User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Black macaque monkey reads its Wikipedia article and copies it?

Possibly, as suggested here. However, as suggested here in the "reliable" media, Wikipedia never said that the monkey owned the copyright on the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed on the decision-making ability of those at Commons who decided this man, who owned the camera, developed the film, and yes- OWNED THE PICTURES, asked them to remove it and they refused on shaky ground. How many of you involved in the discussion are actually lawyers? I'm sincerely saddened by this and would now never post any photo to Flickr or Commons or anywhere on the internet without copyright protection. I hope this man does sue and win. Someone asks for a photo of theirs to be removed, why discuss, just remove it. What reasoning that the photo absolutely must be on Wikipedia?! I'm curious how Jimbo would have !voted in the discussion and his opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, because cases like that, where someone asserts they own the copyright of a photo/scan where they do not are extremely common, and honouring bogus copyright claims would obliterate our supply of public domain materials. Historic art owned by museums/galleries and so on is a very common case for this sort of thing, but also people who own a physical photo with expired copyright - stock image companies and the like especially. While the case is a little unusual in the specifics, the general pattern is common. As the photo itself is notable, it's tough to argue we shouldn't have a copy - nevermind that it's very dodgy for a free project to honour invalid copyright claims. WilyD 17:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. There are enough cases where copyright is abused, that it is entirely reasonable for us to be aggressive in defending the public domain in cases where copyright does not apply. It's unfortunate when someone like David Slater ends up at a disadvantage as a result, but consistently defending the limitations of copyright is not nearly as morally dubious as some might like to depict it. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that copyright does apply in this case under pretty much every legal definition, Wikipedia simply decided that they would ignore it. Ironic for a so-called "free" encyclopedia, isn't it? Not to mention arrogant. Like Camelbinky, I'd really like to think that he'd sue - but I'd quite understand if he didn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office decided it wasn't copyrighted, so we could go by that even if we didn't think the photographer was taking liberties with the notion of copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep whistling in the dark. The Commons decision was ill-considered, unethical, and immature — taken up a notch by the arrogant buffoonery that happened at Wikimania in London. Lawyers are doing their thing, I understand, and we shall see... Carrite (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm particularly sickened by the way that an admin, infamous for his hard-line approach to NFC, so harsh on it that he worked hard to hide an obvious sock of a banned user who was equally hard on NFC material, chose this image to decorate his user page.

Not that the Lord of the Flies celebrations at Wikimania, where the children celebrated their victory over the grown-ups by dancing around their animal head totem, was much better. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And so the response to the photo being public domain is that everyone unhappy that Wikipedia, Commons, and their communities take a fairly hard stance on copyright law comes here to sling insults? WilyD 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's in copyright or not. Commons has the precautionary principle such that if the copyright is dubious, that media should be deleted from Commons unless it can be demonstrated that the content really is free. To quote Commons itself, "arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", [...] are against Commons' aims:" Commons has deleted thousands and thousands of images under issues like COM:URAA, where they're very clearly PD in their country of origin but there is a suspicion of a problem in another country. If it's not absolutely clear that an image is free, then it just shouldn't be on Commons. (It should be obvious that many Commons users, and the photographer_(sic), hold that there's a copyright problem here.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that it is public domain. However I do agree that the Wikimania stuff was just crass, bullying almost. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is unequivocal that the original photo by the monkey is not copyrightable in the U.S.. Unfortunately, Commons is not in possession of that photo. They are in possession of Mr. Slater's modified version (cropped, photoshopped). --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Matt - for the sake of clarity, can you please link to an available copy of this claimed judgement? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a statement made in a Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices released in October. It's not a ruling about htis case, just a general statement that works by animals are not copyrightable and one of the examples given was a "picture taken by a monkey." I don't know if Mr. Slater attempted to register the photo in the U.S. Copyright Office and this was example was related. --DHeyward (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, although if anyone can link to it, it would probably be a useful thing to have easily available.

This is still a straw man argument though. Very few people are claiming that the monkey holds the copyright (and so the monkey's legal ability to do so is irrelevant). The larger group, with the stronger argument, are claiming that the photographer holds the copyright for their work in setting up the conditions for the camera to operate when handled. That's independent of a monkey's legal status and there is no statement by the US Copyright Office (AFAIK) that places any restriction upon it. Claiming "It is absolutely clear that it is public domain." is thus merely argumentum ad lapidem with nothing to back it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not a straw monkey? Or maybe even the "melon that broke the monkey's back? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) .... never mind about cameras, can't we fix up a few typewriters??

Its good to see that the Celebes crested macaque uses File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg which is at an angle and is the actual photo the monkey took, rather than the rotated and cropped version produced by the photographer. In my view any post production of the image counts as artistic work and has a much greater claim to copyright.--Salix alba (talk): 10:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a cropped and photoshopped version of the original (original was 2912x4368, cropped to 2912x4030). It's not the raw, original photo created solely by the monkey. Who cropped and framed the monkey in the derivative work? --DHeyward (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The editorial and ethical question of what commons should have done is an interesting one which could be pursued separately. There is a complex and interesting set of cases in which, although the law is firmly on our side, we may choose to remove something for a variety of reasons. I won't offer an opinion at the present time about this particular case.

What I will do is respond to Camelbinky's assertion that there is for some reason "shaky grounds" here from a legal perspective. There is no "shaky ground" here - this is an open and shut obvious case. I'm surprised that an experienced Wikipedian would not know that "owning the camera" and "developing the film" have zero bearing on copyright. I hope this case doesn't go to court, because I feel sorry for the photographer for making an outrageous and laughable legal claim and wouldn't like to see him waste his money on a frivolous court case.

That's the only part I'm responding to, because I do think the legal situation is not the right route to a proper resolution of this case. The image is absolutely in the public domain, and that's that. Whether there are human dignity and courtesy reasons that it should have been deleted upon request is a very very valid question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Camera ownership and image development aren't really the grounds of the argument to be made. Rather, whether setting up gear and causing creation of an image is sufficient or whether one must physically click the shutter. That's a matter which is very, very unclear. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not unclear at all. According to Wikimedia's legal counsel (private email in a different matter): Who clicks the shutter is irrelevant. The person 'directing the shot of the image' is the copyright holder. The only remaining question is whether leaving a camera with a monkey can amount to 'directing'. --Pgallert (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we're being armchair lawyers, I'll put forth my theory, which I admit may not hold water, but is fun to theorize anyways. This is all a good back and forth amongst us all. My theory is that if you set up the camera, leaving it with an animal with the intent that the animal will take pictures, it is your rights; and I admit I worded wrongly which Jimbo pointed out it doesnt matter if he owned the camera or developed the film, however I believe those two things SHOULD indeed be taken into consideration. Just as in criminal law you have mens rea, which is the fact that you have to have the intent to commit a criminal act for it to be a criminal act (for certain crimes) or else you are not guilty of the crime; so should it be considered that this man had the intent that the animal should take the photos FOR HIS USE. The animal didnt steal the camera take some photos and the man figured he'd never get the camera back, as sometimes happens to tourists in places like Cambodia with similar primates (monkeys? Do macaquese have tails or not?!). As Jimbo stated though, it's a moral issue, not necessarily a legal issue. In my opinion the people on Commons should have considered more than "the law is on our side we have to protect the bigger picture of copyright law and how we want it interpretted".

If the photographer had left a hand grenade instead of a camera, would they be considered as guilty of culpable monkeycide?

IMHO they would have been, and the two situations are analogous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; this is an area where I rarely see WMF and some people in Commons in same bench. They may right in legal grounds; but I don't think such celebration and humiliating a fellow photographer among us is justifiable in any point of views. Jee 12:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at this one, with the "personality rights" warning on it, because we wouldn't want to infringe the personal rights of a WMUK staffer with whole categories of content dedicated to them. Rip the copyright for a commercially valuable image from the photographer though, that's just fair game. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Personality rights is a standard template where people are identifiable. It's a warning to potential reusers that they should be aware there may be issues arising from using identifiable people in a way which suggests they, for instance, endorse your product or political view. It doesn't matter how many photos someone has of them, whether they be Joe from down the street or Brad Pitt, the issues remain the same. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the WMF aren't on 'shakey ground' here they are treading quicksand. All photographs taken by camera traps are copyrightable to the photographer that set them up, it matters not how the shutter was triggered. Trip wire, movement detection, or infrared sensor, why would animal pressing button be any different? What we have here is a 1000lb gorilla in the shape of a WMF Fagin, employing its Artful Dodgers on Commons to rob and steal. Its a shame the you Jimmy are taking the Bill Sykes character. John lilburne (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So if I set up a motion acivated camera at my remote cabin, and get a picture of bear and a burgler, who owns the copyright to those pictures? Nyth63 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Pgallert's description of the WMF email, you would have "directed the shot" in that instance, I think. But the main moral here is that somebody has to stand up for the commons. I understand that under our flawed economic system, photographers feel compelled to pursue their fiduciary interests to the letter of the law, whether they make sense or not. (Just ask the people who find out their wedding photos are copyrighted and it's a violation to post them to social media) What will be left to the commons if people say let's back off, "just to be nice", we'll let people take our inventory away and make it unavailable to the whole world? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wnt, I have a tangentially related question- I'm in discussions with an artist to do a commission work for me, he's well known enough he's mentioned in at least 6 of our articles though lacks an article of himself. Since I paid to have it commissioned would the copyright go to me and I could give permission for it to be used in Wikipedia? If the answer is yes to that, could not the argument be made this man "paid" the monkey to do the work for him?Camelbinky (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the theory there is that there's some sort of handover of copyright going on. I'm not a copyright lawyer (nor any other flavor) and I doubt I will make any more sense out of work for hire than you can (especially since it's my stated position copyright doesn't make sense, and it's totally arbitrary and unpredictable who turns out to be the fabulously wealthy founder of a Google or YouTube and who turns out to be a criminal responsible for Napster or Aereo). All I know is you're free to make your best case, and unless the artist is sure he can't, he's likely to make his also. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that this photo should have been deleted from Commons upon the request received, and it is my view that this should be done now as an Office action, if necessary.

The communities on both English Wikipedia and Commons spend, in my personal view, far too much time debating the fine points of, and deleting useful content based upon, ever-more-abstruse, purely notional copyright claims where there is at most a vanishingly small chance that any copyright-owner would actually assert the claim. By contrast, we are far too indifferent to the wishes and rights of persons who own or at least arguably own intellectual property rights and are actually asserting them. This manner of proceeding cannot reasonably be justified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with you in the first part - some of the claims of architecture copyright on random street scenes there are beyond ridiculous. But not the other. Wnt (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad nails it. The way Mr. Slater has been "rewarded" for the time and effort he spent producing those beautiful photos has been nothing short of reprehensible. Here and on Commons he's been mocked, insulted, and accused of "copyfraud" for asserting the right to profit from what would not exist had he not spent the time and effort to set it up. Even if you think copyright law entitles you to use the images he produced without his permission or consent, it doesn't entitle you to treat him with such mockery as I've seen here and on Commons. And I dare say that those who think it's OK to appropriate his work because they think his claims are "outrageous and laughable" may be in for a nasty surprise should this ever wind up in court. Delete the images and apologize to Mr. Slater for the abuse he's received. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Slater might have copyright on any post-production work, but an animal cannot own copyright, and per Slater's own initial comments, he was not intending for the monkey to take the pictures. He did not set up the conditions for those pictures any more than the manufacturer of his camera did. I won't insult Slater - though his attempt to shake down Public Knowledge over a patently obvious case of fair use was a dramatically poor idea - but Wikimedia is in the right here. Resolute 23:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't comment on fair use claims, but WMF is not in possesion of the photo taken by the monkey, it is possession of the photoshopped file uploaded by Mr. Slater. The original work is not copyrightable but the whether this is a derivative work (metadata says it's from photoshop). Without the original, how can WMF say with authority there is no artistic improvement or change? This is not an armchair concern [1]. He's not obligated to provide the original to WMF and that is the only version that would be free from any claims. If WMF does not have the original shot snapped by the monkey (and the original is not what is uploaded), they are taking a big risk that hosted file is not a copyrightable derivative of the original. Metadata has the original at a different size(the commons version is cropped from the original). Is cropping the same as framing a shot? That email from the WMF lawyer about requirements to assert copyright requires "framing" might come back to bite them if WMF can't come up with the rest of the picture to remove that artistic bit of framing done after the monkey took the picture. --DHeyward (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a short while ago there were reports about ArbCom banning all feminists from wikipedia, they had quotes and everything. John lilburne (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My thought isn't to mock Mr. Slater, simply not to delete the photo - and to me this seems to be true of the other people here who are saying not to delete a notable public domain photo. When governments declare that binary numbers are property, deleting photos becomes a business decision rather than a matter of politeness. And the business of all the volunteers on all the projects is providing public access to content. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Wnt is it truly our business to provide public access to all possible within the letter of the law content that we can grab? I would argue no. Otherwise we wouldn't have things like WP:RS and various arcane notability !rules about this being "automatically notable" (every single podunk town) and this not unless under certain conditions being met ("celebrities" who are famous for just being famous, and porn stars for instance have stricter rules than regular actors). I think there's certainly a moral aspect to this decision and the more I hear and research on what the response of the Community at places like the Wikimania convention it disheartens me greatly and I get disillusioned that, oh my L-rd these are the people we have entrusted with spreading and conserving for the World the sum of knowledge of Mankind?! Wearing monkey masks, mocking the man, being prideful, and gloating over a "win" over a man who simply wanted control over pictures. If he hadn't publicized the photos in the first place they wouldn't have become famous. He should get some credit for bringing them to the attention of the world. What if he had kept them to himself and had never posted them ANYWHERE out of fear of copyright problems? Isn't that the big fear we should be fearing? That Commons has set a precedent that all photographers will now fear- don't advertise or post or show to ANYONE any photos that could possibly not be confirmed as your copyright property. We have stifled the very growth of public property and knowledge and "cool things" that will come into this world. Way to go Commons. Congratulations.Camelbinky (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You make it sound like we wrote the law ourselves. Either the photo is copyrighted, and we're blocked from using it by external powers, or it isn't, in which case nobody who has the money for legal advice is going to pay him anything. You are free to go lobby your congressman for stricter copyright - a lot of people have done so over the years - but I don't believe that's the right way. I think it is long past time we recognize that copyright violates basic freedom of expression; this was always true (indeed, the intent from the time of registration of the first English publishers) but it gains significant effect when the cost of copyright greatly exceeds the cost of replication. I believe that every taxpayer could be required to pay an amount proportional to their income tax liability to independent funding organizations of his or her choice that fund notable works of art; these could reward people who write, paint, draw, throw paint at canvasses, or hand cameras to monkeys according to their donors' wishes. In such a way we could fund artists - on average - considerably more than we do now (showing some middlemen and record company lawyers to the unemployment line, making fewer filthy rich celebrities but making creative endeavors a reliable occupation for a much larger number of people), charge most people less for royalties than we pay now (saving money on court costs and investor uncertainty), and abolish all limits on what you can read, copy, parody, and adapt. Until such time as we do so, the halls of copyright will be paved with injustices - singers who have to sign themselves into 30 years of indentured servitude to "make it" in the industry, artists who make decent works but fail to catch on and make nothing, people who get sued for all their profits over a half-second sound sample. Just add this to the list. Wnt (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed as Jimbo appears to have no intention of stepping in it (so to speak). Nyth63 04:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But he did, and even considered this worth discussing... - Nabla (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, as I understand Wnt, for us to protect 'our' photos at Commons, we should take every photo that we can, never mind if it means stealing a bunch of them? Hey, the law is wrong anyways, right? There should not be any copyrights, so we'll just go ahead and follow our law! --- Is that us? We steal from the ones weaker than us?

From my point of view Wikipedia has a very poor history of disrespect for copyright. Long ago I uploaded a few photos and tagged them as not for commercial use. Eventually they were deleted, because it conflicted with WP's copyright, and that is just fine. What was not fine, was that, in a period I was absent, some user(s?) changed the copyright notice that I placed. How come some random user has the right to change that? They should not. I am not uploading anything, ever, as far as I can see.

Anyway, the main question, as I see it, is that we have users arguing and making decisions over complex legal matter. That is why I stay clear from the deletion forums for photos because I can not make a educated opinion whether a image is, or not, fair use, or if a copyright, or public domain, claim is coherent, let alone correct. We are not lawyers... how can we do that?

That said, as a layman, it feels like we stole that man's photo. Shame on us - Nabla (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The only photos I recommend 'stealing' are those we can get away with 'stealing' under the law, because they're not actually copyrighted in the U.S. Commons' actual policy is considerably more restrictive than that, and I don't want it to get any worse. Wnt (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if he can't assert copyright on the original, I doubt the raw monkey shot was released straight away. It sounds like he put in a lot of effort after the fact. He has two bites: one is as the original copyright holder, which WMF disputes. The other is a derivative-works copyright holder. How much did his photoshop programming change the original that would make this a derivative work? Is retrieving a file from a camera, modifying and then putting it to paper a substantial change? Is photoshopping an image an artistic change in presentation? Personally, I don't see why WMF doesn't simply honor the takedown request. It's a picture of a monkey for crying out loud. --DHeyward (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No its an existential issue, if the WMF and it's child pickpockets can't steal this there is so much more they can't steal either. Remember the other year when they went apeshit over removing a butterfly photo taken and uploaded by a confused twelve year old? In that case they got Fagin's mother (Geoff Brigham) to stand on the doorstep and yell at the kid. There are at least 8K of music articles where the guts of allmusic review has been snagged and the other parts of the article filtched from sites per MD's (WMF) instructions as moonriddengirl. John lilburne (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, sweat of the brow. The usual "The museum paid a lot of money to put in those high quality lights, so why don't you just accept that any photos you have of the ancient artwork in it ought to be their property, viewable only by those with the money to pay?" Or in this case, consider the maker of the camera -- doesn't the company deserve an eternal copyright reward for making a camera so robust and easy to use a monkey can work it, even before you consider the amount of internal programming needed to convert raw CCD readings into a linear and well-balanced set of color curves! It's a lot more creative work than the person who owned the camera did. Really, whenever an amateur volunteer clicks a button taking a picture of some landmark in a rare country where freedom of panorama is involved, isn't he like the monkey? Clearly the copyright on a photo you take with your camera ought to reside with the owner of the camera software who put in all that sweat of the brow and creative endeavor to make it work! Wnt (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy. "Sweat of the brow" claims by themselves are not a derivative work without an artistic change. Even if the original monkey photo has no copyright, that photo has never been uploaded. Only the modified version from the photographer has been uploaded. If those changes are artistic, he can make a derivative copyright claim. A person drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa and it was enough of an artistic change to enable a derivative copyright claim. Commons is not in possession of the photo the monkey took, they are in possession of a derivative of that photo made and released by a person. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone blacked out the mustache, or redrew that little area with a best-guess interpretation, that would not be copyrighted. Likewise, if someone readjusts the color profile and recrops the image, clearly it should not be copyrighted. But additionally, there's the issue that the mustache, drawn by itself in its own little layer and shipped separately, would still be copyrighted. However, any simple color profile (a few numbers, basically, that define a mapping of one color to the other; you see these points on a "curves" view in GIMP or the like) would not be copyrightable. Likewise, cropping a photo is not by itself a creative work; again that is just four numbers (x1, x2, y1, y2). This seems an argument born of desperation. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Commons has long held, with WMF support, a policy of uploading photos of old paintings directly from museum websites, even though the museums object strenuously. Those photos are of course cropped by the museum/website staff, are color adjusted, have camera color profiles built in and so forth... but the goal is still a faithful reproduction of the original, and so it is not creative work protected by law. At least, so far ... there is nothing legal under copyright today that won't someday be banned when the right lobbyists pay the right amount of money, including Wikipedia itself. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that someone I know photographs medieval artworks he does so with a macro lens. Photographing a couple of sq centimeters and essentially picking out the abstractness of the paint, colour, texture, and the effects of age. You would be hard pressed to claim that those were PD. Others photograph sections of an old master work, alter contrast, tonality, perspectives, adding colour shifts. There is no intention to create a faithful reproduction of the original. In any case Brightman v Corel probably needs revisiting. In that case Corel did with Brightman's transparencies, what Brightman had done with the originals. A set of behaviours that are far and above more ethical than the "Save As". John lilburne (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And the upside is "What is the motivation for museums to provide high resolution of their works if they lose any license to the work?" The photographic artists that are capable of faithfully reproducing artwork will no longer exist and Commons and WMF will be left with no future source of photos. It's a very shortsighted and selfish policy that defeats the core principles. IMO, "fair use" reduced resolution photos for anything even remotely creative by someone that makes their living doing such things is what WMF should be striving for. The museum photos, especially, as the photographers are likely paid a fixed wage for time (which was a Stallman/FSF original principle.) --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably cropping and mapping is not copyrightable, yes. Still, try mapping at random, or cropping at 4 random places. - Nabla (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference in all those cases is the original source is out of copyright and available. WMF is claiming, without having seen the original, that their version is the same as the monkeys and the differences are not artistic. How can they make this determination? The monkey pushed a button and created a .raw file at maximum resolution. The monkey did not create the color balanced and cropped .jpg. There is no evidence that Mr. Slater was trying to accurately copy anything other than produce a work that he could sell. The photo event, as I understand it, consisted of him paying the zoo for exclusive access and he makes his living creating .jpg from raw images in sizes, contrasts and colors that suit a specific client (i.e. National Geographic most likely has color limitations for print). The .jpg only exists because Mr. Steven created a derivative work from the public domain but unpublished original. WMF cannot recreate the original from that derivative. WMF cannot create their own version from the original. WMF cannot state what the differences between the original and jpg. Instead, WMF took Mr. Stevens derivation and claims it is not artistically significantly different from the original without ever seeing the original. It is correct that only the differences between a derivative and original are copyrightable. WMF does not know what those differences are. They have a better fair use claim (which they should immediately attribute Mr. Stevens as the creator of that .jpg and make it conditional that his authorship be attached to all copies.) What's ridiculous is Commons will go on a copyright binge and delete asinine copyright claims (like National flags or political party flags from the BJP party in India) - but think nothing of the expense, effort, time and creativity to bring a picture like the monkey selfie to the public when they take a picture and declare it "free". Mr. Stevens did lose the administrative battle that he is the original creator with original copyright. If he takes that at its face and then challenges WMF that they directly took his derivative work without any effort to ascertain originality, I am not sure if he would be compelled to produce the original or if the original raw file is deleted and he simply claimed his customer specific and custom photoshop flows add artistic value that they pay for. The sad part is that this action by WMF hurts the future of professional photography. A bunch of for-profit publishers now reprint the "free" image that they previously paid for and WMF had fair use exemption. Why WMF/Commons would take money from artists and give it to businesses when WMF still had arguable fair use exemption is beyond me. It's like shooting themselves in the foot. How many for profit companies are using that image for free instead of paying royalties to the person that spent money to create a portfolio for a client? I sure hope he doesn't suddenly remember that a lot of those photos weren't "selfies" but actually controlled by the wireless shutter remote provided with the camera. --DHeyward (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I personally find it odd that there are thoughts that the crop, at least of the version linked, was from Slater. Does nobody actually check the source images? And white balance adjustments, with the goal of realism, are hardly "creative". There are eighteen million ways to do that automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The uploaded file has metadata that the original raw file was at maximum size. I don't believe the raw file was released. Commons lifted a jpg from a paying customer at its full resolution. --DHeyward (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Look above. People (oh, you!) say that the crop was the photographer's. Was it? No.

A public domain image that people want to be paid for permission to reuse is still a public domain image. I can ask for restitution all day long for a public domain image I've scanned or whatnot, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: You keep claiming that color balancing makes a public photo not public domain. But any PD photo of an old work of art is color balanced first by the museum, which puts up expensive lighting instead of some crappy fluorescent fixture, then by the camera, enacting its makers' proprietary protocols, then by the photographer, then perhaps even by the webmaster. And we still have this desire, as somebody put it, to "steal so much more" by taking these photos to illustrate our articles on these ancient artworks. Not only the desire, but apparently the legal right. And no matter how much some want to 'revisit' such a modest legal decision limiting the amount by which others can enforce their 'property' on our computers, certainly others of us have neither the need nor desire to do so. Copyright is a sinking institution and instead of trying to delay the inevitable, we need creative professionals to start promoting a new economic system that ensures that creators (not middlemen!) can make a decent salary without rationing or censoring anyone else. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

More strawman. Mr. Slater artistically chose Macaque monkeys as subjects. He artistically chose an indonesian zoo as the backdrop for his photography. He rented the zoo for exclusive interaction for his photos. He artistically chose the full-frame CMOS camera, lens, f-stop, and shutter speed. He artistically chose the time of day. He created the environment for the photo. This is not someone taking pictures in their museum. These are new pictures of the monkies. I don't know how you start promoting or motivating creative professionals by claiming their entirely new creation is not theirs and stealing it. He wasn't getting paid for pictures of existing works of art, he was getting paid for never before seen photos enables by his creativity and diligence. He is the creator, not the middleman except on a lame technical interpretation that what he created was really a natural event (i.e. animal act). Sorry, but he's the type of profesional we should support and not take away his livelihood. WP has a decent fair use claim which would have surved the encyclopedia just as well. I believe it's obtuse to think that he is a middleman as opposed to the exact "creative professional" you allude to. Go after museum photos all you like as that's an entirely different act. Anyone can go to the museum and take a picture. Now go rent the indonsesian zoo to highlight the plight of an endangered animal and take pictures only to have them stolen by an organization that has no need to steal them. This is not the copyright abusers we should be trying to stop, this is a professional artist. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There might be a misunderstanding here. Slater's own webpage does not say anything about him renting a zoo. Which zoo do you believe he rented? It also makes clear that the monkeys chose the time of day, not Slater; "It was about midday on the second day and the monkeys, about 25 strong of all ages, halted for a rest". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I was not suggesting that this artist is a middleman, but copyright is in general an unfair system that rewards a lot of middlemen and not so many artists. I understand that the conventional "free culture" mindset one encounters is often incomplete - it includes a firm understanding that copyright violates privacy and freedom of speech, but doesn't have a plan for how to pay artists to keep producing content once it is gone, apart from tenuous donationware revenues. Above I proposed not only to end copyright but that it is possible to replace it with a market-like mechanism by which individual taxpayers can choose where to direct their revenues, but where an overall level of contribution to creative endeavors is ensured. This lacks the anarchistic purity one expects of a truly fair economic system, but only because the overall formulation of capitalism is in error; if one recognizes that human beings cannot make land or deposits of oil and minerals, and therefore any inherited claim laid to them is not justifiable, one understands that the Earth should be a common inheritance. Those who make fewer, but not zero demands on its resources should thereby be entitled to a royalty, a guaranteed minimum income (without restriction), payable by those who take more than their share via extraction taxes and property taxes, neutralizing the cruel excesses we see in the world today. (Though I call these taxes, these are simply property rights, as natural resources would be considered fundamentally the collective property of mankind) If this correction is applied, it is no longer necessary to compel donations since many would simply collect the payment to which they are entitled as part-owners of the natural resources and spend their lives freely indulging in creative endeavor. But for now, let's focus just on ensuring a predictable economic sector for creative works. Anyway, my point is: copyright doesn't reward everyone fairly; it didn't reward this man; that's not our problem; the fix is not a one-off acceptance (only by us and by no one who would actually have paid in the first place!) of copyright where the law didn't create it. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's so valuable to host Lord of the Rings, then why don't we just host it anyway? Invent a new interpretation of copyright such that Tolkien hitting keys on a typewriter was merely "enabling" the machine to write the novel for itself. Then as machines can't (yet) hold copyright, it's in the public domain and WP can land-grab it. What's so different from what Commons has done with the macaque?

Let's grab Jackson Pollock's works too. He didn't apply paint directly to canvas, he just threw paint in the air and so the design is a matter of gravity and air currents. QED, another one for the Commons booty. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If one looks at US copyright law, the version of LotR published by ACE was, in fact, not copyright, and Wikipedia (had it been around) in 1965 would have to have made it available on the basis of some assertions made here. I would prefer that we stick to the simple proposition that a person who undertakes specific acts which are likely to result in a photo being taken, is the person who is responsible for the creation of the photo. Had Slater not set the camera, the probability of the animal taking that picture was zero. Collect (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As you people well know, Wikipedia isn't free to make up its own copyright laws because, well, they're laws, and there are people who can take them to court if they deviate from the not particularly logical set of legal precedents out there. If the courts say Jason Pollock holds a copyright we don't host his paintings - I don't pretend that makes any intrinsic sense, because we're talking about copyright law here. But not content with that much, you want us to make up new copyright laws ... only for those cases where it means giving up even more of the public domain! What do you think we shouldn't give up 'just to be nice', anyway? Should we reduce all of the WMF's projects to one simple how-to guide explaining how poor mothers can sacrifice their babies to Moloch, because it is just intrinsically wrong for ordinary people to read things, know things, do things, or have any role in the world except in sacrifice to attest to the absolute power of the corporate oligopoly over every detail held in every human mind? Wnt (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What were you reading into my post? Collect (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When you (and the others) seem to suggest that there is nothing really wrong with us abandoning content from the public domain, where does it end? It ends with people being limited to whatever knowledge they can afford to buy, one item at a time. And when you deny a person knowledge, you deny him all power; you deny his humanity altogether. There's a reason why we should hold the line, and if we're going to hold the line anywhere, why not here? Wnt (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope, Collect...you start talking about an instance of copyright dispute and you end up with the collapse of civilization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's classic six-degrees-of-Wnt. I only understood it as far as Collect wanting to sacrifice babies to Moloch, which, for the record, I oppose. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

[2] Sam Clemens:

I am aware that copyright must have a limit, because that is required by the Constitution of the United States, which sets aside the earlier Constitution, which we call the decalogue. The decalogue says you shall not take away from any man his profit. I don't like to be obliged to use the harsh term. What the decalogue really says is, "Thou shalt not steal," but I am trying to use more polite language.

The laws of England and America do take it away, do select but one class, the people who create the literature of the land. They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land, always what a fine, great, monumental thing a great literature is, and in the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it.

And so some on Wikipedia appear to feel about the worth of such property that is should be "free to all." Collect (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When it seemed that the price of a book was substantial, and the ratio of the royalty to the author and the cost of the book was relatively fixed, the copyright system approximated the sort of directed funding from taxes that I have proposed above. After all, the cost of the copyright was but a small portion of the cost of the book, and only the wealthy could afford to have many books printed up for their own use anyway. Furthermore, these books were made available in that contemporaneous institution, the library, to many such as could read, and so the availability approximated the universal (but with notable restrictions) while the acquisition policies of the libraries served as a stand-in for the role of other funding organizations that are possible. Therefore, the flaws implicit in the institution were not visible at that time. Meanwhile, the notion of people directing where to send a pool of money in, say, a year-end tax form would be so far out of what the culture was willing to accept or capable of administering, that it was not a ready alternative. The one thing that hasn't changed, of course, is that we do need to find a way to reward the creators with "their" profit. Note though that in the system I suggested (as under copyright) what is theirs is determined by the preferences of a pool of consumers divided by the number of competitors, and so the degree of profit (as under copyright) is by no means predictable and certainly not a law of nature where someone can say that if he did not make X dollars from writing a book he was robbed, though I think mine is more predictable. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Request, though many will find controversial if you did, but hope you at least consider (Monkey redux)

I formally request that you, as founder (or co-founder whatever people insist upon), perhaps could consider using your influence, wisdom, perhaps even direct powers that you may still voluntarily possess, to cause a change on the decision of the monkey photo we have discussed in the thread above. You seemed, perhaps, to be open to the idea that while legally the WMF has the right, that morally the decision may not have been and that more consideration should be taken. I am wondering if you are willing for a... debate? RfC? Or just Wikipedia's version of amicus briefs be given to you and perhaps you and the WMF could take a second look on moral and ethical instead of legal grounds on whether perhaps we should do, what in my humble opinion is the right thing to do. I'm sure a lot will argue here you have no grounds or power to do any such thing, but the decision at Commons and various comments, attitudes, and responses by some in the Community have truly dispirited me and this was all I could think to do, to feel like I'm at least trying to do the right thing, in my mind.Camelbinky (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you stop beating on the already dead WP:HORSE already? The legal opinion of WMF is in and seriously, this debate is getting just plain ridiculous. WMF is legally in the right and indeed might have their own horse in this race because protecting public domain images is one of their own interests. They're one of the only organizations I know that constantly put their money where their mouth is on subjects like this. Tutelary (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What law school did you go to? And you want to talk about putting their money where their mouth is, has the WMF actually done that in this case? Given their budget and need to allocate wisely I doubt this is a huge priority to spend everything and anything.Camelbinky (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This horse is far from dead. It is possible to be legally right and at the same time to be completely morally and ethically wrong. It appears to me that camera owner in this case has been greatly harmed by a legal "opinion". To me it looks like the WMF has no idea if the are embarrassing themselves or not by not even considering what is the "right" thing to do. Nyth63 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Morally, we have the right to read whatever we want, write whatever we want, ignore all tyrants who dictate any limit on that for any reason, and await the SPA/RIAA S.W.A.T. teams with AK47s at the ready under the jihadist skull-and-crossbones banner of the Cathach of St. Columba. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, Wnt, your position is that we should renounce any legal or ethical restrictions on our content at all. No BLP policy against libel or invading privacy; no honoring copyrights (if someone wants to post the full text of a book published last year, tough); no excluding child porn or photos taken by sneaking into a bathroom—no rules at all.

If that is really your view, you are merely a common troll, and your participation here is dangerous.

If that is not really your view, then your post is a useless piece of rhetorical exaggeration, and you should learn to think before typing.

In either case, you are not a serious participant in this conversation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started with the "moral" arguments. I'm well aware that the legal standards are what matter because the legal action is the threat to WMF. If people want to argue law then let them argue law, but don't start with this "the law doesn't require us to delete this, so let's be moral, because not to be moral the way I want would be illegal!" That's not serious conversation, though it is an extremely common tactic around here of late, a time-wasting loop-the-loop that truly deserves dismissal. Morally, I admire everyone over the history of the Internet from Usenet on who have made it possible to simply transmit information and never mind what it is. All your censorship exceptions need to be dealt with other ways - by teaching people to look for reliable sources, by stopping employment discrimination against women who have revenge porn circulating, by making law enforcement actually find the people who are molesting children instead of jailing random nerds who were running file sharing software a picture passed over afterwards. That's what's moral. If you want to come argue law, then stay on that topic. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"The legal opinion of WMF is in "

Can you please link to that, for the sake of clarity.

Also, if that opinion is "A monkey cannot hold copyright" then that is still failing to address the question of whether the photographer can hold the copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the dilemma, here, seems quite deep. The WMF is of the opinion that legally the image may be hosted. The editors have apparently decided it will be hosted, to the apparent disgust of others but apparently those disgusted are unable to use regular process to get it removed. For the WMF to now take the editorial step of removing the image on non-legal grounds, it basically must use an out-of-process action. Whatever the justice of this particular matter - does the WMF becoming uber content editor make good sense? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. One possibility would be to conclude that while the legal opinion is there is no copyright issue, the situation is close enough to the line that it would be undesirable to test it. Another possibility would be to conclude that it is ethically undesirable to host content, at least absent a high degree of shown need, in the direct face of an entirely plausible request for deletion by the creator (or at least, someone intimately involved with the creation). And, importantly, the fact pattern here is sufficiently eccentric, as shown by the truly bizarre nature of some of the hypothetical comparisons that people have offered, that no broadranging precedent would be created. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your first possibility, appears to be a legal position (don't test it) - of course they seem to have already decided against that but presumably they could reverse course; your second position appears to be in the nature of site editorial content policy (eg. "our content policy is need in the face of complaint") - the WMF making one off ipsa dixit editorial site content policy does seem like a far reaching precedent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been occasional Office actions in the past; an admitted difference is that those have been obscure while this one would be widely publicized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, but as I understand specific to Office Actions, there is a line to maintain: this, and no further - legal judgement but not editorial judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer the specific question asked, I have no intentions to intervene here at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Then this discussion should be closed. Nyth63 04:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Anent "copyright" and "being legally able to publish":

[3] gives an example of a deficient copyright under US law enabling the publishing of material without the proper owner's consent.

Being "legally able" to do something is not the proudest reasoning known to man. Collect (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time making sense of that article, but let's be clear: if there was no copyright renewal for Lord of the Rings then we absolutely should host a copy of it. We host copies of many things for which copyright renewals weren't filed already. You can say we shouldn't be proud of being 'legally able', but what thing in the world is nobler than freedom? What purpose is more fundamental to WMF than distributing the freely available content it can? You could say it's "morally" pirate to copy something that wasn't renewed, expired 75 years ago, or 100, or 1000, or was taken by a monkey, whatever, but what morality could there possibly be in extending the arbitrary bans of copyright whichever way you happen to think of? Wnt (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No -- not "renewal" the copyright was never taken out in the US - so when Houghton Mifflin imported too many copies without registering in the US, it lost copyright under US law. Tolkien made substantive changes so Ballantine could issue a properly US copyrighted version -- which is now the version sold around the world. That time, the US public made known its belief that one ought not steal the work of others. Collect (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's legal to post the original version now, we should post it. Is it? Wnt (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't post complete texts on Wikipedia, so this discussion need not continue, thank goodness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, you might try Wikisource. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

For God's own sake, please tell me you didn't suggest that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'd already thought of that, though I had to recheck their policy; I just got side-tracked by a beguiling article from the late 1700s over there (as he describes it, modified smallpox has quite some literary potential, I think...). But I still need more convincing that the original version is truly public domain in the U.S. at this moment in time. Wnt (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As I feared, the Ace version of Lord of the Rings is part of the massive body of material taken (not stolen, of course!) from the public domain via the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. [4] Now, even more than two decades later my understanding is that URAA is still a legal 'gray area' with no one really understanding how it will play out, because after all that is just the blink of an eye on a legal timescale. Commons and the WMF are already in the midst of an argument over deletions of URAA images, as I recall. But I'm not feeling very hopeful at this point. With copyright extensions, treaties (if you think URAA was bad just wait for the secret schemes of the Trans-Pacific Partnership), cockamamie legal theories like for Happy Birthday, university libraries that have made all their resources proprietary, locked up behind passwords (even the card catalog), libraries subject to exorbitant subscription rates for being libraries, not allowed to simply collect journals from public donations and put them on the shelves ... today's U.S. seems as eager to destroy the public domain as people like Ben Franklin once were to build it up. And Wikipedia is, for now, a rare exception to that. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What are

Dear Jimbo, What are obvious role/shared accounts?--Amaris Monteon (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific, as I am unsure what you are asking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand the question. Please see if Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Role_accounts provides the information you need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that may be all that is needed. I had assumed there was something more detailed to the question but perhaps not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am evading a block but I am not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported to ANI

This is already being discussed at WP:ANI, it doesn't need to be spammed here whilst that is continuing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I got blocked for starting a SPI and accused of being a sock, Whose Sock???? Calling me a sock after I started a SPI was a convenient excuse to block me by User:Chillum. I am no sock and Chillum has never presented any evidence. I am fighting the abusive treatment of an IP which is all to familiar. Stating get an account is a cop out that does not address the abuse of socks and lack of AGF. 0 I started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. [5] It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an admin. Thanks for your time 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) This note has also been posted at WP:ANI where it is being addressed. Liz Read! Talk! 12:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC) In Depth Highlights 1. A fight (not a discussion) to delete Cultural Marxism article initiated by User:RGloucester a self avowed Marxist. The article's modern American usage negatively portrays Marxists and big government control as a form of Cultural Marxism. The term has been around some time and is currently seeing a resurgence to describe big government or a nanny state. I found that out using google. The term is notable and its modern rendition is much different than the article it was merged into and the history shows many editors brought that up. The article is deleted and salted after a prolonged war but it was save and placed on several other web sites decrying abusive practices at Wikipedia. I found them when I googled the term. A new account User:Jobrot shows up claiming to be a Noob on their talk page and then edits their first day several times to delete the article wiki lawyering with sophisticated wiki alphabet soup language. I will later begin reviewing the closed AFD fight and I am shocked at the level of discourse concerning an article that is notable, well sourced, and that article that has been around for 9 years is deleted. There are claims in the AFD about socks and I begin looking into account histories and discover user Jobrot. I run the editor analyzer on all involved parties and only two accounts have a very high interaction. Here are the results: [6] User:RGloucester who started the AFD and the new account have almost all their edits in common and they both are strongly arguing for its deletion and subsequently on the related new drafts especially the new Draft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which tries to use a great deal of negative ideological sources to paint the use of the term as a crazy fringe theory by right wing nut jobs. 2. User:Jobrot history shows an SPA account only working on Cultural Marxism drafts and the redirect Frankfurt School. User:RGloucester starts another AFD [7] to delete a new Draft:Cultural Marxism but is unsuccessful. Chillum States in the new AFD: I would support deletion then. Too soon. Chillum 19:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) He is the same admin who has suspended my account for starting: 17:46, 22 February 2015 Chillum (talk | contribs) blocked 172.56.15.36 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Obvious sock puppet is obvious. See deleted contribs. Logged out user. I am not logged out as I have never had an account. Chillum accuses me of being a sock for starting a SPI. Chillum never does a SPI on me just cast an aspersion to justify blocking me. That is an abuse of admin privileges and he assumes no good AGF. I am wondering about his motive as to whether he is paranoid of IP's, resents IP's or is acting maliciously because he disagrees with my edits to the original article. He also salted the original deleted article that I have now used (found when researching Cultural Marxism with google, check it out) as a starting point and improved. 3. I attempt to work on the article under a slightly different title Cultural Marxist and I am unaware of the draft at the time. I add much new material with many reliable sources here:[8] In the middle of working on the new article I am reverted by DD2K who states:where the Hell is the protection to this? here: [9] I am unaware he has done this while I am researching and adding to the article until I try to submit again which comes up as an edit conflict. I work around and improve article but I have lost much of my previous work and write this in the edit summary: (Improving references and adding a few, still working on article that is already much different and is undergoing much, discuss on talk page and please do misuse speedy delete to eliminate dissenting schools of thought) That is my only revert. DD2K puts a speedy delete tag while I go back to researching and working on the article. DD2K then does his second revert of everything on the article except his speedy delete tag and then requests page protection. DD2K has clearly been watching the page and reverts 2X to my 1X. I place a notice on DD2K's talk page for blanking the page. I check his contributions and see that he has requested page protection and I go there to argue against it stating: User:DD2K nominated the article for speedy deletion then immediately deleted it without any discussion. I was working on a substantially different article than the last known article. here:[10] I add more to the page protection here: [11] I argue that I am substantially improving the article. I lose and the page is protected and DD2K has only edited in the draft article since then, here is his contributions: [12] 4. I go edit some other articles but I decide to go back and start snooping around to see why all the bugaboo about the article, I find the draft and edit there instead here: [13] I am reverted again within 45 minutes by User:RGloucester. [14] Compare the two articles. It becomes clear there is some ownership issues going on here and the level of article improvement is irrelevant. I never reverted there. No edit war. 5. I go to the draft talk page to post my concerns about an article that has been ignored for 2 weeks until I show up. It is clear there are ownership and Push issues. I post this here: Article has been vandalized back into a WP:PUSH political diatribe "Amazing, no one has work on the article for 2 weeks and I spend hours adding sources from subject matter experts and RGloucester shows up and simple reverts to an agenda pushing political diatribe article that is designed to advance a left wing agenda. RG also fought long and hard to eliminate the real article because it did not fit their brand of cultural Marxism. The more neutral editors have all left because of the tendentious editing WP:TEND. More evidence that Wikipedia has become more extreme in promoting left wing ideologies and cannot be trusted as a source for anything political. The project relevance will continue to decrease if balance is not restored. Just compare the one RG reverted to and the one I did. RG eliminated info boxes, references, noted experts and replaced it with a political rant. I have no doubt that when they get the article to fit their politics (left wing cultural Marxism) they will be ok with putting it back up. It was there for years and after constant demands they got it deleted and salted as well. But a google of the title Cultural Marxism will bring up the preserved article and some very interesting commentary about what happened and where this project is headed. The current article is in no way encyclopedic and is now only an political diatribe to grind an axe. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC) I also post in reply to Jobrots commentary: Jobrot-So it seems this is an American phenomena that Europe (the apparent origins of the movement) view with apt derision whilst the rest of the world is for the most part indifferent. --Jobrot (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Me- It is not amazing that an American political philosophy that criticizes Europe's drowning in Cultural Marxism and Europe's downfall and current has been status that are only a shadows of what they once were does not want to talk about it. Europe's downfall is illustrated as what happens when countries are greatly influenced by the far left (Cultural Marxists} and what America will become as the yoke of political correctness (Cultural Marxism) suppresses the people. 172.56.7.197 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Less than an hour later DD2K reappears and deletes both of my posts as I challenged his speedy delete and page protection on the page I originally began editing earlier. It appears as tit for tat?[15] (Reverted to revision 647604569 by Jobrot (talk): Rv -- ffs -- This is not a forum for political rants. We all know it is generally best to leave talk page comments alone. I reinstate my post and state this in the edit summary: Have you read the posts? It just does not fit your ideology so you delete comments about improving the article, recuse yourself if you cannot apply commonsense. So far everything I have tried to add has been deleted by some of those previously involved in an ongoing tendentious edit war. Yet later I will be accused of edit warring. Ironic 6. I am reverted again by a hit and run editor (they never came back to the talk page) so I give up for 10 hours (I got better things to do) and do not reinstate my talk page commentary. I return and remove this rant using the same basis as used against my post. [Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim] Personally I believe the appeal of the Cultural Marxism theory is that things like, Feminism, Gay Rights and Civil Rights have become somewhat sacrosanct. In many spheres of life it's not really considered socially acceptable to criticize these movements (and doing so often garners emotionally visceral reactions and rhetorical vitriol). It would be much easier to explain this all away via a communist plot indoctrinating everyone, but unfortunately the reality of these movements is a lot more emotionally messy than that. --Jobrot (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "If that is not a soap box statement then clearly my statements were valid as well. Jobrot restores himself Jobrot (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 648309581 by 172.56.15.36 (talk) it seems we have a vandal IP.) User:Jobrot edit history shows a SPA account only working on Cultural Marxism drafts and the redirect Frankfurt School. Jobrot poisons the well by calling me a vandal IP. 7. I began more looking into the history of those involved by running edit analyzer. Something seemed amiss and there were other statements to that affect in the AFD. Two names exhibited an amazingly similar editing pattern. That is the AFD initiator User:RGloucester and User:Jobrot a self described Noob who says they did not know what they are doing but on their first edit appears in a very contentious discussion about deleting an article and using some sophisticated wiki terminology. Cleary not a noob which Jobrot later admits in the ANI I started about myself and those involved in this fiasco. Jobrot and RGloucester both furiously argued to delete and salt the article. It looks very suspect and the analyzer supports that so I start an ANI where I lay it out in depth. No reasonable person would question whether I am detailed oriented or not based on my edits. I also notified many of those who seemed very involved in the AFD as they would have great interest in a meat puppet being used to eliminate an article including Chillum and another admin. Both parties suspected of being socks or at the least puppets are informed. 8. The SPI is quickly closed within 3:20 hours and deleted by User:Mike V here: [16] I am then blocked by Chillum here: [17] 17:46, 22 February 2015 Chillum (talk | contribs) blocked 172.56.15.36 (talk) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Obvious sock puppet is obvious. See deleted contribs. Logged out user.) Chillum accuses me of being a logged out user of which I am not. Why did he do that? Chillum had closed the AFD and salted the article. Chillum would later state that I edit warred which I did not and the long response here makes it easy to see that is also a false accusation. I point out Chillum's action to everyone involved and start an ANI about me. This is when the real circus begins. Chillum repeats his lies and then bans me again for bringing all this up because I evaded his unjustified ban based on based faith and no evidence. I reasonably questioned Chillum's motives as they seem rather suspect. Whether he is attempting to cover up his original bad faith block or something greater I do not know. Things heat up after several exchanges and several more lies from Chillum stating I was edit warring and editing logged out. Nothing surprising there. Many others come in to the ANI. One admin lays out the issue pretty well but he is mostly ignored, I thank him for being fair and he in no way praised my actions but he had the balls to address Chillums short comings in all of this. Chillum and some others continue to attempt to block me from speaking up which is an exercise in futility. I will not be silent about being blocked for starting an SPI. That is what this all about. 9. Jobrot does something very decent the day after I start the SPI when he realizes the point I made and restores my talk commentary.' I believe that says something good about him to be fair, I am assuming good faith. Jobrot states: Jobrot (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 648261825 by Saddhiyama (talk) Reverting back even further in the interests of having an open discussion.) I just noticed this now as I left the talk after being reverted again. It was however the day after I started the SPI investigation. Up to that point everything I did was reverted in this contentious article discussion that is full of political push. I never exceed 3RR and mostly did only 1RR but somehow I became an edit warring sock. I used the talk page to address my concerns but was repeatedly reverted by those who had practiced tendentious edit warring here for a long time. My posts that were restored after I brought attention to my block at ANI have received quite a bit of discussion which was my intent. 10. Another commentator wrote this recently after my original post was restored by Jobrot here [18] Raquel Baranow (talk | contribs)(→‎Article has been vandalized back into a WP:PUSH political diatribe: agree with the IP) Raguel states: I totally agree with the IP. I've been following this since it was mentioned on Jimbo's Talk Page. (As you know, the original article was deleted through "consensus" and then restored by Jimbo.) I became aware of the right-wing use of the term from reading Anders Breivik's Manifesto and think it's an important concept. I also consider myself a Marxist because I believe in eliminating money but I'm not a cultural Marxist and disagree with the redirect to the Frankfort School, this should be a stand-alone article. I'm glad someone is volunteering their time to do something about this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC) She recognizes the differences in the use of the terms. This encyclopedia project was here to be reasonably inclusive and cover notable topics. 11. Why do the editors who wanted to delete the article fight so hard in editing it. That seems strange. Why spend time trying to improve something you argued had no relevance? I believe the intention was to delete an article because they did not like how it was written as it offended their ideological beliefs. That is my opinion and others have their idea as to why the article that stood for 9 years was deleted. One things for sure is that there was a great deal of POV going on both sides but that is no reason to delete an article and there was no consensus to be deleted so it should of stayed. The salting was also a very poor decision. Talk about trying to hide information. Thank God someone saved it and posted elsewhere. They are making a great deal of justified negative comments about Wikipedia over this AFD. This an extremely bad example by many involved including admins. My intention is to inform here. Banning my IP is not a concern of mine at this point. It will hurt Wikipedia more than me if this type of ideological motivated deletion continues. Besides all that I need a break as all my free time has been dedicated to this over the last three days and even time I should of been taking care of other things. I am bold and determined as I spent much of my adult life as a Marine and not easily intimidated. I am tenacious as a bull dog when I feel passionate about something. Chillum brought the worst and the best in me by pulling that admin stunt of his. SEMPER FI Jimbo! 208.54.32.236 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Transfer of a Conversation with Admin Weldneck (very professional and rational), It concerns the abusive atmosphere many IP's Receive Regularly if They Know to Much

ANI I started to have my actions and Chillum's actions scrutinized

I started the ANI so others could look at the block I received for starting a SPI. Chillum blocked the IP I submitted the SPI with. I have a cellular IP and it changes frequently, that is how cell towers serve many customers. Chillum specifically said I logged out from an account and was a therefore a sock. What account did I log out from, what evidence was there? Did he start a SPI on me? No he just used a convenient excuse to block me. It was malicious at best. I believe he has a low level of respect for IP's and was not AGF. He has made up lies after that to defend his block. He says I edit warred. That is a lie. Show where I did that? The only thing I have done is turn off my device for 5 Minutes to get a new IP to respond to the ANI I started. Why did I start it? So his actions and my actions would be scrutinized. I could of walked away but I am tired of the abusive atmosphere here towards IP's. I will stand my ground on this one. I started the ANI and I will participate in it and see it out. The hell with the catch 22 when you have been maliciously abused by an admin. 172.56.38.47 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey WeldNeck, I left a post at Jobrots page and I am no longer seeking a SPI. It has plenty of merit but if it is a sock or meat puppet I like Jobrots attitude better than the sock master. It could be a friend or even a sophisticated sock but it is no longer my intention to pursue it. My main concern is the abuse from Chillum and all the lies he has been telling to cover his tracks. He makes up stuff or misrepresents it by twisting the facts. His reason he posted on the account he blocked is that I was editing logged out and a therefore a sock. I have nothing to log into as I will not register due people like Chillum. Besides that it would be ok to log out to start a SPI if they thought they would face retaliation and considering User:RGloucester is involved that would be likely. It is your call about the SPI but it does not matter to me anymore. There are so many editors with sock accounts and friends battling for them what is a couple of more. 172.56.8.17 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it, I certainly think there's something to it. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean we should let people get away with it. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the abusive atmosphere here by some admins towards IP's does much more damage to the project and I have to pick my battles. I originally started the SPI which was deleted and then Chillum who was deeply involved in the article came along 5 hours after I started it and blocked my account here: [19] Chillum wrote: Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism. If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What account did I log out from? Having knowledge makes me guilty? Having cellular service that randomly changes IP's is now a crime? Discussing on a talk page about a bias and push in an article is now forbidden? Reinstating my deleted comments 1 time is an edit war? Making false allegations about someone who is an IP is accepted practice?

What is troubling is User:Chillums amount of lying to cover up after I self reported myself at ANI to get the matter scrutinized. The evidence speaks for itself but so do the reactions. It seems there is little accountability for admins abusing other editors especially the IP editor. There is probably a process to take this higher/further but very few know about it and are willing to go there. The catch 22 of being abused and then being blocked so you cannot make a report without being accused of evading a block is severely flawed as well. I have let enough admins know so at least their is more information about it.

Thank you WeldNeck for looking into the matter of the original SPI. The evidence is strong and I believed it deserved more attention. I would of been ok with the SPI going nowhere after the process which was very short and deleted, why? The clear abuse of someone who started a SPI has become a bigger issue for me. I did not even know about Chillum's block until I went back the next day to look at the SPI. My IP had already changed when I turned on my Cellular device. Chillum has tried to use my changing IP as evidence. That has no merit as cellular networks continually change IP's to allow more people to use the network than they have IP's allocated for. Take your cell phone for example (same type of network) and google "my IP" and then turn it of for awhile or go somewhere and google "my IP" again and it likely changed. The bigger the population of people the more likely it will change faster. I could of said oh well to Chillum's block and went on about my business and no one would of known or cared.

However there are people out there who use an IP that does not regularly change (unless they unplug their modem over night) who have been targeted by an abusive admin and I stood up for the community. It is possible Chillum thought I fell into that category and would be an easy target to abuse. Maybe he acted maliciously due to his involvement in the very controversial Cultural Marxism AFD. Maybe he has an dislike of IP editors or is paranoid about them. I do not know his reason and it does not matter so I fought against the abuse and false allegation. I forced the issue rather than just walking away which would of been easy. I knew I could fight him at ANI as blocking my IP is pretty much a waste of time unless admins are willing to go nuclear and range block millions of cellular users. That is unlikely to stop someone who has other access and knows how IP's are assigned. I pointed that out to Chillum on his talk page in a smart a$$ way to prevent such a meat head move on his part that would do a lot of collateral damage. I was successful in preventing that.

I have been very determined and sometimes a little to much of a smart a$$ towards Chillum as he has been towards me. Chillum's lying, false allegations and twisting to cover his a$$ did not bring out the best in me at all times. However as an Admin Chillum is the face of Wikipedia and he needs to exercise better judgment and that is my reason for not ignoring it. 172.56.32.8 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure issue

Jimmy, could you comment on a situation? If an organization hired a consultant with a proprietary area of practice (one that they sort of have a "name trademark" in doing -- like Google is practically associated with "contextual advertising", or like Apple is practically associated with "portable media player"), to do research that results in a report that finds that the organization is the world's best/biggest/fastest-growing entity in that area of practice, I understand that there's nothing wrong with that. But, what if the organization's employees also create and author a new Wikipedia article about the area of practice, using primarily the consultant's white paper as a reliable source, then promote the research results with a press release that links back to the Wikipedia article about what it is that they're supposedly best/biggest at -- and none of the organization's employees disclose any conflict of interest in their authorship of the Wikipedia article. Is that a violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use clauses about disclosure? Do you feel that the organization has behaved ethically? Looking forward to your response. - WilmingMa (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Participatory grantmaking, mayhaps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly a convoluted restating of a discussion going on at Wikipediocracy about WMF's "Participatory Grantmaking" and allegations of a paid self-congratulatory propaganda offensive relating to that. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As usual, I find hypothetical questions like this to be unsatisfactory. Please give actual information so that people can evaluate it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jimmy. I thought that if I put the scenario in hypothetical terms it would enable you to respond sort of generally about what constitute ethical practices for employees at large, rather than be put on the defensive to try to "cover" for your Foundation. There is a story you can find on Google that should summarize the "actual information" that you requested. - WilmingMa (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That would not be my style. I prefer to speak plainly and directly, and that's much easier to do when we have clear facts. As I only now know what you are referring to, and know nothing about it, I'll have to look into it before I can comment sensibly. I can speak in the abstract, of course, that the ethical principles which I think apply to all organizations in terms of their editing of Wikipedia apply in the extreme to the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It would be impossible for the Foundation to take a leadership role on the issue if they did not adhere to the strongest possible standards themselves, including my "bright line" rule. I can say that before knowing what is even being alleged here, because that is at the level of principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6068 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs's Examiner.com article is a lot easier to read than a forum thread, but since it can't actually be linked to from here I suppose a "soft redirect" will have to do. The WMF has an unfortunate habit of holding cozy relations with firms it contracts research to, but this is the first time I've seen WMF staffers actually create an article for a firm, and then link to the article from the WMF blog (google "citogenesis" and "wikiality"). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 09:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Giving Jimbo a chance to respond, once he's had time to have a look into it. - 50.144.3.133 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia have an article about a Wikipedia article?

Please have a look at this collection of links to sources. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html When doing so, please notice that there is enough there to create a new Wikipedia article about a notable Wikipedia article. All you'd have to do is summarize these sources into an article about the referent Wikipedia's article about gamergate. In the future, if there is enough published in WP:RSes specifically about specific Wikipedia articles, more articles about much-written-about Wikipedia articles could also be created.

Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I should explain about the above link. If you would, please look at this collection of links by scrolling down just a tiny bit and clicking on the names of sources, here: http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html. The first one is "The Guardian". Each one links to another publisher's article about Wikipedia's gamergate article. That article in itself is apparently notable, and so we could base an article about it from those articles.

Thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it more about the controversy? Wikipedia has articles on several controversial events in its history.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no particular reason to change the usual inclusion standards. There are at least two articles that're essentially about Wikipedia articles, Henryk Batuta hoax and Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. WilyD 08:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What if Wikipedia's article on the Gamergate Controversy is itself covered substantially in reliable sources, say by people complaining about self-reference in Wikipedia? Then we could have a Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia's article on the Gamergate Controversy and so on ad infinatum. In all seriousness, there should be an article provided substantial and credible sources exist. --Jakob (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I recall a science fiction story about a digital encyclopedia that had indices, then an index to the index (index²) and so on for several iterations. And then they discovered an error ... one thing about Wikipedia, we've abolished the index (thank God, as they were usually unhelpful).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually think an index (not to articles but for guidance of Wikipedia editors) would be very helpful. I've raised this point before but it did not get any traction. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia and Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)