Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-09 Serial Box

Mediation Case: 2006-12-09 Serial Box
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Bshrode 06:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...On the article Serial Box in the External Links section


 * Who's involved?
 * ...BenBurch, Doc Tropics, and others listed on the talk page


 * What's going on?
 * ...The link to the file, which the article is about, has been removed and readded over and over by pro and anti shareware advocates. The link is necessary, as previously stated, because it is a direct link to the file which the article describes.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...The link to the article should be restored


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ...Whatever floats your boat and gets this resolved quickly. Leave me a message on my talk page if needed

Mediator response
Can both parties define what wikipedia policy they believe best represents their side of this argument? Have any of the opposing parties agreed to mediation?
 * It's not clear who the opposing parties are. Bshrode had never edited Serial Box before December 9th, when he re-inserted the link to the software. His edit was quickly reverted by User:Doc Tropics, and he reverted again, while inserting a protected tag at the top of the page and claiming I have restored the link in accord of wikipedia policy. This article has been protected and requested for arbitration. He then requested protection (which was denied), and hasn't edited since December 10th (last edit was a nice little note on my talk page). If you look at Talk:Serial Box, there was already one discussion there on why including the link violates one or more policies before Bshrode inserted it, and then there was another discussion started by Bshrode where it was made clear, again, why the link can't appear. I wouldn't consider myself an opposing party here; I'm just an admin who happened to watchlist the page because anonymous users had been inserting the link repeatedly. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * I posted the following on Talk:Serial Box today, after Bshrode's attempt to add the link and protect the page:
 * "From Wikipedia's policy on copyrights: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States... Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine. That makes it quite clear that linking to this file is a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is simply not allowed."
 * I don't see any compelling reason to ignore this policy and add the link, as it doesn't provide information on the program but merely makes it easier for readers to get it. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand this site does not distribute copywritten material, but a program that has a list of serial numbers. Is this correct? Alan.ca 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A list of serial numbers to copyrighted programs. Its sole purpose is copyright infringement, and although I am not a lawyer, I'm reasonably certain that in the United States, it would be considered illegal for that reason. | Mr. Darcy talk
 * Can you cite a reference that indicates this to be true? Alan.ca 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not a lawyer. The case that gave me this impression is Universal_v._Reimerdes, under which sites that posted DeCSS were held to be in violation of the DMCA; the purposes of the two programs are extremely similar. Furthermore, as another editor pointed out on Talk:Serial Box, the disputed link violates point one of External_links and point 13 of External_links. Bshrode claimed that he was restoring the link "in accord of wikipedia policy," but never cited any specific policy, and in fact was working against the consensus on the talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another non-lawyer here, but there seems to be consensus that this link is probably not legal in the U.S., and further consensus that this isn't the kind of thing WP should be used for. There are issues of both liability and ethics involved, as the link is a tacit endorsement of intellectual property theft, and I'm rather firmly opposed to its inclusion. Doc  Tropics  17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be no discussion on the matter until the requestor responds. Any futher comments, from anyone other than the requestor will be deleted.Alan.ca 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)