Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was no consensus, as there is no consensus over whether this violates the fair use rules or if it doesn't, whether "user space leeway" applies to infringing copyright or not. I thought policy was clear when I originally closed this discussion a week ago, but people don't seem to think it is. This issue may be revisited, but the policy really needs to be clarified first. No, I will not extend the discussion. Breathe in, breathe out, clarify policy, and maybe in a month this page can be revisited. @harej 02:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses
Open for another week so that this can really get hashed out. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack's a sockpuppet! (in case *anyone* doesn't know;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The substance of this page, which is transcluded into Jack Merridew's talk page, is comprised entirely of an extensive, multi-paragraph quotation from a copyrighted novel which is not believed to be available under a free license. Per WP:NFCC, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace, subject only to a few, narrowly drawn exemptions for situations in which characteristically encyclopedic material appears in userspace, such as drafts of articles intended to be transferred to the main namespace. As the non-free content present here is used solely for decorative purposes, no compelling justification for the contravention of WP:NFCC has been supplied. Erik9 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Motion to close with out prejudice. [See new testimony in Erik9 (06:11) below and Milo follow-up.] Many !voters may have been materially mislead by the many references to WP:NFCC, whose intro NFCC applies criteria #1-10 only to "Other non-free content", not "verbatim textual excerpts". That intro also refers only to "verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles", not userspace. If the nominator is able to reformulate the nomination without an obvious material policy defect please refile as User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses 2. Milo 22:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Re-edited 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, um, under your construction of WP:NFCC, the policy is silent upon the question of non-free text in userspace, and permits users to have as much of it as they want? I do believe that the Wikimedia Foundation would disagree with your policy interpretation, insofar as one of the foundation's employees blocked Giano II and protected his talk page for posting non-free content on his user talk page during Requests for arbitration/Durova. More importantly, however, your interpretation of the policy is clearly and directly at odds with its intent of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law" -- why on earth would the policy therefore say nothing whatsoever about non-free content in userspace, and therefore permit unlimited amounts of it? Erik9 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Save it for the debate. Do you challenge the facts of my motion? Milo 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. "Other non-free content", interpreted in context and consistent with the clear intent of the policy to minimize the use of non-free content, especially for non-encyclopedic, userspace purposes, refers to non-free content other than "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author [in Articles]", including text appearing in userspace. This construction of the policy is far more congruous with its purpose then the claim that "Other non-free content" is exclusive of text, thereby carving out a loophole which exempts non-article non-free content from any restriction by the WP:NFCC altogether. Erik9 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that repeated use WP:NFCC in the nomination is an inapplicable and material policy defect? Milo 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC is quite applicable, as I explain in response to your query above. Erik9 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no reference to WP:NFCC in your previous answer Erik9 (23:31). (I've taken the clerking liberty of moving your answer here since I was asking Hullaballoo in the other thread.) Milo 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's implicit. To clarify, insofar, as I explained above, "Other non-free content" refers to non-free content other than "brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author [in Articles]", including text appearing in userspace, text appearing in userspace is subject to the numerical non-free content criteria, at least to the extent applicable to textual content, including criterion 9, the letter of which flatly forbids the same. Now, the community may allow editors to have single-sentence quotations from non-free sources on their userpages, but Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of non-free copyrighted material on a user subpage is clearly not the sort of policy violation that we are prepared to countenance. Erik9 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please focus on the motion; that last sentence is nom debate.
 * NFCC in intro entirety reads:

-"'Policy ¶ There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.' (#1 through #10 follow) [emphasis added]" -
 * Erik9 (23:54): "...text appearing in userspace is subject to the numerical non-free content criteria..." I see no #Policy rhetorical support for that position. #Policy describes "textual excerpts" and "Other non-free content". "all 10 of the following criteria" is subservient only to "Other non-free content". There is no mention of userspace at all. Milo 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOT, I strongly oppose any and all attempts to construe WP:NFCC in a manner manifestly contrary to its intent of non-free content limitation; claims that the policy permits unlimited usage of non-free content in userspace advanced through facile wordplay are simply legalistic quibbling far removed from the policy's purpose. Erik9 (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "...advanced through facile wordplay are simply legalistic quibbling..." Ok, so that's the limit of your technical-rhetorical challenge to the motion.
 * (That's a dim view of how the rule of law, rulecrafting, and rule interpretation works. In law and rulecrafting, specific structures of words are agreed to have specific meanings. You might want to read Code of Hammurabi to learn how really bad things were before there was rule of law.)
 * "unlimited usage of non-free content in userspace" No, legal fair use still applies, and it's my reading that courts have ruled that in the case of criticism, legal fair use can be extensive, but must not supersede the original work. So there's no absolute size limit of a fair use quotation.
 * However, the WMF does requires that fair use in Wikiprojects be the least possible use that satisfies a particular valid fair use need, and the WP EDP passes on that requirement to text quotations in WP userspace. Milo 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose motion. The policy phrase "other non-free content" refers, in context, to all non-free content except verbatim textual extracts used in articles, the more specific apposite subject/topic of the previous sentence. The policy needs to be interpreted under the general Wikimedia Foundation requirement that nonfree content be allowed under an "Exemption Doctrine Policy." If we read the policy in the way Milo suggests, there would be no policy governing non-free text use outside article space, which at least violates the spirit of the Foundation's resolution. As I discuss below, it would also mean that there is no exemption authorizing use of non-free text outside article space, so that the page would have to be deleted under non-negotiable Wikimedia Foundation policy.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that repeated use WP:NFCC in the nomination is an inapplicable and material policy defect? Milo 23:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. See further comments below. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than a motion to close and then restart, why not just let Erik9 reword the nom to reflect the matters he's conceded... I suggest a nom more along the lines of (putting words in Erik9's mouth here) " NFC explicitly prohibits nonfree material in other than articlespace. However, the community, as demonstrated by multiple examples easily obtained, has a widespread practice of not enforcing this for short, cited quotations from copyrighted material. This practice should not apply in this case, as Jack's quotation is longer than most" ... that's a nom that fits the facts on the ground a lot better than the current one, and moves this to a matter of opinion instead of bludgeoning each other via policy or dueling motions. As long as anyone asserts "all quotes are forbidden" I, and others, are going to point to the copious examples of them as an irrefutable counter argument. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. What about all the !voters who believed what they read in the nom and moved on? This seems like fairly serious userspace precedent to let be mis!voted that way. Milo 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point but in the past we've usually relied on the closing admin to apply clue and factor that sort of thing in when they close. Or if not, it's taken to DRV... ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the nomination needs to be reworded, because it refers to the "fair use" claim made with regard to this article, rather than the "de minimis" rule for very brief quotations which arguably takes them out of the definition of non-free content (see my comments below). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The nomination uses "categorically forbidden" without acknowledging, as Erik9 has, below, that common practice is quite accepting of quotes in user space. Whether it accepts quotes this long is debatable, but that it accepts them is not debatable by anyone who's done some research on the matter. Which, by your admission, perhaps you have not? I went looking and found several in a very short search. Thus a reword is what's needed here so that the nomination isn't misleading about the actual facts on the ground. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment conflates policy and practice -- non-free content quotations in userspace are categorically forbidden in userspace by policy. That we may, in practice, allow one sentence quotations does not imply either that (1) my description of the policy itself is incorrect and misleading or (2) that multi-paragraph non-free quotations in non-encyclopedic userspace content are permitted either by policy or practice, ever. Erik9 (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your nomination shows a flawed understanding of how policy works here... it is for the most part descriptive, not prescriptive. Subject to certain very limited exceptions, if policy and what we actually do are out of sync, the policy needs changing, not what we do, because that's how policy here gets developed. Now, I'm no fan of non free use, and I would have normally just knee jerk voted delete, but when I did a little research first, I was quite surprised to see how many other user pages have copyrighted quotes on them. That suggests that our fair use policy needs fixing. Your continued resistance to changing your nom is baffling, and suggests stubbornness. You'd likely get more support if your nom reflected reality. As it is, this is going to close no consensus... at least that is my prediction. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy can never exactly reflect practice because it cannot account for every conceivable nuance and the particular considerations of all possible situations that may arise. The determination of acceptable practice requires a case-specific inquiry: are multiple paragraphs of non-free content in non-encyclopedic userspace a sufficient and substantial violation of WP:NFCC to warrant deletion? We aren't going to write highly detailed instructions like "one-sentence inspirational quotations of non-free content in userspace is acceptable" into policy, lest it degenerate into the labyrinthine complexity of legal codes. Erik9 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but all those quotes... that's not exactly a "nuance". Well, I've made my point enough times, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Delete per our policies on nonfree content. --NE2 18:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Jeni  ( talk ) 18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep - This is a quote, not an image. Accepted community practice for quotes is to allow them (there are thousands of examples) if attributed. I think an MfD is the wrong vehicle to change that practice, and suggest an RfC instead. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: the assertion that the usage is "solely for decorative purposes" is not correct. The quote is being used for critical commentary on the project. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since what you assert is the "Accepted community practice for quotes" of non-free content in userspace has not been memorialized in Wikipedia policy (WP:NFCC, by its terms, applies to ALL "fair use" content), then perhaps you could provide evidence to support your claim regarding community practice. Erik9 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try looking yourself, it's not that hard. However I'm willing to spend a little time and in the 5 minutes I spent searching I found a quote from Jerry Springer: The Opera, clearly copyrighted, on the page of User:Jpgordon, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas (which may or may not be copyrighted) in the "everglades barnstar", which is on multiple user pages, a quote from Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, a copyrighted work, at User:SlimVirgin/quote, and multiple quotes on User:FayssalF's page (although clearly at least one is PD by now since it was said by Pliny the Elder). I think the onus is on you instead, to show that there has been consistent and concerted previous activity in the community to remove such quotes, because as I said, it's common practice. (I picked these people merely to illustrate how common it is, not to single any of them out because I think they've done nothing wrong) ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Other crap exists, so what? Jeni  ( talk ) 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked for examples of copyrighted quotations in user space to justify my claim it's a widespread practice. I spent a few minutes and found quite a few. How many would satisfy you that it is, indeed, a widespread practice? Your comment strikes me as a throwaway, not the sort of reasoned discourse that substantively contributes to the debate. The onus is on you to show that there have been significant numbers of deletions and that policy is enforced in this area, because I've shown it's not accepted common practice. Start an RfC to see if you can get it to be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, your examples of copyrighted quotations appearing in the userspace of respected editors are all of a single sentence, de minimis nature, and in no way suggest the propriety or community acceptance of extensive, multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content. Erik9 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a percentage of the whole it still passes de minimis. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I use de minimis not solely in the context of United States copyright law, but also in the sense of being "such a small, trifling violation of WP:NFCC that the community does not concern itself with it." You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the community is willing to extend this tolerance of single sentences to Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free content. Erik9 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I see no "critical commentary on the project" here, unless the use of any material to which some implicit analogy to Wikipedia practices may be inferred constitutes "critical commentary", though I hesitate to define the term with such breadth - "critical commentary", as we conventionally understand it, explicitly relates the non-free content to the subject of the "commentary". Erik9 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that none of the quotes I cite above has expository text explicitly making it critical commentary but any observer can see that the quotes are, in fact, used for critical commentary. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained below, however, implicit critical commentary on something other than the copyrighted work itself simply has no significance as a matter of United States' fair use law. Erik9 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but nevertheless it's accepted practice here. Perhaps that needs to be changed. If this MfD comes out resoundingly against retention, do you plan to spearhead an effort to review user pages, then? Perhaps we can get rid of Wikiquote (the entire project) while we're at it. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not here to discuss Wikiquote, whose practices must be determined by their own policies regarding non-free content. We're primarily discussing whether the user subpage in question is acceptable under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. As explained above, you've (perhaps) established only that single-sentence quotations of copyrighted, non-free content are acceptable in non-encyclopedic userspace material despite technical violation of WP:NFCC, not that the community is also unwilling to enforce WP:NFCC against multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content in non-encyclopedic userspace. Erik9 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "perhaps"? If we discount Jeni's one line comment, we are left with a discussion between you and I.  Have I established it (the use of copyrighted quotations on user pages) to your satisfaction, or not? Let's resolve that first before we address size. If I have, I suggest you refactor your nomination to take your new view into account. If I haven't, how many examples do you need to satisfy you that it's accepted practice? ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of this discussion should be confined to the matter at hand: whether Jack Merridew's multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted, non-free content in non-encyclopedic userspace is acceptable. As the community acceptance of single-sentence violations of WP:NFCC is not directly at issue here, I am currently take no position on it per se. Instead, I am refuting your argument drawn from examples of single-sentence quotations by noting that, even assuming, in arguendo, that the community does accept single sentence violations of WP:NFCC, this certainly does not imply that the community is also willing to countenance the violation of this policy on an extensive, multi-paragraph basis. Erik9 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have limited time and I prefer to devote it to addressing points that still are in question. Do you consider "Per WP:NFCC#9, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace" in your nomination statement to be operative, or do you consider it refuted? The question admits of a yes or no answer. Please answer yes or no. Then, if you answer "yes, it's refuted", please refactor your nomination to reflect what you still consider to be operative so we can proceed. If your answer is "no, it's not" please specify if further counterexamples are needed, or what. I prefer to not spar about this, just answer the question. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Per WP:NFCC#9, such "fair use" material is categorically forbidden in userspace" is still quite accurate because there's no doubt as to the meaning of the letter of the policy, only a dispute as to the extent to which the community is willing to accept technical violations. Since the extent of the violation is undoubtedly a relevant factor in making such a determination, I'd prefer not to answer essentially hypothetical questions about whether the community is willing to accept single-sentence violations when such acceptance, even if established, would not imply community approval of multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content in userspace, when not being used for the purpose of drafting encyclopedic content. Erik9 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you prefer not to answer, because answering weakens your case. But too bad. Your nomination makes a blanket statement that ALL such quotes need to be deleted on sight, based on policy (with the implication being that they typically have been in the past (which you haven't shown), or else that you are about to embark on a campaign of ensuring compliance, or else you've just nominated this to make a point, which I prefer not to assume is the case).
 * I've clearly shown that there are lots of such quotes (with the implication being that the community accepts at least some such quotes, an open question being the criteria of acceptance used). I assert that the sole remaining question here is whether this quote is too large for the community to accept, and I propose to find other examples of such large quotes, or to concede the point. But I'm not going to waste my time wikilawyering with you if you're not willing to explicitly concede that part of your initial nomination statement is inoperative. Instead I will rely on the good sense of the closing admin to find your argument specious in the face of common practice as I already amply demonstrated. You can avoid that outcome by actually answering, instead of dodging the question. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent my statements. I never asserted that "ALL such quotes need to be deleted on sight, based on policy", only that "ALL such quotes" violate the policy, and this particular, multi-paragraph quotation of non-free content is a policy violation of sufficient magnitude as to warrant deletion. The dichotomy between policy and practice described in WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY needs to be recognized, of course, for this to make any sense :) Erik9 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's better, thanks. Please revise your nomination to reflect this new clarity of yours so that readers don't have to wade into a multipart back and forth to find it, (because it's highly relevant!) and I'll go digging for other counterexamples (or concede that this one is indeed too large to "get a pass from the community" as so many smaller ones do). If you have some other MfDs you are aware of, that establish precedent in this area, that might be helpful as well. I continue to suspect that perhaps an RfC to clarify community consensus on this entire issue might be in order at some point, though. (my point about WQ is that it's pretty much completely in contravention of foundation mandated policy, which I've never quite understood how they get away with, but that it shows that various communities do various things, regardless of policy, not that something needs to be done about it by you per se) ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "critical commentary", as a matter of United States' fair use law, is still more narrowly circumscribed: only "commentary" on the copyrighted work itself qualifies. From our article on Fair use:"When Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project 'Food Chain Barbie,' Mattel lost its claims of copyright and trademark infringement against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents. But when Jeff Koons tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph 'Puppies' in his sculpture 'String of Puppies' with the same parody defense, he lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but of society at large, which was deemed insufficiently justificatory."
 * Erik9 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not relying on "critical commentary" in the fair use meaning of commentary ABOUT the work (although it would be easy enough for Jack to rework his page to make it be such), merely refuting the assertion that the quote was "purely decorative". ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep- Retaliatory deletion request initiated by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in bad faith 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I think you have your facts a little wrong. --NE2 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I initiated this MFD discussion, based on my judgment, as an editor uninvolved in any preceding conflicts with Jack Merridew, that this massive use of non-free text in non-encyclopedic userspace is inconsistent with both the letter and and the intent of our non-free content policy, which seeks to minimize non-free content, especially when not used for any encyclopedic purposes. Whatever Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' intentions were in initially tagging the page for speedy deletion, they don't infect my subsequent MFD nomination. Erik9 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no reason at this time to believe this is anything other than a good faith nom, and one that was made by a previously uninvolved party as a way to try to clarify the original question (HW's template placement assumed cut and dried, which it seems is not the case). ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: The facts are that this is a forum shopping deletion request that was initiated by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in WFQ and already has a lengthy discussion on this subject, and so should be closed. Wolfowitz started this process because he had a fight with this editor in AfD. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. If something gets mentioned, and there is a question about it, the proper thing to do is use the proper path for discussing it. This page got a speedy, which was disputed... the proper next step was to do an MfD. So here we are. I think we may (as I have said before) want to see an RfC started on quotes but that's a different matter. What HW did or didn't do at WP:WQA has little bearing on resolving the substantive matter. I think Erik9's wrong in his view about deletion but I don't see where he did anything wrong in trying to get the matter resolved using proper channels. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Humoring disruptive requests from predatory editors, look at the guy's history, would seem to make the project worse, not better. It appears to me like the wrong person is the focus of the discussion. Just because a person could be viewed as being technically correct in action does not make the action justified or enforceable. But, I'm a new user so I don't know anything. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, this is not the place to discuss anyone's behavior... let's stick to whether this page needs to be deleted/modified/merged/kept or not. If you keep bringing up behavior, some may view it as disruptive. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm doubting the above IP user has read WP:SK, this discussion does not qualify for speedy keep. (That applies to Lar too) Jeni  ( talk ) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now that we've got that bit of buro-triv well and truly taken care of, perhaps you'd address some of the substantive issues such as the question I asked you, above? ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, NFCC says "images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license". Although text is mentioned in passing, it doesn't say that text needs to comply with the criteria. I remember that someone posed that same query on the NFC talk page, which led us to clarify that. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If WP:NFCC doesn't apply to text in userspace, then the portion of the policy which states that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." would seem relevant - and strongly seems to imply that even "brief verbatim textual excerpts" aren't acceptable on pages which aren't articles, as in userspace. Or do you claim that WP:NFCC is entirely silent upon this matter, and permits editors to have as much non-free text in their userspace as they want? We aren't here to wikilawyer the non-free content criteria, to advance a quibbling technical interpretation of the policy totally at odds with its very clear intent of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", especially in non-encyclopedic userspace content. Erik9 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither are we here to apply the most extreme interpretation to the many issues of copyright that require balancing tests. Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is a loophole, at least not in intent. (per WP:BURO what matters is intent, not precise wikilawyerable wording) To argue that NFC has nothing at all to say about text, and therefore "anything goes" is not correct. What is more correct is that our NFC is more restrictive than WMF policy requires, and that commonly accepted practice here is not congruent with our NFC. That is a somewhat more complex assertion than "anything goes", but so be it. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete but not because this "fails" NFC, but instead is unsupportable for use per our text content licenses (now WP:CC-BY-SA), particularly in userspace (we are not your webhost). Small segments of text from copyrighted works, attributed to that work and used in critical commentary context is appropriate - wholesale sections are not acceptable in the CC license.  The issue of text vs image/audio/video recently came up at NFC (about 3-4 months ago) and it was noted that our text content is governed differently than the rich media content.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read WP:CC-BY-SA but I couldn't find anything relating to "segments of text from copyrighted works". Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this is not "[a brief quotation] to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea (...)". It's a decorative sidebar on a user talkpage and the quote is far from brief. The policy doesn't have a lot to say about quotes because it's rarely an issue, but this clearly beyond both the letter and spirit of the policy. A one or two line inspirational quote on a userpage might not be a big deal but the sheer size of this quote push it well past what I would consider acceptable even in a main namespace article. --Sherool (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, because the excerpt violates the "Acceptable use/Text" portion of NFC, which states without qualification that Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. Second, because using such an excerpt outside article space violates WP:NFCC. Third, because, as Erik9 points out, because the quotation is not used for critical commentary regarding the original work, it probably fails the general "fair use" test, particularly since it is a direct quotation rather than a "transformational" use, as discussed in Fair use -- and that even if it meets the test in Wikipedia, it might easily for other downstream users, particularly for-profit repackagers.  Fourth, because under the Wikimedia Foundation's policies and resolutions concerning the use of non-free material, non-free content may be used in the English-language Wikipedia only under an exemption policy (EDP) established by that Wikipedia. The interpretation of WP:NFCC is disputed among users.  But under either interpretion, there is no exemption created for the use of non-free textual quotations in userspace, so the page under discussion is not allowed. And, fifth, because as Sherool quite aptly points out, this quotation is so lengthy that it would fail the test even if it were in article space and addressed a relevant topic.


 * The question of very brief quotations in userspace raises different issues. Reading the Wikipedia article on Copyright infringement, it appears clear that "trivial" uses of copyrighted material, including very brief quotations of prose from copyrighted works, do not amount to copyright infringement, and therefore would not fall into the category of "non-free content," since the law(s) do not restrict their use.  Whether all such quotations everywhere in userspace are OK under this principle is not necessary or appropriate to resolve this discussion, which deals with one of the largest, if not the largest, verbatim quotations of nonfree text on the English Wikipedia, and one of the few, if not the only, substantial quotation of nonfree content existing as a discrete, freestanding Wikipedia page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." "Extensive" is quantitatively undefined and therefore relative.
 * "violates WP:NFCC#9" ... "exemption policy (EDP) established by that Wikipedia" The Wikipedia EDP omitted inclusion of userspace for text quotations." See the bold text analysis in the top motion section.
 * "there is no exemption created for the use of non-free textual quotations in userspace" That which is not named or included by category is not regulated – in other words, a classic loophole.
 * "as Sherool quite aptly points out, this quotation is so lengthy..." Sherool offered a personal opinion (based on EDP-non-applicable article space rules?). Like "extensive", "lengthy" is quantitatively undefined and therefore relative. A bit like Justice Brennan who knew porn when he saw it, but couldn't define it.
 * "for-profit repackagers" Seriously? Who would buy repackaged userspace?? (As Seen On TV --> 100,000 WIKI BICKERINGS ON CDROM <-- Not Sold In Stores!) Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * citation needed .... can you please show your work. What other large quotes did you find, and how big were they? How many are there in total? Which ones have been deleted in the past? How do you know this one is "one of the largest, if not the largest" ???? Or is all that just your opinion? ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, it's my inference after reading thousands and thousands of articles over the last year +, as well as my prior experience here, where I worked mostly on FU/NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking about userpages, not articles, so it doesn't matter how many thousands of articles you may have read. So I guess, then, you're acknowledging you are just asserting stuff about this page without having done any prior research on what common custom and community norms are in this area? ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A non-existence proof regarding extensive quotations of non-free content being considered acceptable on userpages is impossible; therefore the burden of proof necessarily shifts to you to establish, via suitable examples, that the community has countenanced such extensive presence of non-free content in userspace, despite such being contrary to the letter of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation policy (which I highly doubt is even remotely possible.) Erik9 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered already, I provided examples of quotes of copyrighted material and said I can provide more if you are still disputing that it's common practice. Are you? (that's a yes or no question, which you have been asked before but didn't answer) Once you concede that most of your nomination argument doesn't square with accepted common practice for short quotes, I'll be happy to do some research about how long other quotes are and what community opinion is. But HW has asserted this is the longest quote, or close to the longest, in all of userspace. He needs to show his work to back that assertion (how many pages did he review? What other quotes did he find? and how long were they?), or say that it's merely unfounded opinion with no actual review of pages behind it. Which I think he already did, in so many words. (Reminder: I was talking to him... you have plenty of unanswered questions from me already in sections where I was talking to you... perhaps you can address some of those?) ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I should have been wikilawyerly precise, and said articles, user pages, talkpages, etc. I would add, as well, that under WP:CONSENSUS, copyright issues are not strictly determined by consensus/common practice/what have you.  I'd also add that during my first round of editing here, it was very definitely common practice to use copyrighted magazine covers as general illustrations for articles, in violation of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, and the discussions then were equally nasty to some of the current ones regarding BLPs (another area where common custom varies greatly from policy). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think all quotes from copyrighted works on user pages should be deleted, then? Or is there a size cutoff below which you wouldn't take notice? Because if it's the former, I think there are quite a few of them that need to go. How many have you found so far, given that you've reviewed thousands of user pages per your corrected assertion? Again, I think an RfC to establish community thinking and consensus on this matter might be a good way forward... ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we are trying to remove excessive quotes, can we please start by disbanding Wikiquote?? This page uses the theme of the book to spark thought about our own culture, and it has a "non-free use rationale" on the page.  If anything, this quotation will encourage more people to buy the book! John Vandenberg (chat) 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Issues of what should or should not be present in Wikiquote are irrelevant to whether non-free content should be present on Wikipedia. That a purported fair-use rationale is included does not save an otherwise unacceptable use of non-free content; respect for commercial opportunities is only one component of fair use. Furthermore, your bare assertion that "this quotation will encourage more people to buy the book" is not dispositive regarding the matter; supporters of unauthorized Napster downloads unsuccessfully made the same assertion regarding CD sales :) Erik9 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lar and John. Nothing to add to their rationales. Unit  Anode  01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Masem's overlooked point. There are a lot of "But I like it!" rationales being danced out as keep votes here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find his point in WP:CC-BY-SA, but maybe he will source it. Milo 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CC-BY-SA assumes you are the creator of the entire work at hand. You cannot transform someone else's work that's by a more restrictive copyright license into CC-BY-SA.  Now, CC-BY-SA does include a fair use provision, so that we can included limited portions of others works as per US Fair Use laws without dealing with that work's copyright issues.  So no, wholesale sections of copyrighted text cannot be added to WP because it makes that page incompatible with CC-BY-SA.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but (1) I searched the CC-BY-SA license for "fair use" and didn't find it anywhere in the body. (2) My reading about court rulings in the case of legal fair use for criticism, is that quotation is limited only in that it cannot supersede the original work. (In criticism one can analyze every page of a book.) That means that there is no absolute size limit to fair use quotation(s) – which may include as fair-use-legal what you are colloquially calling "wholesale sections". Milo 09:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's right at the start of WP:CC-BY-SA (note, that's the Wikipedia namespace, not article mainspace).
 * The other way to look at this is, at the opposite extreme, is that this could be taken as a WP:COPYVIO, which again, states that text content is governed not by NFCC but by CC-BY-SA. What's important there is that an article that is solely a copyvio is not appropriate.  Now, in this case, we're talking about a page on userspace that is transcluded to Jack's main user page, so to argue that it is an entire article that's a copyvio is, common sense, wrong, but is technically disallowed by WP:COPYVIO.  Unfortunately, that page doesn't give much other advice in this type of situation, beyond reaffirming that we have to be careful with how much work we take that is from outside the public domain and attempt to transform that to a free license. --M ASEM  (t) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would vote delete because the amount of quoted material goes beyond fair use. But if people want *any* amount of quoted text to be treated as non-free and to be purged mercilessly from userspace (and maybe article space as well), that would set a bad precedent and set forest fires all over Wikipedia. I just don't trust Wikipedians to put common sense over rigid application of the rules. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

break
@John; this is actually a minor thematic element of Oryx and Crake. The very next piece (following “the one [nightmare] where the Parthenon was decorated with cut-off heads was, for some reason, the worst.”) is:By unspoken consent they'd given up on Blood and Roses, which was fine with Crake because he was into something new — Extinctathon, an interactive biofreak masterlore game he'd found on the Web. '' extinctathon, Monitored by MaddAddam. Adam named the living animals, MaddAddam names the dead ones. Do you want to play?'' That was what came up when you logged on. You then had to click Yes, enter your codename, and pick one of the two chat rooms —Kingdom Animal, Kingdom Vegetable. Then some challenger would come on-line, using his own codename —Komodo, Rhino, Manatee, Hippocampus Ramulosus — and propose a contest. Begins with, number of legs, what is it? The it would be some bioform that had kakked-out within the past fifty years — no T-Rex, no roc, no dodo, and points off for getting the time frame wrong. Then you'd narrow it down, Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species, then the habitat and when last seen, and what had snuffed it. (Pollution, habitat destruction, credulous morons who thought that eating its horn would give them a boner.) The longer the challenger held out, the more points he got, but you could win big bonuses for speed. It helped to have the MaddAddam printout of every extinct species, but that gave you only the Latin names, and anyway it was a couple of hundred pages of fine print and filled with obscure bugs, weeds and frogs nobody had ever heard of. Nobody except, it seemed, the Extinctathon Grandmasters, who had brains like search engines. You always knew when you were playing one of those because a little Coelacanth symbol would come up on the screen. ''Coelacanth. Prehistoric deep-sea fish, long supposed extinct until specimens found in mid-twentieth. Present status unknown.'' Extinctathon was nothing if not informative. It was like some tedious pedant you got trapped beside on the school van. It wouldn't shut up. “Why do you like it so much?” said Jimmy one day, to Crake’s hunched-over back. “Because I’m good at it,” said Crake. Jimmy suspected him of wanting to make Grandmaster, not because it meant anything but just because it was there. — From Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood Crake became "Grandmaster" and this is the underpinning of the core theme of the book. This page is essentially a copy of my original posting of it to my original talk page. It was later pasted into User:Davenbelle/sidebar.diff Note, also, that it was deleted once before (at my request) and later undeleted (also at my request); see: log and discussion. @all; thanks for the pageviews. Please ask yourselves; are you a “Rose player”? How many of our “articles” are about “Monuments to the soul's magnificence”? (And how many are about crap?;) We should, of course, also cover the “Massacres, [and] genocides” (and not allow them to “vanish from history”). It would be wonderful if such things had not, in fact, occurred in human history, but they did, and still do. These “Blood items” are some of the more loathsome distinguishing characteristics of humanity. The are also gruesomely effective at accomplishing bloody minded goals. We are here to write an encyclopædia and by properly covering our appalling history, we can help discourage the repetition of such barbarity in the present and future and perhaps save some from ending up in mass graves. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC) (I guess this puts to bed the notion that I don't support the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia;)
 * Comment — This page is primarily a critical commentary on Wikipedia culture. It's rather spot-on and I would encourage all to actually read it and not just count paragraphs. It amounts to a fraction of a percent of a 436 page work. If Margaret Atwood had written this is as a sentence or two, I'd have used that (assuming it still had the same applicability). fyi, there's a follow-on work, The Year of the Flood, due out next month. I certainly agree with the comments by Larry and John, above. And Erik9 was certainly right that this was no speedy, although I don't agree with his rationale here. There certainly are a great many quotations being used in userspace and often in other spaces, such as Wikipedia. I'll be taking a look about to find some examples.
 * Jack, you of all people should know that WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid rationale for the retention of otherwise unacceptable content. Wikipedia's stated policy with regard to non-free content is to minimize it, especially in non-encyclopedic contexts. Do you have any evidence that the community has ever accepted multi-paragraph quotations of non-free content in userspace as "commentary on the project", or are you now prepared to justify and explain how the commentary value of your user subpage outweighs the injury it inflicts upon Wikipedia's free-content goals? Erik9 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I said I'd look for examples, and I said I see it as beneficial to the project. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nomination based on either nonexistent and nonapplicable wikipedia policy. No basis for nomination. 24.159.24.87 (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.159.24.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Then you contend, I suppose, that WP:NFCC is inapplicable to non-free text in userspace, and anything goes, even though the policy has a stated rationale of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law"? Well, don't try that at home, folks, because if you were to copy multiple paragraphs of a non-free video game manual into your userspace, I'm sure that Jack Merridew would nominate it for deletion himself :) Erik9 (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply:Please quote and cite the specific wikipedia policy that suggests you can't make quotations on your wikipedia user page. You can't because you're fabricating it. For someone that has uploaded pornography of extremely dubious legality onto his own userpage to campaign so hard to remove a bit of text based on copyright law is a bit ironic, isn't it? How did that private flickr image get on wikipedia? Did you obtain written permission of the photographer and the model to upload it? 24.159.24.87 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This, I suppose, is an example of the extremely retaliatory nastiness, the "scorched earth" policy of revenge, that has been characterizing this discussion: make an MFD nomination that he disagrees with, and 24.159.24.87 will all but accuse you of child pornography and call for you to be arrested. I guess I should have thought twice before poking this beehive! See also the discussion on my talk page. Erik9 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The more I read this, the more it reminds me of User:Shii/Image talk:Anime by nima.jpg. --NE2 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @Erik9; your comments here, and a bit above  “I'm sure that Jack Merridew would nominate it for deletion himself” and “Jack, you of all people should know …” would seem to indicate that you've some familarity with me; I don't believe I've ever noticed or interacted with you before today. I suppose I am a fairly high profile user, so that could explain your familiar characterization of me. Is that all it is? Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you've drawn plenty of attention to your attempts to remove fiction, popular culture, video game, etc, related content from Wikipedia with your comment "(I guess this puts to bed the notion that I don't support the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia;)", which practically invites further investigation into your editorial activities. If you didn't believe that your AFD nominations were relevant to this discussion, then you shouldn't have brought up the matter here. Erik9 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about AfD; I said I was a fairly high profile user: Socks, Bans, Unbans, &c. The notion I referred to was in reference to various statements of others over time. Thanks for clearing up that this is about AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you "didn't say anything about AfD" then what exactly is your comment "(I guess this puts to bed the notion that I don't support the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia;)" supposed to refer to? Erik9 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just stated that above: I was referring to statements by others – in venues other than AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable, scholarly use.  WP:NFCC was not intended to prevent quotations for scholarly purposes directed towards improvement of the encyclopedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a floated block of text on a user's talk page, how exactly does it improve the ensyclopedia? Seems more like the Wikipedia equivelent of printing it on a t-shirt than any kind of scolarly use to me. I don't buy the argument that quotes are completely off limits on userpages or talk pages. However once a quote grow beyond a couple of sentences there needs to be a very good reason for it, doubely so when it's not in the context of an an article. If someone wants to comment on Wikipedia culture they should take the time to write their own own essay on the topic rater than copy half a page of copyrighted text to a subpage and stick it in a box on their talkpage. In this case for example the game could be described in the users own words and then use a single sentence quote about how it's easier to remember the bad stuff over the good or some such, but simply quoting the whole thing is just well over what I think we can consider to be a quote of limited extent. --Sherool (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the transcluded page containing the quote, as a work in progress, but stop transcluding it without commentary. Build a proper essay around the quote.  It is not OK to paste the quote somewhere without context.  It is not scholarly to print the quote without commentary.  Any implied meaning on the use of the quote is not obvious enough.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on the research I've done, there is no absolute size limit for Fair Use quotes in the context of critical commentary. The only WMF or WP EDP limit for text quotes in userspace I've found is the least possible fair use that is reasonable for the quoted purpose.
 * On Fair Use in general at WMF Wikiprojects, Foundation lawyer Mike Godwin writes:
 * "'Copyright law cases typically involve multifactorial analyses and lots of nuance. ... Many people believe that copyright jurisprudence gives clear and obvious guidance about how one should use copyrighted materials in future cases. My experience has been, however, that this belief is mistaken.'"
 * Jack Merridew could help his case a lot by writing 4k of critical commentary, posted and transcluded with the quote – about Oryx and Crake, Margaret Atwood's social/cultural insights, and the unity of the quote – rather than about Wikipedia. He could then write a different page of critical commentary about Wikipedia, transcluded separately to his user page, in which he refers to his separate critical analysis of Oryx and Crake / Margaret Atwood.
 * The fair use rationale should clearly state and cite legal precedent. (For one legal precedent reference source on maximum size of quoted fair use for criticism, see text concerning Story v. Holcombe, 1847 in footnote 62 of Hughes, 2005. .)
 * Now that won't satisfy those here who insist on their own unstructured interpretations of WP:NFC / WP:NFCC / WMF policy / legal Fair Use based on personal moral preachments, or irrational escalation of commitment to obvious rule-reading errors, but it would help Jack Merridew move the multiparagraph Atwood userspace quote directly into the clear domain of U.S./Florida legal Fair Use, rather than relying entirely on the descriptive tolerance factor of the length of other users' quotes.
 * If this MfD ends in motion closure for material nomination error, or no consensus, creating a significant literary criticism text as I described, might help ward off future MfD challenges, and set a good legal example for other WP users to follow. If the quote is clearly fair use legal, I think many other users would be willing to accept it as Wikipedia userspace tolerable. Milo 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep reasonable interpretation of copyright in the US, and almost everywhere else where the concept of fair use is either explicit or at least understood. By the US 4-pt test, it meets 3:  Non-profit educational purpose, small length as compared to the original--1% or less, no impact on commerce--it does not substitute for buying the novel in any way.   It is however from a work of fiction, not descriptive prose.  But 3/4 is enough.  If one has a right to use it in a finished article, one has a right to use it in a work in progress also.  Almost anything quoted in Wikipedia as text will meet the test, except possibly for complete poems or similar works. The reason illustration as more problematic is that we usually use the whole, or at least the important part, and there is a possible effect on sales to be at least considered, so we're much nearer the balance. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: WP:NFCC has a stated rationale, in part, of "limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." What limitations, if any, do you believe that this policy imposes on the use of non-free text in userspace, consistent with this principle? (Or, alternatively, is there a "userspace loophole", such that the use of non-free text in articles is restricted to "brief verbatim textual excerpts", but in userspace, anything that is legally fair use is acceptable, including quotations whose lengths exceed the bounds of brevity?) Erik9 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware that our NFCC requirement is more restrictive than legal fair use. But it helps first to sort out if the use is legal in the first place. We are typically more permissive in user space than article space, and I think that's an appropriate general practice (there should of course be no question of putting anything illegal anywhere--that part is not flexible.)    The reasonable brief use under NMFCC is what is necessary to explain the point being made. Whether this particular use qualifies is a matter of judgment. My own judgment is that it is. Yours may not be. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (space here for DGG's answer, if any)
 * Almost a fair question, except the "anything that is legally fair use is acceptable" part. WMF policy places an additional restriction on all Wikiproject spaces, such that if there is a range of reasonably usable lengths of quotation, the least possible reasonably usable length is required. That's why Jack Meridew should analyze the unity of his Atwood quote as part of his criticism essay. Milo 06:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (reset for long reply subthread
 * ← starting with Sherool (14:41))
 * Unless Jack Merridew expresses an actual intent to rework it into the context of an essay (preferably paraphrasing large chunks of the quote rater than use it all verbatim in the process) I still firmly believe the subpage in question should be deleted rater than be kept just because it might be possible to rework into something acceptable. --Sherool (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He worked on it as recently as today, here. If DGG is correct, there's no legal urgency concerning the fair use components of a work acceptably in progress. Rather than negotiate and monitor commitment timetables, if he doesn't make adequate progress in a reasonable period of time, you can easily file another MfD. If he hasn't made enough progress by then, that's a sign that he doesn't really care enough about keeping the quote to work for it. Milo 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any prose being written, and to the best of my knowledge he's never said that he ever intend to turn it into an essay in the first place. Based on that I don't see why we should grant a stay on grounds that it's "work in progress" all he did in the edit you point to is fiddle a bit with the font style, the page itself is still 99% non-free text without context (aside from his claim that it's all somehow critical commentary on Wikipedia culture). --Sherool (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you seem to want an essay-writing progress contract with Jack Merridew in exchange for your 'keep-for-now' vote. It sounds like it could be, as Godwin put it, "multifactorial analyses" complicated. You'll need to research and source your writing progress standards to make sure they form a reasonable basis for contract. That's always a range, so JM has the right to negotiate each item within each range, including standards he can independently source. The penalty clauses are also complex negotiations. Does he get a warning grace period for each deadline missed? If so, for how long? Three strikes and you're out? Or does any deadline missed by one second result in a drop-hammer MfD filing by script from your computer? Do you think you can reasonably expect to get all that negotiating and contract-writing done before this MfD expires? If so, I expect you'll have to give up doing anything else at WP, or optional in RL. You may also be occupied with periodic performance monitoring for weeks or months to come. I think that some editors here will appreciate your sacrifice. Will you? If so, nav to JM's talk page and get busy sacrificing. :P Milo 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying this page should be deleted since it consists entierly of non-free text used outside of any scolarly/educational context (indeed without any context whatsoever), both the way it is used and the size of the quote violate both the letter and spirit of WP:QUOTE and WP:NONFREE as I see it. You and some other have suggested that it should be kept since it's "an essay in progress". I'm just trying to point out that I have seen no indication that the user have any intention to write such an essay, if he was working on an essay that view would have some merit, but as it stand it's IMHO a moot point (yes I can agree that if the quote was used in the context of an essay the situation would be somewhat different, but it is not and I for one would still take issue with the length of the quote since a lot of it can be paraphrased and need not be invluded verbatim to get the point across). Also if he want to write an essay he can easily do so from scratch even if this page is deleted, it's not like any of his original work would be lost anyway (aside from some formating and linking). --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of DGG above, the quote is acceptable as a stand-alone fair use. It also could be a fair use component of a commentary in progress. Either way, there's no legal requirement to delete it now. What's the rush?
 * "an essay in progress" Even if JM has not yet planned to write a criticism commentary, he could decide to do so, based on research advice I've given to him in this MfD – of which he (and me, you, others) was probably unaware. Give him time to decide about this new-to-him/us information. If he doesn't write a commentary in a reasonable time, you're in a future position to press the case at MfD as to whether the quote, in size, is bone fide stand-alone fair use per WMF policy. Again, what's the rush?
 * "WP:QUOTE" is a WP essay page. WP:NONFREE is a redirect to WP:NFC which transcludes WP:NFCC already discussed.
 * "he can easily do so from scratch" Just to be clear, I'm less concerned about JM's quote problem than about how this bungled MfD might become userspace text quote bad precedent. If MfD'ers wait until next time when the issues have narrowed – and next time get the nomination correct per policy – then the issue of precedent setting by bungle goes away. Milo 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (or rewrite, if Jack consents to this) – while the NFCC, literally, are worded so as to not include textual quotes, textual quotes do constitute non-free content that needs to obey the spirit of our rules and of copyright law (see Quotations). While short, single-sentence quotes are tolerated, this passage (amounting to >600 words) would possibly qualify as an amount "substantial" enough to constitute infringement. It is also not justified by a fair-use purpose of educational "critical commentary", since Jack uses it to "critically comment" (implicitly) on Wikipedia culture, but not on the work itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's non-free, it's in user space. Seems simple. --B (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, did you actually read the (yes long, but important) debate? Milo 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly, and as interesting as it is, this is user space. It's not article space.  It's not even WP: space. --B (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I documented above, in great detail, that user space is within a WP regulatory loophole. I think ViperSnake151 reports this to be previously described at WT:NFC. Milo 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's using common sense, or ignoring all rules, or something. I try to do that every once in a while, and while it usually tastes good and goes down smoothly, sometimes it leaves a salty aftertaste. --NE2 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nod. As I say above, what matters is intent and outcomes. Not loopholes. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem as long as he explains why ignoring these rules is better for the project. Milo 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No invocation of WP:IAR is necessary to support the deletion of this user subpage. Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is unacceptable on any Wikimedia project, unless expressly authorized by an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) and only to the extent of such authorization. Our Exemption Doctrine Policy is WP:NFCC. Therefore, under wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content can only be present on Wikipedia to the extent specifically allowed per the terms of WP:NFCC. In consequence, assuming, arguendo, that WP:NFCC is silent on the question of non-free text in userspace, we must construe that silence as prohibitory. Incidentally, the "anything goes in userspace because silence is permissive" construction of WP:NFCC would independently render the policy unacceptable as an Exemption Doctrine Policy, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy provision 3 clearly states that "Such EDPs must be minimal." The retention of this user subpage, containing multiple paragraphs of non-free text in a manner not explicitly permitted by WP:NFCC, would amount to a blatant violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy. Erik9 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content in userspace ..." It doesn't say that.
 * "Such EDPs must be minimal." "Minimal" means "least possible"; I already covered that issue twice.
 * "we must construe that silence as prohibitory" Per Milo (05:23 point 3), a RL analogy: If that were generally true of law and regulation (outside of fascist regimes), note that there's no law allowing logging on to the internet – so you would right now be a scofflaw by even posting that notion. Milo 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew this argument would be far too complex to effectively describe here. To clarify, I never claimed that "we must construe that silence as prohibitory" as a general principal of policy construction, only that silence is construed as prohibitory, for WP:NFCC specifically, since, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is only acceptable on Wikipedia to the extent that our Exemption Doctrine Policy, WP:NFCC, permits it. Erik9 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, with regard to the Foundation policy requirement that "Such EDPs must be minimal", I believe your only relevant comment was "WMF policy places an additional restriction on all Wikiproject spaces, such that if there is a range of reasonably usable lengths of quotation, the least possible reasonably usable length is required." This, of course, is a statement about wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, not WP:NFCC, and in no way refutes the claim that the "anything legally allowed in userspace is acceptable since silence is permissive" construction of WP:NFCC isn't minimal, as Foundation policy requires Exemption Doctrine Policies to be. Erik9 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ""anything legally allowed in userspace is acceptable since silence is permissive" construction of WP:NFCC isn't minimal" That was my point in Milo (06:15).
 * "per wmf:Resolution:Licensing" Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science "upload": "To transmit a copy of one or more files from a local computer to the hard disk of another (usually more remote) computer, such as a mainframe or network server, a process that may require terminal emulation software. The opposite of download." Is it your contention that Jack Merridew performed an "upload" of his Atwood quote? Milo 05:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So, this MfD is a soup of issues. I endorse DGG's keep, and offer my thanks to him (some may know that he and I have different views on some stuff). Thanks, too, to Tim, just below, for the term "general reasonableness". I'd also like to point out that our lawyer has not seen a need to comment on this; I did seek his opinion. oldid I am sure that most of those who have opined have done so in good faith. In the end, this is small beer. If there is a need to address the issue of quotes in userspace, then it should be done in a general manner. Cheers, Jack Merridew&thinsp;&thinsp;11:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course "Jack Merridew performed an 'upload' of his Atwood quote", by creating User:Davenbelle/sidebar with his sockpuppet account Davenbelle (or is Davenbelle the master account, and Jack Merridew the sock? Jack's got so many sockpuppet accounts that it's really difficult to sort out the mess, though Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle provides at least a partial listing...) Jack Merridew then took over the page in November of last year . You seem to be arguing that when one's web browser transmits text to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers, it does not thereby constitute "uploading", as if the Foundation somehow meant to implicitly exclude text from the Resolution, but didn't bother to say it -- good luck with that :) Erik9 (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (reset)
 * ←"Of course "Jack Merridew performed an 'upload' of his Atwood quote"" Ok. However technically contorted, you've now placed yourself in the position of asserting-by-construction that every single text quote of the smallest identifiable size in userspace must be summarily deleted as a "blatant violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy". But now I suppose that you will want to be 'reasonable' and propose selective enforcement only against JM (as you might otherwise ignite a userboxes-jr case).
 * " ...with his sockpuppet account Davenbelle (or is Davenbelle the master account, and Jack Merridew the sock? Jack's got so many sockpuppet accounts that it's really difficult to sort out the mess, though Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle provides at least a partial listing...) " WP:BEANS. I've been wondering what all this righteous indignation over a vague copyright issue – combined with your irrational refusal to correct misstatments – was really about. It's my reasonable inference from those events here, as now tipped off by your rant, that this MfD is inclusively a crypto-retribution punishment of Jack Merridew for his past history of extensive sockpuppetry.
 * In Milo (20:20) I've stated "...I'm less concerned about JM's quote problem than about how this bungled MfD might become userspace text quote bad precedent." Now, I have a plausible concern that the nomination (while technically good faith) has been, and would further be, irretrievably mishandled, due to issue and policy judgments emotionally clouded by umbrage taken over JM's sock history. Therefore, I've changed my top motion from "close without prejudice" (Milo 22:51) to Motion to close with prejudice.
 * While there might be a phalanx of admins equally eager for backdoor payback, trivially punishing JM is not worth the potential long term damage to quote precedent in WP userspace. Like John Wayne's character said in True Grit, "Too much gun". Milo 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The size of quotations is not without significance under copyright law, and, by extension, Wikipedia and Foundation policy. As observed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, the only other examples of "non-free" text in userspace provided have been single sentence quotations, which may well be so short that they aren't subject to copyright claims by their authors, and therefore aren't "non-free content" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Even assuming, arguendo, that single-sentence quotes are technically copyrightable non-free material, their brevity renders the violation of Foundation policy de minimis, while Jack Merridew's multiple paragraphs of non-free text genuinely and seriously violate wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Erik9 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — There certainly does seem to be a spate of self-righteous indignation concerning me floating about the wiki lately. The category Erik9 gives about is accurate (and complete) and the edit summary of the diff he gave is pretty clear about who is a sock of whom; I'm a sockpuppet; Davenbelle is my original account. This is well known. It is noted in various, and obvious, places. Openly wondering at it seems to amount to playing to the casual readers of this page with an eye towards poisoning the well. There's also the canvasing over on meta, oldid which is rather inappropriate. And there's the disruption over the image on Commons.
 * Perhaps you missed the notice at the top of Mike Godwin's user talk page:


 * In any event, the Foundation lawyer is only uniquely qualified to answer the question of whether Jack Merridew's non-free content is illegal, not whether it violates WP:NFCC or wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. There's no need to "address the issue of quotes in userspace... in a general manner" because the only other quotations of non-free content in userspace seem to be limited to single sentences -- it's quite reasonable to treat Jack Merridew's multiple paragraphs of non-free text as a uniquely serious violation of Foundation policy, per the reasons described above. You could hardly expect your multiple account history to be scrupulously hidden throughout this entire discussion when a question was raised as to whether you "uploaded" the non-free text within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy; it was necessary to show that you, personally, uploaded the content, though originally with a different account. "Keep the nominator dared to mention that I'm an abusive sockpuppeteer" is, of course, a non-sequitur, especially when you boast about this fact on your userpage. Erik9 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mike's messagebox is likely about general advice; he's our lawyer and it is proper to give him the chance to consider issues related to the projects. His silence is deafening.
 * I made it quite clear in my initial comment here that *I* had uploaded posted it and gave a diff to an account tagged as my sockmaster. The concocted quote you offer is not one I ever made; you should watch that. This leaves us with the evaded question of the source of your self-rightious indignation; 600 words? Soks?
 * For what it's worth, I'll add that I typed this quote myself, from a copy of the book that I bought; it was not copy-pasted from anywhere. And, as said, I've long been quite transparent about my history ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew&thinsp;Puppeter template.svg&thinsp;05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (wording adjusted upon reading the other discussion re the stricken word. Jack Merridew 12:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ;)


 * Keep per rationale on disputed page, per DGG, and per general reasonableness. Tim Shuba (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per B and Fut.Perf.. Pace DGG we are (and should be) more strict in user space than article space when it comes to limiting non-fee content.  Articles are educational content with a strong claim for fair-use but the internal discussions of userspace much less so.  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: If you close this as delete, and give NFCC as the sole reason, without mentioning that this is an outlier, and that there is a "commonly accepted practice" that short quotes are OK, and that the NFCC is out of step and in need of fixing, expect to be taken to DrV immediately... because you are setting the project up for "userbox wars II", and your close can't be allowed to stand as precedent that would be used to go remove hundreds or thousands of short quotes... UNLESS by then there's an RfC running on the NFCC to find out what really is the deal here. If you on the other hand close this as keep, you may well be setting a precedent that shouldn't be set as well, that "anything goes" (which is false). And of course "no consensus" doesn't help much either. Good times. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, all IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Any deletion of this user subpage should be accompanied by a disclaimer that the decision should be confined to the extraordinary facts presented here: a multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free text in non-encyclopedic userspace, and that the more common single-sentence userspace quotations present entirely different issues (possibly not copyrightable, de minimis violation of policy even if subject to copyright), and need to be treated as a separate matter. Erik9 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument for being more permissive in user space is that we try to provide the freest possible content for the encyclopedia--this is our primary function. We use non-free content only when free content will not do the job. This permits the widest possible reuse for any purpose, and is the basic justification for the NFCC restrictions that go beyond legal requirements. User space has an auxiliary function: we use it to facilitate making the actual encyclopedia, including by promoting encyclopedia-related communication among editors and the sort of self-expression that improves the working environment. We do not need to make this quite as widely reusable--it's not our purpose. Here, we should be bound only by the legal restrictions. It's clear that  few paragraphs out of a novel is not a substantial part--its not even a whole chapter, and it meets the legal requirement. It still meets the part of the US 4-pt test that the use is educational not commercial.  Although we can try to evaluate in terms of the law, still, just as Erik says, ultimately the foundation has the undoubted right to impose what its counsel considers the legal restrictions.  That doesn't  meet we should permit anything at all, and leave them to do the work of sorting it out, but as a backup in case the community's non-expert opinion is wrong.
 * FWIW, I agree with Lar & Erik both that the closing-- whatever it is --should make it very clear that it is dealing with only this specific case, and not trying to set a general rule. This is not the place to set general guidelines on copyright, but to judge what to do as a practical matter with this particular material.    DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCC, it's clear that we are far less, not "more permissive in user space" regarding non-free content: I believe that it would be acknowledged by everyone participating in this discussion that non-free images are most unwelcome in userspace, with exceptions being made only when encyclopedic content is drafted on user subpages, and under no other circumstances whatsoever. Supporters of the retention of this user subpage, however, seem determined to twist the clear intent of WP:NFCC to such an absurd extent that it would be "more permissive in user space" regarding non-free text in userspace, merely because (they claim) the matter is not expressly provided for (though, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, silence in this context is prohibitory, not permissive, since non-free content is acceptable on Wikipedia only to the extent that our EDP, WP:NFCC, permits it.) Editors who seek such a drastic change in the purposes of WP:NFCC should discuss the matter on the policy's talk page, rather than attempting to overturn the policy at MFD. Erik9 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, please be clear here, that you mean SOME supporters are saying "anything goes". Not all. I am not one of them, and I suspect many others are not as well. ++Lar: t/c 06:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik9 conjectured that this was User:24.159.24.87's position, but that's not what User:24.159.24.87 actually wrote. Since I'm unable to locate anyone who unquestionably took an "anything goes" position, this appears to be a strawman. Milo 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept this for images. Imagines are typically different in that we typically take the entire image, and the owners care much more about this than they do exceprts of text. An image is much more likely to actually fail the 4pt test, in that it will be used in full, may affect the market, is used for a peripheral education purpose, and is often creative art. failing 3 out of 4. An excerpt from a long text is always ahead of this. The fair use defense for images needs something stronger than the legal test--we need to rely, for example, on the specific exemption for criticism, or be careful to make our version so low resoilution as to not affect possible sales. None of the applies to 2 paragraphs from a novel. ?This is truly minimal.   DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, one of the rationales for excluding all non-free content from userspace, except for extremely small, one sentence de minimis usages, is that, given the inherent uncertainties of copyright law, any use of non-free content results in legal risk to the project. When such content is used not used for any encyclopedic purpose, the intrinsic legal problems associated with non-free material are not considered to be worthwhile. Erik9 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-free text is not allowed on this website. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's factually false. We have quotes, character names and character summaries, song names and all sorts of text that is "non-free".  All falls within fair-use, but we have it.  I strongly suspect this falls under fair use too (though it's close enough I'd weakly argue it could be more than we should have).  Could you explain what you mean? Hobit (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he meant "non-free text in userspace is not allowed on this website". Considering the phrase "non-free text" to encompass only copyrightable quantities of text from non-free works, that may be completely, precisely accurate, at least if we don't consider single-sentence quotations to be sufficiently long to reach the threshold of copyrightability. Erik9 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think there was ever an intention to allow for extensive "fair use" in userspace. The userspace image policy alludes to this.  The reasons we have for allowing fair use content in the encyclopedia hold no weight in userspace.  If anything, this just points to the fact that the userspace policy needs to more explicitly forbid "extensive 'fair use' content" of any sort, so that there is not confusion in the future. Gigs (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those arguing that copyrighted text is allowed in user space need to work hard to explain how much is allowable. I think we'd all agree that a whole book wouldn't be.  Those saying it isn't allowed need to figure out just how small of a quote is acceptable.  I personally would say this is too much by about a factor of 2 or 3, but that's just a rough sense and I have no policy-based reason for that.  I think we do need to get an answer in place one way or the other.  Honestly, I'd push for something like 200 words or 1% of the text, whichever is smaller.   Hobit (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is 617 words per MS-word. Hobit (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One problem, I suppose, with not permitting non-free text in userspace at all, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy since non-free content is only allowed on Wikimedia projects per local Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), and our EDP, WP:NFCC, does not specifically authorize it, is that if we were allow significant and copyrightable (more than one sentence) quantities of non-free text in contravention of Foundation policy, we have absolutely no guidance as to how much of a policy violation is permissible. WP:NFCC does set the following standard for non-free text in articles, however: "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media..." The sheer length of Jack Merridew's quotation of non-free content seems to exceed the bounds of brevity. Erik9 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not allowing quotes from copyrighted works at all would be both foolish (as short quotes are are so common, useful and powerful) and impossible (as any 3 common words strung together are likely to have been written before.) For userspace I'd prefer a clear bound (the only issue will be what is the "text" in my suggestion), but I could see more descriptive ones not being a horrible idea. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no proposal of "Not allowing quotes from copyrighted works at all" in userspace -- only copyrightable quotations from non-free works are covered by wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and WP:NFCC, since material not restricted by copyright law cannot be considered "non-free". Precisely because "any 3 common words strung together are likely to have been written before", "quotations" of such a nature would not be considered copyrightable, and would therefore not constitute non-free content, or be restricted in userspace. Furthermore, as I previously stated several times in this discussion, single-sentence quotations in userspace, even if copyrightable, are such exceedingly small, trifling, de minimis violations of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and WP:NFCC that, in practice, neither we nor the foundation are concerned with them. The question before us is whether Jack Merridew's multi-paragraph quotation of non-free content is acceptable in userspace; due to the real and substantial violation of Wikimedia Foundation policy, as explained previously, I strongly believe that it isn't. Erik9 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ""any 3 common words strung together are likely to have been written before", "quotations" of such a nature would not be considered copyrightable," Unfortunately that proposal is DOA. In Hughes, 2005, "Size Matters (or Should) in Copyright Law", Hughes explains that uncopyrightably small is a copyright myth. Over the decades clever lawyering has managed to convince U.S. federal courts that creativity is to be found in progressively fewer words. Hughes provides examples of copyrighted T-shirt jokes, with no known lower limit to come.
 * If the position you are pressing is correct, every last quote would have to be deleted from userspace. Since actually doing this would start Userbox Wars II, hopefully nobody with seniority will let that happen a second time.
 * Since DGG has explained that the 617 Atwood words pass the US 4-pt test for fair use, it's not a legal problem. Since you failed to get the stewards interested at meta, it's also not a pressing Foundation issue.
 * Your last remaining argument is selective enforcement against Jack Merridew, and Jack Merridew alone. The only obvious reason for doing that is because you and perhaps others want to punish him for his sockpuppet past. Since there's no actual copyright problem, and therefore the Foundation doesn't much care about trivial infractions of rules, let's admit that this is about punishment.
 * Now starting a punishment system at Wikipedia may be a good idea. I've got a mental list of editors at WP that I want punished, and I expect that most other editors do also.
 * After we punish JM, I propose that we next punish you for bringing this now 100Kb MfD to punish JM, starting with an outrageously unresearched initial case, obsessively refusing to correct errors, progressively hopping from one sinking position to another, ultimately putting us through two weeks of pointless process, all of which collectively fooled too many editors into bad !votes. In RL, you would be sanctioned after the case by the presiding judge, and I expect the case would be reversed on appeal if only for malpractice by counsel.
 * Is punishing you fair? Maybe not, but since there is no known copyright violation, and bit by bit your case was chipped away, you have ultimately been forced to conjure a Foundation rules violation using the tortured technical assertion: typing on a computer keyboard is "uploading". (*!?!*) Based on that smoke-and-mirrors trick, IMHO, selective enforcement retribution against Jack Merridew isn't fair either.
 * Milo 06:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your single legal reference is insufficient to disprove the obvious claim that there must be a lower bound on the quantity of text needed for copyrightability; otherwise, a claim of copyright infringement could succeed when two writers happen to use the same phrase, with no copying involved. Of course, copyrightability was only one reason why I claimed that single-sentence quotations in userspace would not be affected by the deletion of Jack Merridew's multi-paragraph non-free content: the other was that we may properly apply human judgment and recognize the distinction between extremely small, trifling, de minimis violations of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, and Jack Merridew's lengthy, significant, 617 word violation. Unless you believe that Wikipedia and Foundation policy is enforced by mindless robots who will simply delete all non-free text in userspace, however short, there is little danger of starting "userbox wars II" -- unless, perhaps, you want to. Erik9 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "there must be a lower bound on the quantity of text needed for copyrightability" Your disagreement seems to be with law Professor Hughes. I cited my expert, where's yours?
 * "there is little danger of starting "userbox wars II" Agreed. That's one of my points as to why this case is now about selective retributive punishment, not Foundation rules enforcement or copyright. Milo 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, obviously, a lower bound on the quantity of text needed for copyrightability -- otherwise, you'd be infringing on a number of copyrights by using the phrase "Your disagreement seems to be" -- see the Google search results -- or do you claim fair use? (LOL) The legal article you cited seemed to use the "no lower bound" argument as a rhetorical device to complain about what the author saw as the pernicious direction of copyright jurisprudence, knowing full well that any competent attorney wouldn't construe the assertion literally. To treat Jack Merridew's 617 words of non-free text differently from the more common usage of single-sentence quotations on userpages isn't "selective retributive punishment" -- it's just common sense. Erik9 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding of Prof. Hughes' position is that micro-copyright is a credible public risk. His solution is to define by statute "a work", something not previously defined. I assume this new definition would allow no more of the currently copyrighted one-sentence redneck jokes on T-shirts. Milo 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, it's a "tortured technical assertion" to claim that wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy uses the term "uploading" to implicitly exclude text from its purview: if there were any intent to render the Resolution inapplicable to non-free text, the Resolution would clearly and unequivocally articulate this limitation. Erik9 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you should have made that argument instead of endorsing the technically absurd claim that keyboarding is the same as uploading. Yet again, you're "progressively hopping from one sinking position to another" (Milo 06:39)  . The appearance created by your absurd position is that you will say anything necessary to provoke kangaroo punishment of JM. Milo 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Foundation didn't employ the term "uploading" as some implicit method of exempting text from the purview of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, it must therefore be using "uploading" with its common meaning of the process by which data is transmitted from a remote computer to the Foundation's servers for hosting, irrespective of type or the means by which inputted into the remote computer (your reference to "keyboarding" is blatantly irrelevant since there is no substantive difference as a matter of policy between cutting and pasting non-free text into the edit window, and manually entering the same using a keyboard). My claims in this respect have been consistent. Your bizarre construction of "uploading", coupled with your single-handed dismantling of all known copyright jurisprudence, however, gives the impression that you "will say anything necessary to provoke kangaroo" retention of non-free content: if there's really no lower bound on the quantity of text needed for copyrightability, then can I copyright a word? I've got dibs on antidisestablishmentarianism :) Erik9 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "your single-handed dismantling of all known copyright jurisprudence" Wow, am I that powerful? I laughed at your one-word micro-copyright :) "kangaroo retention" looks creative enough for another micro-copyright, or at least a trademark for an Oz band name. Milo 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hobit, there's no need for any bright line definition. There isn't one legally either.  Fair use is a very fuzzy area.  As you point out, very trivial things have been held to be protected (such as John Cage's silent track), but at the same time, copyright does allow for reasonable use of material.  As Erik9 points out, I don't think anyone here will support a witchhunt for every little quote on every userpage because of this.  We are reasonable people who can use our judgment about what is excessive and what is not.  Your fear that this debate will set some one-sided precedent either way is unfounded. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, we tend to be very conservative about fair use. I think a bright line (or at least a bright guideline) would be helpful to avoid the mess that is this discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It therefore must meet all 10 criteria. Number 9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions". This clearly fails that criterion. Guest9999 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The content is:
 * 1) Not free.
 * 2) Not a brief verbatim textual excerpt being used in an article.
 * Please read the analysis under the top motion's box. Userspace is not an article. The 10 criteria apply only to non-text. Milo 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that interpretation, the policy states that it "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." (emphasis added). As you say "Userspace is not an article" so this cannot fall under the "article" clause and must fall under "other content" clause. Regardless of the terminology I would say the spirit and intention of the policy and associated guideline is to limit non-free content to instances when it needs to be used to improve the encyclopaedia. Maybe you disagree with my interpretation but I am not convinced by the counter arguements given so far and will stick to it for now, "Wikipedia is free content" is one of the Five Pillars and "Free licensing of content" is one of the Founding principles of the Wikimedia foundation, keeping non-free content on Wikipedia for no good reason would seem to undermine them both. (As a side note I have no doubt that the page is "legal" but I don't consider that a good arguement for keeping it, most of the inappropriate information which is added to Wikipedia is legal (such as articles on non-notable entities), that doesn't mean it should be kept.) Guest9999 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently your mind made up, but for inspection by others who have not, you have some of your regulatory rhetoric facts wrong.
 * "policy states" You cited an incorrectly non-content antecedent to "Other". "Articles" isn't a type of content, but "textual excerpts" is a type of content, thus being the correct rhetorical antecedent to "Other non-free content". So there are two classes of content mentioned, "textual excerpts" and "Other non-free content", with "all 10 of the following criteria" (including #9) being subservient only to "Other non-free content" (non-text media files). Overall, userspace is excluded by "Articles", and "textual excerpts" is excluded by "Other non-free content", so userspace textual excerpts are within an unregulated loophole. (Or if my original usage of "loophole" above isn't good PR, how about 'userspace Fair Use text carveout' :)
 * "Free licensing of content" is one of the Founding principles" Userspace can be, but is not intended to be passed on (who would want it?), so there is no point to enforcing that principle for userspace. Plus there is an actual downside to pointless enforcement based on the userbox wars precedent. Milo 08:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether or not it fails WP:FAIRUSE, it's not even remotely close to running afoul of the actual legal doctrine of Fair Use.  Let's not forget how radically divergent WP:FAIRUSE is from Fair Use, because when we're talking exclusively about the former, then it's perfectly appropriate to bring in more complex considerations.  The clincher for the latter is Jack's third and fourth point in the rationale: this is not mere excerpting of copyright material, it is both critical commentary and satire.  This discussion sadly demonstrates that on balance we're a remarkably small-minded bunch who could sure do with a lot more of both. --JayHenry (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure you can't just quote a large chunk of copyrighted text and claim that it is satire and critical commentary as-is. Fair use defense assume you use something in the context of critical commentary or satire of your own, there is nothing transformative about this use. Besides this is not a legal matter, it's a question about wether or not it is acceptable per Wikipedia norms and policies. --Sherool (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that it's clear Fair Use is a relevant factor in how aggressively/radically ew should apply WP:FAIRUSE. Your claim of "just quote" falls flat on its face, as you know.  The satire, of course, obviously, and you know it perfectly well, is in the links.  Did you think that links, which add new layers of meaning, don't transform the printed word?  That'd be a peculiarly small-minded thing for any person to believe, but it's downright absurd coming from a Wikipedia editor, hence my suspicion (giving you the benefit of the doubt) that you already knew my point perfectly well. --JayHenry (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well call me absurdely small minded if you wish, but I honestly don't consider the links to be that much of a satirical addition, though I'll admit there are a couple of clever ones. That aside extensive linking from within quotes are explicitly discouraged per MOS:QUOTE since quoted text should be preserved as unchanged as possible. As such I don't think extensive linking is a particularly good example of how this satisfy Wikipedia's norms and guidelines in regards to quotes. --Sherool (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * His user page violates the Manual of Style? Um... so does yours, buddy.  It's disrespectful to waste people's time with irrelevancies.  Please don't do that. We're trying to have a discussion about a user page. --JayHenry (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not worrying about the style of his user page, just pointing out that this quote does't follow the style guidelines for quotes. You can argue that "content rules don't apply to userspace" I suppose, but since the linking apparently is the whole reason to use the quote in the first place I figured it was prudent to point out that it's not considered good practice, which on top of everything else doesn't make the case for keeping it around any stronger at least IMHO. --Sherool (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you sincerely believe you're advancing honest arguments? The entire reason that the MOS says not to link quotes is because linking is transformative and it wouldn't be appropriate in article space to add your own layer of meaning to someone else's words.  Do you honestly not understand this?  What makes this inappropriate for article space is precisely what makes it acceptable for user space. --JayHenry (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "MOS says not to link quotes is because linking is ...add your own layer of meaning to someone else's words." That's an impressively good argument from authority. Milo 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a pity. I was going for reductio ad absurdum. --JayHenry (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clearly fair use. But we tend to be very (overly IMO) conservative about fair use.  Watch IfD some day.  There's currently a debate about if showing pictures of 4 of 19 Digimon is acceptable or not (can you describe a digimon i so well that someone can draw them?  If not, is that replaceable?)  And that's in article space.  We are generally much more picky about copyright in user space.  I'm not saying this is good or right, I'm just saying it's what we do.  Again, clearly, we must allow quotes of some sort.  I just think this quote is longer than we can justify in user space... Hobit (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is another great image debate in user space, where fair use is 100% clear and we are arguing if there is enough originality to justify copyright of the image. OMG. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - if this had been a few sentences, I would have said keep, but the extract is too long (from a non-free text) to be considered "fair use". I would suggest that Jack Meddidew finds 4 or 5 sentences he can use to make his point from it, then I'd be more inclined to believe that it was fair use. Several user pages use quotes from non-free works, but I've not seen any that use as much as this - most use 1, 2, 3 - at most 4 - sentences. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) comment: I meant to add that use like this would probably be against CC-by-SA licensing used on Wikipedia. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me ,  My Contribs ) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The CC-by-SA issue that keeps coming up is somewhat of a red herring. If it's fair use then its use in a work otherwise copyrighted (under any license) would be acceptable. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the quote is too long. And its mere presence is not "The quote is used as critical commentary on Wikipedia culture."  If there was some kind of user-created content that draws parallels to wikipeda than it may be a different story.  But then its deletion may fall under WP:NOTBLOG instead. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment ≈ Evidence that Foundation does not currently regulate – beyond fair use – non-image, copyrighted text-excerpt quotes found in userspace.
 * WMF:Resolution:Licensing states a definition of "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" which includes:
 * "'A project-specific policy ... that recognizes the limitations of copyright law ... and permits the upload of copyrighted materials...'"
 * The question is whether "upload" includes keyboarded text. If it does not, then userspace is regulated only by legal Fair Use.
 * At law, when a matter at issue is not spoken or written, it may be determined by "construction". (For example, a landlord who says nothing, but turns off a renter's utilities, performs a constructive eviction, with the same legal effect and consequences as though he had spoken.) Pending some discovery of the Foundation's written definition of their term "upload", such definition may be constructionally determined by examining the operation of the Foundation's Mediawiki software.
 * The left hand menu of logged-in Mediawiki windows have a link titled "Upload file". Clicking this link navigates to a Mediawiki uploading process unrelated to the usual process of keyboard entry, or pasting of text, into the standard Mediawiki edit window.
 * Furthermore, uploading creates a distinctive upload file record. There is no such record for Jack Meridew's Atwood quote, whose page history here records that it was entered 10:24, 24 October 2005, into a standard edit window.
 * Accordingly, Jack Meridew's Atwood quote was not entered into the WP system by "upload" – using a software-constructional definition of that term located in the Foundation's definition of the Exemption Doctrine Policy.
 * This means that the Foundation does not currently regulate copyrighted text quotes found in userspace, unless they are part of an image file (including PDF files). Userspace text quotes remain governed by the limits of Fair Use copyright law.


 * What this further means is there is no proven regulatory or legal basis for deleting JM's Atwood quote. A delete !vote comes down to a personal opinion and/or a retributive reverse-popularity contest.
 * Per DGG, the Atwood quote passes the US 4-pt test, so there is no merit to the claim that the quote is "too long". Those who say otherwise are expressing an unsupported opinion or a copyright myth – such as naming a specific number of words.
 * Those who hoped to find a Wikipedia or Foundation regulation that JM had violated, as an excuse to !vote delete, will be disappointed if they covertly wanted to punish JM for things unrelated to copyright.
 * Those who !vote delete claiming that the rules should be different, still can't say why by using logical reasons. Unlike article space, userspace has no known future or likely downstream free license use, so there's no project mission reason to regulate it beyond fair use. Additionally, userspace over-regulation in the userboxes case has harmed the project in the past. Milo 12:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolution:Licensing policy also says "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.". This clearly does not identify or illustrate anything historically significant so why is this one of the "limited exception"s? Guest9999 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "limited exception" refers to "EDPs". Therefore "limited exception" or "historically significant" does not apply one way or another to things not regulated by EDPs. My position in Milo (12:36) is that EDPs only regulate "uploads", as software-constructionally defined by Wikipedia Mediawiki; therefore, text quotes posted to userspace via the edit window are not "uploads", and are not regulated beyond legal Fair Use. Milo 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Milo, this isn't a court. I think you should read WP:Wikilawyering. Gigs (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Wikilawyering: "Use of authentic legal skills by ... other persons trained and skilled in ... advocacy is welcome ... in a variety of contexts."
 * "isn't a court" Neither is The People's Court on TV, but it hears testimony, judges litigants, and renders verdicts like a court.
 * While it's not part of the nomination, so far four !voters have indirectly asserted, or implied as likely or possible, that anonymous editor Jack Merridew/Davenbelle, committed an illegal tort by posting a copyrighted excerpt in excess of U.S. Copyright Fair Use. Due to the legal charges made, this MfD seems to rise to some species of administrative hearing with a recorded sanction as outcome. Possibly that triggers certain real life due process expectations, but I'll defer to User:Mike Godwin's Foundation lawyer opinion.
 * Furthermore, JM is openly known to be a resident of a famous island, and he would not be difficult to locate in real life by anyone with a legal grievance. It's also easy to forget that this MfD is a globally-public proceeding, with a permanent record which could be subpoenaed as evidence into a real life court.
 * This MfD being a Kangaroo court or not, Wikipedia's news media critics are likely to be interested in the simple fairness with which this hearing is conducted, including an uncensored and well-reasoned debate of the details. Milo 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have formally identified to the WMF and last year's ArbCom; and a bunch of others know who I am, too. Besides my passport info, some people know a fair number of other details about me. I believe the only reason Cary didn't add me to Identification noticeboard is that I've not been formally required to identify due to access requirements. Various AC pages and CU comments attest to my whereabouts, so there's no need to rely on my assertions as to where I live. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic problem with Milomedes' argument is that the MediaWiki engine is free software, written largely by volunteers for a separate organization independent from the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation, with only limited development work being conducted by paid employees of the Foundation. In this context, it's highly inappropriate to use "a software-constructional definition of" the term "upload" as used in the context of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Furthermore, even if "a software-constructional definition" of the term were acceptable (which it isn't), the toolbox upload link states "upload file" (emphasis added). The addition of the qualifier "file" would be unnecessary except for the purpose of distinguishing external file uploading from uploads via the submission of text to the servers through the edit window. Of course, Milomedes' entire argument is predicated upon the claim that members of the Foundation's board are such inept writers of policy that they would use the term "upload" to implicitly exempt text from the purview of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, without stating such a vitally important qualification in clear, direct language. Erik9 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The addition of the qualifier "file" would be unnecessary except for the purpose of distinguishing external file uploading from uploads via the submission of text to the servers through the edit window." This is a computer science understanding of "uploading", preferentially superimposed over the well-known operational terms-of-art of a major web site. Wikipedia Mediawiki has two major modes of submitting data: "edit this page" and "Upload file". Everyone with experience at Wikipedia knows what these two terms-of-art mean, and does not confuse one for the other. Most certainly the Foundation board would not and did not confuse the two in writing WMF:Resolution:Licensing policy. The three references to "file(s)", and three to "media", are further indication that the uploading of media files was their focused concern.
 * "without stating such a vitally important qualification" That would be a notion that it's vitally important. From the Foundation Board's viewpoint, textual excerpts are just not a problem worth spending time on while formulating a resolution for a pressing concern like fair use of images. DGG has explained, with image files such a high proportion of the whole work is copied that it's easy to step over the line of fair use, while the usual (or even largish) text quotation is a tiny proportion of book-size works. Milo 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note Jack Merridew's striking of the term "upload" from his comment in an attempt to avoid undermining Milomedes' argument that the non-free text present in this user subpage wasn't "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which has had the ironic effect of drawing attention to Jack's initial concession that he "uploaded" the text :) Erik9 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * JM initially followed your incorrect usage of "uploaded" (as in 'now you've got me saying it') . He corrected his mistake, but you haven't corrected yours. (Btw, since JM has complained that your quoted sentence in Erik9 (15:40) is a non-quote, I suggest either verifying it with a diff, or striking the double-quote marks around it.) Milo 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text. How exactly you're going to argue that text isn't "content", I have no idea :) Erik9 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per John Vandenburg, DGG and others. Our fair use/copyright policies were generally created to prevent serious textual copyright violations and to create a more-strict-than-legally-required interpretation for media.  Additionally, we are generally more permissive within userspace than we are elsewhere, remembering the above restrictions.  Under the spirit of the rules (If you dislike wikilawyering, perhaps this will be a more attractive view?), therefore, there is no reason to delete this.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not more permissive in user space when it comes to fair use. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The content is non-free. While the fair use laws and policies which allow that in some cases, I see no need to consider that unless using it benefits Wikipedia. Since the text is used to decorate a user talkpage, I cannot see what we lose by simply cutting it off. It's not as if the talkpage is degraded by losing the text. Using a risk-benefit analysis I see a risk that the content is in violation of our policies on copyrighted material, and no counteracting benefit to suggest that we should examine the legal aspects more closely. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I see a risk that the content is in violation of copyright..." "...no counteracting benefit to suggest that we should examine the legal aspects more closely."
 * Another WP:BEANS.
 * Wikipedia has a lightly enforced policy against making material statements of unreasoned personal opinion. Such statements usually don't matter unless editors become tendentious, but the policy embodies a basic wisdom to avoid making statements lacking critical thought process. An important side benefit of critical thinking is prevention of unintended legal entanglement.
 * DGG (04:11) provided evidence that there is not a copyright violation risk, using the US 4-pt test. Independently, you have placed yourself in the position of being legally required to provide evidence that there is a risk of copyright violation.
 * Why? Because your claiming of "risk" (along with four previous posters who similarly claimed "probably" (00:15), "possibly" (12:41), or without condition (23:06), (12:19)), alleges that Jack Merridew's uniquely link-transformed Atwood quote may not be (or is not) a fair use. If the quote is not a fair use, then you and the other four posters also allege that Jack Merridew has committed an illegal copyright-violation tort. If you (or the others) can cite reasonably believable evidence of not-fair-use – no problem. But, if you (or the others) cannot cite believable evidence that Jack Merridew is a civil law violator, then that is a libelous (written) defamation.
 * If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom.
 * I request of the closing admin: a statement to the effect that this archived MfD remains open to self-strikes by all of the five posters. Milo 09:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "In violation of our policy on copyrighted material" it is then. But please don't make references that we may be facing jury action in Florida, trying to intimidate us by saying something like that is very close to, if not over, the line of violating our policy on legal threats. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." " I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me. See shooting the messenger fallacy.
 * ""In violation of our policy on copyrighted material" it is then." Firming your position, but still no evidence?? Considering your attitude, note also this sentence: "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified." Milo 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the requirement that "It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material" forms the basis for my argument. The text is being used on top of a talkpage. The talkpage's function would not be harmed by removing it. The non-free use rationale claims it is being used as critical commentary on Wikipedia culture, but critical comment on Wikipedia culture does not need the non-free text. Moreover, where is the critical commentary? Explain to me, what do we lose by deleting the subpage? Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Facepalm2.svg|20px]] Apparently one can't expect even longtime experienced users like yourself to entirely read, or at least entirely understand, a ~140k xfD. That's why I originally called for a motion to close and refile after the nomination was bungled, and so many !voters were seemingly misled about the facts of existing policy. I propose a change in xfD policy to help prevent this from happening again.
 * The only delete argument in this MfD that hasn't been shown to be outright wrong on the facts, is that userspace text quote policy somehow should be different than it is written, at both WP:NFCC and the Foundation – but even for that position no one can explain why policy changes to restrict userspace text quotes beyond legal fair use would make any difference to the mission of the project.
 * So much for the Wikipedia "good answer" that is suppose to trump majoritarian error. It seems to come down to either punishing JM for his past, when by numerous accounts he's now being notably useful to the project; or, indulging a vaguely uneasy feeling that editors shouldn't be allowed to do things creatively different in userspace when it challenges strongly-held legal mythologies like specific word counts – and irrespective of an acceptably transformative new fair use. Milo 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Within Milomedes' sandstorm of distortions and misrepresentations, there is, perhaps, a grain of truth: this MFD discussion is quite lengthy and difficult to follow. To summarize:
 * (1) I initially requested the deletion of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses on the grounds that it violated WP:NFCC, which prohibits non-free content in userspace.
 * (2) Milomedes argued that WP:NFCC was inapplicable to text. What portion of the policy is applicable to text, according to him? Only the statement that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." So, according to Milomedes, WP:NFCC imposes no limitation on non-free text in userspace at all.
 * (3) My response was threefold:
 * (a) As the express stated purpose of WP:NFCC is to "[limit] the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", Milomedes' construction of WP:NFCC as permitting any use of non-free text that isn't an actual copyright violation in userspace is inconsistent with the intent of the policy.
 * (b) The "Other non-free content" to which the numbered non-free content criteria apply includes non-free text in userspace, since the term "other" is used in relation to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles".
 * (c) Even assuming, arguendo, that WP:NFCC does not specifically discuss non-free text in userspace, silence in this context is prohibitory, since, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is only permitted as expressly allowed by projects' EDPs, which, for our purposes, is WP:NFCC
 * (4) Milomedes' response to (c) was a claim that non-free text is not considered to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thus ensued a discussion concerning the construction of the term "upload" as used in the context of the Foundation resolution. I now regard the precise interpretation of "upload" as moot, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text. How exactly Milomedes is going to argue that text isn't "content", I have no idea :) Erik9 (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep — per Larry, John, DGG, and Milo, above. And general reasonableness ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for closing admin. When I first nominated this page for speedy deletion, I didn't think there was any substantial policy question. The language of WP:NFCC appears clear to me. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of heated discussion generated, much of which seems to me not to proceed from the appropriate starting point, the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy resolution.
 * 1. As that resolution states, "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Therefore, all the discussion above about common practice on the English Wikipedia is irrelevant; if the practice is inconsistent with the Foundation's resolution, it must fail.
 * 2. WP:NFC should be interpreted in light of the Foundation's resolution. As an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (my italics), it should be read as defining exemptions to the general rule that nonfree content may not be used. If, as several editors argue, it does not speak to nonfree text outside article space, then it cannot create or define any exemption for such text. And the argument that it creates a blanket exemption for "fair use" text outside article space clearly conflicts with the resolution's prescription that the exemption policy be "minimal" and only for certain stated purposes.
 * 3. The "de minimis" standard is being used in two ways, one of which is not helpful under the resolution (de minimis violations of policy). The "de minimis" standard under copyright law is more helpful: when use of copyrighted text is de minimis, it is allowed without restriction under copyright law, and therefore would not constitute "non-free content." Very short quotations from long prose works typically fall into this category. Deleting this quotation/page would not set any precedent regarding such short quotations. Having pulled a number of books randomly from my shelves, I've noted that while quoting single lines from poems or songs as epigraphs generally requires one of those "used by permission" notations on an acknowledgments page, but similar use of single sentences or very short excerpts from prose works is generally not accompanied by such permissions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More evidence for Milo 20:10 on the futility of getting experienced users to actually read and understand a ~140k xfD: There's been a lot of debate movement since you last previously posted here. These arguments were obsolete days ago. Milo 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of editors just joining this discussion, let me observe that Milomedes made a rather frivolous argument that since he does not consider text to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the resolution is inapplicable to text. For clarity, I'm restating my response here: wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text. How exactly Milomedes is going to argue that text isn't "content", I have no idea :) Erik9 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand so much stuff on this site that it's not even funny. Could somebody summarize what you're talking about? Or make it shorter? Are you guys talking about deleting something? I thought Wikipedia doesn't get rid of anything! It has over 3000000 articles! So I think this should stay too. Bloodbottler (talk)
 * This is not a discussion regarding the deletion of an article, but rather the userpage User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, for violations of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Erik9 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. Is that a whole chapter from a book? Then it should be deleted since it's in violation of that stuff. This Wikipedia stuff is harder than I thought :( Maybe Mike Godwin knows what to do. Bloodbottler (talk)