Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:SOPA)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For more information on the proposed law itself, see SOPA
To see the conclusion of the community discussion, skip down to this section
For post-blackout news, initatives and discussion, see /Post-blackout activities and initiatives

This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and our response to it (if any). Jimmy Wales asked for community input on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives.

The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here.

Voice your support or opposition to the proposals by voting. You may also display a userbox on your userpage with the {{SOPA}} template.

Updates on SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN[edit]

January 23, 2012 - Senator Leahy made a statement urging the Senate to pass PIPA. From Politico:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) isn’t backing down from his fight for Congress to pass anti-piracy legislation and said on the Senate floor today he hopes “that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery.” Leahy said he regretted the Senate will not be proceeding with its cloture vote on the PROTECT IP Act, stressing that online piracy costs jobs and poses a risk to public safety. He added that “misinformation” was spread on the Web about what the bill would accomplish. “My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem,” Leahy said.

Senator Leahy's full statement is available on his website. For more information, see Sen. Leahy Isn’t Giving Up On PIPA Yet, Talking Points Memo. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


January 20, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) said that he is postponing consideration of the bill in response to concerns from critics who said the bill could lead to censorship. He stated:[1]

"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy," Smith said in a statement. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would delay the vote scheduled for Tuesday to begin consideration until the Senate Judiciary Committee could make more progress. "We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.[1]


January 17, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith announced that he expects SOPA markup to continue in February. Here is Rep. Smith's full statement:

To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy.
Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property.

As TechDirt predicted, earlier claims of SOPA's death were premature. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


January 16, 2012 - Mike Masnick from TechDirt explains the current status of SOPA and PIPA:

Issa's office put out a press release Friday night with Cantor's comments (I can pass along the press release if you'd like). Others have confirmed that Cantor has said that and that he's "serious" about not bringing it to the floor any time soon, though he has not made a public statement.
As for PIPA... Just yesterday, Reid reiterated his plans to bring the bill to the floor, saying that it was important for "jobs" even as he admitted that the "recent" concerns brought up by "Google & Facebook" are legitimate and he's worried about the impact the bill will have on the internet. But, he also claimed, he's working with Dianne Feinstein to sort out all the problems, since she represents both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Kinda crazy since Feinstein, just weeks ago, insisted that no one in tech was upset about the bill...

The New York Times has more on last week's developments in the SOPA and PIPA debate. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


January 14, 2012 - The official Whitehouse response to SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN recognizes that piracy and rogue sites pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. - Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas. As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


For more recent media, see the media page and legislative timeline.

The legal understanding[edit]

Below is a copy of a post, made by Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham.

 

How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia

Posted by Geoff on December 13th, 2011

For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill.

SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, and others.

On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here).

In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement. Criticism has been significant. [2] Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, for example, felt the bill “retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans’ ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet.”

Members of our community are weighing whether a protest action is appropriate. I want to be very clear: the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the decision of whether to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is a community decision. The Wikimedia Foundation will support editors in whatever they decide to do. The purpose of this post is to provide information for editors that will aid them in their discussions.

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

  • The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
  • The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
  • The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not.[3] We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.
  • Although rendering it discretionary (Secs.102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)), the new bill would still allow for serious security risks to our communications and national infrastructure. The bill no longer mandates DNS blocking but still allows it as an option. As Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, explained: “The amendment continues to encourage DNS blocking and filtering, which should be concerning for Internet security experts . . . .”
  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation advises that the new proposed legislation still targets tools that might be used to “circumvent” the blacklist, even though those tools are essential to human rights activists and political dissidents around the world.

More specifically with respect to Wikimedia, the new version is an improvement, but, in addition to the reasons listed above, it remains unacceptable:

Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an “Internet search engine,” [4] and, for that reason, a federal prosecutor could obtain a court order mandating that the Wikimedia Foundation remove links to specified “foreign infringing sites” or face at least contempt of court sanctions. [5] The definition of “foreign infringing sites” is broad[6] and could well include legitimate sites that host mostly legal content, yet have other purported infringing content on their sites. Again, many international sites may decide not to defend because of the heavy price tag, allowing an unchallenged block by the government.

The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.

Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new version exempts U.S. based companies - including the Wikimedia Foundation - from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. (Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)(ii)) In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas. The measured and focused approach of the DMCA has been jettisoned. Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill will deprive our readers of international content, information, and sources.

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Geoff's notes on the bill[edit]

H.R. 3261 – STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT

Section 102[edit]

Section 102

A “foreign infringing site” is a:

  • U.S. directed site:
    • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents OR that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
  • Used by users in the U.S.; and
  • Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
    • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
    • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

  • Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
  • Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

  • A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
  • The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

  • Internet search engines:
    • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
    • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
    • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
  • Service Provider:
    • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
    • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

Section 103[edit]

Definitions were changed and none of the Wikimedia.org properties (or any other U.S. registered sites) are covered by this section.

New definition of “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property”:

  • U.S. directed site OR Site for which the registrant of the domain name used, and the owner or operator are not located and cannot be found within U.S.;
    • Wikimedia is outside of this definition because based on the “U.S. directed site” definition outlined above; Wikimedia is not a foreign Internet site.
  • Site is used by users within the U.S.; and
  • Site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of sections 501 or 1201 of title 17 or certain provisions of the Lanham Act OR the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Qualifying plaintiff:

  • Definition has been narrowed down to be “any person with standing to bring a civil action for violations described in paragraph 1(C),” which requires infringement, rather than any holder of intellectual property rights harmed by activities of the site.



Process[edit]

SOPA Legislative Process[7]
House
  • Full committee markup (Thursday)
    • Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.
      • At the conclusion of deliberation:
        • A vote of committee members is taken to determine what action to take on the bill.
        • It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled (which means no further action on it will occur).
        • If no vote is taken, another markup will be scheduled
  • Manager’s Amendment
    • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
      • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor.
  • Rules Committee Hearing
    • Determines whether the bill will be considered under a closed rule (no amendments), an open rule (any amendment in order), or a modified closed rule (in which only some amendments are in order).
  • Floor time (probably not until early January):
    • If the bill is voted on and approved to move to the Floor, floor time must be scheduled.
      • Vote to recommit: vote to send the bill back to committee might be requested.
    • Vote on final passage: if the bill is voted on and passed by the House, it moves out to conference committee.
    • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference.
Senate
  • The bill is already out of Committee
  • Hold on the bill:
    • Senator Wyden has placed a hold on the bill
    • Senator Reid can override the hold or call a cloture vote to defeat it.
  • Manager’s Amendment
    • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
      • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor
  • Floor time (probably early next year):
    • If the hold is defeated or overridden, then floor time must be scheduled.
      • Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.
    • If the bill is passed, it is sent out to conference committee.
    • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference committee.
Conference Committee
  • Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be reconciled if anything in the two versions of the bill is different otherwise it is sent to the President (see below)
  • The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences.
    • If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate.
    • If changes are of a more substantial nature a conference is called.
  • The conference can be closed and informal or open and very formal.
  • Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses. If they are able to agree on the bill, the bill is re-voted upon in both houses.
    • If they were able to agree only on some parts of the bill or unable to agree at all, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, be referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.
President
  • Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate before being presented to the President.
    • This process could delay a bill a day or two.
  • Then, the bill is delivered to the President.
    • The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance.
    • If it sits unsigned for more than a 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not.
      • The exception to this 10-day period is a pocket veto, in which the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit.
    • If the President vetoes the bill, a veto message is sent back to Congress.
      • The two houses of Congress may decide to revote, and two-thirds is needed to override the veto and have the bill become a law.
        • If no immediate revote is taken, the bill can be tabled for later vote or sent back to the committee to have further work done.
        • If a vote is taken to override, and the vote fails, the bill dies.

References and notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b Kane, Paul (20 January 2012). "SOPA, PIPA votes to be delayed in House and Senate". The Washington Post. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
  2. ^ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-new-sopa-now-with-slightly-less-awfulness/
    http://cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/1312proposed-revision-sopa-some-welcome-cuts-major-concerns-remain
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/sopa-manager’s-amendment-sorry-folks-it’s-still-blacklist-and-still-disaster
  3. ^ See http://www.chillingeffects.org/resource.cgi?ResourceID=101 (providing a list of articles documenting abuses that certain rights owners have engaged in within the DMCA context).
  4. ^ An “Internet Search Engine” is defined as “a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or web sites available elsewhere on the Internet.” Sec. 101(15)(A). This definition does not include services that retain “a third party that is subject to service of process in the United States to gather, index, or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.” Sec. 101(15)(B). Although not conceding the point, Wikimedia arguably does not appear to fall under this exemption.
  5. ^ Sec. 102(c)(3)(A)(i). To ensure compliance with orders issued under Section 102, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief against any Internet Search Engine that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of section 102(c)(2)(B) to compel such entity to comply with such requirements.
  6. ^ Generally speaking, a “foreign infringing site” is any U.S.-directed site, used by users in the United States, being operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject the site to liability for criminal copyright infringement, as well as other federal copyright or trade secret violations. See Sec. 102(a)(1-2).
  7. ^ http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/
    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html.

Calls to action against SOPA[edit]

As I noted in my blog, this Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up the latest version of SOPA. Some organizations are calling for action on Thursday. For your consideration in this discussion, I'm including some relevant links showing how others are handling their call for action:

  • The Daily Kos suggests calling Representatives and speaking online before Thursday.
  • Techcrunch sets out some interesting action plans.

To state the obvious, we probably should not direct community traffic to these other sites if they do not have the technical capacity to handle it.

Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lobbying" and Government Affairs[edit]

Some continue to ask about lobbying restrictions. Let me repost here what I have said elsewhere:

Basically, the posting of banners or a blackout landing page that immediately redirects users to call Congress arguably raises issues about lobbying restrictions. In short, these activities, as others may suggest, might be considered lobbying. That said, Wikimedia can engage in lobbying activities as long as such engagement is "insubstantial" compared to overall activity. Insubstantial is not defined, and is based on the particular facts and circumstances. One possible consideration is that total lobbying for a tax year, under a conservative reading, should be less than 5% of total activities (though, I should say, some may say that this is not in itself determinative as to whether lobbying is insubstantial).
Importantly, Wikimedia may not directly or indirectly participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a political candidate. If any of the sponsors of this bill are campaigning for office, then it will be important to ensure nothing in Wikimedia’s communications or actions imply being for or against such an individual. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS provides some background here.

WMF and government affairs consultants

In response to some inquiries, I want to spell out some of our government affairs work, though it has been quite limited to date. Once it became clear that the proposed legislation was becoming active, the Wikimedia Foundation hired Dow Lohnes Government Strategies (“DLGS”) to provide educational background on several bills, including SOPA, IP Protect, and OPEN. The crux of the work is to provide us information on the legislation, such as the changing schedule for the various legislative steps; the substance of amendments; the key political players, including supporters and opponents, in the debate; news about the legislation; etc. This information has been useful in updating our community from an educational perspective. Early on, DLGS did have limited contacts with the House Judiciary Committee to understand the initial version of the legislation and to determine whether there would be room for acceptable legislative amendments. However, upon understanding the overall structure of the legislation, the Wikimedia Foundation decided that amendments could not address our community's key concerns. In the immediate future, we do not anticipate significant contacts with members of the House or Senate by DLGS on the legislation. We will continue to employ DLGS to furnish us their expertise on the legislative process and the various procedural and substantive legislative steps affecting the proposed legislation. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WMF and recent US media coverage re SOPA[edit]

In late December 2011 and early January 2012 US media outlets began speculating that Wikimedia Foundation and other big, US-based web companies were all contemplating major shutdowns to protest SOPA. ExtremeTech published a slide from a NetCoalition representative that produced a list of those companies on record as supporting a possible blackout of services. They also speculated on a date that the blackouts might happen.

To be clear: the Wikimedia Foundation has made no comment whatsoever regarding a possible date for a blackout, nor have we suggested that any specific action or timetable has been suggested by the community. These are purely speculative suggestions from the press. We continue to refer those making inquiries to this page and/or ongoing discussions on other pages. We're also under the impression that the other web companies listed have not made any firm, public statement suggesting a blackout of services. JayWalsh (talk)

The following web companies have committed to a blackout on January 18th from 8am–8pm EST (1300–0100 UTC): Reddit[1], the Cheezburger network[2][3], Minecraft[4], Tucows[5], XDA[6] MLGS[7] and it is almost certain (but not yet confirmed) that the Mozilla foundation and Boing Boing will join in as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

International SOPA-like laws[edit]

Spain[edit]

We were informed by Spanish contacts about a recent Spanish "Sinde law." Here is some unconfirmed preliminary research that one of our interns found on this law:

The Spanish "Sinde law" creates a commission, headed by the Secretary of Culture, that receives and investigates claims from copyright owners against websites. Once the commission reaches a decision (approximately within ten days of receiving the complaint), a judge will look over the finding and, if the site owners can be contacted, request that the infringing material be removed or the site shut down. If that's not possible, the judge will be able to order ISPs and other web hosts to have the site taken offline.

We encourage any additions or corrections to this summary. (It makes me think that, separate from SOPA, we should be monitoring censorship laws worldwide and keep track on an independent wiki. If there is support for that idea, I will set that up. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC))

Here is an article outlining US involvement in the Spanish Sinde law and the Spanish legislative process: http://torrentfreak.com/us-threatened-to-blacklist-spain-for-not-implementing-site-blocking-law-120105/ 98.24.27.17 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reddit going black on the 18th[edit]

http://mashable.com/2012/01/10/reddit-sopa/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow

-- Jim Reed (Talk)  23:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Has my whole hearted backing. This is a cause I am willing to die for. Not kidding in the least. Do not pussy foot around this thing. This is an existential threat to the whole internet infrastructure. Not just a playpen for politics. ENUFF SAID. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Once you go black... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea that they're doing that. But I feel we have to be careful if we decide to do it here. Don't forget, that day falls on a Wednesday, and many people will be coming onto the site for information and so forth, so doing it on here would be risky business. I'm all up for putting some sort of banner on the home page and what have you; but again, let's not go overboard. The idea Reddit has is good, but again, let's be careful about where we're going with this before we actually decide to do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Reddit on this one. One day won't hurt our credibility and will send a strong message to the world. A wednesday is an idea day to work as many people will be directed to the site, and thus, made aware of SOPA and its effect on the world. The news media is skirting the situation and we will be doing our moral duty as Wikipedians to inform and educate.  Marlith (Talk)  05:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of matching reddit's blackout. A wikipedia-specific blackout, triggered by conditions agreed upon here, is fine but this would be a much more effective effort were it pan-internet. We have a week; let's get the community on board to set Jan 18th as a blackout day. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm in favor of a blackout, I think that we need to coordinate with bigger sites if we want to have more firepower. Alexius08 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, that the idea of a wp-en blackout is also appreciated in the german WP. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a 12-hour blackout on January 18th, and having it synchronized with the Reddit blackout. During the next SOPA-related hearing, I would like to have Congresspersons mention how Wikipedia is blacking out in opposition to SOPA. Here's our chance to have an impact. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
12 hours is more than enough time to get the message out there. We don't need to take up the whole day to spread the word. But again, let's be careful about where we are going with this. I would agree to a 12 hour protest rather than go the entire day. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think very few people will visit Wikipedia during the night. We should also force some of the Wikifants to take a day off. --AuseurenbösenTräumen (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely why I'd favor a 24 hour blackout; it's likely we'll entirely miss some people. But we should match what Reddit does, and we should be reaching out to other sites (someone mentioned a Facebook blackout of some sort, for example) to coordinate. When multiple top-10 sites go dark, it increases coverage exponentially - which is the entire point. Contacts from voters to representatives is one benefit, but getting high-profile media to suddenly start covering this issue is another, and the broader scope of the blackout serves that end. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to have a blackout. It goes directly against Wikipedia's aims and principles.

I'm not sure how much experience people posting here have with user behavior (particularly on computers), but users will ignore any pop-up or banner ad. If it's obtrusive enough, they'll find the "close" or "x" link. Otherwise, they'll simply filter it out. A total blackout (as opposed to a banner) will just cause people to say "oh, Wikipedia's down" and ignore any message you're trying to get across. It may be disheartening, but it's the reality.

For Reddit, a blackout is even more pointless, as the dozen or so nerds who visit Reddit already know about SOPA and its threatened impact. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"The dozen or so"? Reddit had 35 million uniques in December, and over 2 billion pageviews. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia had a few more. And, uh, that was a bit of hyperbole. The basic points still stand: a blackout is a bad idea and the nerds who visit Reddit are already aware of SOPA, making it an even worse idea.
I should add that anyone suggesting Wikipedia should follow Reddit's lead in anything ought to be taken 'round back. Reddit is a cesspool of dreck. Surely not to be emulated. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The colloquial way of expressing that idea is "If Reddit jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?" :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I had the same cynical impulse about Reddit, but on reflection, I'm not sure it wasn't just being curmudgeonly. I can see a reasonable argument that for Reddit's community and audience, it's a motivational action (i.e. it's not that they don't know, but getting people to do something - especially something beyond ranting on discussion forums! - is an entirely different issue). HOWEVER, I don't think what Reddit can do, in terms of being a corporate site with a specific "voice", directly applies to what Wikipedia can do, as a charity with a nebulous "neutrality" claim. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The bored nerds attempting to access Reddit at work aren't going to take to the streets because they've lost their "discussion" forum (Reddit is to discussion what Encyclopedia Dramatica is to encyclopedias). Instead, they're going to get on Facebook. Or Slashdot. Or wherever else. And when the site comes back up on January 19, they'll come back and post more noise. What will have been accomplished? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
They don't need to take the streets ("Occupy SOPA"?). There's a chance that a small portion of them might be motivated to contact their members of Congress and engage in a mild amount of real politics. Everything doesn't need to be hyperrevolutionary up-against-the-wall radicalism in order to be worthwhile (or at least I hope so). In terms of activism, the question I think is what's the expected gain, is it worth the cost, and who pays the cost. This is of course difficult. Much of my dislike of Wikipedia, and concerns about Wikipedia activism, are related to cost-shifting, where small "gains" for the top 1% are done at large "losses" for the bottom 99% (sound familiar?). But Reddit strikes me as a low-risk/low-cost effort. It may do a little good, it may just be net-flaming, but there's no big possible downside I see either. Wikipedia is in a different position in terms of that analysis, though. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There are people that are going to be coming onto this site not knowing what is going on. All they will want is to get their information and be on their way. And by forcing someone to not be able to view what it was they came on here to get, their negativity will be drawn the other way. Ordinary people will generate negativity towards this site for doing such thing. I'm telling you right now, there's a good possibility that it'll happen. We should speak to those who use Wikipedia just to get information and be on their way. Or else, this protest won't work. Please take my suggestion and ask the ordinary users before we do a protest. And, again, since a majority of people on here seem to think opposite of these decisions, I would like to propose a 12 hour protest. 12 hours will be Enough Time to get the information out there. And, once more, I would like to remind everyone that January 18th falls on a Weekday. Let's all make a decision that is fair to everyone, and think about what we are doing before we actually go off and do it. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You tend to ignore the consequences of SOPA. It could bring the Wikipedia down for much longer than one day. Where can the people get their information from in this case? SOPA is such a serious problem, that we should adress it. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
SOPA will not bring down Wikipedia. See above legal post, quote, "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours.". I don't really want to be "the guy" who goes around saying "You are being lied to", since I'm not in a social position for it, and I'm very much against SOPA on civil-liberties and Internet architecture grounds. I'm trying to advocate appropriate protest, as there's also some caution to keep in mind. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This "new version" reduces the danger of the WMF beeing banned from payment services, but this does not affect the chapters. The DNS blocks are obscure. But even without those two points, the WP has to execute the regular control of weblinks. This point is probably even more dangerous than the other 2 points, as it could force us to waste ressources and to restrict the free-editing-policy. If the link-control can not be completely executed, the WMF would probably have to spend donations on fines, that could also waste their budget. The new version is not as bad as the old one, but it is still bad. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand what could happen if SOPA becomes law. And I do agree with Seth. It's just a little confusing, in a way, trying to understand every little detail of wwhat SOPA would do to websites like this one. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it's conceivable that a few links might be added to the existing WP:blacklist which is already lovingly maintained to control acceptable sites links at Wikipedia. But as much an offense to freedom of expression that might be, it's not going to bring Wikipedia down, which was the claim above. This is where I just don't want be "that guy", to write lengthy explanations of how you are being manipulated. For example, trying to explain where this sits in the universe of legal risks, compared to e.g. the completely opposite reaction that's generally seen with problematic sexual material. Once more, I am against SOPA, but the sky just isn't falling for Wikipedia. And there's reasons you're being told it is :-( . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're OK with telling us we're being manipulated, you also need to be OK with explaining your position. Otherwise you're just playing at FUD games. --JaGatalk 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - we made a small site in response to Reddit's January 18th blackout - I think it'd certainly be smart if WP joins in on the 18th, but I also think it's equally important for a lot of smaller sites out there to join in as well: http://sopablackout.org Pvvni (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the "(click anywhere to continue)" sopablackout.org is using. Some users disagree with preventing visitors from viewing the content they came to Wikipedia to see, but we could provide a similar method (perhaps a button) for those visitors to view article content after learning about SOPA and what actions to take. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey: What about a short-term, user-controlled blackout option? That is to say, lock the site to anyone coming into Wikipedia. Like a EULA, make them have to read something about SOPA and its effects on the Internet. Include of course what they can do to help stop it. Then, once they have read it (maybe once they've scrolled down or after a set amount of time) a button will appear and when they click it they can gain access to the site again. Is that too difficult to do?

Why don't we have a real vote, whether to have a blackout or not?

First edit in a while, but I'll throw my voice behind the blackout idea. Yes, it goes against the idea of wikipedia, but so does SOPA. It's not like we are promoting censorship, just like cropwalk isn't promoting hunger. Probably should setup a coordinated page for just the 18th blackout and have it linked on the community portal instead of this page, though.--Rayc (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Only a few days left to get this done. From the comments it appears most editors want WP to join the SOPA blackout on the 18th, so how do we get it done? What's needed, some kind of vote? Let's do it! Steevithak (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So...Why not blackout the front page? Or why not make a separate "blackout page" where every visitor that comes to WP via the home page sees, states what SOPA is, how Wikipedia will be affected, and add a clear link to be "redirected" to the official Wikipedia homepage. Although I favor a WP wide blackout, there are other alternatives such as what I listed above. I don't like the idea of a banner. Many people are annoyed by banners, and they often ignore what they say. To be as up front as possible I think these are probably the best options. Regardless of the decision, something should be done. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on a SOPA message on WP if action is taken[edit]

Like many of the folks on staff at WMF, I've been tracking updates on this issue carefully, keeping an eye on this page, and following the movements around the bill in Washington. To assist this discussion and to be useful, we've been trying to think about what exactly might appear on Wikipedia should some sort of advocacy action around SOPA take place in the future. We've put our heads together at WMF on this language, but it shouldn't be construed as an official or approved text from us, rather some kind of a starting point for what sort of text might appear to readers should actions on the project unfold (I haven't seen such text in other parts of WP so far, but if I should be looking there too I will). I've always admired how Wikipedians frame these issues up to readers, so I know that whatever text ultimately comes together it will be quite good - clear, direct and simple. As with Geoff, Philippe, Ryan and others, the communications team is also here to share ideas, provide feedback and support the conversation. I'm also pleased to report that WMF is ready from a communications perspective if or when any action unfolds. It will almost certainly become one of the most important media stories in the world, and we should be ready to talk to the press and point them to the right info in the event it all happens.

Two variations for a possible landing page are shared below. One would be more relevant for US readers, the other for non-US readers. It seems much of the conversation is making a clear distinction between the two audiences, which makes a lot of sense to me. In the case of the US message we've reached out to friends at the EFF about one scenario in which readers could be pointed to their current advocacy page (the URL is a bit brutal, but you get the idea). We've asked what kind of capacity they could handle, and the short answer is 'a lot.' This portal is also very simple for US readers and being EFF, it's very careful with private information. As I understand it, this advocacy tool is one of the most privacy sensitive and stores the absolute minimum of data. It's very important that if action takes place, where readers are sent to 'act' really must be chosen carefully. As others have observed, there could be millions of users flooding that link in a matter of hours. EFF's tool is ready for that traffic.

Here are the messages we put together. Of course we expect they'd see considerable change and adaptation - or a completely different message may come together. Happy to share more thoughts...

DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia

Users of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers - they contribute millions of hours a year to this project because they are passionate about sharing free knowledge. Today Wikipedia is available in 282 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is the fifth most-visited website online, with over 480 million unique visitors.
All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space. Wikipedia is absolutely dependent on this fact. Our editors and our readers must have access to websites hosted around the world - to verify and add facts, to research articles, and to offer critical context for encyclopedic articles. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users. On Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, upload freely-reusable pictures, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factually correct information anywhere on the web.
Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new bills - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that, if passed, will harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills endanger our Constitutional guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening model of Internet censorship for more repressive regimes around the world.
How you can help
Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.
The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.

NON-US Focused message DRAFT MESSAGE: SOPA and PROTECTIP will kill the open Internet, and hurt Wikipedia

Readers of Wikipedia are deeply familiar with the vast amount of information held within our projects. For over ten years volunteer Wikipedians from around the world have been building this project, compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the Wikipedia you enjoy every day possible. Today Wikipedia is available in over 280 languages and in total it comprises over 20 million articles. According to comScore, Wikipedia (the most visited property of the Wikimedia Foundation’s projects) is a top 5 global website with over 480 million unique visitors.
All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space for sharing information. Collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add new information, remove vandalism, engage in wide-ranging debates and discussions, and work to ensure that the readers of Wikipedia have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written, and factual information anywhere on the web.
Right now the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are considering two new laws - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP - that would harm the free, secure, and open web and bring about new tools for censorship of foreign websites. These bills endanger the US Constitution's guarantee of free speech and provide a frightening precedent for more repressive regimes around the world.
Everyone who uses the Internet can make their views known about these pieces of legislation. SOPA and PROTECTIP, if passed in the United States, set a frightening precedent for free and open speech on the web around the world. If you appreciate Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free and open web.
Let your local United States embassy know that you value the free, secure and open web. You should also reach out to your own elected representatives and tell them that there’s no room for this type of censorship in your country either.

JayWalsh (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I approve. One idea that I think would help is to lock down access to all articles except the ones on SOPA and PIPA, which will work well given the aims and parameters of this action.  Marlith (Talk)  05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
We have prepared this message at the german Wikipedia. It consists of four parts: First, the existence of SOPA Second, the 4 critical points, in detail section 102, which demands us to control and censor our links, the restrictions on VPNs and similar tools, the Domain blankings and the restrictions on payment services. The message is concluded by a list of other organisations, that oppose SOPA. In my opionion, a message to the readers should not only state the fact, that SOPA will cause problems, but also describe these problems in detail .--Liberaler Humanist (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The German message is excellent. Whilst the proposed text above is OK it's not very easy to understand for a reader who has no idea what is going on. At the very least the first sentence needs to say "Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary blackout in protest over two new proposed US laws" etc. The first paragraph is nice, and all that, but seems a bit sappy ("oh look how awesome we are"), which reduces the punch and impact on the message. I would scrap it in its entirety. Maintaining and improving security on a fully functioning Internet has become an ever more important goal for Wikipedians and our users.; this seems to be over-egging the basket a bit :) it's only SOPA that has made us sit up. Also; it should always be "English Wikipedia" as we are only representing ourselves - to represent all Wikipedia's is a decision we can't make :) Perhaps (with some style copy-editing):
English Wikipedia is currently undergoing a voluntary **ACTION** in protest over two new proposed US laws which may limit internet freedom and material impact our goals.
For over ten years volunteer editors from around the world have been compiling millions of facts, references, and citations to make the English Wikipedia you use and enjoy every day. All of this has been possible because the Internet is a free and open space, a fact on which the English Wikipedia is absolutely dependent. Our editors and readers must have access to websites hosted around the world to verify material, research articles, and obtain critical context for articles. On English Wikipedia, collaborators from almost every part of the planet can add information, remove vandalism, upload images, engage in wide-ranging debate and discussion, and help ensure that readers have access to the highest-quality, neutrally written and factually correct information.
The United States House of Representatives and the Senate are currently considering two new bills (The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECTIP) which may make our task impossible. If passed these bills will harm the free, secure, and open web and create new tools for censorship of foreign websites here in the United States. These bills would endanger Constitutional guarantees of free speech and create a frightening model of Internet censorship.
How you can help
Today we ask you to take action and oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP. If you appreciate English Wikipedia, then you appreciate the free, secure, and open web.
The links below will take you to an advocacy portal hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Through this portal you can contact your local Representative or Senator. Tell them that you oppose SOPA and PROTECTIP - and that you value free speech, the unrestricted exchange of ideas, security, and open collaboration on the Internet. Protect the values and ideas that English Wikipedia stands for, and protect the Internet.
Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 11:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Observation: I have a feeling that if the claimant had a complaint against us the law would simply take away the whole domain and Wikipedia would be no more, unless we relocated to another country. So it would be worth verifying somewhere that the bills would drive out the information technology industry out of the US. --Marianian(talk) 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not so. See above - "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This "new version" tends to make the DNS-Censorship and the restrictions on payment processors not a very serious issue for Wikipedia. However, the dns-blocks remain an obscure thing and I could not find a source, that states, that Wikipedia is completely out of danger from the dns-blocks. The definition of a "foreign infringement site" is very obscure and there is one line, to which we should pay attention: A “foreign infringing site” is a [...] Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents [...] that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site. The Operator of Wikipedia uses to be someone else than the owner of the site, the WMF. What happens, if someone claims to have a problem with things done by someone from Siberia on WP-RU and/or translations/transfers of this content to the volapük-Wikipedia by a bot? In this case, the User from Siberia is completely foreign to the US, the bot probably too. If you watch this video from the house of representatives, you will get an idea of how little the organizers of SOPA know about how the internet works. For Wikipedia, the line the owner or operator of the Internet site could mean anything, as the organizers of SOPA are probably not informaed about Web 2.0 . Of course, the final line is according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc., but as the definition of the person, that is responsible for the content of the site is too obscure, I would not trust on this line.
I am refering to the analysis by Geof Brigham, I do not know, if according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. was added by him. It would be good, if we would not have to fear dns-blocks, but this "new version" forces us to stay in th US forever. We have had a discussion at the german Wikipedia about setting up a strategic plan to become more independent fro, the WMF and to operate the german Wikipedia from Europe. Such things would become hard to do with SOPA.
Even if there would be a guarantee, that we would not be affected by the dns-blocks, SOPA still demands us to control and censor our weblinks, which is bad enough. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Consider myself corrected in part, although it is worth noting that I feel really strong over the scale of the plan. My thought is that DNS blocking is not an option for any site other than child porn and terrorist activity like Neo-nazism. If they wish to tackle online piracy, they should instead target companies that sell counterfeit goods for actual profit. But overall I respect other's opinions as well as making mine clear. --Marianian(talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The part about according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc. is in Geoff Brigham's original blog post. Wikipedia has far greater problems with non-US law, particularly third-party liability for content -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we could come up with an opener with more punch. For example, if the action is a blackout, imagine this headline in big, unmissable text on a black page:
Contact Congress now or Wikipedia may go dark forever.
This hooks readers into wanting to see more, and makes it clear that this is not a fundraising pitch. —Brent Dax 03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline is that you will make readers feel under pressure or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That sure would hook people, you're completely and absolutely right there. It would also be completely false. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
An unintended reaction that might happen with a strong headline like that is you will make readers feel under pressure, or that they are being forced (ordered) to respond how you want them. I don't think that is good. Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This message is a good start, but the big problem is that we should (as in Geoff's blog post) list at least one concrete way that SOPA/PROTECTIP will hurt Wikipedia. I suggest the following:
"SOPA/PROTECTIP will prevent Wikipedia articles from linking to relevant websites that are accused of infringement, even if such accusations are baseless. The ability to reference sources and suggest further reading is critical to Wikipedia's reliability and utility."
Thoughts? Dcoetzee 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. In the drafts it is not clear at all how it will hurt Wikipedia or others (Just says it will). I believe that before people take an action to contact their representative, they want to be very sure what they are protesting! Language needs to be created to precisely spell out what the possible (or inevitable) harm is from SOPA...not just hint that it is a bad thing. Would you sign your name to something if you didn't understand it or could not see what the fuss was all about? Petersontinam (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Further DRAFT messages for the public to use RE SOPA[edit]

We've been thinking about other important text to share with everyone asap. These messages are different from the proposed landing page text above. These are proposed texts we could and should put on an 'other things you can do to help' page. IF people want to go above and beyond using an advocacy platform, they should know what they can say and to whom - again, very much US focussed. These are broken into three topic areas... JayWalsh (talk)

Cyber Security

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would seriously damage the security of the Internet (in the House the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important part of our personal and business life. Therefore, a safe and secure Internet is vital to our privacy and economy. Over 100 well-known Internet experts believe that requiring blocking of Internet sites is badly conceived and threatens the security of the Internet. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Censorship

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you, as my elected representative, to oppose bills that would censor the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, the PROTECTIP Act). The Internet has become an extremely important communications tool allowing the free flow of ideas. These bills would give the Justice Department power to shut down entire websites, risking the suppression of protected speech, even when that website or its information is not the subject of a complaint. This violates both the American concept and the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. It sets a terrible precedent and provides a frightening model for repressive regimes. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Innovation

I am contacting you as a concerned constituent. I strongly urge you as my representative to oppose bills that would seriously chill innovation on the Internet (in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act and in the Senate, PROTECTIP Act). Our economy has benefited enormously from innovation on the Internet. Not only has the Internet created successful multi-billion dollar businesses that didn’t exist 10 years ago, it has benefited literally thousands of small businesses by providing them a previously unreachable worldwide market. These bills would put unreasonable burdens on the Internet Service Providers and search engines, the backbone of the Internet, and strip the safe harbor for innovation the law now provides. Less drastic alternatives must be considered which do not suffocate our Internet economy. I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.

Discussion[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASOPA_initiative&diff=471058720&oldid=471055294 – I believe that the OPEN Act should be mentioned so that visitors will know that they have more options than just SOPA, PROTECT-IP, or "do nothing". I feel that it's unlikely for visitors to ask Congresspersons to "do nothing" about fraudulent products from overseas. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I've moved the current state of these messages over to this sub page so we can work on them separately. Please take your comments and suggestions over there too. JayWalsh (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Other options[edit]

I've been trying to comment my concerns down below these sections here, but I don't believe they've been seen by, well, anyone. Apologize ahead if I'm posting in the wrong area, but I really do want to bring out a couple of points. First off, I've been searching for news on the status of SOPA/PIPA, and from the information I've read, it seems as if both bills will not be going up for debate this Wednesday (the day we've proposed as the day of our blackout), as they will further look into the bill. I was going to ask if we should keep that date, scrap it, or still do a blackout but not a full blackout. Second, I understand we're all very heavily debating about the blackout on here, but I don't believe neutrality is being brought up here. I just feel like things should be fair on both sides, regardless of where all of us stand on the issue. I'd rather have things equal than go out of hand. If anyone knows if there are any other pages where I can have these topics discussed, please let me know. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary and conclusion[edit]


Tallies[edit]

Option Total Votes Registered Users Autoconfirmed Users
1. Blackout US only, global banner 479 443 395
2. Global blackout and banner 591 558 497
3. Blackout and banner both US only 24 24 22
4. No blackout, global banner 20 18 18
5. No blackout, banner US only 19 17 16
6. No blackout and no banner 76 72 67

Call for comment from the community[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary[edit]

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

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

Open questions[edit]

Instructions: To show your support for any of the proposed actions below, add the following line of code at the bottom of the list of other supporters you wish to join:

#'''Support'''. ~~~~

US only vs global (all users)[edit]

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

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

(1) Blackout US only, global banner[edit]
  1. Strongly Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.162.153 (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support It is imperative that the other, similar bills, are also given light. Just because SOPA can get shot down does not mean that the others will, too. The banner is better for non-US because they really can't do much to change USA's lawmaking. Ainola 14:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Strongly Support - the 'soft black out' is a bad idea but it defeats the entire purpose of blacking out. OFF-LINE, and maybe a link to anonymizing proxies and/or Tor network to promote semi-anonymous traffic. Reid Sullivan (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support (1) Jehochman Talk 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. Jorge Haddad
  6. Support, but (2) is acceptable as well. – Andrew Hampe Talk 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Despite what some have said, I don't think it would make all that much of a difference to U.S. lawmakers if the site was blanked globally. Readers from other locations should be able to see the site. However, from what I've seen, most would be glad to join the protest so I don't think it's that big of a deal. Nightw 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Support - if there has to be a blackout, then it should only take place in the US, since there's no benefit to blacking out those in any countries (they can't do anything to solve the problem, since it's a US law that only US citizens can appeal against, so why punish them by taking away their Wikipedia access?). Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    The header when I left this message was 'US only' rather than the current "Blackout US only, banner for all users". I was trying to make the point that if a blackout happens it should only cover the US, nothing more. I'm generally opposed to a blackout at all. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry for confusion - maybe consider supporting one of (4)-(6) and then indicate that you prefer (1) or (3) to (2)? Dcoetzee 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - (for worldwide blackout) Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. SOPA is not just an American issue anymore. Everyone has to be informed and involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talkcontribs) 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support - I agree with Mike Peel. However, expatriats and citizens of other countries should be informed to take part in the conversation and the opposition to SOPA from abroad, for example by calling the local US embassy and mention the concern. Since many SOPA supporters are international companies, there are local offices of these companies abroad, too. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support It may be a tip in neutrality, but doing wht is right is more important than being neutral right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatiusguy0 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support per Mathias Schindler's thoughts based on Mike Peel's comment. Reluctantly as I'd like a bigger impact but in this case targeting might be how to get that bigger impact. (Night w makes a similar point I have to agree with, too - US lawmakers don't seem to much care if the rest of the world disagreews when it comes to US security.) FT2 (Talk | email) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    Very slim banner only, "This is what's going on in the US, show your support". A "protest this legislation" or heavy duty banner note might be less effective. The message for the United States is "this is what you're doing to your internet. And nobody else is going to hear about it or have its effects, except as an item on overseas news". Slim banner to make the point that effectively, the rest of the world it's no effect. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters so pointless to antagonise the rest of the world. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support per AlisonW. SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support --Teukros (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support Jujutacular talk 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support This strikes the right balance between involving the community but focusing the protest where it is directly relevant. Many users outside the U.S. will complain about any action (in my opinion not grasping its global implications), but in the interest of doing something we should focus where there will be less resistance. Note, I would support a global click-through blackout but not a global full blackout. Ocaasi t | c 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  17. I'm willing to support but prefer to minimize inconvenience for people when it's less likely that they can effectively respond to the call. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support per Mike Peel. We need some form of action: short and clear. Greetings from Frankfurt Germany. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  19. I agree with what Jimbo said. A global blackout won't do us much good. A global blackout might even annoy some users. Nevertheless, I believe that non-US users need to see a banner so that they're aware of what's going on and why we're doing it. Some international pressure from the foreign press might do some good as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support I'm also willing to provide some technical support in regards to this. If we don't make a stand, this bill will pass, and we'll be kicking ourselves for not doing enough to try to stop it. --Ryan lane (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support Perhaps banners for those in other countries preachin' the gospel (like Mozilla did). SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  23. Shubinator (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support LoriLee (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support for this. I'll be blacking out my own site (small graphics developer) in support of Reddit and would very much like to see Wikipedia support it. Something needs to be done to wake up rank and file internet users in the US and time is of the utmost essence.Anarchistjim (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support — Everyone should be aware of our initiative, but it should only directly affect the viewing experience of U.S. readers. — madman 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support --Jorm (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support --Rayc (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  29. Support. Catlemur 15:00, 13 January 2012 (GMT)
  30. Support Most graphic method of driving home the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.124.154 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  31. I support this action so long as it is limited to English Wikipedia only. The sister projects have not opted in, and there's no reason why consensus on English Wikipedia should be taken as consensus for other Wikimedia projects. Commons definitely ought not be blacked out given that it is used by non-English Wikipedias. Speaking as a Wikinews admin, I think that, if polled, the Wikinews community probably wouldn't want to participate. Given the size of the sister projects, it's no big deal - that you could still access Wikiquote or Wikiversity really won't affect the political impact of a Wikipedia shutdown. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  32. Support +1 on this --75.80.212.166 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)75.80.212.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  33. Support This needs to happen to sufficiently raise awareness Geekwithsoul (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support --Jesant13 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  35. Support Since this seems to be the most popular option, I'll put my vote towards this. I think a worldwide blackout would be much more effective, however. SOPA impacts everybody, and I think non-Americans need to be informed. A global backlash against the bill will be very powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  36. Support with (2) and (3) as second and third choices. This issue is critically important to our future. Jnork (talk) 22:34, 13 January, 2012 (UTC)
  37. Support, very much yes. Teamsleep (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  38. Support, I would also like (2)--Blood sliver (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  39. Support Raises awareness to users everywhere, but keeps the focus where the issue can be most directly affected.--JayJasper (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  40. Support Minimal banner for non-US, respecting that it's not their country, but they still may care --Ed Brey (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  41. Support L337p4wn Talk to me! 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  42. Support followed by (3), (2), and (4). We should only be acting like this if there's a near total consensus here on the issue and the importance. I believe that's the case here with SOPA. Bennetto (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  43. Support. – Joe N 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  44. Support Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) lets run this into the ground and shut down the entire website. The only way to fight fire is with fire, I will go (2) as a backup option myself.
  45. Support, but happy with the other blackout/banner options too. Wittylama 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  46. Yes - Nolelover Talk·Contribs 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  47. Support option 1 or 2, I do not think people will look at just another banner. Awk (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  48. Support AndrewPapp (talk)But, at least for the US, it should not be an easy click-thru. It should direct people to write to their Congress reps and only end their blackout early if they do.
  49. Support Sarah 01:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  50. Support Agent 78787 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  51. Support. The blackout should be a splash screen, and it should be targeted only to people who have representatives to contact (i.e. people in the U.S.) Even if foreign citizens contact Congress, they're not going to give them any impact. The splash screen should encourage people to take action, but not require them to do so. If they so choose, they should be able to decline and then use Wikipedia as normal. Superm401 - Talk 01:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  52. Support --SirGeek CSP (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  53. Support Aswn (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  54. Support --TreyGeek (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  55. Support Would be up for 1 or 2 --Nascar8FanGA (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  56. 1 or 2 — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  57. Support option 1 or 2 ~FeedintmParley 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  58. Support --The Requiem (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  59. Support dkonstantinos (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  60. Support I think a blackout is a good way to raise awareness about the bill, and I feel banners are more prone to being ignored (especially so soon after the fundraising drive). However, I don't feel that blacking out Wikipedia outside of the U.S. is necessary, as this is a U.S. law and the lawmakers responsible for the bill are U.S. It will affect people around the world, yes, but I don't think a global blackout will change any lawmakers' minds. I strongly disagree, however, with the idea of requiring a visitor to contact his or her Congressman before he or she can access Wikipedia. Those who support the bill or do not want to take action of there own should not be punished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  61. Support We should do this on the mobile site too. Lucasoutloud (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  62. Support. Would also support global as well — the Internet is not just national, and if the US does this, there will be global effects as well. Additionally there are considerable numbers of voting Americans abroad. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  63. Support This will allow us to raise concern well domestically with the blackout and internationally with a banner. --Kylalak (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  64. Support The blackout will be unignorable. And I just think non-US users seeing a blackout pertaining to a US law might be made to feel like Wikipedia is not "for" them, like the assumed audience of Wikipedia is American. I don't like that idea, so that's why I support (1) rather than (2). Glowbee (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  65. Support seems to me a reasonable response. of course, many us citizens read other wp's, and many noncitizens read the english wp, but since the servers are in florida, the english wp has got to be the focus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  66. Support This being US regulation, makes sense to go US only. TNL (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  67. Support as second choice, behind full worldwide blackout. This legislation will affect the Internet, which is worldwide, not just the US. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  68. Support Only an actual blackout for US users will have a sufficiently large impact to get this movement noticed in the way it needs to be.Dlswain (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  69. Support USA politicians will only be concerned with USA voters «»Who?¿? 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  70. Support This is a serious enough issue to draw attention, more in the US than elsewhere. As the bill(s) would have far-reaching effects that extend beyond the borders of the US, it makes sense for something to be broadcast outside the US as well. Spiffulent (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  71. Support If we do have a blackout, it should be a page explaining the impact of SOPA on Wikipedia. The banner can redirect to the blackout page, with comments explaining what SOPA is. --Dial (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  72. Support Farlo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  73. Support This is not a a purely "political" act, SOPA potentially endangers the freedom of Wikipedia by allowing pages to willy-nilly be shut down. This is a HUGE deal. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  74. Support Ktdreyer (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  75. Support VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  76. Support Has the foundation considered moving the project to a more friendly environment?Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  77. Support Wikipedia should be more politically and legally active when the project is at risk. Savidan 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  78. Support Q·L·1968 04:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  79. Support Doing so has my full support. We live in a democracy and we must make our voices heard. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  80. Support Wikipedia do your part. Mypagesarecool (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  81. Support We need to express ourselves with a blackout, but we also need to explain to all what is happening in the USA. Etineskid(talk) 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  82. Support. I still feel it would be more pointed to just target this at the U.S. House and Senate IPs, as well as those of the companies and organizations that support SOPA/PIPA, but if this coordinates with what other sites are doing, like Reddit, we're stronger doing it with them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  83. Support actual reddit style blackout. The whole point is to demonstrate what the internet is like without Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  84. 1st choice. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  85. Support and make the American users unable to use Wiki with a big banner, for that day. Saffy21 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  86. Support —Tim Pierce (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  87. Support: It is a global issue, no doubt, but the legislation is for America only, so we should keep the blackout to America. Jarmihi (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  88. Support Equaaldoors (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  89. Support but (2) is also an acceptable alternative. Loserpenguin15 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  90. Support Blockout is our only weapon at the moment to protest this, let it be an important day el diablo es la ignorancia (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  91. Support Zhang5 (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Edit: Also I support that we put up banners well in advance of the 18th.
  92. Support Dkriegls (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  93. Support Iconofiler (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  94. Support action needs to be taken. I signed the petition on sopastrike.com and demandprogress.org, I will sign here too. Akihironihongo (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  95. Support Monowi (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  96. Support Wikipedia must take a stand to defend freedom on the internet. U.S. users especially need this message now, but all Wikipedians should be informed of the dangers of these censorship concepts. Sonicsuns (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  97. support While I believe that too few people outside the US are aware of what's going on, I think a global blackout might confuse (what congressperson? I don't have a congressperson...) and annoy those who feel it is completely irrelevant. That said, failing this, I'd rather go big than tone it down: 2 is second choice. <edit: this for the splash screen, not full blackout.>sonia♫ 07:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  98. Support 1 and 3 are both adequate. I agree it should be enwiki and geolocated in the US. I also like the banners, as otherwise, I wouldn't have known about this issue. Perhaps blackout to US users and banner for others. After reading the proposals, it's utter rubbish, and the US public should do whatever it takes to get their voice heard. Captain Courageous (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  99. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  100. Support --Cybercobra (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  101. Support Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  102. Support Banners are often ignored, so more is needed, and as long as there is still access (albeit somewhat more circuitous) a blackout is sensible. I like the idea of warning about the blackout in advance. DopplerRadioShow (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  103. Support elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  104. Support Perlit (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) I find (2) also acceptable
  105. Support Vorziblix (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  106. Support. Let's not do that 'America thing' and plague the world with our problems. A banner is great, especially for US citizens living overseas, where they may not have been exposed to information about to SOPA. As for the US, let no American escape. Commander Ziltiod (speak) 09:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  107. Support SOPA affects every person in the US, and our community must take a stand against it. The bill also has the potential to affect Wikipedia itself, so we should let the world know our stand... but not black them out, that's dangerously like doing SOPA's job for it. For those voting in support of (5), and (6) who are quoting WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, or similar (ad there are some), a question: How do you reconcile that stance with the fact that you're participating in this conversation? An assertion that WP:NPOV should extend to more than article content seems inherently self-contradictory. FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  108. Support I'd love to see Wikipedia taking part in this. The blackout should be US only (I do like the idea of a clickthrough to allow people to access articles after seeing the blackout). Non-US countries should get a banner so that those in a position to affect US policy -- traveling or expatriate US citizens, for example -- should be a position to do so. Gaurav (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  109. Support Though, I would also support a worldwide blackout (maybe more, but not sure if it's "fair" since it is a US law) Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  110. Support SOPA is way to vague if we want something like this to make sure creative people get what they deserve it needs to be more specific. although not the "worlds" problem i would appreciate what support we can get from anyone. however, international users shouldn't be punished for the US sucking, which is why i support here, but if they can help in anyway i'll love them forever (aka, be a better more involved human being, who continues to give a shit, but takes more action to help the world)i'm sure this makes very little sense but i just woke up for work at 5:40 am ESTKillemall22 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  111. US Politicians are out of control. They are here to sever the people, not corporations. I support US Blackout only pldinesh2 11:11 AM, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  112. Support per Mike Peel. -- kh80 (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  113. Support --Wvk (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  114. Support -- Users outside the U.S. do not have any influence on U.S. politics. They should be informed about the protests, but they should not be hindered from using Wikipedia.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  115. Support. Blackout will have a massive cost to this project as it annoys millions of potential donators and editors, causing many people to make decision to never donate or contribute to Wikipedia. In fact, this blackout protest probably harms Wikipedia more than SOPA ever could. So please keep it as limited as possible. ML (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  116. Support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  117. jo, US-only. push them back to reason but keep the (global) nuke in the base for now. sadly, we may need it soon enough, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  118. SupportEd!(talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  119. Strong Support 109.150.245.44 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  120. Support covracer (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  121. Support --Wormcast (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Support. I have some sympathy for option (2) because the proposed legislation has global impact since the U.S. based servers have global reach. However, only the U.S. audience has significant influence on U.S legislators. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I am advised by a 'bot, acting on behalf of a consensus of administrators, that my responses to this RfC are inapplicable or unclear. Whereas my response to the above captioned proposition represents my best effort to communicate my position on that specific proposition, and whereas it has been deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking it and withdrawing from this RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  122. Support--[[User:Wisdomtenacit/small>/span>]]) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  123. Support --yfocus|WTF (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  124. Support -- Donald Albury 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC) -Blackout US only, banner for all users -- Donald Albury 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  125. Support I am in favor of any or all options for expressing opposition to SOPA. -- Frankie1969 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  126. Support --B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. I oppose this option on the grounds that the copyright industry is pushing similar legislation in multiple countries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    This first question is multiple choice rather than support/oppose. There are six options, the last of which is to do nothing. Simply vote for the one you want. No need to oppose the others. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    I understand that, but I still object to making some options multiple choice and others support/oppose. Such differences inject subtle biases. --Guy Macon (talk)
    Object in concurrence with Guy Macon on all accounts. Stuart Ravn (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  127. Very Strong Support. The click through idea is rather clever, and I think it would work very effectively. --Torchflame (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  128. Support. The threat to the free availability to information needs to be addressed --Trödel 15:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  129. Support 71.175.53.239 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  130. Support --Narayan89 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  131. Support --Zinger0 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  132. Support --Tobias (Talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  133. ""Support"" -- Lets do this thing. The internet and wikipedia have brought enormous happiness and knowledge to my life and need to be protected.--Scarfieasbro(Scarfieasbro 11:15, 14 January 2012 (Eastern)
  134. Support We need to take a stand on this important issue. It's too big for us to ignore it.--Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  135. Support. We may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. --Gwern (contribs) 16:32 14 January 2012 (GMT)
  136. Support Yes, people should be able to click through it but it really should be a LARGE, noticeable black landing page with an attention-getting white headline, a concise summary, and a call to action and how users can make a difference. It should provide outside links to how SOPA and PIPA could hurt the internet and an easy way to contact your local representative. The point is, people should be forced to read it and find a way to close out before they continue to whatever article they were looking for, otherwise what's the point.
  137. Support Dan653 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  138. Support -- Scokee 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  139. Support - Option 2 also okay. As long as content is accessible I have no problem with "consensing" with this, although the actual threat of SOPA to Wikipedia (as opposed to say YouTube or Archive.org) seems extremely low. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  140. Support. The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.
  141. Support --Voyager (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  142. Algamicagrat (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  143. Support
  144. Very Strong Support - Enkrates (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  145. Very Strong Support with 2 as a second option. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  146. Support -- PaleAqua (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  147. Support de Mediātōre Scientiae (discutere) 18:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  148. Support. AldaronT/C 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  149. Support -- Time to make a stand and raise awareness, and in a way that ultimately does not harm the project. --McDoobAU93 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  150. Support, first choice, with 2 as second choice. There's no need to black out our worldwide users, but educating them about what's going on here can only help us. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  151. Support This or (3). I don't think we should be forcing a blackout on people from other countries, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to let them know what's going on. --Scorp Stanton (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  152. Support. James F. (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  153. Strong Support. This seems like a rational response to SOPA. Dmarquard (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  154. "Support"* Support per AJ Sethi. Wikipedia is used by a lot of non-technical folks out there. The need to rope in as many people who are not involved in Web/Internet fields is important. Wikipedia outage can help raise this cause.
  155. Support SOPA and Protect-IP pretty much only extend to the US. Of course, there are already countries that considered the option of Internet censorship like Spain, so 2 is also a viable idea. --User:Mistermister93 (talk) 10:23 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  156. Support but (2) would be acceptable also -- Amillar (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  157. Support Blackout Wikipedia in ALL countries. US internet policy has a habit of spreading across the world, make the stand here and we won't have to worry about other SOPA bills passing in other countries. --User:If it bleeds we can kill it
  158. Support Tinlash (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  159. Support Personally, I feel that Wikimedia, as a collective foundation, must take every action in its power to oppose SOPA and PIPA, both of which I oppose because the consequences of them may violate our First Amendment rights, censor and cripple the Internet, and threaten free speech, thereby jeopardizing the quality of human life and liberty. That said, I also feel that Wikipedia should have the same restrictions on copyright violations worldwide as it has in the United States. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 18:29, Saturday, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
  160. Support US-only click-thru blackout. Only US citizens have any clout when petitioning their Congressional representatives. A global full blackout would direct user anger at Wikimedia, not Congress, where it belongs.
  161. Support User:Dachvid Saturday 14 2012 (UTC) Passage of this law and signature by OUR sometime president would be a disaster.Dachvid (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  162. Support - the American people, the people that can influence their appointed leaders, need to be aware of what is happening and this is the best way to do it Taketa (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  163. Support I agree with AlisonW-2012 is an election year in the United States and we should a message to our public officials. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  164. Support A black-out to US American users (IP type blocking?) or English version of Wikipedia. All that should be visible for the blackout should be a message about SOPA/PIPA and all Wikimedia pages (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikia, etc) should display a banner (like the fundraising ones) that warns about SOPA/PIPA and tells users/visitors how they can help. -- Azemocram (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  165. Support dllahr
  166. Support Jeremyb (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  167. Support --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  168. Support - This makes sense to me. --Talvieno (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  169. Support --Itu (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Me too.
  170. Support - Limited support for (2) as well Ojchase (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  171. Support - US only blackout makes sense to me.
  172. Support - The banner for non-us users will alert others to what all the fuss is about, and alert then to the potential world-wide consequences of SOPA.
  173. Support - I share the same feelings as the previous supporters have expressed. Since this is a law that would affect American citizens, I feel the blackout should only affect us. But, since it's such a major campaign, a banner should be displayed for all other countries, too.EMathisonEMathison (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  174. Support - CaptainTickles (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  175. Support --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  176. Support. Emw (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  177. Support RainbowOfLight Talk 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  178. Support Sargoth (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  179. Support -- A banner alone would not be enough to have a meaningful impact. VencettiVencetti (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  180. Support --KSnortum (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  181. Support -- While I do show solidarity to my US friends, I don't think we from the rest of the world should suffer because of the US politicians arrogance Deusdies 23:23, 14 January 2012 (CET)
  182. Support -- Bab72 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  183. Support -- Only US users will be able to influence the Congresscritters, so it's pointless blacking out the rest of the world, but leave the banner to let everyone else know what's going on. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  184. Support -- TransporterMan (TALK) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  185. Support -- Geoff (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  186. Support -- User:Clementi 16:37 14 January 2012 GMT-7
  187. Support -- User:Zaphraud 16:40 14 January 2012 GMT-7 (Arizona)
  188. Support -- Crkey (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  189. Support -- — Ines(talk) 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  190. Support -- User:Prolixium 19:18, 14 January 2012 (EST)
  191. Support -- User:LegacyOfValor 16:46, 14 January 2012 (PST)
  192. Support -- Don't punish global users who have no democratic control over Congress.Erudy (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  193. Support on much the same ground as others - I would oppose a blackout that affects people who have can no say in the process. But a banner to inform them of what is happening makes sense. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  194. Support --Nathan0n5ire (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  195. Support on grounds that we need to make a strong statement in USA; banner raises awareness of the issue elsewhere, and for Americans abroad. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  196. Support -- I heartily support a blackout, but feel that a U.S. only blackout would be most reasonable, since those users are likely the only ones who will be able to make a difference. Mesoderm (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  197. Support -- Sometimes, we as a community have to make tough decisions. This is on of them.Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  198. Support - Aibara (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  199. Support -- CuboneKing (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  200. Support -- Apmiller (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  201. Support with #2 as a reasonable second option. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  202. Support jkv (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  203. Support -- I cautiously add that if SOPA go forward, more extensive action (i.e full Blackout) should be seriously considered. For the moment, this seems sufficient. RandomArticles 03:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  204. Support
  205. SUPPORT=AlejandrosFu
  206. Support - DanielRenfro (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  207. Support--Found5dollar (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  208. Support I agree, it really sucks and I wish congress to do not pass this bill. JJ98 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  209. Support--Argos'Dad 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  210. Support--This might get tricky later on, but I say it's good. Docktur Todd (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  211. Support -- I think this is the optimal solution; choice 2 may be overkill, though it would be my second choice. Xtifr tälk 07:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  212. Support. — Fleet Command (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  213. Support-- I support all options for a high-profile public statement against SOPA, although I understand the concerns of those editors who oppose the protest. I believe that this threat goes to the core of Wikipedia's mission, and that opposition to Wikipedia becoming a general political advocate ought not to prevent opposition to particular measures that might make it impossible for Wikipedia to exist in its current form. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  214. Support. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  215. Support --Anoopan (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  216. Support --Triquetra (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  217. Support. Let Americans know how the world can run ahead of us. Encourage the whole world to sign a petition in support of US citizens. Hozelda (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  218. Support. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  219. Support—No sense in damaging the site with a worldwide blackout, at least not initially, when it's a US-centred problem. Tony (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  220. Support This is a US Act not international law so a global blackout is not necessary, but a US blackout is enough to make a point about it in the US aka the place it affects. However I have no objection with a global banner as people can easily close it with the "x" icon if they don't want to view it whilst on the site. Then lets say a similar act in the future being proposed in the UK or another country, we can have a UK blackout and a global banner. IJA (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  221. Support smurfix (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  222. Support--Eugen844 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  223. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  224. Support --La Corona (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  225. Support. Prav001 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  226. Support . --216.131.118.170 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  227. Support Jane (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I was awed by the Italy strike. Besides the politcal statement, the Italy strike 1) let Italians know that Wikipedia is the result of individuals, and not a government-owned public service like the railroads or garbage collection and 2) supplied people the tools and teeth to participate in debate, rather than just feeding them information. Though I feel a global blackout would be best, I feel this is not fair to Britain and Australia. Jane (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  228. Support Denis Barthel (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  229. Support. Przemub (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  230. Support. Blackout US only, as foreign users cannot influence the US government, while American users can: they can protest and file petitions against SOPA. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  231. Support. Peter Loader (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  232. Support. Vishwas M Byrappa
  233. Support - From someone outside the US (although I would accept option 2) AIRcorn (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  234. Support. Grancapo13 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  235. Support. Spartan S58 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  236. Support. This seems optimal. As a person outside the U.S. I am concerned, and would be impacted by SOPA, however I do not have a congressman I can write to (or withhold a vote from) LukeSurl t c 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  237. Support. --Milan.j (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  238. Support. Kaihsu (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  239. Support - if those of us who are not US voters cannot make any useful protests or representations about SOPA, then it seems harsh, and likely to antagonise non-US readers, to blackout WP for us for the day. And please ensure that the language of the banner avoids "American English" words or spellings like "fiber", as it will be aimed at a global audience. PamD 10:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  240. S Marshall T/C 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  241. Support. wpoely86 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  242. Supportelmindreda (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  243. Support Ivo (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  244. Support Other places are helpless so why affect them? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  245. Support: Adam4267 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  246. Support: US Only: This is not global - we can move the servers Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  247. Support Mattaidepikiw (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  248. Support: This is US legislation, so Americans most immediately need to know what it means. There is no point blocking out Wikipedia in countries that may not even have anything like SOPA in the works. The world needs to know what's happening, however. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  249. Support. Danh (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  250. Support. Oneiros (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  251. Support. --Mazbln (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  252. Support Non-US users have no influence over US legislators; inconveniencing us serves no purpose. An informative banner would suffice Dtellett (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  253. Support. jamescook83
  254. Support. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  255. Support. Aflis (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  256. Support. This is an American problem, but citizens of other repressive governments should be shown they CAN make a difference when they work together.
  257. Support. yankhadenuf
  258. Support that would be the preferable solution. -- Luk talk 13:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  259. Support.Sole Soul (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  260. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  261. Support - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  262. Support, though (2) would be preferable to not joining the blackout at all. Huon (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  263. Support. Chenzw  Talk  14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  264. Support. Fieldafar (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  265. Support. Avarhilien (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  266. Support. Extraneus (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  267. Support. Jacob J. Walker (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  268. Support.--Sergio.R.F.Oliveira (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  269. Support. 4th-otaku (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  270. Support. Quolav (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  271. Support. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
  272. Support. Since it a US bill, blackout (only) in US makes sense. It does affect the people outside US but they can't do anything much about it. Global Banners can raise awareness among other nations about these laws without affecting their Wikipedia experience. A global blackout as suggested in (2) won't be fair. trunks_ishida (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  273. Support. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  274. Support. The whole world should be made aware of SOPA, The effects of the blackout need to be felt at least in the USA; a blackout in the rest of the world might gain more publicity, but the one that counts is the US. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  275. Support.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  276. Support. Folks outside US definitely need to be aware of this, but we can't do anything about it. Besides, if you still allow US users to use Tor or foreign proxies to access the content, that gives the nice impression of "see, have you considered that some people have to do this daily, and if this law passes, you might have to get used to that too." wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  277. Support. This seems appropriate because if, say, New Zealand Wikipedians wanted to protest a similar local law, it is probably doubtful that they could ever get consensus for a global block. So a local block in this case sets the right precedent.--FormerIP (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  278. Support. People outside the US can't do anything about SOPA, but they should at least know about it. Theon144 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  279. Support. Vitor Mazuco Talk! 16:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  280. Support. ... discospinster talk 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  281. Support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  282. Support. Bk1 168 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  283. Support. If there are any other countries considering this kind of legislation, I'd like to suggest a 'sympathy blackout' as well. The Rev (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  284. Support. A banner will not do enough. Blackout is needed.
  285. Support Prysewhert 16:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  286. Support. SOPA is a credible threat to the whole internet, and Wikipedia, being one of the top sites visited by US citizens is an incredible resource to oppose it. Gamersedge (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  287. Support. Vidnel (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  288. Support. Henridv (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  289. Support. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  290. Support. --Krischan111 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  291. Support.World wide blackout is needed, show other websites that you are a part of them. HunterZone (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  292. Support. Petervidani (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  293. Support. Act now or regret it later. JohnMannV (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  294. Support. - Bagel7T's 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  295. Strongly Support. I strongly support a US blackout and a world-wide banner. I don't think this violates NPOV because we are not talking about an article; we are talking about an issue that could impact WP's ability to continue its mission. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  296. Support. I support full blackout. Vitaebrevis (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012‎ (UTC)Vitaebrevis (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  297. Support --Aude (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  298. Weak Support Though I am only in favour of a "soft blackout," a banner can help to draw attention to the situation in the US and perhaps make connexions to laws in other jurisdictions that have been proposed (e.g. HADOPI) in order to reenforce the message that this is not just a US problem. Petropetro (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  299. 'Support' I am in support of a US blackout with only a message explaining SOPA and no option to continue on to read Wikipedia. Message for people outside the US. --Melab±1 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  300. Support. Such a blackout would help raise awareness of the existence and severity of this bill. Rotorcowboy talk
    contribs
    18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  301. Support. Aethersniper (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  302. Support. --Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  303. Support. This is a US problem and should only concern them. --Konero26 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  304. Support Tom B (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  305. Support. Boldra (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  306. Support First choice. Some things are worth fighting for. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  307. Support. Grotte (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  308. Support, one day site disruption versus potential indefinite legal disruption? Sometimes I don't understand how people weigh cost-benefit at this site. Blurpeace 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  309. Support Tooga - BØRK! 19:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  310. Support.  Armchair Ace 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  311. Support, second choice. Prefer blacking out globally since our servers are in the US and everyone needs to learn about this threat to us all. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  312. Support. A 24-hour Wikipedia blackout involving USA is awesome. M'encarta (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  313. Support As one of the originators of the first Black Out the Web Campaign and the Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression, I've obviously on board with this one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  314. Support --Port(u*o)s (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  315. Support - A blackout would send a strong message to policy makers in the US; doing it globally would not help, as the policy makers are only in the US. A global banner would; however, raise awareness across the globe. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  316. Support - A blackout would help raise awareness to the US about how very inconvenient SOPA would be to Americans, the banner should be there for the rest of the world, to help raise awareness about SOPA, and to try to gain a worldwide bit of support against it, but Non-Americans don't need to be shown the inconvenience of SOPA, as it will not affect them as badly as it will affect Americans.
  317. Support- The only reason that SOPA has any support is that people are unaware of the vast damage it could do to the free flow of information on the internet. I hope that by participating in a coordinated blackout wikipedia will draw the necessary attention to this serious issue. alexchally
  318. ""Support"" - SOPA is like using an atomic bomb when smart software and tweezers is the rational approach. I'm blacking out my sites for the day on 1/18 Lauriemann
  319. Support - I will be blacking out my 6 domains & would love to see Wikipedia join me. A day-long Wikipedia blackout would help highlight how pervasive and far-reaching SOPA could be if it were passed.
  320. Support. This seems like the most reasonable option to me. While non-U.S. users will not have as much influence on SOPA, they should still be made aware of its possible implications. U.S. users, however, must be directed to take action. Chris the Paleontologist (talkcontribs) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  321. Support. Euchrid (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Non user users should know about it, but denying their service does no good.
  322. Support - Media coverage of this key issue has been nil. Google and FB might vocally express support, but, as for-profit entities, they'd never risk the financially fallout of a blackout. As a nonprofit with a massive audience, Wiki is in a unique position and should use it to raise awareness. A banner will be ignored, and a global blackout is beyond the scope of necessary action. However, a day without Wiki, while it may not in itself alter minds, will definitely get the attention of its millions of daily users. Mr. Vitale (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  323. Support. No sense getting the rest of the world involved, but everyone in the U.S. needs to be fully aware of what life without Wikipedia (and other sites) would be like. Strumphs (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  324. Support. Seems to be the best option, global blackout seems too severe. Kurochigama (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Kurochigama (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  325. Support - Strikes the right balance between awareness and inconvenience for non-US users. pmj (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  326. Support. Objix (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  327. Support. But global blackout is impossible, if only the en:WP will be asked about this problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  328. Weak support of full U.S. blackout. "Weak" because this kind of violates NPOV. :-) --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  329. Support. Is a good idea. Greetings from Bogotá, Colombia. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  330. Support. Vertigo700 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  331. Support. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  332. Support I thought about NPOV, but realized that NPOV won't matter if Wikipedia becomes too much of a liability to exist anyway. The way the bill is formulated reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works. The repercussions are global. -- Obsidin Soul 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  333. Support. The point of the temporary inconvenience is to raise awareness and therefore political participation. Without the blackout there will be no story, so no awareness. Political participation outside the US will be ineffective, so there is no point in creating the inconvenience for them. lleeoo (talk
  334. Support. Lklundin
  335. Strongly Oppose, I am from the UK and USA law affects the entire world. This is not simply a US issue. Go global! Genjix (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  336. Support. Hous21 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  337. Support. I think this option would make a strong statement in the United States, but would still allow users in other countries to access Wikipedia. I believe the SOPA issue is important enough to justify the action, as this is an issue that could (and probably would) directly impact the future survival of Wikipedia. Elmarco 21:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  338. Support. Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  339. Support. Evilgidgit (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  340. Support. Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  341. Support. vvvt 22:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  342. Support. You can't be neutral when your very fabric of being is under threat of erasure. Domiciliphile (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  343. Strongly Support. Seems the most reasonable course of action. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  344. Support; but prefer (2). Preaching to the choir is less effective than the entire assembly. — Coren (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — (The US isn't the choir in this instance, though, it is the congregation. --FormerIP (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
  345. Support. Slow Riot (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  346. Support. Although I think others have made a good case for limiting action to an informative banner or click-through nag screen rather than a full blackout, and I would be happy with that action as well. CristoperB (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  347. Support. Powergate92Talk 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  348. Support. The global community cannot in any way intervene in a US law. However users worldwide should be made aware that a similar fate may follow if the bill is passed in US Sayan rc (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  349. Support. Matjaž Zaplotnik (my contributions) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  350. Support. User:legodt
  351. Strongly Support. The only reason the global option might be more effective is more public outcry and press response. This one is a very good idea as well. -The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  352. Support. Naturenet | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  353. Support.User:KaitlynC As an enterprise built solely behind the notion that knowledge is free, wikipedia must support any action which seeks to degrade this concept. SOPA is an attempt to stifle the rights of U.S. citizens in order to make a profit for competing companies such as RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, TimeWarner, Walmart, Nike, Tiffany, Chanel, Rolex, Sony, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren, VISA, Mastercard, Comcast, ABC, etc. {Copied bytheway from (craigslist http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA) through the channel of facebook). In no situation is it appropriate to alter the free-trade of the internet's resources. As you asked the public for their contribution to this matter: I strongly support a blackout coinciding with all other particpating domains as this will call much needed attention to an extremely harmful piece of legislation.
  354. Support - because if the US endorses internet censorship, other countries' governments may potentially view net censorship as an acceptable means of content and information control. Keep the internet censorship-free. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  355. Support. jxm (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  356. Support. I'm against a global blackout, there's no need to penalise the rest of the world when the rest of the world rely on Wikipedia. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  357. STRONGLY Support. US blackout, global banner. Let's not punish the whole world for our problems until it gets closer to passing. After that, we might need the rest of the world behind us. This would demonstrate perfectly how disastrous SOPA passing would be.65.96.96.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  358. Support. Konczewski (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  359. Support GyroMagician (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  360. SupportHenitsirk (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  361. Support, as other countries shouldn't suffer and locals can do the most about it. If this doesn't help, I support (2) aswell, just to inform the entire world. H2ppyme (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  362. Support it needs to be brought to everyones attention in the us but why mess up the worlds fun 98.210.225.243 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)98.210.225.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  363. Support. Sniffnoy (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  364. Support A blackout has nothing to do with censorship, it's a method of pressure and everyone of them should be used. p4p5
  365. Gritted teeth support Having some nonsense injunction to exercise power over the US legislature that I don't have is at least better than the other horse in the race.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  366. Support The only thing that would be effective is a sustained blackout. People will just be mad for the day its out and go back to their tasks the next day. A week long shutdown would really piss people off to call their congressman or take physical action.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  367. Strongly Support. Xkumo (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Xkumo (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  368. Support. Wizardoz (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Wizardoz (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  369. Support Quebec99 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  370. Support --Matanhofree (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  371. Support Seeing as this is a bill in the United States Congress, I believe it is appropriate to blackout only in the U.S. Other nations around the world should, however, be alerted of the significance of SOPA's actions on the web and have a proper banner displayed. Kinaro(say hello) (what's been done) 02:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  372. Support US only, oppose globally. MER-C 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  373. Support. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  374. Support --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  375. Support The global community should attempt to influence this US law. Users worldwide should be made aware that a similar fate may follow if the bill is passed in US. Derek farn (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  376. Strongly Support. 24.218.166.109 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  377. Support Mtking (edits) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  378. Support74.72.140.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  379. Support--Oldsmoboi (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  380. Support (1). Daufer (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  381. Support. 216.246.179.102 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)216.246.179.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  382. Support Moez talk 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  383. Support. Rsperko (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Rsperko (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  384. Support! yrtneg (talk) STOP SOPA NOW!
  385. Support. If the blackout is global, it will be viewed as a sign of american arrogance. If the blackout is local as foreigners are informed, they will be more receptive than otherwise. Timeu (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  386. Strongly Support. Wikipedia is a gateway to knowledge. This includes informing people of SOPA who otherwise would not know of it. However it would still allow international browsing as it is meant to for people of no fault of their own. 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)160.94.118.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  387. Strongly Support. --Absentia (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  388. Support. Qwa127 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  389. Support. Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  390. Support - Encouraging people to visit SOPA-related articles would probably be the best chance we have at educating others during the blackout. Shatteredshards (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  391. Support People need to know. --Gar2chan (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  392. Support. CheShA (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  393. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatdudeyouknowfromschool (talkcontribs) 04:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  394. Support squeeorama 04:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  395. Support --Clorox (diskussion) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  396. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.203.53 (talkcontribs) 05:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  397. Support. Kautiontape (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  398. Support This legislation affects everybody in the end, so a global banner is warranted, but US citizens are the first directly affected. A local blackout creates the chance to educate the public on proxies and other ways to help route around damage. clacke (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  399. Support YES. Wikipedia should definitely be on the anti-SOPA side! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HUMANC0DE (talkcontribs) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  400. Support Full blackout is the best way to draw attention. It should be global because SOPA would affect us all. Full blackout could be followed by a soft blackout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emu42 (talkcontribs) 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  401. Support --Lucas Brown 06:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  402. Strong support SOPA is a threat to the Internet. Although to some it makes no sense to fight censorship with censorship (blackout), I believe the point here is to let the lawmakers know that we are against SOPA. All I'm asking is for us to sacrifice a small thing (being able to view Wikipedia for a day) in order to make way for a greater good. Global censorship on the 18th! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.23.99 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  403. Support. Cakedamber (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  404. Support.--Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  405. SupportNaŋar (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  406. Support. It's essential that Americans be made aware of what their lawmakers are doing, and for them to experience inconveniences and frustrations that are at least a shadow of the genuine losses that SOPA/PIPA will create. A banner won't do that; a click-through won't do that. Only a full blackout will. There are too few things that non-Americans can do to affect our political process to make it worthwhile to inconvenience them, however. jSarek (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  407. Support But how will people find out about SOPA if wikipedia is down?!--Frozenport (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  408. Support Reply to previous: ...obviously, Wikipedia will explain why there is a blackout. A blackout will make this issue aware to the US public, and it's one of the only ways to ensure that many people know about this issue. Global banner also helps let others know about it and do something as well - even if they are not in the US. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  409. Support I use Wikipedia every day but SOPA needs to go down Blckmgc (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  410. Strongly Support This will show Congress how serious people are if one of the most visited sites goes down. Please go through with this! Grapeon777 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  411. Support. It will not just be the US affected by SOPA due to international treaties and time. Thus support global action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  412. Support --Ayacop (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  413. Support. Neljack (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  414. Support. Atlasowa (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  415. Very Strongly Support. The entire planet doesn't need to suffer for a US bill. But international users should be encouraged to push for Americans. Antrikshy (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  416. Support. User:zacchiamachine 5:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  417. Support. As much as I hate losing one of my home pages for a day, I'd much rather lose it for a day than for the rest of my life. A global banner will show everyone else what's going on, while the US blackout will show us here in the US what could happen. I'd also agree that the Article of the Day should be SOPA for at least a day afterward.ChristopherGregory (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  418. Strongly Support International community should not be affected by a blackout aimed at a US bill, but should be kept informed about and encourage to voice out against this Bill.--Lionratz (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  419. Support. Cp21yos (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  420. Support Hakimio (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  421. Support --Pouyana (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  422. SupportMADe (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  423. Support. TheXenomorph1 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  424. Support - Ale_Jrbtalk 12:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  425. Support Remi Mathis (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  426. Support. User:Ro_Ro16 January 2012 Burroveo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  427. Support. AlanI (talkcontribs) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  428. Highly Support. -- I definitely think that if we blacked out the United States site, the citizens of the US who use Wikipedia would be able to see it and call their Congressional representatives to voice their concern over SOPA. However, as other people have said, a global blackout may be pointless and will hinder some peoples' legitimate use of the site. Have a banner blackout everywhere, and a full US blackout, and we'll be set. Mikebruffee (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  429. Support. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  430. Support--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  431. Support-- I think this will have the best effect without pissing off those who have no say in US politics. Ohshazbot (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  432. Support-- It would have an incredibly significant impact on the american people, thus making it a issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.17.239 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  433. Support. Aarakast (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  434. Strong Support In Italy a blackout was effective in forcing the government to reconsider a law which would have allowed anyone to force their own POV in a Wikipedia page. I think it's better to treat differently users located in the US because it would give a taste of what SOPA will entail. US users could use proxies to access wikipedia, thus developing useful skills for the day SOPA will be law. --Lou Crazy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
  435. Support. Strongly support and believe that access to the SOPA article (as suggested below) would be a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  436. Support. Ebelular (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) There should only be a blackout for USA IPs. (a) This is a USA law that doesn't apply to non-USAians (b) as someone not from the USA there is no-one can lobby or write to to oppose SOPA, and (c) this will show USAians that this law doesn't "harm the internet" per se, but instead will "harm the internet in USA". It will show them that SOPA might make them a 2nd class internet player.
  437. Support. Should make the SOPA article available though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.182.74 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  438. Support --CatMan61 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  439. Support. A blackout that only affects the US would be the proper action, SOPA does not really affect the rest of the readers/editors of the English Wikipedia around the world. A banner to inform them about the blackout in the US should do it for the rest.--GDuwenTell me! 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  440. Support. --CatMan61 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  441. Support. Matthew Steven Kelly (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  442. Support. SOPA is being supported by the American Association of Publishers (AAP) who represent publishers of scholarly content (research, including medical). They are also proposing other restrictions (such as H.R.3699 / Research Works Act). While I strongly oppose SOPA on its own, if it passed it would give encouragement to pass other restrictive practices, which would also deny Wikipedia content Petermr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  443. Strongly Support. This will send a clear message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.25.70 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  444. Support Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  445. Support. This is strategically the best way to show America the effects of such a awful bill.
  446. Support. However, a source of knowledge may be unavailable. B0o-supermario (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  447. Support. Gtrguy007 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) STOP SOPA!!!!!!
  448. Support. I actually oppose any blackout (6) as a drastic NPOV fail, but since it seems inevitable that either a global or US-only blackout is going to win, I vote for the one that doesn't punish the rest of the world for something that they can't affect. neilk (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  449. Support. --Президент Ирака (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  450. Support. 67.189.88.239 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  451. Strong Supportpjoef (talkcontribs) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  452. Support. This might be selfish of me, not being in the U.S., but the U.S. is the area that needs to get the message moreso. Iainsona (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  453. Support. Ehamberg (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  454. Support. Mattmeskill (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  455. Support.Mfragin (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  456. Strongly Support. Renzoburo (talk) 21:46, , 16 January 2012 (CAT) —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
  457. Support. 78.23.54.150 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  458. Support. The world should be aware, this will affect the Internet for them too, but it should be focused in the US where the voters can affect it. ~ 10nitro (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  459. Support. I'd rather no soft blackout, as SOPA won't offer you the option to click somewhere to instantly regain net freedom and net neutrality. Correjon (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  460. Support but what if they(e.g. congressmen) use proxy? The bad thing is that this is just one step from not only making China style firewall, rather North Korea own Internet. Remember that in North Korea Internet block don't affect the high party members, and some science people copying ideas. The worst thing is that this just blocked North Korea economy and make death of people(imagine that using cheap china computers/mobile phones the North Korean could e.g. sell on ebay they hand made textilles and buy food/other items like Bhutan, or even world wide known honey from paradise islands). And probably only American citizens can change the governtment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.102.192 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  461. Support. Erkcan (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  462. Support. Vertig08 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  463. this very good idee you have right on this action or anti private law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.136.44 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  464. Support. Campan43 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  465. Support. SOPA may be American legislation, but it has global implications. Amphiggins (Amphiggins) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  466. Support. Cheyinka (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  467. Strongly Support. I'd rather not have the soft version as well - take it away for a day so people can feel the real impact. Hope this works on mobile versions, especially in the D.C. area. Digitallib (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  468. Support. NeoAdonis (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  469. Support. At least this much. I'm currently undecided about whether it should extend to outside the U.S. As far as whether Wikipedia should be involved/NPOV, if this law has the possibility of such a direct impact to even the existence this website, then yes, it is completely appropriate for Wikipedia to be involved. -Noha307 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  470. Support. Wiki servers are in the US where US law would strangle Wiki. Moriori (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  471. Support. Ahmetyal 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  472. Support. As the bill has temporarily been shelved, I personally think that a full blackout would be inappropriate, at least for now. On the other hand, I truly hold to be more than necessary that the banner be global in order to inform every Wikipedia user worldwide that SOPA represents a serious danger for the encyclopedia existence itself. Gnc9400 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  473. Support - probably the best option; blocking for non-US users is conceptually problematic, as no matter how dramatic the protest is it can't actually get them to do anything. Shimgray | talk | 22:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  474. Support. Domestic blackout & global banner to raise awareness and petition. Global blackout if and only if SOPA nears passing. The internet should not be state/government limited. Any attempt to do so is an inherent global problem. Tom.Reding (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  475. Support. --I'm a Graduate! (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Chris
  476. Support. Jsgoodrich (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  477. Support, because we can't do anything significant from Russia. Roman (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  478. Support. Starvinsky (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  479. Support. A blackout would do incredible things to increase the awareness about SOPA. How about the only page accessible that day would be SOPA? -Deniz (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(2) Global blackout and banner[edit]
  1. Support. raybob95(talk) 20:23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. How the SOPA event will unfold in USA will decide the future in many other countries. I belong to India and people here have only started to get familiar with freedom of expression through internet. As soon as US government will pass SOPA, government in countries like ours will have a justification to bring a similar law (as much of our policies are derived from the US model). This can prevent internet in becoming a medium of expression for people and instead become another way for our government to promote its oligarchical regime. A global blackout and banner can at least senstize the people in other countries against (possible) threats like SOPA. A worldwide blackout is important to make people realize that it is not another "read and forget" cause they are witnessing. --Chetanshaw (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. The US Government often speaks out against censorship in other countries. It's time they're heard from too. Questionkiddo (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. Not only does the federal government have effective jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation and ICANN (which along with Verisign, located within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, controls the "Internet"), the government of Florida and Florida law also controls the Wikimedia Foundation, and the government of California and California law also controls ICANN (and can do the same things as SOPA.) Int21h (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support. xmike87(talk) 4:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support. ditto Agvulpine. alex3yoyo (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  8. Supportly Strong, SOPA/PIPA doesn't just affect Americans, it affects the World. (Edit: As per what is suggested by others comments below, I want to clarify that I do mean Global Blackout w/o ability to view or edit articles. I'm told there's some confusion to this, now. I'm voting Against option 1 by voting For option 2: Full Site Lockdown.) ~ Agvulpine (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  9. Strongly Support, I am from the UK and USA law affects the entire world. This is not simply a US issue. Genjix (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support. Cody Snider Black it all out, send the message that government and corporate censorship is unacceptable. 21:14:48, 15 January, 2012, (UTC)
  11. Strong support If done, this just might be the most newsworthy internet event in history. Wikipedia has already changed the world, and this will only help show how much influence the encyclopedia truly has! — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support Doing nothing accomplishes nothing; stand up for the internet. SLWatson (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support, although SOPA is technically for the American user, let's not forget that most of the websites are hosted in the US and that they're under the jurisdiction of the US gov't. SOPA affects everyone globally even those not living in America. We need global support from around the world. --Abderrahman (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support, I support a global blackout. SOPA will destroy our freedom, our internet, out digital frontier. Let our words be heard by the world through global blackout. CoMePrAdZ 10:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support, I support a universal blackout. Just like the internet, SOPA will affect users across the world. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support - I prefer a complete total global blackout. This is an issue that is focused on the United States right now but other countries around the world are considering similar measures. A global blackout would mean raising awareness so we don't reach this tipping point in the future. --Jasenlee (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. User: Radiomantx 05:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC
  18. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  19. Like Stephan, I believe this affects all our readers, and that all our readers have the ability to make their voice heard to US lawmakers. So let's reach out to them all. I would however accept (1) or (3) as a compromise. Dcoetzee 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support Also opposed to a click-through workaround. It's a one-day stand against awful legislation. People shouldn't be able to work around it. --Straightbstudent (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support. (worldwide blackout) Passing of SOPA in USA will have repercussions for the rest of the world. SOPA is not just an American issue anymore. Everyone has to be informed and involved. User:Spyvsspycomputers 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTCsup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|)Spyvsspycomputers (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  22. Per Dcoetzee, I would prefer a global blackout. However, (1) would be acceptable as a step down from that.--Ragesoss (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  23. Support. Also support (1) and (3). Maplebed (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  24. Support 2,1,3 - David Gerard (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  25. Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. First Light (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  26. Support per Dcoetzee. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  27. Support Given the fact SOPA gives the US authority to take down foreign sites, as well as the de facto lead the US has in the creation of internet phenomenons from Wikipedia to youtube, this is truly a global concern.TheMadcapSyd (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  28. Support Without any public display of the SOPA bill, most users will be left clueless as to what is going on. A partial-blackout is a good-idea, limiting certain features, or at least making it clear that SOPA could completely destroy this website that they love. Also, please make your SOPA banner distinct from the fund-raising banners so that users don't dismiss it thinking that they've seen and read it before. Thanks, happy anti-SOPA! --Jean Of mArc 15:46, 13 January 2012Jean Of mArc (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  29. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  30. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 13, 2012; 22:02 (UTC)
  31. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. Kcook969 January 13, 2012; 22:10 (UTC)Kcook969 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  32. Support This would be my preferred action, as SOPA effects everybody, not just Americans. If all we can get is support for a US blackout, then so be it, but I think a worldwide blackout would be much more powerful.--DfizzleShizzle (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)DfizzleShizzle (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  33. Support SOPA can and likely will destroy Wikipedia. We must take a stand against it as a whole community. While I would also find (1) agreeable, unless we have a way to hide the infringing websites from US users, this will affect all of us. If we stand united as one, our collective voice will rise stronger than any smaller group of editors. In this issue, it is prudent to ignore WP:SOAP because the effects of this bill could be as disatrous to Wikipedia as deleting the Main Page. Hamtechperson 23:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  34. Support 2,1,3. The WMF projects are under threat, and it is our responsibility to inform people of that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  35. Support SOPA affects the entire planet, so the blackout (click though is better) must be global --Jon889 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Jon889 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  36. Support biggest blackout possible.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  37. Support SOPA is an Internet issue and is a worldwide issue. Blackout everything. Drivec (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  38. Support either (1) or (2), but prefer global. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  39. Support SOPA is a global issue. It effects not just US web sites, but it also enacts US courts to take down foreign web sites and try them under US jurisdiction. Even if it were only US sites, people worldwide make use of them. Worse, if the US is successful in pulling this off it could spread to other nations as part of "copyright harmonization". My second choice would be 1 then 3. --Schwern (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  40. Support, worldwide issue. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  41. Support. While the outcome of SOPA hinges upon the actions of U.S.-based politicians and their constituents, the potential ramifications of the bill are global. Best to inform all users of it. Rivertorch (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  42. Support, Ziko (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  43. Support, other people from other countries should also be inspired to prevent this sort of legislation in their own countries in the future.Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  44. Support, Wikipedia has a huge voice, and many people visit this website daily. In fact about 4 million a day. We should inform everyone on this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  45. Support. The bill endangers the foundation of the internet, for information to be freely available for all. The US government would be impeding the spread of knowledge for the whole world, and thus it is a worldwide issue. Captain Gamma (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  46. Support, I would also support (1) Csquest99 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  47. Support. While SOPA might be originating in the US, its consequences will reach far beyond our borders. Banners are ignored. The real consequences of this action need to felt to be understood. I'd prefer it not be a click through, but actually block the site. MAHEWAtalk 01:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  48. Support, The world is much more than the United States, but so much of what happens in the U.S. can affect globally; this is one of those times. (1) would be acceptable, but (2) is preferable. Benscripps (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  49. Support, with (1) being my second choice. Reasons: (a) SOPA affects sites and readers all over the world; (b) similar legislation has been proposed and enacted in other countries; (c) international treaties may in the future require similar legislation everywhere; (d) therefore maximal pressure must be exerted on all governments of the world. AxelBoldt (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  50. Support, we want as many voices in this as possible. DavidSSabb (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  51. Support either global or US specific actions Varnent (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  52. Support SOPA merely begins in the U.S. but will affect the rest of the world. A true blackout, one that cannot be clicked through, is the best way of doing this. say anybob 01:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC) anybob (talk) 8:19, 13 January 2012 (EST)
  53. Support, I support a global blackout. thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  54. Support - SOPA affects the whole world. --J (t) 01:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  55. Support SOPA, and policies like it wherever they are instituted impact the whole world. The US often criticizes other countries for their Internet policy, time for the favor to be returned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  56. Support. I support the largest blackout possible. No one should be able to access Wikipedia for the entire day of 18 January. This shows what every day would be like with SOPA- no Wikipedia at all. Fendue (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  57. Support. bcartolo (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  58. Support, I support a GLOBAL CLICK THROUGH and banner. How long will this go on? Just 24 hours or is this a week long protest? Or a month long?Electricmic (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  59. Support This bill has very broad global consequences, so go big. I will add that I think an actual blackout would be better than the "blackout" with clickthrough that is planned.
  60. Support Bouncingnewsgreen (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  61. Support It is important to inform as many people globally as possible about this so that they can show what they think about this type of legislation before the politicians get inspired to follow suite... But it would be good if established users still had a chance to work on the backlog. Jopparn (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  62. Support Far too few people know about the possibility of internet censorship. Chillllls (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  63. Support Others have stated my sentiments exactly: this bill could have worldwide consequences. Best to inform everyone, and foreign pressure could help pressure Congress to not pass it. Lordvader99 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  64. Support agree with specific comments of AxelBoldt above. Particularly intellectual monopoly creep via supposed treaty obligations is a real concern. Huckfinne (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  65. Support as we are based in the USA this really effects the whole world and we should make as much noise as possible!LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  66. Support global splash screen, although #1 (US only) is okay as well. While the content would have to be different (non-US visitors don't have representatives/senators to contact), the nature of the Internet makes this inherently a global issue. --Tim Parenti (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  67. Support for options (1) or (2) -- I personally prefer global as this legislation would have long-lasting effects on how services like Wikipedia can continue on as they presently exist. --Hyper Anthony (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  68. Support for a global blackout. Usb10 plug me in 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  69. Strong Support Allow Wikipedia to have a wide and strong impact as a protest against SOPA. Any Protest against this removal of freedom should not be lightly. I have reinstated my support for a full world blackout below --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  70. Support We need to make an effective stand on this, and there is no better way than showing the world what they are at risk of losing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  71. Support Take a stand now or cry later. Greg Bard (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  72. Support This will send a message that we don't want anyone fucking with us, no matter what government. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  73. Support If any community blacks out their part of Wikimedia, I'd want to see at least a banner on my part KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  74. ~Crazytales (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  75. Support SOPA affects the entire world, so everyone should know about it. Focus (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  76. Support as first choice. SOPA's impact would not be limited to the US. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  77. Support I agree that SOPA's impact would not be limited to just the US. The creator of Minecraft put forth his feelings on notch.tumblr.com. Yes, let the world know where we stand and the real consequences for SOPA. Jessemv (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  78. Support SOPA would affect more than just the US. Whether it's this or Option 1, Wikipedia should definitely do some form of blackout, as this bill would severely endanger the site. In other words, this issue is important enough to be worth the site taking a stand on.Yuuko41 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  79. Support By far the most effective option, considering this issue affects all Wikipedia users around the world, not just those in the US. Having both the blackout and banner will show citizens and members of Congress that we are very serious about fighting this bill, and we will do anything to accomplish our goal. Alexroller (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  80. Support. Carlsmith (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  81. Support. Bring out the big guns... oh, sorry, forgot about the NDAA. "Bring out the basket of happy puppies"! Tevildoii (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  82. Support I support (1) or (2) but prefer (2) Steevithak (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  83. Support Complete blackout, but suggest that perhaps some of the bots still be allowed to run in the background. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  84. Support Full blackout world wide. Other countries can exert economic and political pressure on the US even if they don't have legal voting power. This is a serious issue.Canticle (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  85. And please note that I am British and based in Britain. American law is America's business, but law that affects Wikipedia worldwide is an issue of worldwide interest. —WFC— 05:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  86. Support Just because the blackout would only affect US users shouldn't deter WP from drawing support from outside the US. There's always the possibility that similar laws could be introduced elsewhere. 3.14 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  87. Support Worldwide blackout and banner. Non-U.S. users have friends who are U.S. voters, whom they can influence. Banner for persistence of information in the reader's working memory, because the vast majority of users automatically dismiss anything that looks like a pop-up without registering the contents -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 05:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  88. Support. This is an issue that ultimately affects everyone, not just the US. If a site as big as Wikipedia institutes a blackout for all its users, people are SURE to take notice, and word will spread that much more quickly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  89. Support both banner and blackout worldwide. If SOPA passes, there is a very real threat that Wikipedia will cease to exist as we know it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  90. Support upstateNYer 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  91. Support --Snackshack100 (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) SOPA MUST BE STOPPED!!!
  92. Support. It should be a full blackout. Jdm64 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  93. Support --Tgeairn (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  94. Support --Keraunos (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  95. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well. Brandorr (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  96. Support --Pretendo (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC) The ratification of SOPA would set a precedence for other countries to model. Toxic legislation in the US tends to have an unfortunate trickle down effect for the rest of the world.
  97. Support. This blacklist legislation threatens to affect not just the U.S., but all Internet users who use services hosted in the U.S. (which is probably a large majority of Internet users) -- A.M. (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  98. Support --Rami R 08:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  99. Support. Serve a truly helpful, informative page enabling people to take action if they want. They'll have enough extra time with no Wikipedia articles to read. -- Honestrosewater (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  100. Support. This blacklist legislation threatens not only the U.S. but the whole world. Also, once this bill is passed the U.S. Government will for sure bully other countries to implement similar bills. That is already happening now before SOPA has even been made into law. XKthulhu (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  101. Support. ~GT~ (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  102. Support highest exposure. Edit: Actually prefer the soft blackout. Updating. Clegs (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  103. Support Let it be the talk of the whole world. Most SOPA supporters are big international companies, and it's much more effective if they feel the pressure all around the globe. -- Orionisttalk 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  104. Support - SOPA will affect everyone, so the blackout should be global. CT Cooper · talk 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  105. Support - SOPA will have an effect on everyone and every single user of the internet. It must be stopped. ZergMark (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  106. Support - The passing of SOPA will have global repercussions; a global blackout would help to raise full awareness. ~ BIORAN23 - Talk
  107. Support as first choice, with (1) as second choice. --Ben Best 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  108. Support -- Get worldwide attention on it. SOPA/PIPA aren't just a risk in the United States; similar bills are being passed at the United States' urging in other countries. Help raise awareness everywhere and get pressure put on this kind of legislation everywhere. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  109. Support (1 as second choice, which is better than nothing), as what happens in the U.S. could spread like a cancer worldwide, and thus the entire world needs to understand the consequences. Also consider what expatriots can contribute to this. Last, consider how American corporate power reaches globally -- citizens of other countries, even if they can't properly contact our representatives/Senators, can vote with their money. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  110. Object to voters being asked to not oppose some options while other options have oppose sections. This makes interpreting the results a matter of comparing apples and oranges. Object to misleading title; it is called "Blackout and banner for all users" but the description text makes it clear that it isn't a blackout at all. I oppose this option on the grounds that a clicktrough banner without an actual blackout will be perceived as not joining the other sites that have actual blackouts. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  111. Support this, in slight preference to (1). Full blackout would be even better. Hans Adler 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  112. Support either (1) or (2), prefer global as well.
  113. Support. US legislation has a way of creeping itself into other countries by economic pressure etc. So, don't expect SOPA-style legislation to remain confined to the US for long once adopted. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  114. Support from Germany --Oliver Tölkes (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  115. Support I'm in the United Kingdom - this is a global issue tompagenet (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  116. Support (1) or (2), but this is a global issue, so I prefer this option. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  117. Support SOPA threatens us all, US or not. Jakew (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  118. Support Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  119. Support Something similar should be done for the Spanish Wikipedia, as there is a sizable Spanish speaking population in the US that is also politically active. Separately, as a previous poster notes, this "US only" Legislation has a way of creeping into other countries. As I recall, there are banking regulations by the IRS that other countries must comply with or face consequences, all because they have US citizens as customers. Hires an editor (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  120. Support. SOPA affects all. Renwique (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  121. Support Hanna Barberian (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  122. Support Kavi96 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC) As a Brit, this bill will affect every country, so we need to take global action. Everybody can do something, even if US citizens will have more impact.
  123. Support either (1) or (2) but strongly prefer global. This bill has very broad global consequences, so a global blackout seems most appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  124. Support --Aude (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  125. Support (1) or (2), prefer 2. (e • nn • en!) 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  126. Support I'm in the UK, and this will affect us as well. Wikipedia has the power to raise world wide awareness for this issue. I would shut down all languages, but I doubt that will happen. Skeletonboy (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  127. Very Strong Support The issue is global, so this is the right balance of agitprop to reach, not just the American expatriates, but Netziens at large, some of whom have standing with our legislature as well as their own, and some of whom shall begin such involvement kencf0618 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  128. Support. Like it or not, the world has to deal with whatever is going on in the U.S., in more ways than just SOPA. --Fang Aili talk 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  129. Support -- the whole world needs to know what's going on here, not just the US. SOPA will cause ripple effects and legal repercussions all over the world. 24.228.164.210 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Bleh, above was me, forgot to sign in. Macoukji (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  130. Support geo-location is evil, regions and countries don't exist on the internet, there is only one internet. Blackouts and banners should not try to discriminate between users based on their national origin. SOPA is a global issue that threatens the worldwide internet and would affect everyone. --memset (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  131. Support. Buggie111 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  132. Support We are all directly or indirectly impacted by SOPA Kelson (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  133. Support - if it affects Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects), it affects all users equally, no matter where they're from. Schneelocke (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  134. Support - Jonathunder (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  135. Support Good for raising awareness worldwide -download ׀ talk 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  136. Support Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  137. Support, with (1) as an acceptable second choice. As much as I hesitate to support limiting access to a free encyclopedia, I am convinced by Geoff Bingham's legal analysis that we are justified in taking this action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  138. Support, but not as currently written. Strongly support a blackout screen that is NPOV, e.g., "SOPA could affect Wikipedia. Click to read analysis..." Since this would be purely educational, it is appropriate for non-USA users, too. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  139. Support since US legislation will have an influence to everybody worldwide. Many users from all over the world use content that is hosted or even routed through the US. We see people that are not breaching local laws even being deported for trial in the US (like Richard O'Dwyer). We cannot allow the US to shape the world even further to what they want. They're not 'God'! Users from all over the world must be made aware that they will be effected by SOPA. Jurjenb (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  140. Support This seems to be the best answer, since SOPA would effect everyone in the world, not just Americans or English language users. (1) would be OK, but everyone needs to know what may/will happen if SOPA or PIPA pass. TEG (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  141. Support As if people outside the US are not going to be affected... protest should be as big as possible. Von Restorff (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  142. Support --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  143. Support This will garner more international press this way, and it's important to have other countries aware & equally outraged. -SColombo (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (American)
  144. Support. Wikinade (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  145. Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. eSTeMSHORN (T/C) 22:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  146. Support The U.S. government is more likely to listen if the entire world is angry at them, rather than just Americans. Merlinsorca 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  147. Support Even though SOPA is a US act, it would affect the entire world wide web. We also should protest the NDAA of Fiscal Year 2011, which authorizes the ability for the US President to abduct, indefinitely detain, torture and kill any one at any time in any part of the world, including US citizens captured in the U.S., without any requirement to show evidence of any kind. When the SOPA act is protested with a banner, protest in graphic format the NDAA legalization of indefinite detention!!
  148. Support. mabdul 23:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  149. Support. SOPA crap is contagious, we need to warn everybody. -- Wesha (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  150. Support. Marktaff (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  151. Support. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  152. Support. Though SOPA is US legislation, the effects can be felt across the web; hence I support making this a global issue. - angrytoast (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  153. Support. This legislation would come to affect the whole world. nonky (