Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (second nomination)

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, leaning towards Keep. It should also be noted that both this, and the prior deletion discussion, were started by indef blocked abusive sock User:Erik9. Cirt (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses

Per

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.

Additionally, the guideline to which the NFCC refers expressly states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Jack Merridew's 617 words of non-free text grossly exceed the bounds of brevity, and would be considered quite excessively long even in an article. The arbitrator Newyorkbrad made the following comment regarding the previous MFD discussion for this user subpage:

Although I understand that the editor who created the userpage did so to express a point of view, at all times, userspace is ancillary rather than key to the overall mission of the project. Short of an unusual scenario that I cannot currently imagine, if it ever came to my attention that something in my userspace was causing even a fraction of the unhappiness and expenditure of time and effort as this MfD and its sequel, I would delete it immediately in the interest of collegiality. There is a strong argument that the appropriate outcome of this MfD would have been to delete on the ground that, for better or worse, the page in question had become unconscionably divisive relative to its importance.[1]

[Personal attack of a banned user removed]

Incidentally, wikilawyering arguments "that user space is within a WP regulatory loophole"[2] by the now indef-blocked user

talk) 04:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete again; we don't need nonfree stuff like this in userspace. --NE2 04:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't care one way or another, but I will point out another section of Newyorkbrad's comments from the prior MfD, which Erik9 seems to have ignored:

For what it is worth, my reaction on reviewing the MfDs was not one of trying to decide which side of the argument had the better position. It was to ask myself why, with all the important and interesting work we all have to do, we continually allow ourselves to be distracted by totally unnecessary dramas of this kind.[3]

This is a repeat of the prior drama-mongering, and I'd like to encourage Erik9 to withdraw this. Risker (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Brad's comment was on RFAR not *in* the MfD). Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, Risker, if in the course of an arbitration case it came to the attention of the Committee that someone had been inserting 617 words of non-free content into an article, would you not be the first to propose remedies to prevent them from doing it again? Would you not even consider that the repeated insertion of such egregiously policy-violating content would itself constitute "drama-mongering"? Now, what on earth is so special about Jack Merridew's userspace, that ordinary policy ceases to apply in relation to it?

talk) 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment — If there's a consensus to delete this, it will be deleted. I didn't fuss over the interim close-as-del of the prior MfD and Harej thanked me (twice). Erik9 should strike his personal attack, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, speedy close Erik9 is determined to make wide spread policy changes despite the views of other editors who disagree with him.
  talk) 05:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do you honestly believe that I would make a claim that Jack "demonstrates a contempt for the community of which he is a member" lightly? The "accusations of pedophilia" to which you refer in the prior MFD were, in part, Jack accusing me of being a "hypocrite" who "quite possibly" had child pornography on his userpage [7]. Well, Jack Merridew's "scorched earth" approach to dispute resolution shouldn't obscure the fact that 617 words of non-free content wouldn't be acceptable in an article, wouldn't be tolerated in any other editor's userspace, and shouldn't be acceptable here, just because it's in Jack's userspace.

talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So in your opinion, anyone who has non-free content on their userpage is contemptuous towards wikipedia or just Jack?

talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is not non-free content in userspace per se, but 617 words of non-free content. To my knowledge, no other editor has ever been able to maintain so much copyrighted and unlicensed text in their userspace -- had this been John Q. Fanboy's 617 words of a video game manual, it would have been speedied a long time ago, with Jack being the first one to tag it. Now, Jack's got more political pull than John Q. Fanboy, to be sure, but this is not an appropriate use of his influence.

talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Speaking of Jack's political pull, it seems that someone is making a federal case of this, and I'm under investigation by the arbcom [8]. Now, if I were even slightly afraid of being blocked indefinitely with the summary "please contact the Arbitration Committee directly regarding this account", then I wouldn't have filed this MFD - I do have the courage to stand up to this sort of intimidation :)

talk) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, again. This is still a tiny fraction of a large published work. Erik9 should apologise for his personal attack; I'm off to add
  hablo. 08:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Good Idea™ — Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the rationale on the page. The concern is overly cautious. Provide formal legal advice, or a complaint from an infringed party, if you think otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the rationale on the page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because two votes are better than four, and I'm surrounded by idiots. There, now you guys can say that the delete arguments are meaningless and full of personal attacks. Just looking out for you guys and making sure you don't say anything false In all seriousness, arguments from the legal definition of fair use are invalid, because we use much stricter criteria. --NE2 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per my previous rationale from, like, yesterday or something. Seriously, this making policy by MFD nomination needs to stop now.
  UnitAnode 10:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The discussion at

talk) 16:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

But of course, while no editor but Jack could keep 617 words of non-free text in their userspace, no other editor could get two arbitrators interested in what would normally be a straightforward-delete MFD discussion [10] [11]. See, by some strange and inexplicable coincidence, after nominating Jack's massive non-free text for deletion, I'm under investigation by the arbcom. Don't be surprised if "please contact the Arbitration Committee directly regarding this account" is written in my block log in the near future. I urge other members of the community to have the courage to stand up to this intimidation.

talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You know damn well that's not true. Cool Hand Luke 18:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke, is it or is it not the case that you recently sent me an email stating that the arbcom is investigating me, and believes that I'm a banned user, without stating who arbcom believes I am? Did the committee instigate this investigation in response to this MFD? (Most such investigations go to

talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The committee has been discussing internally the issue you refer to since I first raised it several days ago. The discussion long predated this MfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret investigations... yuck. But you're an honest man, and I fully accept your explanation that the timing is all just a big coincidence. Let's get this silliness out in the open, and I'll respond to any "evidence" that can be publicly disclosed - no, I don't expect to have my IP address posted on-wiki :)

talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Come on - you're keeping people in suspense. I can't say why I'm not who you think I am, until you say, publicly, who that is :)

talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Erik9 appears to be the sock of a banned user. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• Comment: I consider: "Jack Merridew's retention of this extensive non-free text, in this context, demonstrates a contempt for the community of which he is a member. " a thinly veiled personal attack. Making it, in the manner and timing that Erik9 did, was not necessary to making the case for deletion and dilutes the substance of the question. It should have been voluntarily stricken by Erik9 but I guess there's not much chance of that now. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notwithstanding the above, and notwithstanding apparently edit warring going on at the
  NFCC, the NFCC has been clarified to plainly exclude long excerpts of copyrighted works in user space. This excerpt is too long to qualify as "one or two sentences" and therefore should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Does it not matter to you that this nomination itself was brought in bad faith, by a sockpuppet of a banned user? Why can't we let this poor userpage rest for awhile -- and the NFCC debate calm down a bit -- before we go attempting to delete people's userpages?

  UnitAnode 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not sure. I'd be willing to take this on myself if there were a rush to close it early purely due to who nominated it. As to churn: Policy wasn't clear before ... that this was disallowed..., which was why I argued keep last time. But meanwhile I actually worked with Erik9 in good faith (rather more of mine than his it seems, but still) to get the policy clear. Now it is, and now this page has to go. Jack himself is fine with it, he has indicated that he didn't request deletion himself because he felt it was important enough that policy get clarified that he left it around (that is, he was acting pretty much exactly opposite to how Erik9 characterised him). Wait a bit if the NFCC hasn't come to rest? Sure, that's fine too. But eventually, the policy will clear up, and the page will need to go. Too bad, it's a neat page. Jack should write Margaret and seek a CC-BY-SA license for that section or something. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't understand the why of our NFCC policy needing to be stronger than actual copyright law. I could put the exact same quote (with the exact same satirical links) up on a blog without fear of reprisal from the copyright holder. It is an absolutely insubstantial portion of the larger work. Yet, having it in userspace is somehow disallowed? I'd go and contribute to the "discussion" at NFCC, but I just don't have the stomach for that fight.

  UnitAnode 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think it is because of a WMF board mandate. And that mandate derives from the WMF mission as the board sees it. Not merely to be within the letter of the law, but to actively promote free content. Discouraging non-free content is a way to promote free content. Or so it is thought. When I stood for admin back in 2006, I said I was a policy wonk. I guess I still am. I like the quote, I like Jack, but I still think that it needs to go. Remember, blogs aren't shadowed by hundreds of republishers, and typically aren't among the top 10 websites in the world. I'd encourage you and all other reasonable and level headed folk to participate at the NFCC... it doesn't have to be unpleasant. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an accurate description of why we developed such policies - to promote free content, both directly and through the indirect impact of Wikimedia policies on the world. However the licensing resolution laid out by the Board was explicitly left vague to allow individual communities to apply their common sense in specific instances. That resolution was not, for instance, a mandate to disband Wikiquote, nor does it explicitly dictate whether lightly transformative satirical reproductions of excerpts from novels can be used to inspire readers and editors of user talk pages. +sj+ 06:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess we have to disband Wikiquote then, if I'm reading the doctrinaire approach taken by Gigs below correctly. It certainly has quotes longer than one or two sentences. As for contributing at the NFCC debate, I have a feeling that my view would be in the distinct minority there.

  UnitAnode 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Wikiquote always comes up in these discussions, and I confess I'm completely baffled by Wikiquote, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Digging too hard into why it operates the way it does, what the rationale is for its policy, and how it complies with the EDP tends to cause a great deal of hard feelings, so I've shied away. Although this MfD isn't the place to decide the fate of Wikiquote, far from it, your point is well taken, it does seem contradictory to me. As for contributing, if you can contribute politely and calmly (which you can, you're doing it now as you always do) your view is important. As important as anyone else's and don't let anyone tell you differently. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My "keep" is unswayed, and as for the NFCC debate, I've seen far too much anger and condescension from those arguing for a super-strict policy to think that my voice could remotely make an impact there. Once a philosophical foe is intractable, there's little point in debating further.

  UnitAnode 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per Lar and per policy. Regardless of the axe-grinding intent of the nomination, we did come to a consensus over at NFCC that user space is not magically exempt from our core mission which dictates that:
  • "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License [except as provided for in an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), WP:NFCC is our EDP]"
  • "EDPs must be minimal ... [limited] 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 is an imperfect quote. The original is less severe: "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." +sj+
  • This policy is not subject to consensus. It "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects."
• I urge those who have !voted keep to reconsider their vote based on this information. This use is obviously not within the bounds allowed by foundation policy. Gigs (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as mentioned in mailing list discussions at the time, the Licensing policy resolution you cite was left intentionally vague to allow each project and community to judge what is appropriate in specific instances. I do not believe that Foundation policy says anything one way or another about this particular use; as Kat said then, "it is up to the informed and reasonable members of the community to come to these decisions for their projects." +sj+ 06:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this "illustrate a historically significant event", or "identify a protected work", or "compliment an article about a copyrighted work"? Gigs (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep increasing page hit count per nominator, plus keep per rationale given on disputed page and per general reasonableness. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia's starting point is that only free content can be used. To accept an exception to this we have to provide a reason why in this case there is a justification for doing so. As far as I can see nobody in the discussion above has even attempted to do so. We have been given ad hominem arguments about the motivations of particular editors ("Erik9 is determined to make wide spread policy changes despite the views of other editors who disagree with him" etc); we have been repeatedly given the view that this does not breach copyright law, despite the fact that it has been pointed out that Wikipedia policy goes beyond the legal requirements; we have been given other stuff which varies from irrelevant to marginally relevant. Nowhere in the above discussion has anyone given a reason why this is such a special case that we should make an exception to the normal rule. "The law does not forgive us to make an exception to our rule" is not a reason why we should make an exception. "I don't like the way Erik9 has behaved in past discussions" is not a reason for making an exception. "As per the rationale on the page" is not clear enough in meaning to be a reason for anything. "This making policy by MFD nomination needs to stop now" is not a reason for making an exception. In short none of the comments made by "keep" campaigners is a reason for making an exception to the policy that content should be free. In the absence of a special reason for making an exception we must follow the normal policy.
  talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think we've finally come to the crux of things. The issue is two-fold: (1) What does "free" mean?; and (2) What is the "starting point" of Wikipedia, as you put it? We -- the lot of us, not just you and I -- answer these questions in divergent ways, and that leaves us at loggerheads. Providing you my answers may help you understand why it's so difficult for communication to happen here. My answers:

  (1) Free means, "Free for people to read." In other words, we don't charge folks -- either through subscription fees or even advertising -- to view the content we place o9n the project. I don't see the "free" portion of our mission as having much at all to do with fair use versus CC.

  (2) I believe the starting point of Wikipedia is not that we host only free content, but that it's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit."

  Given my views on the above two issues, and my dislike for how the one side treats the arguments of the other with utter disdain, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever find any common ground on this issue, which is unfortunate. If you succeed in having his userpage deleted, I'm sure it will be viewed as a great victory for the "strict constructionists" of the NFCC -- and perhaps it is. But at some point, won't these "victories" will become pyrrhic, in that it discourages those holding a different view on the core issues of this project from participating as they might have? If so, is the "win" worth the cost?

  UnitAnode 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per my arguments in the prior MfD. Basically, non-free content (including text) in userspace should be kept to an extreme minimum. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while I admit I'm not an expert on non-free use policy, I don't believe this should be allowed - we generally discourage the use of non-free content in userspace, and I don't see why we should make an exception here. The quote is a relatively lengthy one, and isn't providing any obvious or necessary benefit to the encyclopaedia that would justify keeping it. While Erik9 may have been a sock of a banned user, I think he was actually right in his nomination here. Robofish (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as before. . But this is , quite simply, a reasonable short quotation The NFCC policy was not meant to apply to trivial uses such as this. Igt's an over literal extension. Where we might draw the line is unclear, but it shouldn't exclude this from user space. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as some users are more equal than others on Wikipedia. Jack Merridew is part of the haves, and those like Giano are part of the have nots. Vodello (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lar and per my analysis in the previous AFD. This is governed by WMF policy, which requires that non-free content be included only under a defined exemption, which a use like this doesn't have. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  Wikipedia:Do not feed the nominator (and other keeps and general reasonableness). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.