discourse. We can imagine, for the fun of a discussion, a perfectly polite and reasonable editor of Jewish history who also writes a personal blog advocating for a 2nd Holocaust, but in reality, that's extremely unlikely. Similarly, and again, I haven't looked at the specific case mentioned above, a KKK member who reasonably and thoughtfully edits is just extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a KKK member who sometimes makes minor edits in some area of pop culture trivia - and losing such an editor is not going to cause anyone, especially not me, to shed a tear. Why? Because putting out the view that we are a humane and ethical community who welcome thoughtful people is going to gain us much much better editors in the long run, than toleration of jerks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

*clap* *clap* *clap* It is OK to espouse whatever lunatic or vile view one wants. But what any mainstream organisation doesn't want is to have such espousers associated with the organisation, regardless as to whether they promulgate their views within organisation or not. Not only is it bad PR for the organisation but it also puts a burden on the organisation to be ever watchful that the espouser isn't promulgating their views within the organisation. John lilburne (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. What John said. Most people are, rightly, selective about the company they keep - and that extends to the volunteer organisations they choose to give their time to. Begoon ^talk 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with this comment and with John's. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jimbo, the whole point is that what is "evil", "vile", "reprehensible", "lunatic", "beyond the range of reasonable" are entirely subjective opinions, that depend on the specific culture, upbringing and personal circumstances. There is almost no opinion that isn't found "evil" by some other culture. For example, in many cultures tolerance for LGBT rights would be considered as "evil", "lunatic" and "beyond the range of reasonable", while we obviously think the opposite. But we don't have to go this far. Slapping your own kids is considered horrible in many Western cultures, while not doing it is considered bad parenting in Italy, a first-world European country (even if things are changing now). What do we do with editors who in perfect good faith, in a civilized European country, nevertheless think that giving a slap here and there is a healthy thing to grow up a healthy child, and that is the majority opinion between reasonable people there? Do we ban them as evil kid beaters?

Also, you have to take into account that in some countries -again Western ones- political parties that we can consider downright "evil" represent a huge amount of people. In Italy the not-so-covert xenophobic party Lega Nord has up to 30% representation in some Northern regions. In France the far-right Front National (France) has similar percentages. Do you want to ban 30% of the population of a Western country from editing Wikipedia due to political views? And again, and I am dead serious, what about religions who have a staunch anti-same sex marriage position, for example? Because that's not far from racism, in my book.

Now, I'm not saying that people should be free to proudly advocate whatever they like. I understand very well that there are lines to be drawn, if we don't want to become a nasty mess, but these lines should be drawn in the sand of behaviours, not of private life positions. The day an editor endorses, on WP, explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic views, for example, I am all for showing them the door, because this would create a problem in the task of having a world-wide inclusive community of editors. But if we begin to have to look at what editors think in their spare time, this is opening the door to becoming the thoughtpolice. A tongue-in-cheek Facebook status, an out of context remark somewhere that can be twisted, would easily become weapons to remove editors from WP. You say we should not tolerate jerks. We should not. But the only way to be a jerk is to behave like one. Thinking like a jerk cannot be a crime.-- cyclopia^speak! 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you stick to the specific example under discussion instead of raising straw men. We are talking about the KKK here. Lynchers, murderers and espousers of hate. We all know that someone in the KKK is a nasty piece of work, no one has defended being in the KKK. We aren't talking about a random facebook post either, this person knowingly identified themselves on a neo-nazi forum as a member of the KKK and also posted what can only be described as hate filled messages. We only know what he thinks because he posted his thoughts on the internet. There is no ambiguity here. For people who keep making the slippery slope arguments; once we open our door to extremists, where does it end? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point that myself and Cyclopia are making is that his comments were not made to Wikipedia. Seemingly, his political views (and I'd argue that he probably defends being in the KKK) have not influenced his editing on Wikipedia (or is there something that I've missed?). Yes, he is going to be a nasty piece of work if he is a Klansman, but as long as that life is kept separate from Wikipedia there shouldn't be an issue. In answer to your final question: it ends when their views affect their ability to edit constructively. — Richard BB 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, he posted that stuff on the Internet, elsewhere. That's exactly what I'm talking about. He thinks stuff. He thinks what we, in our culture, subjectively, see as very nasty stuff. But on WP, he keeps it for himself. And it's not me doing slippery slope arguments, Jimbo himself escalated from "being in the KKK" to "evil world views" in general, and that's what is worrying. Nobody here should be in a position to distinguish the Good from the Evil, no editor, no WMF employee, nobody. Because "good" and "evil" are subjective values, they are emanations of each ones' culture and conscience. In a diverse community, with editors worldwide, from a huge variety of backgrounds and opinions, we can only speak about what practically makes the place workable, and sanction behaviours that are factually detrimental. Not personal opinions. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What relativistic nonsense. If someone can't distinguish Good from Evil they are morally deficient. And judging good from evil is precisely what you are capable of doing, as you have said "The day an editor endorses, on WP, explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic views, for example, I am all for showing them the door". You are very capable of judging things when it suits you, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You may call it "relativistic nonsense", but fact is that different cultures have different values with different notions of what is good and what is evil, and there is no known objective algorithm capable of distinguishing the two, no matter how some (bad) philosophers squirm about it. I distinguish between "good" and "evil" every day, but that's what is good and evil for me, not for some absolute system written in the laws of physics. About my comment, it is not because advocating such views is intrinsically evil: there is no such thing as intrinsic evil. It is because, practically, such open on-wiki advocacy would drive editors away, and this would be objectively damaging for the project. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

... and you think having editors who are openly Ku Klux Klan and NAMBLA members won't drive people away and doesn't damage wikipedia? The "its not for us to censor people" mantra doesn't work outside of the wikipedia bubble. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because strangely enough I don't go around doxing other editors and checking what do they believe outside WP (and WP:OUTING requires us not to do so as well). So, if I do not know that someone is a KKK/NAMBLA/SPECTRE member, I can't be driven away by it. And even if I did, as long as they don't become vocal about it, they're not a threat to me or to anyone. They only become so if they begin to advocate explicitly, on site, discriminatory stuff, then making feel other editors explicitly unwelcome. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jimmy, I have to disagree that "no matter how vile and reprehensible one behaves outside Wikipedia, editing is still welcomed" is too extreme. Nobody should be cut off from humanity - that really would be evil, ask Amnesty International - and we should not play that game in our little microcosm. The only excuse for cutting them off from our "anyone-can-edit" Wikipedia is if they become excessively disruptive to other editors - which, as you point out, is highly likely. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say - take a deep breath, go outside, play with a child. Banning someone from Wikipedia is not cutting them off from humanity. Far from it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jimmy. I didn't say it was, I said it was a microcosm. The same morality applies whatever the scale. The morality is that one should treat them with the same personal respect as everyone else - even our kids. ;) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We aren't an experiment in democracy. This is a private website. It's not some encroachment on their first amendment rights or whatever; they have no implied rights to be here. Invoking Amnesty international makes no sense in this context. Not being allowed to edit an encyclopedia is not being "cut off from humanity". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Should then we substitute "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with "the encyclopedia that people that endorse a well-defined subset of philosophical views can edit"? -- cyclopia^speak! 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are already thousands of individuals we don't allow to edit here. If you wanted to change it to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except those in hate groups", I don't think that would be as damaging as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even KKK members". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow these editors to edit because of how they did behave, not about what did they think. -- cyclopia^speak! 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. At least we agree that Wikipedia is a microcosm and not the real deal. And it's true that we have no equivalent of Amnesty International, other than our collective consciences. We "should be" what we want to be, and we like to pretend on ethical grounds to "anyone can edit". Barring the disruptive minority is necessary to protect that freedom for the majority, barring evil thinkers is not. Let us either live up to our ethics or abandon the pretence. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honest question: Can anyone show a diff that shows this individual has "brought an evil world view" into Wikipedia? Lets see the evidence. If not, there is nothing to do. Also, homophobia is bigotry in the same category as racism. Given the percentages of people in the general public that believe 'teh gays are evil', if you are going to start prosecuting editors for thought crime, then you had better put your doxing shoes on and get set to ban a not insignificant number of editors. Resolute 14:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Some views, though, are simply and plainly lunatic and beyond the range of reasonable, and we can and should take a very dim view of people espousing them is a position I agree with wholeheartedly. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I can get behind that. Doubt the lunatics will join us though... Begoon ^talk 14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. For example it is completely lunatic and unreasonable to think that there is an objective way, free of cultural bias, to separate world views that are "good" from ones that are "evil", and anyone who thinks there is an Absolute Good or an Absolute Evil clearly is not in her/his right mind...Oh wait. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been accused of having an "evil worldview" based only on who I have voted for or agreeing with the Zimmerman verdict, I have to be very leery of Jimbo's statements and side with Cyclopia. I defended Wikipedia in a fairly prominent conservative blog basically because it distinguishes itself from much of academia by keeping Neutral Point of View as a bedrock. If Wikipedia is now going to decide what are "reasonable" viewpoints and what are not, you can kiss NPOV goodbye (if not tomorrow at least eventually)Thelmadatter (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one really gives a rat's ass what you think, cyclopia. See, this is what the bleeding hearts of the 21st century do; they are aghast at anything that causes offense, and wring their hands over each and everything in the universe that may cause another person to feel bad. "Oh, what, a KKK member? They're just people with a different opinion, let them in!" "Hey, pedophiles? Don't ostracize them, that will just make them feel bad since "nobody should be cut off from humanity". What what people like cyclopia will do is toss out a billion and one absurd examples..."what about X?", "what about Y?", "what about Z?" which serves to dilute the original Truly Bad Things(tm) we were originally discussing. This is the typical defense deployed by the "Friends of Commons" to defend their smut and depravity; someone finds an objectionable image of a teen boy's thighs or a topless Mardi Gras woman, and out comes the "What about XYZ?" trope. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately no one really gives a rat's ass what you think too, tarc (ironically enough, someone just endorsed me right above, and others did too - but that's not a popularity contest, is it?). About the "bleeding hearts", um, you got it upside-down. It's more that I am not aghast of anything that causes offense, or at least that we should not be as aghast of such views as to take pitchforks and torchs and go around making political cleansings. And there is no absurd example: examples I did are very much real. You see, if I should decide what is a disgusting opinion, I for sure would ban people who believe in witch-hunt-era concepts like "depravity" in a heartbeat. But differently from you, I know it's just my opinion, and I think you have the right to disagree with me. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia is absolutely right about this issue - with one exception. Given the recent statements and activities of Pope Francis, it no longer seems fair to single out the Catholic church as an evil organization. The Russian Orthodox Church, on the other hand, is another matter.^[5][6][7] Indeed, their efforts have even inspired some people to fight pedophilia...^[8] I would suggest that at this point, membership in the Russian Orthodox Church is literally, not rhetorically, as bad as membership in the Ku Klux Klan. I'm not saying, of course, that every member of the church participates in brutal acts - neither does every Klansman. If Wikipedia adopts a standard of banning Klansmen but not banning Russian Orthodox members, it is officially promulgating the point of view that gay rights, and attacks on gays, are less important than the equivalent racial rights. There is no mistaking that. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh of course, Wnt, I completely forgot about the innocent Klan members who didn't participate in any brutal acts. Like the guys who just did the books, or drew up the posters, or laundered the sheets, or ran down to the hardware store when someone forgot to inventory the rope supplies. Silly me, thanks for pointing out the existence of the non-brutalizing Klansmen. Wnt, you're a peach. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The KKK had peak membership around 6 million, and killed 3446 black people in its 86 year history. [9] True, I think bizarrely enough they kill more of their own members, and there were many more beatings and many more acts of intimidation than that, and even more acts of vandalism and harassment - nonetheless, the bottom line is that today's KKK is not in the news any more, except occasionally begging in court with their ACLU lawyers for the right to hold a rally. I bet half the people in it are sad saps roped in by a father or brother or boss or somebody who are just going through the motions. Wnt (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Block them all and let God sort it out? Rhetoric aside, my question remains unanswered. Is there evidence of a user using Wikipedia to push a racist POV? Resolute 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to Jimbo (see hat above), We can ban people for being awful human beings, no less, so that he did or he didn't is not relevant anymore, it seems. Now I only wonder who is an awful human being and who isn't. Is someone who cheated on his wife an awful human being? What about someone who never donates to charities? -- cyclopia^speak! 16:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to provide for us the dickish "what if what if what if...?" scenarios that I noted earlier. You're the gift that keeps on giving, champ. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, honey. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We claim to want to oppose the systemic bias of western, white young techies dominating editing and yet by claiming that what the western political establishment says is okay but believe anything else and you are out we are merely encouraging systemic bias, eg there is far more opposition to LGBT rights in the 3rd world than in the developed west, I guess ppl are saying we dont want these ppl here. Wales comments are extremely depressing and I fear too many arent really interested in a good encyclopedia, they just want a witch hunt, as evidenced here. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When someone identifies themselves as a witch on a public forum for witches, there isn't much sport left in the hunt. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I lost interest a while ago. But the dribbling is mildly amusing (albeit a little sad) to pop back and watch occasionally (thanks to whoever I borrowed that apt term "dribbling" from - I forget). Begoon ^talk 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't want to go down that path. I don't want to ban Russian Orthodox editors, and indeed, I would never even have mentioned them here if we could have agreed not to single out other editors, i.e. KKK, for exclusion. I provided that as a counterexample, not a call for discrimination, and I want them to be free to document their POV the same as anyone else, including the Klansmen. NPOV is not some kind of extracted, purified, whitewashed essence - it is a white light generated by taking all the colors of nature and throwing them together. But first we have to agree to let people speak, not cull out one group after another. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In 2010 "85.2 percent [of Jamaicans] were opposed to legalizing homosexuality" according to LGBT rights in Jamaica. Does this mean less than 15% of Jamaicans are welcome to edit the project? Is this desirable? Do we then have a right to complain about a US/western bias at wikipedia? And could banning the great majority of Jamaicans for homophobia itself be racist given 98% of the population are black? Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the precise logic that leads many of us to say that KKK members and apologists for pedophilia should remain welcome on the site. That is the only logical way to have one Wikipedia. The other alternative forces us to make one decision after another about who is right and who is wrong, and if forced to do so, we would have to do so based on our own beliefs. That is to say, if we had no choice but to settle for "Wikipedia in one country", for many of us that country would be the U.S. and the value judgments made would be those of Americans, because even American self-loathing doesn't extend to the point of choosing some other country's intolerances. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about someone who thinks homosexuality is bad or votes against legislation. This is about the people that have a position in the organization that is drumming up the hatred. John lilburne (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Pope's recent comments notwithstanding, that position pretty much obigates us to ban anyone who is identified as an adherent of most major religions. Resolute 19:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure if the primary purpose of the religion is to promote hatred then why would one want their preacher here? John lilburne (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Promoting hatred is not the primary purpose of religion. Actually, it seems to me that the real hatred here is being directed at religious people. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that you could single out a few extreme cases like the KKK that most people could agree on, and that therefore sliding slope arguments have no merit, because people will not agree on other cases that are more controversial. But this is not true, as there are plenty of groups on which there is a strong consensus that they are extremist groups, albeit less so than the KKK. So, once it is a legitimate argument to raise against an editor that he is a KKK member and must therefore be banned, someone else can raise that you are a member of a less extremist group X and must therefore be, say, topic banned until you renounce your belief in X. Sooner or later, merely having views that most people disagree with will lead to some form of restriction against you editing related topics on Wikipedia.

The rules we have on Wikipedia are not static, they evolve and they will evolve toward internal consistency. If it is not consistent that a believer in X should not be restricted at all while KKK members get banned and the latter is not going to be overturned, the former will change. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Really, the problem is that most people here are ignorant about the modern Klan because they are not given a full, accurate picture by their trusted media. People treat the Klan today as a monolithic entity and judge it as the same Klan that existed decades ago. The overwhelming majority of groups and individual members are as law-abiding as the rest of us. Generally, they're just a bunch of disparate groups with racist views that advocate for white rights and white heritage, typically by passing out pamphlets, staging rallies, and having barbecues in public parks. If we go with banning Klan members it would be the same as saying we should ban members of the British National Party, the National Front in France, and other far-right groups known for objectionable views about minorities or minority groups with similar views such as the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see that your apologist shtick extends to racist organizations as well as the usual groups that you stick up for at the Wikipediocracy, TDA. Though I cannot say I'm really surprised. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So, should TDA be banned as well? Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Filed under "W" for "wishful thinking". Tarc (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Apologist" is one of those insults that is basically akin to saying "you are bad because you disagree with me" as it offers nothing else of substance. I do not believe membership, current or former, in any group should be used on its own as a basis for denying someone the ability to contribute here, including to pages related to the groups and their respective ideologies. That I include racist groups in that is simply a mark of my principled consistency.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means confident in the modern Klan's peacefulness - it ranks right up there with a boy's love and a whore's oath in terms of reliability. What I am confident about is that cracking down on them by force would set them off, whereas, in the general sense of what is right and wrong for society that Jimbo wants to go along with, there is nothing more beneficial than to draw them in to editing and reading and arguing on Wikipedia. What we have to remember is - what we have to have faith about - is that we are right about racial equality. That means that every single neuron in the Klansman's head is a potential traitor waiting to be activated, and every moment he is reading Wikipedia, they are in communication with the enemy. We need merely recognize that justice will prevail. Wnt (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"A whore's oath"—there's another thought. I take it as granted that we would ban anyone who is known to engage in prostitution—either selling or purchasing—in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal. They're not just "bad people;" they're actual criminals, who according to anti-prostitution campaigners are a threat to respectable society, and who, even if only engaged in adult prostitution, create a demand for child sex trafficking. Or does Wikipedia support criminals now?

Wnt also noted above that the ACLU aids and abets the present-day Ku Klux Klan, by giving them legal aid when requested, so I imagine an official pronouncement banning ACLU members is forthcoming? Hey, as a bonus, that would give Wikipedia some good karma among the conservative moral campaigners, many of whom view the ACLU as about as favorably as Stalin. I imagine improving the project's public relations with such people is a priority, given all the hand-wringing that goes on here about Commons containing pictures of boobies and wieners. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another argument which I don't think has been mentioned in this discussion so far. One can ask how it is possible for people to have extremist views in this day and age where information is freely available that debunks their beliefs, the total opposite of the situation in Nazi Germany with their Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. What happens is that the extremist ideas are protected from debunking by including conspiracy theories about the media not being free, that scientists are not doing their job properly etc. etc. People are not born as extremists, they can get infected by extremist ideas, but this can only work if the conspiracy theories about the offical sources not being reliable are going to have some traction. So, if Wikipedia would be known for allowing people, regardless of their views no matter how extreme to edit here, then that would help in the fight against extremism. Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would wikipedia want to do that? I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia not help the govts of the world in their fight against extremism/anything they disagree with. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not per se to help any government, but we would make the content of Wikipedia to be seen to be reliable to a wider audience that would include people susceptible to Neo-Nazi propaganda, people susceptible to be recruited by the Taliban etc. etc. So, we would simply be doing our own job better and that would help people to debunk ideas that are known to be wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you never met or interacted with a conspiracy theoriest? People claim there is a conspiracy to suppress perpetual motion machines, despite the existence of the internet with several websites hosting the claimed devices, schematics and forums. Reason does not need to figure into conspiratorial ideation. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree, Iblis, that if we publicly ban members of the KKK for nothing to do with what they do on site or what they say about us offsite that all white supremacists will dismiss wikipedia and that is arguably an argument to not ban KKK members for simply being KKK members, we are here to educate ppl and racism, especially as practiced by a group like the KKK whose forefathehrs forcibly brought African Americans to the USA and are now whingeing about this. While the media love to cook up scandals around wikipedia (I myself have been a victim of their lies without the resources to sue for my work here) surely we should be judged by the quality of our encyclopedias and to hell with what the media say about wikipedia that is not directly related to the quality of our articles. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and to reply to IRWolfie, consider the son of a KKK member who asks his father critical questions based on what he read on Wikipedia that seem to contradict what his father has told him. While the son won't convice his father that what he read is correct, it will be a lot easier for the father to convice his son of his beliefs if Wikipedia were to be known for not allowing KKK members to edit. Count Iblis (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Something else which was mentioned earlier, but not here, and which I think Jimbo has ignored, is that saying that people who are members of hate groups can be banned creates an incentive for outing--now, some Wikipedians will pry into the personal lives of others as much as they can in the hope of finding something that will get them banned. And yet another factor to consider is that proving oneself innocent has a cost. It's not really enough to say that "thoughtful and kind conversation" will lead to only people getting banned who really should. What about the people who don't get banned, but in order to avoid being banned were forced to participate in a thoughtful and kind flamewar in order to prove themselves nonbanworthy? Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, c'mon, who doesn't love a little Two Minutes' Hate? Anyone refusing to participate is self-evidently a Brotherhood agent, and should be banned (and reported to the Ministry of Love of course). --108.38.191.162 (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

When someone disgusts a normal community, that community expels them. This purging is a necessary function of any healthy society. We are not like that though. There is no limit to our tolerance. We harbor anybody due to our decision to allow anonymous editing.

But we can block any username associated with advocacy of evil behaviours, on- or off-wiki. And so we should. Those of you bleating about the editor's rights have nothing to worry about. They can still edit. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

When someone disgusts a normal community, that community expels them. This purging is a necessary function of any healthy society. - Perhaps you mean "this purging is a necessary function of any xenophobic tribal community". After all, a vast majority of Europeans, unfortunately, even ones tolerant of all other etnies, are still disgusted by Romani people: are you advocating Europeans should expel them? Your views don't seem far away from the ones you find disgusting. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one's suggesting we may be intolerant of Roma or Jews, just pedophiles and Nazis. And your argument that if we reject Nazis and pedophiles we're somehow equivalent to those who reject Roma and Jews is ... words fail me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Backpedaling won't get you far. You didn't mention pedos and Nazis in your comment. You expressed a much more general principle. Your words: When someone disgusts a normal community, that community expels them. This purging is a necessary function of any healthy society. Given the current public opinion in southern European states (which I'm sadly well aware of, being from there), you just justified the expulsion of Roma people from there. I am sure that is not what you actually meant, but that is what your stated principle justifies. And that "if we reject Nazis and pedophiles we're somehow equivalent to those who reject Roma and Jews" is not my argument. That is, instead, the logical consequence of your stated principle quoted above.

But since race and opinions are not the same thing, you can be justified in saying that you meant "disgusting ideologies". Let's make a better example. In many communities of United States, as far as I know speaking with Americans, being an atheist is considered somewhat disgusting. Do you agree that such communities should expel atheists? -- cyclopia^speak! 10:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What Anthonyhcole is forgetting is that the offer to make an edit on Wikipedia is not offered as an indulgence to editors, but as a necessity for absorbing content into the site. If "advocacy" is pursued on Wikipedia, of course, he may quickly have a case - we don't want Klansmen participating to skew articles about black history to fringe viewpoints. However, if what they want to do is to document the confusing relationships between 200 Klan chapters, explain the roles of all their fancifully named positions from Kleagles to Klanta Klaus, then we should welcome this. We should welcome this, among other reasons, because if the Klan does decide to go out and lynch someone, that kind of detail is going to help a future prosecutor understand who to interrogate and what questions to ask. Their edits are not an indulgence to them; they are an indulgence to us. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be working on a different WP than I am, Wnt. On this one we record what reliable sources say about a subject, not what people involved with the subject say about themselves. You seem to be conflating the idea of banning self-identified KKK members with omitting content about the KKK. Those are very different things. And I would suggest that any prosecutor who bases his or her decisions on what they have read on WP is doing a disservice to all parties in the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF? What prohibits our hypothetical Klansman to use RS? -- cyclopia^speak! 16:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Who said they couldn't? Try to follow the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If they can, your On this one we record what reliable sources say about a subject, not what people involved with the subject say about themselves. remark makes no sense. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Delicious.... under your argument, there then is no reason for Wikipedia to put effort into recruiting women and people from under-represented parts of the world, because Wikipedia only compiles information already out there. Even with the information available, someone familiar with the subject will generally do a better job of finding good sources and evaluating the information before putting it into WP. Not to mention the fact that volunteers will write about what interests them. The basic problem is that Jimmy's original arguments departs from the original principle that it is not about who is writing, it is about the quality of the writing. If the product is good and meets Wikipedia rules, we really shouldnt care who is doing the writing. We can evaluate the writing on its merits using pretty objective criteria, we cant really evaluate the person for all the reasons stated above.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make an argument. I just reiterated what is already WP practice and policy. We use reliable sources, not personal knowledge. If you think this means that we shouldn't address the disparities in the Community's makeup, that's your opinion, not mine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that they should violate OR. The point is, there are a lot of racist publications - many primary sources, but still valid for saying that chapter XXX and YYY merged in 2002 - which I do not expect I would find at my local public library, and which may well never have been digitized. Additionally, they know where to look and I don't. It is possible that they could do some neutral edits to add such sourced material to relevant articles which would help people better to understand what is going on. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you suggesting you want to actually encourage KKK members to edit here? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. If they arent using wikipedia to promote their own beliefs and stick to our rules surely there is nobody we shouldnt allow to edit, or we cant say its the encyclopedia anyone can edit (ie anyone who doesnt break our editing rules). The more diversity of editors who can write in an NPOV way the better. The problem happens when ppl try to use wikipedia to promote the KKK or any other belief. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, better keep you away from the newspapers unless we want a complete PR disaster. I can see the headlines now: "Wikipedia editors want more KKK members to edit, diversity strangely low on wikipedia". You can assume good faith with a bunch of racists, but I sure as hell ain't, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest we single out KKK members to invite. There are, after all larger demographics, such as Africans, who are underrepresented. However, I would say that I support user-friendly, inclusive policies that encourage people to edit Wikipedia, and that anyone be allowed to edit, and so if logically you say that means encouraging KKK to edit, so be it. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But you do understand that welcoming outspoken racists is not actually "user-friendly", "inclusive", or likely to encourage people in general to edit Wikipedia? Don't answer, actually. Consider that a rhetorical question. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not even Wikipediocracy can dox an editor before he signs up. That leaves us with two options: (a) we immediately welcome and encourage editing by everyone who can type two matching password fields on the signup page, or (b) your new user talk page gets a message like "Hello. We're thinking about welcoming you to Wikipedia, but first we need to know some things. Please fill out this form with your name, criminal history, known associations, and political and religious philosophies and submit to the Political Adjutant for the Central Evaluation Committee. We'll get back to you in 6-11 weeks, depending on how the our purges are going." Now sure, you can say, but not after someone has managed to dox the editor, then we should withdraw our welcome, but that affects new editors how? If you actually do that you won't catch very many real racists that way (lot of trolls though) Wnt (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomy. I am unsure as to why you need to construct a straw man hypothetical reaction that we must undertake. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like a visitor from an alien planet when I read the things posted on this page. Wnt, "doxing" doesn't enter into it. By saying that it doesn't matter whether some of our volunteers belong to the KKK, we are in effect welcoming outspoken racists. That's the message. I can assure you that it will be received loud and clear—if not by you, then certainly by people who belong to demographics targeted by the KKK. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, a racist is little different from any other partisan. Society sees them as different because of the exact nature of their views. Generally, we wouldn't want anyone editing Wikipedia in a partisan manner, though there really isn't much helping it as most people focus on areas of interest to them where they hold strong opinions and people with strong opinions have difficulty separating their opinions from objective reality. If someone edits in a clearly racist manner and is an outspoken racist then they should be blocked or restricted until they can demonstrate an understanding of how to edit in a sufficiently neutral manner. However, merely being a racist shouldn't be used as a basis for banning someone. Saying "well this guy is/was in the KKK!" is a nice defense, but we all know that isn't where it would end. Maybe we won't ban Paula Deen, but we may come close enough to drive away people who are more concerned about having their off-wiki activities mined for dirt than they are about the quality of content on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell: I'm not sure if you've read what I talked about above. Is it your position that Wikipedia should draw a clear line that anyone who can be proven to be a member of a racist organization can be thrown out, but someone who is a member of a virulently anti-gay organization should not? Wnt (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's my position that we can actually build an encyclopedia without the help of virulent racists or homophobes. It's my position that racism, gay-bashing, etc. aren't welcome on this project. It's my position that if we find that one of our volunteers is a virulent racist or homophobe, then we should rid ourselves of that volunteer quickly and decisively (you know, like every other reputable volunteer organization on Earth). It's my position that none of this is at all controversial to sane adults who live in the Real World. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, MastCell. So we're going to ban a sizable proportion of editors who vote right-wing/nationalistic/conservative parties (if you get to know them they're most likely xenophobic), we're going to ban a vast majority of Muslims and Christians from various denominations (who have a very dim view of LGBT rights), and so on. What do you think? -- cyclopia^speak! 10:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What about "transphobia"? Are you for banning people who are "transphobic"? If that guy from Penny Arcade were editing here would you ban him because some people think he is transphobic for saying "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to say that things like racism or antisemitism or homophobia or transphobia or etc are not welcome here, then it seems consistent to me to discourage people who belong to organizations which exist solely to promote those ideas. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You aren't really addressing my point, but how about we look at it a different way? Are you saying that if a blatantly defamatory claim is made about a notable Klan member and that person removes the claim saying "this is a completely false claim about me" we should then block this person on sight? What if the claim isn't blatantly defamatory, but trivial and clearly added for gratuitously abusive purposes? Does that mean your words to them be: "No, Mr. or Mrs. Klan Member, you are not allowed to come to Wikipedia to dispute the attacks made against you on our site and you will be blocked on sight should you do so"?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That the system here allows anonymous people to defame others is NOT a reason to have the site infested with white supremacists. John lilburne (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should KKK members be treated any better than most people who try to remove defamatory claims from their WP bios? In my experience, anyone who foolishly wanders onto WP to solve their issue directly soon ends up blocked (but not before they have been insulted by "vandal fighters" and "patrollers"). We treat BLP subjects like they don't matter, but you want us to stick up for the rights of hate-mongers so long as they only spew their hate offsite? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I say they should be treated "better"? I agree that our treatment of such complaints is not very good, but it does sometimes work and if someone simply showed up to politely ask for something to be removed or to remove it with good reason should it matter that said person is a member of the Klan? Were we in a perfect world then all hate and hostility would be gone, but that isn't the world we live in and there are many forms hate can take, with there not being universal agreement on when you are dealing with hate.

Some reading the "transphobic" comment made by that guy from Penny Arcade might consider his comment to be well within reason and others might consider it hate. If an organization were to primarily advocate for the view that "boys have a penis and girls have a vagina", but never in a way that degraded people who differ, would that be a "transphobic" organization in need of banning forever? If it was deemed to be so, those people who are members of that organization would never be allowed to publicly object to claims made against them or their group on Wikipedia. They also wouldn't be allowed to correct a simple grammatical error, fix factual inaccuracies, or add appropriate sourced content about an unrelated subject.

The Klan is easy to talk about, because it is a perpetual boogey-man, and trivializing that members of the Klan are people like the rest of us makes it easier to dismiss the idea of allowing them to edit. However, if someone can fiddle away productively at Wikipedia without creating controversy through their own actions, then why does it matter? Are we going to investigate every editor's associations and histories to suss out who is not "tainted" by "evil"? The only reason you knew in the recent case that the individual was a member of the Klan is through some off-wiki connect-the-dots actions and you only had reason to suspect anything because of a userspace gallery where the only incoming links were automatic due to the addition of an image to the gallery. In other words, we are definitely not talking about someone who publicly advertised on-wiki "Hey I used to be in the Klan!"

You are saying that you and anyone else here, should be able to trawl through an opponent's activities online, find some sort of connection to something considered odious and then get them removed by revealing the information, even if that person has done nothing of concern on this site. Do you really not see the potential pitfalls of that mentality?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, TDA, I can't take any more of your ridiculous hyperbole or strained hypotheticals. Would I ban the user in question? In a heartbeat. Do I think anyone who self-identifies as a KKK member should be banned? Absolutely. Is that because I think KKK members are non-persons? Not at all. Do I expect it to become WP policy? No I don't. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to see them as non-persons to trivialize their humanity, you just have to make them sound less persony than the rest of us. I also don't think I have been particularly hyperbolic as what I mention would seem to naturally follow from the arguments presented here and don't fall outside the realm of probability. Out in the rest of the world certain people try to obliterate the reputations of anyone who says something politically incorrect, and sometimes they succeed. Then there are those who are condemned and demonized for the flimsiest of associations, usually because their opponents can't find anything more compelling to impugn the person's reputation.

Stuff like that can and does happen here as well. I know of one prominent editor who was indeffed as a product of miscommunication that was then twisted into a matter of racism. The circumstances are a bit different and said editor was already detested by a large group editors, but that just makes the point stronger. Some people would invoke sanctimonious cries for political correctness to justify expunging those who challenge the abuses of others. Labels of bigotry are often abused to stifle dissent in the same way labels such as "terrorist" and "communist" are or were abused to stifle dissent. It isn't hyperbole, but reality. An unassuming approach that makes one's participation contingent on good behavior is of far more benefit than an approach premised on vetting every prospective editor's ideological views. You may have little hope of seeing your desires realized, but I don't feel so confident it couldn't happen in time.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the scope of the question in mind. Do you believe that being a member of the Klan should deny a person the ability to object on-wiki to claims made against them on an article? Should our response be to block them for the sole offense of being a KKK member and direct them to some sluggish and labyrinthine complaints process? How seriously is that person going to take such a process when he or she is greeted with a block for raising an objection to content about him or her? Mind you, one would have to then apply this same thinking to any of a potentially growing list of groups and individuals who are seen as having "evil world-views" and who, by virtue of that fact, are going to be at greater risk of having articles about them or their group targeted with abusive edits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should they complain on-wiki? There is a email to the WMF, and there are the courts. Why would anyone want to argue for days with a bunch of children? John lilburne (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Presume an e-mail doesn't work and that this person cannot afford a protracted court case, neither of which are unlikely scenarios.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If an email to the WMF doesn't work, a week of arguing with self-important children will? John lilburne (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The WMF is only likely to intervene in the most serious situations, while regular editors might be persuaded to act on more nuanced offenses. Presumably you would not be one of the "self-important children" you are talking about and there are others like you as I am sure you know.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we go about banning people with evil world-views? Is it down to administrator discretion or case-by-case community consensus? Formerip (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Having suffered a nasty racist attack on wikipedia where the sock was blocked but the person the blocking admin suspected was the puppeteer wasnt even investigated, IMHO wikipedia would do well to focus on a zero tolerance policy towards racism on wikipedia rather than trying to out potential racists who have acted impeccably (or at least not in a racist way). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that any enforcement attempt would soon degenerate into farce, perhaps even illegality. Perhaps we should rely on reputable published sources for the fact that a given person is evil. Or perhaps we should designate a given mob and allow it to rule. What about cases who are up for trial, or convicted but up for appeal? Whatever we do, Dr. Evil need only wait a while and then become a perfectly tame IP editor, avoiding contentious topics in the long-established manner, and thus make a mockery of the ban. Meanwhile, maintaining a database of "evil people" (as opposed to disruptive user accounts) might be illegal in some countries. For example I live in the UK and it could run up against our privacy laws such as the Data Protection Act (e.g. If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate, the court may order the data controller to rectify, block, erase or destroy those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.), and/or our equality laws (don't discriminate against gays, don't discriminate against homophobes per se either). All this seems to me to be quite untenable. Or, perhaps we should just rely on their editing behaviour as we do now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

" Perhaps we should rely on reputable published sources for the fact that a given person is evil", we do, primary sources are generally reliable for the opinion of the author. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for these mysterious objective, unarguable, free of cultural bias criteria for "good" or "evil". Since we're here, when you find them please notify the Nobel committee. Finding the One True Ethics that you can prove is right beyond every cultural boundary would make you the most important person of human history, arguably. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be pretty significant, but I don't see that it has much to do with the question of banning people from Wikipedia. People get banned all the time in ways that are not mysterious, objective, unarguable or free of cultural bias.

The more important questions are about the process. If I believe someone to be evil, how do I go about getting them kicked them off the project? Formerip (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are already KKK members who edit Wikipedia. And neo-Nazis. And Communists. And misogynists. And people who hate gays. Religious fundamentalist nutjobs, deniers of science, cult members, ultra-Nationalist creeps, apologists for genocide. Anti-Semites. And Socialists, Centrists, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, and apolitical sorts, too. It's a website where people can edit anonymously and set up multiple accounts in minutes, no questions asked. To pretend that it is even possible to have a political test for editing privileges based upon real world identity is so out of touch with reality as to be laughable. All we can do is judge the edits. Some editors need to be watched more closely than others for insertion of malicious POV, that's all. Those who attempt to insert malicious POV should be dealt with harshly. And they are. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I cannot believe I just read some people are seriously advocating for the Russian Orthodox Church to be banned from wikipedia. You may as well shut down the Russian language wikipedia entirely if you are going to be that backwards-minded. Is that the sort of witch hunt and persecution of people for their firm beliefs and native culture you'd always dreamed wikipedia ought to be someday? You really might want to think about letting go of that firebrand. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wnt is not to be taken seriously. They have a habit of misstating other people's positions and generally get even the most basic facts wrong. Wnt, Cyclopia, and The Devil's Advocate can usually be relied upon to suggest the most extreme and least empathetic view of any issue that comes up on Jimbo's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Do note that I did not want Russian Orthodox editors banned, just as I do not want Klansmen banned. It is MastCell who answered my question by saying that he would ban members of anti-gay organizations (which is the only way to be consistent with banning Klansmen), and the sources I posted establish that the ROC is such an organization. There is only one solution to this puzzle, which is, to ban no one based on their beliefs. Wnt (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Since I stated my position clearly, above, I'm confident that people will readily recognize your shabby misrepresentation of it. I don't think it's worth my time to post further here, so I'm going to listen to my own advice. MastCell ^Talk 02:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a strawman that Wnt raised. No one was actually suggesting it. Those who object to banning KKK members have invariably either used straw men or made utterly bizarre irrelevant statements like Count Iblis's statement below. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a strawman but reductio ad absurdum, which is valid. For that matter, how would you answer the issue of whether members of anti-gay organizations should be treated the same way?

I understand of course, that you are appealing to "common sense", and common sense is indeed that many KKK members would quickly distinguish themselves by putting strong POV bias into articles or even by baiting editors of certain ancestry. However, such editors are specifically excluded from consideration in our initial scenario, which is that KKK affiliation is discovered only by doing a private eye investigation of the editor's online persona, rather than emerging during a proper administrative process pertaining to on-wiki conduct. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• When intelligent bots start to edit Wikipedia, they could ban human editors for having opposed their citizen's rights in the past. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, if anybody is editing from Pakistan and makes edits opposing drone rights, that might count as a "pattern of activity" consistent with a valid military target right now.^[10] The ban procedure in that case would be particularly expeditious. Wnt (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In defense of Jimbo to some extent, while Jamaicans, the Russian Orthodox Church, most versions of Islam, etc. are anti-gay, acting anti-gay isn't their main reason for existing. They're people who are associated mainly for other reasons, and acting anti-gay is only a tiny portion of what they do. On the other hand, the primary purpose of the KKK is to be anti-black. So it really is easy to distinguish such cases from the KKK.

It still does open a can of worms, though. We don't want to ban everyone who is a member of an anti-gay-marriage organization, even though such organizations are primarily created for anti-gay activities. And if you consider gun ownership to be a right (it's in the US Constitution, after all), should you ban everyone who's in an anti-gun organization because the organization's primary purpose is to deny people's rights? What about someone who is not a member of the KKK, but thinks that black people have a higher crime rate than white people and refuses to blame that on poverty? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Russian Orthodox Church, most versions of Islam, Christianity and plenty of denominations in other major world faiths have maintained this for so many centuries, that it's amusing that in 2013 it becomes an issue suddenly - as if that's going to change overnight because some editors just found it annoying! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Would we ban someone like Alan Turing from contributing to Wikipedia if society had the same opinions about gay people as in the 1950s? Or should Wikipedia have rules that restrict what arguments can be brought in to ban people even if these arguments reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of the population? Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Another knock-out argument: Alan Turing = homosexual = KKK racist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, one assumes a project then may well have felt forced to ban Turing. But here's the point: there was no Wikipedia in the 1950s. That isn't really a matter of technology - from the very beginning, we could have made radio an egalitarian forum for human conversation, with no special privileges for licensed corporations. We could have had many more self-publications rather than publishers having to OK everything they printed. But with the 60s revival of belief and confidence in free expression came the sort of freethinking mentality expressed in the Youth International Party Line, the ancestral forerunner of all hackers, which eventually came to fruition in a web of libertarians and information socialists which could accept and support projects like Wikipedia, rather than seeking to dominate and control and own everything. Understand that the level of technology of any culture is strictly limited by its political philosophy! For example, the Aeolipile was a steam engine, but a society built on slaves couldn't accept it, so instead of moving forward the ancient Roman world regressed. In this instance, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can edit - if you cannot develop the political philosophy that anyone can edit, you cannot make the free encyclopedia. In much the same way, the World Wide Web could not exist if the ability to edit and develop was not granted to everyone - and I'm not sure why someone suggesting banning some people from Wikipedia based on their beliefs wouldn't suggest banning them from the Web. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You arguing that members of the KKK will be acceptable at some future time? You are somehow equating the opinions of Us about the KKK at present with those of Alan Turing in relation to the British government? Is there something you would like to tell us about your opinions of the KKK? In between your bizarre claims, I'm sure there is a point waiting to break free, IRWolfie- (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think KKK will ever gain acceptance. You can invoke the KKK, Neo-Nazis, but these are actually exceptional cases. We all know that exceptional cases make bad laws; the rules for banning won't mention the KKK specifically, they will simply allow for editors to be banned if they hold views that the larger community thinks are strongly objectionable.

Rules like this typically end up affecting the analogues of Alan Turing more than hard core problem people like KKK members that the rules were designed to deal with. A KKK member will probably keep his affiliation secret, while someone like Alan Turing is more likely to passionately argue what he believes in. Also there are more people with ideas for whom the Turing case is a better description than than the KKK case, precisely because the former are more reasonable than the latter. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that everyone has said above. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone above said something evil. For agreeing with it, consider yourself banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop referring to banning people. We don't - we can't - do that. We can and do ban usernames. That's all. We may ban a username for being associated with "disruption" or for being associated with an arsehole. So what? It's a futile hand wave, feigning giving a damn about what the people behind these accounts do or stand for while doing nothing at all about it. Who thinks Qworty isn't tinkering away on a BLP backwater right now? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

fringe theories notice board vs forum shop & canvasing

I've noticed that the fringe theories notice board is also a means to recruit other negative minded POV's.

I've just deleted this as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=566827525

I think descriptions of editors do not belong on a notice board, if anyone needs to get banned or needs to get topic banned the forum shop seems quite inapropriate.

I question the neutrality of the notice board when it is used to ban users. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor posted there (the ANI discussion is already closed) because the discussion is about a topic ban in the fringe medicine area. The wording is neutral, and of interest to board regulars who edit in that topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be "neutral" (i.e. credulous) about fringe medical claims. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people wish for false balance, which is not true neutrality. It is not unreasonable to inform noticeboard regulars (anyone can be a regular) who are aware of policy in fringe areas in detail. To draw a parallel, if there was a discussion about a topic ban of an editor due to some COI, I think it would be fair to notify WP:COI/N. I don't see why the POV of different regulars of a particular board would be "negative minded" and I don't know what that means, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Fringe Theories Noticeboard is like Wikipedia's version of the Spanish Inquisition, deciding what "heresy" is and by extension who the "heretics" are. Editors can go in there about subjects that have been controversial for 1000s of years looking for a definitive ruling in short order on who is considered "right" - as someone did a few moments ago, asking if it was a "fringe theory" that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The answer to that is there have been several schools of thought on this for thousands of years and several of them would love to leap at the chance to get rhetoric accusing the other schools of thought of "fringe" endorsed by some ostensibly "neutral" body acting as arbiter. FTN needs some kind of oversight or reigning in as basically a canvassing board because it can quickly attract a swarm of editors all sharing the same biases. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[11]. I see no such FTN thread. This is a rather poor straw man argument. Til, if I'm correct, asserts there is a "systematic bias" to keep the fringe, ... on the fringes, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is now a thread on the Gospel of Matthew at WP:FTN. I have asked the person starting it to provide further information - i.e. to explain the grounds on which others have suggested that the material in question is considered fringe. Can Til Eulenspiegel explain exactly who is canvassing for what and how in the thread concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Til, if I'm correct, asserts there is a "systematic bias" to keep the fringe, ... on the fringes. Asking for input about whether a topic is mainstream or not is within the remit of the board. Quoting the header: "Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories." Calling this asking for input a "definitive ruling" would be like calling what WP:RSN does as giving "definitive ruling[s]" about source reliability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is something wp refers to as "Systemic bias", not "systematic". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is that the editors don't know you are talking about them behind their back. They are not invited to your little discussion among your buddies. However elite your editor status, talking about people without inviting them is just not polite. Politeness in general is not the strong point of this noticeboard, if it has any.

I understand it is convenient to have the means to summon your elite editor squad to man handle the fringe editor but the so called fringe editor is allowed no such recruitment mechanism. It is always you and your skeptic buddies vs one guy. All he gets out of the notice board is 10 people moaning about how stupid he is and 300 people reverting everything he does. etc

The existence of the whole noticeboard is dubious. It doesn't follow any academic structure. It assumes it self more capable of handling non mainstream medical topics than the medical noticeboards and/or related wikiprojects? It is more physics than physics etc? Didn't we have places for that already? Full of people skilled in those specific arts? Is there such a thing as "pure fringe"? Fringe of a kind that doesn't belong anywhere else?

I think we can limit the tools for talk page stalker recruitment to article purposes not the persecution of editors? If you like talking about people behind their back or not shouldn't matter? Should it? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment exemplifies a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

At the top is a notice saying If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:FTN-notice}} to do so. I will try adding "Please consider notifying the article's talk page as well." and see what happens. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, I asked a specific question: who is it you consider to have been 'canvassing' regarding the Gospel of Matthew thread on WP:FTN you mentioned earlier? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There was only one post in that thread when I mentioned that. Since then you have dealt with the question in an exemplary fashion. I can only assume good faith that it would have been no different had I said nothing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's arse whether you 'assume good faith' or not. And you haven't answered the question. Are you in the habit of making vague accusations and not following up with evidence when requested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The changes to the header have already been discussed before and rejected. You haven't demonstrated any issue (in fact you appear to acknowledge your example was resolved in a good way), and you are singling out the FTN board over other boards for no apparent reason except your own personal grievances against WP:FRINGE. On noticeboards in general we don't want all vested parties to pile in on a discussion, it defeats the purpose of the board, which is to offer other outside opinions. If editors talk about another editor they are notified, otherwise other editors are not notified. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To explain somewhat, IRWolfie has just removed my addition of "Please consider notifying the article's talk page as well." with the comment This isn't required, doesn't make sense in many contexts and sometimes a quiet question should be asked and answered here. (!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This has already been to an RFC where it was not done: [12]. You want to single this board out for special treatment despite it following the norm for other noticeboards and wikiprojects. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but be curious what you'd consider an example of a "quiet question" that should be discussed as "fringe" by the fringe noticeboard without knowledge of participants on the talk page. But if these things are best kept "quiet", perhaps you won't tell me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

An example question would be someone asking if something is fringe or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, Til, first of all it's supposed to be ARBCOM that's the Spanish Inquisition. Us FT/N regulars would be more like Batman or some other vigilantes. But more to the point: we've had run-ins with you time and again with promotion of questionable archaeological, historical, and anthropological material. For people who want to see what really goes on, take a look at this archived discussion of the claim that smallpox-infected blankets were given out by the US Army as a genocidal measure. It's well-known that this assertion traces back to the controversialist and unreliable Ward Churchill, whose allegations have been heavily questioned. Of course, there's another side which want to believe that his over-the-top political statements are what got him into trouble and that his research is perfectly fine. Til pushed hard to keep this assertion in the article as fact, and we kept saying, "no, you need a source that traces back to primary material and not to Churchill." We've had similar problems in the past with fake Welsh lore which traces back to Iolo Morganyg, who flat out made a lot of stuff up. Til kept promoting this too, to the point where I put in an inquiry to Ronald Hutton for a clarification. Not surprisingly the Celtic fringe people don't like Hutton. Someone else finally did get banned because the work of policing him finally pushed us past our limits of patience with him.

The fact is that without people chasing this stuff down, we would have a encyclopedia pushing a lot of false history, unfounded lore, medical quackery, and free energy schemes. Fringe theory pushers are why we have huge articles rebutting 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theories. Look, if it were up to me, people who pushed these notions would be banned outright and quickly, not merely argued with and reverted ad nauseam. It wastes too much of people's time, but patience has been decreed, so we do go through the motions of talking the nonsense to death. The topic that Til brings up is far different and more difficult issue: gospel authorship is still a hot topic and is likely to remain so, and there's a great deal in the field of simply denying that their opponents need to be taken seriously, so it can be difficult to tell minority viewpoints from ideas most everyone rejects. It's not helped out in this instance by Bart Ehrman saying some things of late about textual transmission that hardly anyone else accepts. But again if you'll actually read the discussion you'll see someone put out a call to the Christianity project, and that it's not just a pile-on. Shortly before that we rejected getting into a dispute about Tea Party origins. It's not just a coordinating point for lynch mobs. Mangoe (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The testimony of Mato-tope is primary and not in the least dependent on Mr. Churchill, but it's a major case of "we didn't hear that, because some sensitive things are too quiet to be heard". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mato-tope's accusation that the disease was "caused by those dogs the whites" is not sufficiently specific to serve as independent confirmation that the US Army distributed smallpox infected blankets as part of genocidal policy. (But this isn't the best place for that discussion.) Agricolae (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The example of the case of the Gospel of Matthew is not at all like you make it out to be. The claim that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is clearly fringe. No one has produced any reliable source which makes that claim, probably because no reliable source believes it. There are some sources which argue that there was a Hebrew or Aramaic collection of sayings (e.g., to which Papias refers) that was ascribed to Matthew. Great, very interesting and well worth mentioning. But this is not the same thing as the Gospel of Matthew. Just because the name "Matthew" occurs with some work, doesn't that work is the Gospel of Matthew, and this is something the reliable sources are clear on. The case is sort of like someone quoting a decent biologist that says that seahorses are a type of fish, and then trying to use that source as a basis for changing the horse article to read "some horses are fish". It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what the reliable sources are talking about. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to recruit editors via fringe theories notice board

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with asking other editors to give their opinions but please do it in a neutral manner and not like this, this , this, and this -A1candidate (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one of those links is to FT/N. Pinging since diffs of his were used as evidence. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you disagree in some way with what is said? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

These message presume a violation of policies and accuses other editors of doing so. Whether or not that's the case, a neutral notification should not be taking positions -A1candidate (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit source | edit beta]

Is there a way for me to remove the "[edit source | edit beta]" to just "edit" again? It's too cluttered for me. Albacore (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and check "Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta" at the bottom. A change made to the interface inadvertently broke the gadget that was hiding VE. Resolute 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Expand as: [edit source | edit beta | power tools | hand tools]: Well, just kidding, but the obsession to rewrite (or trample) the Wikipedia interface to further push VE seems a bit over-the-top now. Fortunately, the VE usage has plummeted, from 14% to just 8.5% of all edits (sample of 2,000 edits on 3 August 2013), while IP edits continue to be 27% of daily edits as when VE was used 14%. It might be interesting to compare the long-term productivity for VE, as with power tools versus hand tools, and consider the possibilities. -Wikid77 12:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: No one can edit the same article for more than one month

• Proposal: No one can edit the same article for more than one month

I've submitted this proposal for rejection and would be tickled pink to hear the particular reasons you don't like it. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 19:24, 2 Aug 2013 (UTC)

I don't even understand what that means. There is no possible meaning that would make it a good proposal, but an ambiguous bad proposal is even more useless than a clearly stated bad proposal. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't even understand what that means. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:28, 2 Aug 2013 (UTC)

"You can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor." --Ed Asner, "Saturday Night Live" 75.71.64.74 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly be forced to agree more. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:41, 2 Aug 2013 (UTC)

While it seems this is unlikely to be accepted as a proposal, it is generating an interesting discussion. A counter proposal was made by me in response. It isn't that Equazcion is incorrect about the issue this attempts to address, it just seems to be that it isn't ideal for our community. But, "Topic ban" discussions could well be incorporated into our current DR process. The community has this "tool". It should not be relegated to just AN or AN/I.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I counter-counter propose that "indefinite" be replaced by "one month" in all bans prior to 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC) in the spirit of fun! 71.215.86.35 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And on a related but entirely serious note, should Jubilee really be a disambiguation page, and if so, shouldn't it have a decent introductory paragraph at least touching on the most common dicdefs? 71.215.86.35 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Word "Jubilee" is relatively rare as from Jubilee (biblical), and so local meanings can be very strong in each region (because other meanings are not common in each region). Hence, there is only a list of possible meanings for the word, where at some point a new popular song named "Jubilee" might seem the obvious most-common choice, but only as a passing trend. Compare to the word "Enterprise" which has many common meanings, from businesses to town names to ship names, Starship Enterprise or even Space Shuttle Enterprise, etc. -Wikid77 12:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Proposed edit-limits years ago: I also proposed a form of edit-limit, but as a per-article edit-counter to be triggered when other editors nominated an active user to be watched for edit-counts. The maximum edit-limits would apply to all editors, equally, but to simplify the per-article accounting, only some users would be watched for edit-levels (after nomination by other concerned users). The risk I noted was in a few users making dozens of edits, to a single page, whereby a user systematically altered a few phrases on each edit, until the page was slowly transformed into something else, often by deleting phrases on each edit, to "censor" a page into a bland, hollow overview which previously had contained enough details to pinpoint events but was hollowed to leave many of the 6 W's questions as unanswered, as if no sources had reported the detailed answers which many readers would seek. We have seen similar problems in COI-edits, where negative text can be periodically trimmed, while positive reports are slightly "enhanced" over a period of dozens of edits, so the effect is not noticed much from day-to-day. An edit-limit could be flexible, as n-edits per week or month, since only the nominated users would be tallied each time. -Wikid77 12:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  My proposal had more to do with contentious topics. They tend to become nearly impossible to break into because of the obsessive POV warriors on each side of some debate (abortion, Catholicism vs. sexuality, etc). I think everyone who's been editing a contentious topic for a long period should be required to step away periodically and let fresher perspectives take over. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:43, 3 Aug 2013 (UTC)

U.S. government is trying to edit Snowden's biography

Here's what happened:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling Edward Snowden as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Wikipedia users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government.

Of course, Im sure Wikipedia obviously welcomes editors who serve in the U. S. Senate. But, at the same time, Im concerned that many senators have already publicly voiced out some very strong opinions regarding Edward Snowden and it absolutely digusts me to learn they're coming over to Wikipedia to push a certain point of view.

And this is certainly not the first time it has happened: Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits shows that government officials have had a long history of coming to Wikipedia to push a certain POV, especially those working at the United States Senate. -A1candidate (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While it seems questionable that U.S. government facilities should be used to edit Wikipedia, it seems unlikely to me that only senators themselves have access to the web from such facilities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, a rangeblock would be sensible, in order to protect the reputations of the senators from people who share their facilities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Only 1 edit late on a Friday in D.C. In many U.S. Government offices, such as in Washington, D.C., visitors or family might enter offices near the end of the workday, depending on security clearances of visitors, and perhaps use someone's office desktop computer to edit WP. I have had several end-of-day visitors come to my offices in various U.S. cities, so it is common and when restricted, sometimes computer use is only caught afterward, reminding them it is not generally allowed. Undoing the computer access, to remove an edit, could be considered an even greater risk of unauthorized usage in "collusion" with a friend, so a one-edit update would likely slip past security procedures in outer offices. Even a well-meaning user might be in a hurry, as I have often edited with IP addresses at several hotels, when hurrying, especially worried I might forget to logout when rushing away from the computer. Anyway, D.C. is a politically-obsessed town, not planning the "annual strawberry festival" nor "Jazz fest" nor "fishing rodeo" nor championship playoff game, so even friends might come to an office with a political mindset to voice their politics on someone's computer at end-of-day. Instead, look for a pattern of many edits, at earlier hours of the day, as evidence of in-house activity. -Wikid77 14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't block a range of IP's for one edit unless research shows there is history of abuse. I would protect that highly visible article so any changes have to be discussed. Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

For me, the question is why could an IP edit the Snowden page to begin with? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Is the article experiencing heavy vandalism from logged-out editors? Or have we abandoned the whole "anyone can edit" thing? --108.38.191.162 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe people bit on this bait. One minor edit is no reason for blocking, naming and shaming, or any other of the usual aggressive-borderline-psycho approaches to administration that are popular on Wikipedia. I happen to agree with the "dissident" interpretation, but in truth it is not much more POV to call him a "traitor" than to call him that, as you will find about as many Americans with either opinion. (Of course, "traitor" in respectable articles should be limited to those associated with treason in the formal sense, and other BLP technicalities such as charges and conviction apply) This kind of change is part of the natural give and take of Wikipedia and needs no further comment. Even looking up where the IP was is a kind of opposition research which should be restricted under a fair interpretation of WP:OUTING only to genuine administrative processes, not winning a content dispute. Wnt (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I often approach the administration on Wikipedia in an aggressive-borderline-psycho fashion; it helps to keep them on their toes. Aside from that, I feel the need to point out to you that WP:NPOV is not decided by what the American public thinks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more interested to see the content of ip edits made from other geolocations. But I think this scenario may have been examined here before? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• While I personally am fine with the description of Snowden as a "dissident," it has been pointed out in a Wikipediocracy thread that the description "whistleblower" is more neutral. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I hadn't really thought about it but I prefer the term whistleblower myself. Although dissident is technically true, I think its more neautral and more accurate to say whistleblower. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Good luck with that. Some Wikipedians think the U.S. Congress controls the definitions of that word: User_talk:NeilN#Edward_Snowden_Infobox_.22disclosure.22_reversion --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, at least The Independent, BBC and Der Spiegel (as well as the popular UK Daily Express and Daily Mail) all agree with you (in fact, if you're really interested, here's some German spillover coverage: [13]). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the most neutral approach is to not label him at all as he is not seen as a whistleblower by some. He is most widely described as a leaker, though I think it is simpler to say he leaked x information or was the leak for x information.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time it has happened. WP:CONGRESS shows that government officials have had a long history of coming to Wikipedia to push a certain POV, especially those working at the United States Senate, and WP:CONGRESS says: "Further investigation by Wikipedia members discovered well over a thousand edits by IP addresses allocated to the US House of Representatives and U. S. Senate. These edits had, among others, added libelous statements, removed content with malice, added childish insults, and violated Wikipedia Policy." Which brings me to my point: This edit labelling Edward Snowden as a traitor is just the latest in a series of similar edits with heavy POV issues that borders on vandalism. Im just wondering if something needs to be done or should we let this go on? -A1candidate (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Schoolblocks are commonly used in situations similar to what you (and others) describe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Malice aforethought? Maybe a range block would lead to a very rapid "cure"? But as with many ip edits from institutions and corporations, it may be more enlightening to see the true colours of those who work there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate to pour cold water on the persecution complex of some people, but it's massively more likely that the edit is from some bored Congressional page than an organized government propaganda campaign. --108.38.191.162 (talk)

Dear IP, the issue at hand is this: Why do government employees have so much time to edit Wikipedia in the first place?. Shouldn't they have more important things to do like making good on their promises and ensuring welfare for the average citizen? Obviously, there's nothing wrong for them to edit Wikipedia, especially when its done in private.

If you're not familiar with the concept of U.S. congressional pages, did you follow the link I helpfully provided? They're teenagers who do it as a short-term job, generally to get experience in the workings of U.S. government. Several of my classmates at U.S. public school did it. And do you really think every person associated with Congress in any way (which includes U.S. Capitol police, janitors, receptionists, tour guides, etc. etc.) spends every second of their on-the-job time doing nothing but working with laser-like focus on their tasks? Ever heard of "down time" or lunch breaks?

Basically my point is this is all a ridiculous overreaction. I understand a lot of people here have strong feelings about the U.S. government (hey, so do I!) but trying to turn a single edit from some random person with access to the Congressional LAN into some grand scandal is just going to make you look like a bunch of ridiculous zealots. Where are the multiple talk page and noticeboard threads when some anonymous person editing from Anytown, U.S.A. High School makes a single edit to the school's article changing "Principal John Doe has received two awards from..." to "Principal John Doe has received two thumbs down from..."?

And do you really think a disinformation campaign by the U.S. government would be that inept? "Hey, let's fire up the Senate computers and go perform some obvious vandalism on Wikipedia articles!" Come on, give them at least a little credit. Do you really think it would be difficult for some three-letter agency to buy access to a few dozen remote systems in various spots around the world and use them to insert benign-looking falsehoods into articles? --108.38.191.162 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

People have lunchbreaks, and even when not on break aren't being productive all the time. Does it matter if instead of chatting by the watercooler, employees are editing wikipedia? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

But I dont think they should be doing it at a governmental institution. Not to mention that a significant portion of edits coming from governmental IP addresses repeatedly violate WP's policy, I feel that this is happening more often than normal IP addresses. -A1candidate (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have big reservations about a "whistleblower" who hides in China and Russia and asks Cuba and Venezuela for an asylum. 76.126.140.123 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a lifetime in jail ain't so bad, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the American Indians could find the link you used in your comment offensive, and I think an American jail is a better choice than Cuba. Besides a real whistleblower should not be afraid of the American justice system. It is much more transparent and much more fairer than Wikipedia's justice.76.126.140.123 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid they might. Having tried neither of the three, it's hard to judge. But a package deal is available, I hear. You're quite right about "Wiki-justice" of course, normally opaque, but may become temporarily transparent when things get really frosty. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Someone from a federal building added some POV content/borderline vandalism to an article. Federal employees and politicians are people too, with the same flaws as everyone else, and can violate wikipedia policy like everyone else. I don't think there is much to discuss here, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said, a schoolblock is appropriate if needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

VE usage drops 40% but severe bugs continue

By 3 August 2013, the VisualEditor had finally dropped from 14% to only 8.4% of daily edits (in a sample of 2,000 edits), but the severe VE bugs (or problems) in August continued due to the complexity of handling intricate nested templates and improper markup already stored in pages. Edit-counts were compared as relative levels, to reduce the impacts of Saturday-editing patterns. Meanwhile, IP editing continued even-keel, at 27% of total edits, regardless of VE usage levels. Several people have reported total failure of VE edit-save during some medium to large-scale edits in VE, while some large pages fail to even parse/render when editing. Limits to the Parsoid parser still allow unclosed quotation marks, in older pages, to trigger unexpected duplications of nearby text in VE. Hence, the Parsoid interface will need to be hardened to withstand (and auto-recover) from invalid markup stored in older pages. That is a common and complex problem in computer science, to improve the "robustness" of software to recover from invalid data in prior files. Even computer languages have that problem, where a new compiler will reject prior source code which allowed minor bugs to exist in older software, but now flags the compilation as invalid syntax. So, VE not only needs to handle errors during user editing, but also recover from prior markup errors saved months ago in older pages (such as unclosed quotes: class="wikitable). Currently, when VE (or Parsoid) encounters prior invalid markup, then VE often inserts peculiar garbling of nearby text into the edited page. Another massive problem is with nested markup, or nested templates, for inserting a template call into each parameter of another template being inserted, as a recursive problem of VE-editing inside the parameter markup being added, while VE-editing the page. Then, there is the issue of keeping the user aware of the edit-level, of inserting a triple-nested template into a parameter of another double-nested template parameter, being added into the first template being inserted into the page. Such complex issues of multi-nesting and auto-recovery would likely require months to design, review, implement, test, and document in the software specs. Fortunately, 91.5% of editing continues to use the trusted wikitext editor. -Wikid77 12:11/14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a big reason for this is the ongoing failure of the development team to get it to work on several versions of popular browsers. Further evidence the software was not and is not ready for full implementation. Its still breaking too many things when it is used. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a way to tell which browsers and platforms are having more problems or user opt out rates than others from our end?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah sort of. Most of the problems are related to non IEbrowsers because IE is still blocked because they can't get the software to work with it. Once they get that fixed you can count on a lot more problems. So the bugs are actually being minimized for the moment because several of the most widely used browsers can't be used at all. Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That explains why I either don't use it or shut it off. I use IE and can't remember if it failed to work or I shut it off.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its currently disabled for IE 8-10 and it will never work with anything less than 8 due to limitations in the browser. Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested Articles

Hi Jimbo Wales,

I appreciate that this will likely be answered by a talk page stalker, but I will ask anyway: I am trying to re-work the design of requested articles, along with the WikiProject, and was wondering if you would, as you did for GOCE, be willing to create an article listed at requested articles. I feel that this would get the WikiProject's participation up, and help improve a neglected area of Wikipedia.

Thank you to anyone who replies, Matty.007 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention Jimbo has created articles in the past: Rather than one example new article, just note how Jimbo, even though quite busy, has also created new articles, as during 2012 (see contribs: Articles created by Jimbo). By noting how Jimbo has created multiple articles, then that should inspire more people to create at least a few. Make sense? -Wikid77 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Resetting "Edit source" to "Edit" tabs

At Village pump wp:PUMPTECH, they have discussed how each user can reset the "[Edit source]" tabs to again show "[Edit]" by set Preferences to "disable VE while in beta":

• Go to bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, and check the option
  for "Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta", that will restore "[Edit]" tabs.

No JavaScript is needed, and "[Edit]" tabs will appear even in MSIE browsers (even IE7, IE8) as in prior months. -Wikid77 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia participating in a Soviet cover-up ... 36 year later

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatoly Biryukov. Pretty amusing. Brezhnev would be proud. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you've got a verifiable reliable source to support your claim, why not post it on the deletion discussion? No sure Jimbo's talk page is an appropriate place to discuss this. Looks like potential WP:FRINGE to me. NickCT (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a classic case of the problems of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. If no English language refs are available that does not, as some seem to think on the afd page, mean that the article is not notable as we are an encyclopedia in English not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world. But Russian is a difficult language for most of we English speakers and without ppl who can read Russian well it is going to be hard to ref it in Russian. So given this I am not sure it is inappropriate to bring here. Foreign language of itself does not mean FRINGE. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you both please desist from telling people what they can/should say on a user talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that we can't tell people that they can't say things on peoples' talk pages? NickCT (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not implying I can't tell you you can't tell people what they can and can't tell people on talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!! For calling out Cameron

Much appreciated. Though IMHO this article missed the most ridiculous part of his proposal, a ban on "simulated rape porn". The problem with that is that people would be sent to jail for three years based on the frame of mind of a fictional character in a movie and perhaps associate books and author commentary - after all, the actor is a consenting adult, and the audience knows that. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, on that subject: simulated child pornography is already outlawed in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Robofish (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Without condoning those laws, I should note the important difference that fairly often (but never always) the viewer of legal porn can tell that a photo is not simulated child porn. But an average person who goes onto Bing and requests uncensored photos of an actress cannot be sure, looking at a still screen capture, that she was not playing a role in a movie where she was supposedly being raped. This would ideally position the law, in conjunction with a mandatory filter that records all images viewed, for use in prosecutorial terrorism. The political consent for prosecuting all porn viewers can't be manufactured, but the message can be sent that any of them could at any time find himself being cast as a would-be rapist and sent to jail. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris

Last month I promoted Paris to GA. It previously looked like User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris April 2013. As you can see the sourcing was diabolical, poorly sourced, most sources being dead links and shoddy websites, completely overhauled with book sources. I and several others added a wealth of new material including information on the media, music and cuisine etc. I felt it necessary to condense the overly long Demographics and Administration sections to balance out the article. My version of the article is endorsed by some of the experienced editors on here, including User:Tim riley and User:Schodringer's Cat who have produced dozens of GAs and FAs, but a small group of disgruntled editors from the wiki Jurassic period have since crawled out of the woodwork with nothing but unpleasant comments on the changes I've made to "their" article. It's a classic case of WP:OWN and one of the former editors is making a proposal to completely revert my additions and sourcing back to the April version. They also think the lead was better back in April and don't understand that the lead is supposed to summarize a full article. I'd greatly appreciate some input from some of the more experienced individuals here as to whether their proposals are justified or not. I'm not canvassing for support, I'm simply asking some decent editors who watch Jimmy's page compare the article versions and to comment on the issue.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)