User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Personal and Moral Rights?

Sorry; if I’m trying to bring your attention again to Commons.

We have a discussion on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects; two different topics and rarely come together as in the case of your portrait where you are the subject and original author as per the work for hire contract. And, that video is showcasing the original Jimmy Wales portrait several times from the beginning to end and finally attributes to it with courtesy notes. So it is derivative work per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101, "a derogatory action in relation to the Original Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d); a clear violation of moral rights of the Original Author.

Further, [1]: "Creative Commons licenses do not waive or otherwise affect rights of privacy or publicity to the extent they apply. If you have created a work or wish to use a work that might in some way implicate these rights, you may need to obtain permission from the individuals whose rights may be affected." So that video is a clear violation of the privacy/personal rights of the subject too.

While discussing these matters as a generic concern that seriously affects the photographic community in Commons; we found the current policies of Commons are desperately inadequate for our safety and to protect our reputation. At Commons:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions, Commons is trying to impose "the reusers of Commons-hosted media to ensure that they do not violate any non-copyright restrictions that apply to the media." It’s OK; Commons can’t take the responsibility of the damages, the reusers make outside it. But it is not good if Commons itself allow and encourage hosting of such works infringing the Non-copyright-restrictions (like moral rights of the authors and personal rights of the subjects).

While looking for a solution, some people suggested that "I strongly agree with you on Commons defending people's dignity through policy but think this must come first through a stronger statement from the WMF. They are legally prevented from direct editorial control (that would make them responsible and so liable to be sued for what content we have) but they can be much more specific about what they want wrt scope and moral issues."

We noticed the resolution http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people; but it seems only related to privacy rights; we can’t see any resolution related to photographers' moral rights. There is some discussion is going on at commons:Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Update_2013/Moral_issues under commons:Commons_talk:Project_scope/Update_2013/Stage_2 on the base of it; but I can’t see much developments.

Could you express your stand on these matters; and do you promise us that you make any attempt to protect our rights. I/We feel it is dangerous to make further media contributions in a community which encourages making and hosting derivative works of our own works to humiliate us. JKadavoor Jee 08:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My first comment is that it is absolutely untrue that the WMF is "legally prevented from direct editorial control (that would mke them responsible and so liable to be sued for what content we have)". This is a frequent and unfortunate misunderstanding of the law. Section 230 is explicitly designed to allow for direct editorial control without undue risk. The Foundation can exercise direct editorial control without thereby becoming liable for what other people do. This is important.

Second, I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy for your reply. "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed." So Jimmy; can we expect a WMF attempt to ‘’fix’’ Commons? If so; I request you to do it immediately. Otherwise Commons will end up as a cemetery of some people you mentioned above and their bot-transferred xxx contents from Flickr or similar sites.

Or you mean, that it is the responsibility of the common community is to fix their issue? If so; I've little hope. We already discussed this matter with Russavia in detail; but he refused to take any responsibility for his rude behaviour. In that discussion, Slaunger (one who started the commons:COM:VI projects) finally offered him three solutions: "If you do not agree with the resolution, you have three options. 1) Work with the WMF and try to make them change their minds, or introduce some notability exceptions in their resolution, which it appears you think would be reasonable. 2) Pretend you love it and be loyal to it, although you really do not entirely agree. This is an entirely normal and pragmatic decision for many individuals being a member of an organization, to bend a little to adapt to the norms, because, overall, you can see that in the big picture values of the organization are aligned with your own. 3) You can come to the conclusion that your own view on the resolution differs so much, that you cannot see yourself as part of it - and resign from a current role."

So I request you to once again to bring this matter to the attention of WMF, make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. I’ve not much knowledge about the WMF hierarchies; don’t know whether this is the right place to make such a request. (I’m living in the opposite side of the world, in a remote place with frequent electricity and Internet connectivity problems; so this late response. Sorry.) JKadavoor Jee 05:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy; we’ll try our best from our side, because it is a real concern for us as socially committed photographers. JKadavoor Jee 07:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my erroneous remark concerning editorial control. My limited non-lawyer understanding is perhaps more influenced by UK/EU law see paragraphs 42-47. To me this means (if Commons was based in the EU) that staff could not participate in deletion discussions (especially voting keep) without making themselves liable for the content. Indeed, I am concerned myself about participating in deletion discussions in case that makes me liable for any content I say should be kept. Am I misreading the EU law or is the US law quite different?

On the ethical issues I think have a situation where Commons admins think they own the site and a crowdsourced editorial policy and decision-making fails when not given enough direction from above. Too often the deletion discussions rely on an mechanical interpretation of what freedoms are allowed by law or existing policy (which is generous) rather than any consideration of ethics or of not being a jerk or a creep (see Autumn leaf discussion below). -- Colin°^Talk 07:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. I fully agree, but the real question is: what do you plan to do about it? Saying that commons should change is all good and dandy, but it changes nothing. It's become overly clear that we mere editors can't do anything about it, because the porn brigade has managed to get some of its members elected to positions of power (which means that they, basically, get to close deletion discussions and may even restrict those who try to interfere with their porn stash). This means that it's time you and the foundation put your money where your collective mouth is and start doing something other than simply repeating commons is broken. Otherwise, nothing will ever change. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy already offered "I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff" and requested moral support "from the community". I think this includes the other matter you mentioned too. :) JKadavoor Jee 12:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bring it on, guys. And Jimbo, thanks for your concerns with the matter as well. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We welcome DRs which will remove low quality, redundant sexual material. Please feel free to nominate some. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Never, unless Commoners (except for a few, like Colin) change their attitude and learn their morals. You can have my word on this. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was actually replying to Salvio, since he was the one who brought up the issue of sexual imagery. You are of course welcome to participate in such deletion requests as well, though I can understand why you would not wish to. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? Why do we waste our time by begging in front of some people who are morally incapable to make any decisions? This current example is a solid proof for that. I think it will be like begging for justice in front of devils.

Further: A DR is not the best way to keep Commons away from inappropriate contents. Commons will be saved If you (the corrupted admins) take a voluntary decision to refrain from uploading contents without proper preview. Do you need examples? Here he not only failed to make a review before making the upload; he failed to understand the problem after getting the DR too. He exclaimed: “Ummm, can you please explain your nomination reason? Do we have a similar photo to this on Commons?” After getting the second arrogant comment, he desperately accepted that he violated Commons:IDENT. What more we can expect from such a ‘crat and admins?

I would like to repeat the comment that I posted somewhere else: "I believe an admin should be morally and ethically sound enough to understand the essence of those policies to make wise decisions". No community is safe even if they have enough good policies and guidelines; it (the safety) depends more on the goodness of the judges and rulers who act upon them. JKadavoor Jee 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read commons:User talk:Underlying lk#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haitian Shower (8010089794).jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I had read it. The civility of the requester after the deletion is not an excuse for a 'crat's ignorance and incapability to understand basic things. JKadavoor Jee 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I take exception to the assertion that "It's become overly clear that we mere editors can't do anything about it, because the porn brigade has managed to get some of its members elected to positions of power (which means that they, basically, get to close deletion discussions and may even restrict those who try to interfere with their porn stash)." Commons was founded on principles of inclusivity and the admins have merely interpreted them properly, not out of personal bias, but for the sake of the project. It is easy to bully a group of editors based on potential interest in any one topic, but it is not logically valid. If some people had a personal dislike for anime they could say that the "anime brigade" had infested Commons and was failing to delete all of it when they said so, and that needed to be fixed. Or more likely, soon enough after this we will be seeing the claim that a "Democrat brigade" is immoral because it fails to delete facts and illustrations that might be embarrassing to corporate subjects. The fact is, the only people who have been organizing and trying to take power are the censorship proponents, who are trying to make as much a disaster area of Wikipedia as they threaten to do with their native Britain, where under guise of a fictitious decency every word is to pass through the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise blackboxes of BAE Detica to be heard. But Commons does not and cannot work as a set of private fiefdoms where only what is politically backed is allowed. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind taking exception away from the keyboard please. Colin°^Talk 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt has drunk deep of the Commons kool-aid, it is best to just ignore his dribblings on this subject. The Commons crew have it down to a cold science, all they do is have one of their buds hold back from supporting/opposing, delete/keep, whatever the matter at hand is...then that "uninvolved" person can be eligible to close the discussion. Wipe, rinse, repeat. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; as in the case below. JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt has it right, and that comments above against him are personal attacks instead of rational arguments go a long way showing who is on the side of reason and NPOV. The truth is that there is a definite moral panic about sexual content, and that what is disruptive is the constant escalation of "I don't like sexual content" to "OMG Commons is broken". This is moral and cultural bias at its worst. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to see a 'rational argument' as to why Commons should be a host to a giant stash of low-quality porn of dubious provenance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, we can say "I've yet to see a 'rational argument' as to why commons should be a host to a giant stash of [whatever]". Of parties, for example. Or of dogs. Or of computer keyboards. If redundant content is the problem, I wonder why I never see crusades against having hundreds of pictures of computer keyboards, and instead I always see them complaining about human body parts that the culture(s) of many editors happens to find somewhat disturbing (despite them having them on their bodies as well, I suppose). -- cyclopia^speak! 17:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If the mob at commons didn't spend so much time obsessing over their porn stash, they could usefully get rid of some of the other redundant material too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't adding anything new to the debate. Please absorb the take-offence/righteous-anger stuff and avoid posting till you have something clam and novel to say. Colin°^Talk 17:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then please stop being patronizing. The point is that this has to be repeated even if it is not new, because it is important that it doesn't look like there is only one side on this issue. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We would welcome your nominating redundant material for deletion - we don't want it, so if you find it tell us and we can do something about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia, why are you mixing morality and sexuality? Morality only means manner, character, and proper behaviour. I’ve no known hate to sexual contents as far as it respects personal rights. In the above example I mentioned; the woman was bathing in an open space due to her poverty; without expecting that she will be a prey for a wicked photographer with a tele lens. JKadavoor Jee 17:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about that deletion -which makes perfect sense. I was referring in general to the "porn brigade" comments, Wnt reply and subsequent replies. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt's comments do not show he "is on the side of reason", but do show he'd rather waste our time with lengthy attacks on some colourful rhetoric than engaging in the real issues. On the issue of deletion closure, to be fair, the consensus at that deletion request discussion was clearly keep, so there wasn't anything unfair about the admin closure result itself. Not that you'd guess that it was a "per consensus" closure from Matt's lecture to the proles. Commons:Deletion policy doesn't even mention the word consensus (though the Commons:Commons:Deletion requests page says it will be "taken in to account"). In other words, we've got a system there where admins have a stronger and final say, and the community has at best an advisory role, and at worst, gets completely ignored. Commons' deletion policy needs improved. It needs to mention consensus, to mention the "courtesy deletions" practice, and to note that the list of "Reasons for deletion" given is not necessarily exhaustive. -- Colin°^Talk 17:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In that DR; I have clear evidence for improper admin involvements as a joint attack. See this. Finally I have to report it to the Administrators’ notice board. JKadavoor Jee 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Because, unfortunately, Salvio occupies a high position on en.wikipedia, I do not feel it is a waste of time for me to speak out against his call for an overturn of basic principles of inclusivity and community. It was a short reply to a long thread; I didn't cover everything, no. Some of the claims in the broader conversation need to be legally evaluated - if the WMF is not totally dysfunctional it needs to see refuting such claims as a core mission - namely, that contributions by under 18 aren't really free-licensed, or that "moral rights" prohibit people from freely adapting a photo of a butterfly as they see fit. If such claims were valid, the entire WMF and all its works would be at risk of being relegated to the realm of pirate distribution. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words. Yes; WMF should seriously involve to guide the projects they posses than simply watching and maintaining them. JKadavoor Jee 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF should be a tool that serves the community, it should not guide it. When it tries to guide the community it can fail spectacularly -see the VisualEditor fiasco.-- cyclopia^speak! 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't own Wikipedia, they do. They can, and should, set the moral and legal framework that we operate under, and define the scope and purpose of the project we are helping them achieve. IMO they haven't done enough in this regard, especially on Commons. If you want a "tool that serves the community" then you would need to (collectively) own Wikipedia/Commons and the WMF would just be staff employed/appointed by the community to build/maintain it -- like we pay our taxes to the local council and get to vote for their leaders. Colin°^Talk 12:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the community doesn't own Wikipedia, thanks. However, given that most of WMF is financed by donations of the community, I'd say that they are a bit in the situation of a taxes-paid council. But even if they are not, one thing is what they can do, another what they should do. If you feel WMF should govern with an iron fist, you're free to think so. My opinion is more nuanced: WMF should behave, at least, as a tool to enforce the community, not bypassing it, while of course retaining ultimate control for emergency cases (e.g. legal issues). And that's more or less what it does. Again, I personally feel that when WMF attempted to enforce its power, it created more harm than good. The last VE thing however is an interesting case in this respect. But hey, I may be wrong. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No "iron fist" required. Just clarity. Colin°^Talk 12:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep speaking as if you own Wikipedia and can throw out what you don't like. I assure you, I put great effort into weakening the proposed Commons:COM:SEX so thoroughly that I was actually neutral toward its passage in the end. Nonetheless, when it reached actual voters they rejected it as censorship. When you and I and a half dozen other people finally give up arguing on whichever of the 30-odd RFCs of the "Commons:Commons:Project scope/Update 2013" proposal that MichaelMaggs wants to hear about, whatever comes out of it will be rejected soundly in any vote, while ignoring the vote would splinter the organization. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lordy. Splinter the organisation, you say? Better not do that then - sounds serious. Begoon ^talk 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF is not just a dumb tool; it is a non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. It has a bylaw, vision and mission. It has a responsibility to correct the community whenever it feels they are deviating from its values. They did it several times through many resolutions. They include Personal Image Hiding Feature, Controversial content, Images of identifiable people, Biographies of living people and Nondiscrimination. I can’t see any reason why it can’t make another resolution to protect our moral/personal rights. JKadavoor Jee 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The fate of Commons in the hands of some rude admins.

You can't see a reason why it can't because there isn't a reason why it can't. I hope it will see the large number of expressed concerns from the community, at least some of which Jimbo seems to share, as a reason why it should, and will. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I hope. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Notice: Kat Walsh replied on her talk page. JKadavoor Jee 02:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have opened a thread at COM:AN/U regarding a concern over Russavias community role as a 'crat. The concern is mainly a spinn-off from the Pricasso incidence. Since I mention your portraits there, you might want to drop by and comment on it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Samuel Klein commented on his talk page: "I agree that we should take these rights seriously, and second Kat's comments on the matter. As Jimbo says, a clear community position is needed - even if it is a minority position - to articulate the problem and potential solution." JKadavoor Jee 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

[2] 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:AutumnLeaf.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)

Recent roll-outs

I've only been semi-active of late, so I apparently missed out on a couple seemingly large (to me) roll-outs/changes.

I read the above and see concerns about the visual editor. Maybe it's because I don't have/run java, but I don't see an option to use VE anywhere. I looked in preferences, and the boxes to disable (there are two in two separate sections) are unchecked. So I was wondering if VE went live yet.

The other one (and maybe this should be a separate thread) is that the orange message bar disappeared to be replaced by a tiny red box. Which is on almost all the time because I apparently created an article which is linked to daily (I just now found the option to turn that aspect of it off). I did some reading, and thought there was supposed to at least be a partial orange bar implemented. If it's not showing due to no java, I want to cry foul. The old way didn't require it, why should the new way? (And I fear that this will be a concern also if FLOW gains implementation as well...) Are those who do not use java going to become isolated and unable to adequately communicate or edit, much less, be able to assist others?

I realise this is several questions grouped together, but, to me anyway, they are seemingly related. - jc37 15:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are using IE, I believe VE is currently disabled on that browser because of many of the bugs. I beleive the orange bar replacement is in gadgets as "Display a floating alert when I have new talk page messages". I'm not sure if it is javascript based, but I suspect it is, and you will still be out of luck. Resolute 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is Java based. They both are. Kumioko (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Javascript-based, not java. Huge difference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nod. - read "javascript and java" anywhere I'm merely stated "java". - jc37 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why on Earth, would we rollout such a huge change without supporting the world's most popular desktop browser? This seems like a hugely bad decision (and I'm putting that mildly). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be believing the hype there. For actual reader numbers, all IE at 16% is about half all Chrome at 30%. IE 6, 7 and 8 (the versions that will never be supported) add up to 6.89% of readers. IE is so insanely horrible to develop for that it does in fact require serious assessment as to whether it's worth it, but they do plan to build support for IE 10+ (4.51% of readers) once the VE basically works (which it really doesn't yet) - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Those appears to be numbers for only Wikipedia, not the world at large. I thought that one of the goals, if not the main goal of VE, was to expand our editor base. Out in the real world, IE commands 56.15% of the desktop market. And keep in mind that Chrome pre-fetches resources, artificially inflating its numbers. I'm not sure if there's a way to differentiate for actual traffic by a human being versus pre-fetching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't use ie, and talk page notices (and the ability to edit for that matter) shouldn't require java if the old way didn't. This is and should be one of the most basic notification systems we have. Alert someone that someone just left a message on their talk page. Even if we were to strip out all the superfluous bells and whistles (and I mean everything including the watchlist) leaving us just with page histories and use contributions, that basic notification should be in place as core to the wiki environment. Are we really moving to gadgetising the interface? Is it that our current volunteers only know java these days? - jc37 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Javascript is the only way to implement something like VE natively in a browser. I've never heard of a partial orange bar being implemented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What_happened_to_the_orange_bar_for_talk_page_messages_on_Wikipedia.3F. However, it apparently is only as a gadget. I could accept the loss of the orange bar if this was implemented, but it's only a javascript "gadget". And my concern isn't only that I would like to see this as part of the wiki software (non-js), but also the trend where it seems that most roll outs now are almost all js gadgets. Gadgets are fine for things like twinkle I suppose, short cuts for doing things that take longer the "normal way", but they shouldn't be used for fundamental things like notification. Hence my question for JW: Is it as it seems? Are we moving to a js model for the wiki? - jc37 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jc37: Virtually every major web site in the world uses JavaScript. It comes built-in to every web browser (IE, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.) and it's use is ubiquitous. Saying that you don't want to use JavaScript is basically saying that you don't want to use the Internet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Java and JavaScript have very similar names, but are completely different technologies. They have nothing to do with one another, other than their names. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: However, progressive enhancement is considered a best practice for web development (same as its reverse graceful degradation), Javascript blocking tools are considered sensible security practices, and blocking Javascript for performance reasons may be the only way to browse the web on obsolete equipments - those likely to be used at poor regions. It's reasonable to expect on a major internet site that its core functionality will be available when Javascript is disabled; more so when the site is aimed to a universal audience. Diego (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

a.) Yes I know the difference, however, merely speaking as someone who can program either one, I think it's safe to say that they can be grouped when discussing in the frame of reference of internet/browser/website usage. (and js is obviously much much MUCH closer related to java than to fortran, let's say...) But this is a complete tangent from my concern: That the site appears to be more and more using (what some of my programming friends might call "lazy programming") js/java shortcuts in programming rather than actually implementing core things. and b.) Diego said it much better than I seem to be : ) - If that's all our volunteers know how to do, I can understand that, as we are obviously a volunteer site. But I would hope that that is not the case. - jc37 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The debate on Javascript is already over - Wikipedia has been designed top to bottom so that we can do anything on here without enabling it. The advantages of running it are generally very small - show/hide boxes can be hidden by default, you can use the visual editor to write Lua scripts. One exception: understanding "Script error" from a Lua program requires enabling it, a problem which I think could easily be fixed (in a sense it largely can by putting error trapping instructions in the code, but I'd like to see something systematic). But making the decision to just break that and require Javascript work for any core function would be a huge loss for the project, and should not be done. It is possible that you just can't get a WYSIWYG editor to work without it, that I would expect, but then there must always be a graceful fallback to the old editing mechanism that does work. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 1 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.^[3][4][5] Indeed, their efforts have even inspired some people to fight pedophilia...^[6] 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. [7] 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)

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)

National Security Agency has been recording Wikipedia internet traffic and uses it as an example in training slides

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-July/thread.html#127360

Top secret slide with Wikipedia logo. (The Guardian source)

Dear NSA, I was only looking at those pictures on Commons to make sure that they were safe for children. 75.166.219.210 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The attraction for the NSA is obvious. How could anyone in that organization not want to see all the people in the Boston area who had looked up pressure cooker bomb in the past six months, within an hour after the Boston Marathon bombings? The problem is that it is no less tempting to misuse the information - for example, if a spy satellite doing multispectral imaging has identified 100,000 sites to the DEA that might be backyard pot plants, why not just let them have the file of people who looked up something about how to grow the plant on Wikipedia so they can check those out first?

The countermeasure, already taken by Wikipedia, is to implement https connections as the default. Unfortunately, this is not guaranteed because of a man-in-the-middle approach whereby the connection is simply intercepted. [8] But (which the previous link doesn't recognize, but I think it should) the sites using SSL have a secret key, which your browser checks via a certification authority, and how might they mimic that? Well... they simply beat on the door and demand them. [9] One way or another, whether it is through the OS and NSAKEY or by this means or some other thing we don't know about, they are after this data, because they have the unlimited right to spy on you and you have zero right even to reverse engineer Windows let alone anything else. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP does not use HTTPS connections by default. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, can someone explain? Most but not all of the Wikipedia links in my Firefox history are https. I thought this was part of a planned transition that Wikid77 was complaining about because it fouled up his stats. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you access the first page of wikipedia of the day? If you have bookmarked a page that is https then all the other links you get fromthe first page (watchlist etc) will also be https. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's accurate. But I never typed in "https" in the first place (frankly, I assumed the NSA had the keys anyway, even before the story about the certificates I cited - I assumed https was key escrow from the time when it was introduced) Wnt (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly rather surprised that anyone seems to be reacting to this as if it's new information. It's been public knowledge for years that the NSA captures and stores all Internet traffic in the U.S. I don't think we have many users who've lived in a cave without Internet access for the past decade or so and just started using the projects the other day. Did people think the NSA made a special exception for Wikipedia traffic because they thought we're so awesome? Or were people just in denial about it until seeing official NSA materials that confirmed it?

Apropos of nothing, I'd love to see the Foundation make a formal complaint to the NSA over its unauthorized use of the copyrighted Wikipedia logo in its materials, just to see if there'd be any response. I don't think trademark law would apply, since it's a non-commercial use, though I could be wrong. Of course there's probably some blanket exemption from copyright law for classified materials or something along those lines. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of us were foolish enough to think that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was still in effect, and it wasn't a complete capture and index of everything. It's good to know that there are people as intelligent as you to realize that judges, warrants, probable cause, and specificity of search can be relegated to the history books. I hope I never become so intelligent, though, because it would totally shake my faith in the rule of law. EJM86 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo -- I am again iterating the question I posed some time ago:

I have seen some news articles recently about the FBI and various intelligence agencies (US and non-US) asking for details from Google and Facebook about users, including contents of messages. etc. Has the WMF been so asked for such information without warrants, and has the WMF acquiesced to giving out such information about users and editors here? Including contents of emails, revdeled edits, and articles accessed? Collect (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! It will be best for Geoff to answer in detail (here is a relevant blog post) as he can be more precise. For clarity, we have never received a FISA style warrant or keep-secret warrant of any kind, so my answer hasn't changed, happily.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Have him post then -- his blog post of 14 June is, frankly, less than heartening utterly. And the responses thereto even more so. All that is needed for "bad things to happen" is for "nice people" to say they can do nothing. (I avoid a quote which any "logically paranoid searcher" would certainly look for <g>). Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Why is it less than heartening? I think it's completely and totally direct and clear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a much more thorough response to your concerns from a Foundation attorney fresh from yesterday's revelations. EJM86 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely trademark law should apply to this - thanks for pointing that out, 108.! (Though IANAL) When people see this they are furious, or even take it as evidence that Wikipedia voluntarily collaborates with the NSA. That's known as "tarnishing" the trademark. Wikipedia ought to be able to get some kind of injunction out of this, and if there is any unexpected shortfall in donations, they should be able to sue for damages. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that noncommercial government use of trademarks is ever forbidden? On what basis would it be? These are top secret slides. Just forget that please. EJM86 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, trademark violation is not really an issue here. It is absolutely allowed to use trademarks editorially to explain or illustrate something - trademark law only prohibits uses that are designed to confuse in the marketplace, etc. And even if it were, that's a triviality as compared to the outrageousness of these surveillance programs - let's focus attention on that, instead!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've long been opposed to the use of trademark law to silence websites that mock a large company, but nonetheless it has often been pursued. My recollections are out of date though - there was a Supreme Court case limiting it and a new law to reallow it since last I looked, and I don't really understand the situation now. [10] Really, I had it in mind more as a talking point than as a legal action. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and WebCite?

WebCite which is used for dead links required by Wikipedia:Verifiability is going to close.

without saving dead links Wikipedia:Verifiability is completely meanless!

when we got any offical solution for http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite ? (Idot (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Making loud noises does not prove an argument! The closure of webcite does not make WP:V any more meaningless than it was before webcite existed. Linkrot is a problem we will always have, and will always have to deal with. Resolute 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

what we will do with dead links as do not have any alternative ways for verification of dead links?
shall we cancel WP:V as meanless rule or what?
or you just going to wait until all dead links will really die, then say "sorry guys..."? (Idot (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Also it should be noted that the vast majority of voters supported acquisition. I was among them. We donate and we should be able to determine how Wikimedia spends our money. — kf8 17:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How much more do they need to raise and by when? 97.124.165.149 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They need $30k by the end of year, of which 10k is already raised. Personally, I'm very disappointed by WMF spending large amounts for meaningless activities and not supporting service which stores over 300k pages for verifiability purposes. WMF could acquire WebCite or make similar service of our own, but the Foundation is occupied with its own petty projects like VE, it's a shame! --Akim Dubrow (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, how can mere mortals check to see whether someone has put in a FDC application for saving WebCite? 97.122.185.40 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Website should be supported. In the end, one of the pillars of Wikipedia holds, because the service operates. ADDvokat (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Don't acquire it, just support it. $30k is chickenfeed to the WMF - it's the kind of money they lay out to "train the trainers" so that some people in a WMxx organization can have something cool to put on their resumes (without providing a Wikiversity course for the rest of us to follow, either). That money can (a) keep them operating and (b) buy their promise to serve links to Wikipedia with greater reliability, to warn us if they are approaching an outage, etc. Wnt (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. If this was something that the Foundation could purchase with an operations requisition, there is no question in my mind that they would pay for it to prevent service interruptions for all the outgoing links. But why can't they? Jimbo, are you going to ask the Foundation staff to cut a check to keep WebCite up? EJM86 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• will we get at last any offical answer?! (Idot (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

I'm glad to see the interest in this, because I think having verifiability for all is part of the mission. But I don't think seeking the fiat of Jimbo is the best way to obtain the dispersal of WMF funds. He's a board member, and there are WMF staff for these tasks. To that end, the bottom of m:WebCite has an answer given on 25 July. The points under m:WebCite#Response_from_WMF_Grants_Program need attention from the relevant parties. I have sent an email to see if there is interest in working towards a grant on WebCite's end. Biosthmors (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the advantage of requiring WebCite to apply for a grant versus simply cutting a check as an operational expense to keep a service which volunteers have always depended on running? I'm not sure becoming a bureaucratic behemoth is entirely in the spirit of fun. EJM86 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. And I've asked Jimbo about the WebCite issue in person. I'm just stating my impression of the way things work. Biosthmors (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• still waiting for answer (Idot (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC))

See my post above, and I didn't hear a reply from the WebCite person so far. Biosthmors (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it safe to use OTRS ?

Hi Jimbo, today I happened to read this. As you see a Wikipedia administrator, and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team User:Tom Morris "wonders if we could tempt the really fucking perverted by offering a premium Jimmy Wales Real Doll". So his wondering made me to wonder, if it safe to use OTRS. I mean do you believe that the members of the Wikimedia OTRS team are responsible enough to be trusted with people's personal information? Thanks.76.126.140.123 (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Those comments are juvenile, insulting and embarrassing. I apologise to both Jimmy Wales and to Peter Damian: it was stupid for me to say those things, and I'm sorry. I also apologise for using a transphobic slur.

I realised at some point between 2011 and now that participation in the "drama" side of Wikipedia makes me miserable and turns me into a sort of person I don't want to be. (On my deathbed, I can't imagine that I will regret not spending more time posting on ANI.) I now try to consciously opt-out of such situations. I think I have matured as a person; I would not take part in a conversation like the one excerpted above today. IRC can promote a rhetorical one-upmanship which can be excessive, mean and immature. I'm far more careful in what I say and have pared down the number of Wikimedia IRC channels I participate in.

As for OTRS, I act with discretion and try my hardest to deal with the emails I handle at OTRS in a kind and considerate way. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)