Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-02 Bruce Borland

Who are the involved parties?
Me, ChrisO and possibly others.

What's going on?
Short story: Chris is removing each and every link on Wikipedia to http://emperors-clothes.com (hereafter TENC) under false pretense that links are unacceptable for Wikipedia due to copyright violations and has blocked me from editing Wikipedia, because I restored some of the links.

Long story: everything started when User:Ryan4 presented a case to the mediation cabal at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO. Apparently, Ryan4 was adding links to TENC where they should and shouldn't be. After the case was closed, Chris removed all links to TENC, not paying any attention to whether it was Ryan4 who put them in place or someone else, or whether the links should be in the article or not (the stupidest case appears to be this), sometimes falsely claiming that the links are to copyright violations. As I noticed that, I restored some of the links which I believed should be kept. Recently, Chris went on to remove these links again, which I reverted, after which he blocked me, supposedly for copyright violation.

While some people might consider the links in question to technically be a copyright violation, they were anyway acceptable to Wikipedia policies. The links were part of TENC's 9/11 archive, which archived various media reports which were available on the Internet related to 9/11 bombings. The Wikipedia Copyright policy, at the time when I returned the links, stated that The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, and Linking to the Wayback Machine, for example, is an acceptable external link on Wikipedia. Chris changed the copyright policy singlehandedly after he blocked me, which I see as his approval of the fact that I respected it (because if I didn't, no changes to the policy would be needed).

Note that Chris told me several times that some concensus exists about something. I don't see such concensus anywhere. Whenever I was told that the links are copyright violations, I explained why they are still acceptable to the person who told me that. Chris oftenly spoke about himself in passive voice, and pretended that his personal opinions are some universally-accepted truths. They aren't.

I also want to state that, unlike Chris, I was very careful about this entire process. When he blindedly removed the first batch of links, I reviewed each one of his removals, and returned only links which I considered to be needed and acceptable. When he blindedly removed the second batch of links, I also reviewed each one of his removals, and returned only what I considered should be returned. See f.e..

Please note: that the following has absolutely no bearing in this and would be nice to be avoided in any discussion: Thank you.
 * whether TENC is a reliable website,
 * whether Jared Israel is a notable activist,
 * what is the color of Francisco Gil-White's underpants.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like:
 * That the links to TENC are restored.
 * That it is acknowledged that Chris was wrong when he blocked me, and that he apologise to me.
 * If other editors agree that the Wikipedia's copyright policy should be changed, that it is changed through regular process, and that links to TENC (but not actual references) are removed afterwards.

Discussion between parties and mediator
This request for mediation is a waste of time, and should be closed as moot. The summary above has not mentioned the following points:


 * I blocked Nikola for repeatedly and knowingly adding a link to a copyright violation on an external website. The block was reviewed by two sysops who declined to lift it . He was advised by no fewer than four sysops (myself, Chaser, KillerChihuahua, and Yamla) that the link was a copyvio but still does not accept this. To quote Chaser, "Nikola, whether you like it or not, consensus, and, in some areas of policy, the consensus of sysops, is how we make decisions on wikipedia. It's just the way we operate around here. You're free to disagree with that consensus, but you're not free to act against it, doubly so where legal concerns are at play." Nikola is attempting to use this mediation to override the consensus of admins on a legal principle established by the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not going to happen.
 * No change has been made to the WP:COPY policy by myself or anyone else. Links to copyright violations are prohibited at WP:COPY and have been prohibited for a long time. An exception is made only for the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine), and this exception has existed for a long time. The only change I've made to WP:COPY was to repair an awkwardly worded sentence, add the name "Internet Archive" as a synonym for "Wayback Machine" and add an link to explain the IA's standing. The policy remains unchanged.
 * TENC is a personal website run by a non-notable political activist. WP:SELFPUB clearly disallows the use of such websites as sources, as does WP:EL.

This has already been discussed by multiple admins, it's been "litigated" in a previous mediation, and it's a long-established policy principle that we do not use personal websites as sources or knowingly link to copyright violations. There is nothing to be achieved by mediating this, because the issues raised here were settled by the community and the Wikimedia Foundation years ago. No mediation can overrule established policy. -- ChrisO 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris again repeats the same falsehoods.


 * Yes, Chris and KillerChihuahua at least, I haven't noticed others, have told me that the links vere copyvios. I responded to them that these particular copyvios are acceptable to link to per Wikipedia policies. They haven't shown me that I am wrong. And, three admins do not a concensus make, especially when they break a Wikipedia policy.


 * Significant change has been made by Chris to WP:COPY in this edit. Prior to it, WP:COPY stated that, because copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, it is acceptable to link to Internet archives. After it, WP:COPY stated that it is acceptable to link to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine only. Chris' interpretation of the policy is his own, and even if not, he shouldn't have blocked me, as I had a reasonable different interpretation of the policy.


 * As I said, reliability of TENC has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Nikola 20:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Nikola has a decent argument that some of the links he's currently trying to reinsert don't violate policy. In the period before and after the recent block, he's added two things from TENC. Upon more carefully reviewing each link, I don't think the content linked is a copyright violation. There is an interview with the site's editor (which I would think he would have the right to publish on his own site) and a translation of a public speech performed by a US government agency (works of the federal government are public domain; and I doubt the original speech is copyrightable). There's also a lot of things from ABC News.

The early pdf link was a clear copyright violation (journals like this copyright their content  and make it available in subscription databases like JStor and FSI, not freely available on the internet). This link isn't directly at issue in the current block or discussion, but it is indirectly relevant. Why? Because the issue at WP:COPY isn't merely if a page violates copyright. The policy said (before and after ChrisO edited it) that "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement" (my emphasis on "site"). KillerChihuahua used similar logic to oppose linking to the site. I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand, the argument is pretty ruleslawyerly and I think the consensus is probably that individual pages on UTube, for example, are a problem, and not linking to the site in general, which is OK. On the other hand, UTube doesn't intentionally violate copyright the way emperors-clothes actively does with this journal PDF. And we shouldn't be sending traffic to sites that actively, intentionally violate copyright laws, even if it's not to the exact page in question, but to other pages on the site.

In terms of the block, none of these arguments matter. When sysops on this site are in general agreement (and my indecisive analysis here doesn't detract from that strong consensus of ChrisO, Yamla, and KillerChihuahua) that something violates copyright, then it goes. One can ask for more input from outside parties or pitch a different argument. One can continue to insist that the sysops are wrong, or disagree. But disagreeing with the reasoned consensus of administrators on this site doesn't permit you to ignore it, even if you are convinced those sysops are wrong. Why? Because that's exactly what everyone says when they want to insert an external link that violates copyright! We can't edit-war every time someone wants to insert a link that violates WP:COPY, especially not after we've come to a consensus on the issue. So while this situation (like almost all situations) could have been handled better, I don't fault Chris0 for anything he did.--Chaser - T 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I agree on the copyright issue, of course. However, I have to correct a couple of misunderstandings here. In the case of the TENC link cited here, it is not an interview of the site's editor but of another person by the site editor. It is essentially a piece of original reportage published by a private individual with no editorial oversight. We have no idea about the authenticity of the interview or the transcription. This is exactly the kind of content which WP:V was written to exclude. In the case of the TENC content referenced here, there is actually no need to reference TENC in the first place - the content is reproduced in full at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gazimestan_speech and comes from the same US Government agency. Nikola's insistence on using TENC rather than Wikisource is peculiar and unnecessary and strikes me as an attempt to use TENC for the sake of it, rather than because it's actually adding anything to the article. In short: TENC's original content is unusable per Verifiability; what I've seen of its non-original content is also unusable, as it's violated copyright (with the exception of the Gazimestan speech mentioned above). -- ChrisO 19:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't mean to address the verifiability or reliable source issues. If there is one problem with an external link that means it needs to be excluded, then the other issues are academic.--Chaser - T 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. -- ChrisO 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is true that the article is only available after paying a subscription (and I believe that you will agree that one could be misled by the message: If not, register now. Registration is free and entitles you to:) that is of course another matter entirely. Mirror of contents which is freely available on the Internet is one thing, republication of contents which is available only after a payment is another thing entirely.


 * However, you are quoting WP:COPY out of context. I shall put it back in the context for you: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work [emphasis mine]. That is the policy. What you quoted is merely a rationale for the policy. Actual policy doesn't prohibit from another work on the same site. You may well note that the policy (do not link to that copy) is what both Chris and Chihuahua have quoted in the original cabal case. If I would want to ruleslawyer, I could also note that I was not linking to a site, but to a page on a site.


 * You are also misinterpreting KillerChihuahua's and ChrisO's words (and no, if they claim otherwise now, they won't convince me). If anyone reads the entire thread (If possible, an alternate source for the pdf should be located; We can reference the original paper, but we can't link someone's copyvio of that paper. A great many of the TENC links I found on Wikipedia were like that - see e.g. http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm [emphasis mine]) it will be entirely obvious that, like it was not to me, it was not known to them that the link to the PDF is a link to a copy of an article available only after paid subscription, but that they thought that it is a mere mirror like that of abcnews.com (and thus acceptable per Wikipedia policies).


 * Your comparison with YouTube is very useful, but not for you. As another example, I invoke Wikimedia Commons: yes, at any given time a number of copyvios can be found there. However, it is a non-commercial site, with clearly stated goal of creating a free media repository, and its members are actively searching for and deleting copyright violations. YouTube, on the other hand, is a commercial site, having vague goal of being a video repository, and its owners are deleting copyvios only after the author complains; a large number of videos, probably a majority, on it are copyright violations, and these videos create a large chunk of profit; some of the videos are full copies of DVDs and thus hurt bottom line of their producers as people who view them won't buy the original. Now, TENC: a non-commercial site, a single copyvio found there, that copyvio doesn't hurt anyone's profits (very few people are going to buy subscription to a journal in order to read a single article). If linking to TENC should not be allowed, linking to YouTube, and that means any video on YouTube, should be forbidden a thousand times more.


 * Regarding this mythical "concensus":


 * First, I don't like the fact that you are calling opinion of two admins "concensus" (I don't see why you are putting Yamla into this, he gave his opinion after the fact). Consensus is agreement by everyone. If not by everyone, then at least by almost everyone. Of course, with number of editors Wikipedia has, it would be impossible to have an agreement even by almost everyone, but we at least cand have agreement by almost everyone interested. Where have these two admins discussed the issue among themselves? Nowhere. Stating "I agree" is not a discussion. Where have these two admins invited other interested parties to give their opinion? Nowhere. The original cabal case could not be considered to be an invitation because it was opened because of a different matter, and this issue arised only afterwards.


 * Second, in any case, sorry, but even if agreement of two persons could be called concensus, my disagreement should make it not one. Admins are not gods, they are ordinary experienced users with admin permissions. I have a few edits below my belt too (more than you, for example), I am a published author, I cooperate on Serbian localisation of Creative Commons licences, I kill copyvios on sight, no article by me has ever be found to be a copyvio, and I have secured a number of copyright permissions for Wikipedia. I know a few things about copyright, and my opinion has some weight.


 * And, third, none of this matters much, because I actually agree with said admins that the link in question (the one to mirror of abcnews.com just to make it clear) is copyright violation, and have stated so multiple times. There is a concensus among us on that matter, if you wish to call it that way. However, the link in question is acceptable per Wikipedia policies. And neither of the admins has told me anywhere that it is not. You are also misquoting my disagreement; in links you cite I was not disagreeing with the fact that the links are copyvios but to something completely different.


 * And none of this is just an academic question. I see that Chris has reverted WP:COPY to reintroduce his change of policy, claiming that it has not changed. Sorry, but it did, drastically. For example, and I didn't need to search long for that one, per Chris' policy, link #4 at The Best Page in the Universe is out of the question. I have recently noticed that someone removed the link to the mirror of the Angband webcomic (visible at ) from Angband (computer game). Will I be banned if I return it?


 * As for link to the TENC on Gazimestan speech, I kept it because, as I said, I believed that linking to wikisource would be self-referencing, and in any way I thought that it would not make a difference because the Wikisource article (which I created BTW) was referencing TENC anyway (I have only now seen that someone changed that). I have no problem with anyone replacing the link to TENC with a link to Wikisource or a citation of print publication in a similar way it was done on Wikisource. I however do have a problem with people reverting valid edits supposedly in order to remove a link to TENC.


 * Finally, even though it is completely irrelevant, I'd like to state my stance towards TENC as I see that everyone is mentioning its reliability: yes, it is a site self-published by Jared Israel, and because of it I believe that every work on it should be judged on its own merit. A book published on TENC should be judged on merit of its authors. An interview published there should be judged on merit of the interviewed person: an interview with Chief Archivist of Kosovo and leader of Pristina Jewish community should be valued highly (if you doubt that the interview was real, I could try to contact him to verify); an interview with less important person should be valued less. An opinion piece by Jared Israel should be judged that high. An opinion piece by another author should be judged as high as other opinion pieces by the same author. I believe this should be the end of that question. Nikola 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A brief reply to this continuing waste of time:


 * 1) It was most certainly known to me that the pdf was a copyvio - I pointed this out in this edit when I said that it was "plainly a copyright violation". I'm an Elsevier user myself and very well aware of their highly restrictive distribution policies.
 * 2) As I've already pointed out, four admins - myself, Yamla, KillerChihuahua and Chaser - have all agreed on the copyvio issue. Every admin who has commented on this issue has taken the same line. Dealing with copyright problems is one of the key functions of an admin. Users do not get to overrule an admin consensus.
 * 3) Knowingly linking to copyvios is not, and has never been, acceptable. WP:COPY: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." How much clearer could you get than that?
 * 4) Our copyright policy has not changed in any way. You can insist all you like that 2+2=5, but claiming that's so doesn't make it so.


 * I have no intention of arguing the same points over and over with you, and this mediation has no chance of achieving anything useful - you're essentially asking for our copyright and sourcing policies to be discarded That's not something that any administrator or mediator could authorise; those are fundamental policies agreed at the community and (in the case of copyright) foundation level. They apply to everyone; no exceptions apply. Therefore, for the record, I do not accept this mediation and I will make no further comment here. -- ChrisO 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Closing case, problem relates to a lack of understanding of policy and for that matter copyright law. Addhoc 23:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)