Talk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Please keep the article High quality

There has been an ongoing dispute between me and ColdWind. I am aware of Wikipedias Guidelines and the AGF rule, but I can no longer assume Good Faith. In the Past Cold wind made many little changes to the article, and subtly made it worse. He always changes something and thereafter continues to make many really really minor Edits to the reference's formatting or other trivialities, until the "undo" function breaks. Also these edits are probably to create the image of a dedicated editor who puts much effort into the encyclopedia, and to raise his editcount(An easily fooled measurement of dedication). I would wish that we both stop editing this article. probono1 92.227.116.192 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop the personal attacks and suggesting that I'm trying to fool people about my dedication... if you're interested in my dedication, you can check my contributions in the Spanish Wikipedia. Anyway, this is an ad hominem argument which is absolutely invalid, if you have problems with any edit, you should discuss that edit and not the dedication of the author (you're participating as an anonymous IP and nobody's calling doubt about your edits because of that). I think that my changes in reference formatting are not trivialities at all. I'm trying to ensure that the article is correctly referenced (both by the quality of the references and its formatting). If you think any of my edits make the article worse, please, discuss them here. Tell me exactly what editions you're talking about and we can work it out. --ColdWind (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How about removing:"It is claimed" The Neutral:"Internet distribution and information technology" becomes the clearly Negative "piracy over the Internet" going from citing: "Speak out against ACTA - Free Software Foundation" to the heavily censored "ustr-acta-summary" You seem to be favoring the official government sources, which in this, admittedly unusual, case fall under WP:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 Also some of the External Links have vanished. Mostly those who lead to Anti-Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement sites. I am an anonymous IP(a little bit of an oxymoron, but oh, well...). It is good if people question my edits. It is bad that not more people question the edits of logged in users with a high edit count. I don't care what you did on the Spanish or any other Wikipedia, I don't care about you personally, and I do not use ad hominem. I just care about what you do NOW. What you do on THIS page. In each of your series of edits you have made such changes. And even after I pointed it out, you still continue to make many many small changes to keep people from reverting you. Did you ever see the Button right of the "Save page" Button? If you had good faith you would USE it. You are not a human to me. You are a series of Actions.probono1 92.227.116.192 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I guess you refer to this edit where I changed is claimed by its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected to for establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. It's described by its proponents as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.". I think it's much clearer now, before that, it was not clear what ACTA was about (enforcement? new patent law? something else?). ACTA is about intellectual property enforcement. It doesn't need a X claims... before because it's a well known fact and nobody is disputing it. Neither official sources, leaked documents, critics (be it Michael Geist, FFII, EFF, FSF or any of the major critics), pro-ACTA lobbyst, academic sources, etc.
2. Ok. Context. "Internet distribution and information technology" is an ambiguos and too broad term, going far beyond ACTA scope. I used "piracy over the Internet" (even when I don't like the term) citing official sources. Maybe copyright infringements on the Interet is better?
3. Context again. Why would you favor a reference to the FSF campaign in this context? FSF has found the information in the sources I'm referring too. When I'm doing research, I want the main sources, not every site which has cited such sources.
4. Official sources are fundamental when studying policy making. As well as independent sources. For example, I also introduced a reference to "The Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on the Knowledge Economy: The Accountability of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the Creation of IP Enforcement Norms Through Executive Trade Agreements" by Eddan Katz (from the EFF) when that was appropiate. I try to use the most reliable and appropiate reference for each fact. Of course I'm not infalible, so if you find a better source, please, share (it's a specially a tough task with ACTA because of the scarcity of reliable sources).
5. Wikipedia is not a directory. We shouldn't list every site about ACTA out there. Under the external links policy, what should be listed here are ACTA official pages and a selection of the most relevant non-official pages. A lot of the links listed there didn't met any relevancy criteria by far. Now, I'm sure there are more that should be listed, but carefully. Right now there's Wikileaks' ACTA page, which is cleary the most relevant non-official page about ACTA, EFF's campaign, which is one of the most relevants and containing more documentation, and Michael Geist's blog which is probably the most relevant blog on ACTA criticism.
6. About the previewing changes. You're right. I should be more careful. I often check in changes and then realized I missed something.
7. If I'm not human to you, then discuss my edits precisely (as you've done in your last comment) and stop calling my good faith into doubt based on FUD or suggesting malicious intentions (like crafting commits to prevent reverts: I'm sorry for these, but since you're an experience user, I'm sure you'd be able to selectively undo changes you consider harmful... or you can discuss them here).

I hope I explained these points clearly, if you have any objection, those are welcome. And if you have proposals even better. Cheers. --ColdWind (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:3O request: Having read the foregoing exchanges between ColdWind and Probono, I am proposing on the WP:3O talk page that the third opinion request be removed as inappropriate for the reasons stated there. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the dispute only involves the 2 users, then I think that it's a reasonable WP:3O request. I don't see any evidence that either user is a vandal, nor that either user is not acting in good faith, so I have re-characterized the dispute. As for the question on sourcing, I do not see government sources as being inherently unreliable, nor should they be considered to be self-published. They are not, however, necessarily neutral either. Bwrs (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal proposal fails for lack of consensus, WP:3O request remains listed and active. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is my Problem... The analogon with self published sources was drawn because these sources are not neutral. Also "Vandal IP" was what I called myself half Jokingly because I would like to revert cold winds Rule and guideline conform changes. And, am a IP because of my beliefs.probono178.55.244.136 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Governmet sources are non-neutral. They're specially non-neutral in this case. However:

1. They're the primary source of information. Most sources in this article (press, academic, anti-ACTA campaigns, etc) are using these sources to get their information. If we had more reliable independent sources which had confirmed their information by means different of the Government sources... then it would be great and I'd use them too, but there aren't.
2. Government sources are properly used to cite well-known and accepted facts. When they're used to cite "Government-biased" opinions, the text properly reflects that with expressions like "According to X..." or using blockquotes. If you find a case where the article doesn't comply with this, please, just change it or warn here.

Again, whenever you find better sources (I'm looking for them too), please, share them.

I'd also like to point out that newspaper sources have been overused in this article. IMO that's not the way to go since non-specialzed press is usually inaccurate or downright wrong. I've tried to replace them too. It's better to use sources whose authors know what they're talking about (Michael Geist and Eddan Katz are good examples). --ColdWind (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'll do my best at some mediation on a few of the issues here.

1. probono1/IP: you should stop performing massive reverts of ColdWind's edits without justification; that is edit warring, and it does not help improve the article. Instead, make small, incremental edits, and use the edit summary field to describe and justify your edits. I will also remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or a place to right great wrongs: the purpose of the article is to neutrally state reliable information on the topic, not to "make people realize what they can do," as you yourself have stated.
   • Also, please reconsider creating a user account, so everyone can easily see which edits are yours.
2. The article should not read like it is describing a government conspiracy or be written with the supposition that that is the case; doing otherwise is a violation of WP:NPOV. Using phrases like "its proponents claim/describe..." when describing the stated purpose of the treaty is WP:weaseling and does not advance the credibility of this article.
3. Sources from the government should be included under this part of WP:RS.

If I've missed an issue, or you think I have something incorrect, please let me know. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I cite too much of your text and maybe a bit out of context(as a revenge :P): "stop performing massive reverts of ColdWind's edits without justification; that is edit warring," Well, I did this once and have shortly after requested outside opinions/Help(You for example) so that this does not become an editwar. "Instead, make small, incremental edits" which are much harder to track and revert, I am a huge fan of the Preview Button and tell everyone to use it as much as possible. "use the edit summary field to describe and justify your edits" I cannot do so on mondays and wednesdays, Sorry, but I try to do it as often as possible. The large revert had such a Monday-Morning-Oh-My-God-I-Have-to-go! Edit summary. "right great wrongs" Context. I have also stated that I want to do it not "using" Wikipedia, but by improving the article. Wikipedia Style! I will not Violate NPOV! And "its proponents claim/describe..." is by no means a Weasel word, because one knows who it's proponents are. WP:RS s.o.themselves has problems with 1.,4., and maybe 3. And My plight is to avoid 5. And this is just a Guideline, I am talking about: WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Finally:"Also, please reconsider creating a user account, so everyone can easily see which edits are yours." No. I only call myself Probono here, and will vanish into nothingness if this one is resolved. 1 because maybe someone wants to follow my example, and can then be Probono2. Nobody should know who did which edits, unless they are outright Vandalistic and deserve a Banhammerlock. Each Edit is to be seen not as a work of someone but should ask the question:"Does this make Wikipedia a better Encyclopedia?" I do not want a reputation, especially not a good one. I score 7231 Points on the WP:WHT But that does not mean my contributions are better than anyone elses, and I "DO NOT WANT"(that one is not yelled but cited) the benefits of a user account. Probono1 78.55.244.136 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with that revert. Also, I have no problem with Probono editing without an account (except for the fact that it might be annoying not being able to use his discussion page since it's a dynamic IP... but I can live with it). I'm ok as long as we can discuss point by point with proper arguments and as long as I'm respected and my good faith isn't called into doubt spuriously. --ColdWind (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure

The current structure of the article doesn't look optimal to me, information is fragmentated and is not easy to follow. I'm wondering if we could agree on a better structure and modify the article accordingly. Any suggestions? I think the Negotiations section should be renamed to Timeline or History and be broader than just the negotiations, incorporating some of the info in Requests for disclosure and Support to get a better idea of the whole picture in chronologic terms. What do you think? --ColdWind (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we shorten or delete the second section now that we have the infobox?92.227.119.87 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Infoboxes are meant to summarize information already present (and referenced) in the text body. --ColdWind (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Any good and reliable sources on ACTA? Such as exhaustive and well documented independent reports? --ColdWind (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't find much about it from commercial sources, because they are the ones who will profit the most from ACTA.92.227.119.87 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. My question still stands as is: exhaustive and well documented independent reports. Non-specialized newspapers or TV channels are not, most of the time, this kind of source. --ColdWind (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for a sort of consolidated analysis? I don't think that you'll find that, since there aren't any officially released documents, only the leaks. The negotiating parties have been fairly successful in keeping this under the radar. Blowfish (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for analysis that are reasonably well documented. Reasonably considering ACTA's secrecy. I don't expect to find consolidated analysis such as those that could be available for an already public and established treaty... but things such as:

Katz, Eddan; Hinze, Gwen (2009), "The Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on the Knowledge Economy: The Accountability of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the Creation of IP Enforcement Norms Through Executive Trade Agreements" (PDF), The Yale Journal of International Law, retrieved November 24th 2009 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--ColdWind (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links

Who do we notify if a link is broken? Specifically reference #6 links to an article that is no longer available. Fr33d0m0fsp33ch (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Fr33d0m0fsp33ch

Just report it here as you've done. Reference 6 fixed. --ColdWind (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Add to the main page - The fact that Ben F Rayfield will pay $1000 for a certain legal proof

The following should be copied to the main page (instead of this Talk page) because the existence of the offer is a fact, not an opinion. The reasons the offer was made are Ben F Rayfield's opinion, but they help to explain why that fact started to be true. It is important to the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" because it is a new type of interaction between non-government people and laws and is possible to have a big effect.

I (Ben F Rayfield) will pay $1000 to anyone who proves the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (or group of laws if they divide it that way) violates at least 1 copyrighted thing, and the proof must be done in a court of law and result in at least 1 of the writers of that law being found guilty and receive punishment assigned by that legal system.

If any of the writers of the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" are breaking the law they create, then we should help to prove it to show our respect for that law.

Many people will be interested to know that the copyright system is so disorganized that almost any copyrighted work violates at least 1 copyright, therefore I am almost certain this can be proven if enough people offer to add money to my offer, maybe start an official charity for this fund, or some other way to organize the money.

The offer was first written at (Ben F Rayfield's name is "codesimian" there): http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=168077

BenRayfield (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, but this can't be included here. Neither internet fora, nor wikipedia talk pages are considered appropriate sources. If you managed to get someone to report on your offer, then it would be admissible. Blowfish (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen lots of unprovable "external links" on Wikipedia pages, and my offer has more credibility than that. I've posted on that forum for years and am a professional at the subject the forum is about. That does not add much credibility to my offer, but Wikipedia does not have hard rules. Wikipedia makes exceptions when its important. I wrote it here instead of on the main page so somebody else could choose which parts are unbiased and to copy/summarize there. If that is not enough, then what method of proof must I demonstrate to have the level of credibility necessary? If its simply a third-party thing, I'm sure lots of people would be interested in this. I first heard about it on that forum, so I responded there with my offer. Do I need to set up an official fund and website? I know what I wrote is uniquely relevant to the article. BenRayfield (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The March 2010 leak

There's a new leak, being called the "biggest ever ACTA leak"^[1]:

• http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf_as_text

This article is getting out of date and there's some vague parts. This leaked text can be linked to per-page, so instead of saying that the draft "contains X", we can say what it contains, and provide a link to the exact page (e.g. page 12), and copy and paste the text into the "|quote=" field of the citation tag. Gronky (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The pirate bay has the leaked info in PDF format here http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5425059/--71.199.147.222 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

This bill has been rejected by the EU parliament ^[2]
Someone should update the article. 75.18.220.243 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed unencloyedic/original research/opinion

Removed this unsourced sections

"The ACTA will also force net filtering and a "3 strikes policy" while jeopardizing your rights as a citizen. Net filtering is NOT about piracy, it's about government control. ANY website can be blocked for ANY reason. As little as posting fan-art of copywritten characters could cause legal action, and ISP's will be forced to cooperate in monitoring you and turning you in without a warrant."

While this may be true it should be left out until it can be sourced and restated in an encyclopedic manner. Ngaskill (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research in lead

Removed the following:

Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EU, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty, and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The first two sentences are unsourced and the last is improper synthesis. This paragraph could be reinstated if an editor can find a reliable secondary source that states the claim made in it. Hartboy (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Threats to Freedom, NOT JUST Free Software

please note the FSF states the ACTA is a threat to freedom not just a threat to free software...