Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO

message: Good evening (GMT time) fellow Wikipedians, and thank you for agreeing to take part in this step of the Dispute Resolution chain. As mediator, it is my duty to remain completely neutral at all times - from full-out statements, to my tidying-up of the Mediation page. To this end, I drew up both a Neutrality and Mediation policy which I follow; these pages lay out my general approach to remaining bias, and my conduct and actions I normally undertake during mediation (respectively). Please do consult these pages, as they shed an enormous amount of light on my actions in the numerous Mediation Cabal cases I have undertaken.
If you have any questions during this case, please don't hesitate to get in contact with me, via:
*E-mail — Internal or externally at anthony [dot] cfc [at] gmail [dot] com;
*User talk — feel free to drop me a message at my talk page;
*IRC — although I'm most often at #wikipedia-checkuser, for general access I can be requested to be at #wikipedia-en (or any other channel at your discretion, including private chat).
Kind regards,anthony[cfc] 19:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator Statement 

message: The first stage of Mediation (under the format I operate) is to request quick-fire, at-a-glance round-ups by each disputing editor over:
#What the problem is
#What they want to see changed, and why
This should take place in the format shown below, but first please understand that I am not willing to sift through discussion on academic topics, etc... Post your summary at the level of an uneducated, non-Wikipedian! In the interests of complete readablility, rambling posts or posts which contain excessive justification for certain information being included in an article, a certain stance being taken, etc... will be blank removed; please understand that this is in the interests of a successful Mediation environment.
Kind regards,anthony[cfc] 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is a sample format which all subsequent statement of views should follow.
My general approach is X:
*In my opinion, the main problem is Y
*What I would like to see changed is Sentence A (line J) changed to say XYZ, and Sentence B (line K) changed to say TUV.
Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,anthony[cfc] 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; comments not compliant with WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY will be removed.
*Ryan - do you have any policies or guidelines to back up your desired version of events? anthony[review] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing to mediate here. WP:EL suffices. Any editor rightfully can and should  remove the links in question, and any admin can and should block Ryan4 if he continues to add links against policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If I made the search correctly, there are 458 citations to his work. Allowing for duplicates, let's say that he published 20 papers, each cited 20 times on average. I'd say that is still fine. Nikola 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what the revised search shows. The original search produces two articles with a significant cite count of more than 50, half a dozen with ~20, and a few others with very few citations. All the rest are not articles by FGW. I'd say that's a fair amount of citations for a junior researcher, nothing more. And again, none of these are related to most of the volume of linkspam.--Doron 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It attempts to find all works which mention Gil-White but are not written by him, which should include citations possibly missed by Google. Probably not too important, now that I think about it. Nikola 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or are you arguing that removal of the link constituted a failure of Chris0 to check the pdf? Emperors Clothes is, as it happens, not a reliable source. If possible, an alternate source for the pdf should be located. Either way, this has nothing to do with FGW's writings. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is exactly what I said. Chris is using FGW linkspam as an excuse to remove links which have absolutely nothing to do with FGW. In this particular case, TENC not only is not unreliable, it is not a source at all. Nikola 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KillerChihuahua, TENC may be an unreliable source, but Elsevier isn't, and TENC was merely a host of a paper that was published by Elsevier. One can cite such a paper even without a link to a pdf. On the other hand, I'm sure all of us occasionally make a mistake, I wouldn't lynch him for this, certainly given the volume of genuine linkspam that needs to be handled.--Doron 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, Doran, had the link even been completely legitimate it would have fallen under the category of minor error and not egregious actions, as Nikola seems to imply. However, as we see below, the work was a copyright violation and as such, Chris0's actions were completely appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of one link would of course be a minor error, but I don't think that a systematic removal of all links to TENC could be called so. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be removing links to an unreliable source known for copyright violations. Good job, Chris! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was a plainly a copyright violation. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. We can reference the original paper, but we can't link someone's copyvio of that paper. A great many of the TENC links I found on Wikipedia were like that - see e.g. http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm , which was in 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. I started out removing links to FGW's publications on TENC (which all seem to have been deleted by TENC's owner following some kind of falling-out), but found that there were a whole lot more problems with TENC links. They seem to have a policy of pinching other people's publications in order to push their own political agenda - they use their local copy of the ABC News Learjet story as background for a "US government staged 9/11" conspiracy theory (). This is not the kind of website we should be linking to. -- ChrisO 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a ridiculous case of copyright paranoia. In many cases these works can be found on several places across the Internet and are created by people who have the same "political agenda" as TENC and would obviously agree to redistribution of their work. ABCNews news is an excellent example: a work was published online and was freely accessible, and was subsequently merely archived in full by TENC, without any pretense to autorship. If we shouldn't link to TENC in this case, we shouldn't link to archive.org too, which we do generously. Or perhaps it wouldn't be OK to link to TENC but it would be OK to link to archive.org's archive of abcnews.com? You can see how ridiculous would that be. Similarly, the paper published by Elsevier is available (free registration required) at an Elsevier's site. Nikola 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "copyright paranoia" I call following policy and the law. Do you not realize that violating copyright can lead to serious implications for all of Wikipedia and indeed the Wikimedia foundation? All copyright violations must be removed immediately, as must all links to copyright violations, and no amount of polemics about "paranoia" have any bearing on the situation at all. I advise you to reconsider your very questionable position, and perhaps re-read WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works, particularly "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Internet, it is common practice to make mirrors of works otherwise available on Internet, which is what this is about. Making such mirrors is generally not considered to be a copyright violation. In practice, we are commonly linking to archive.org, Google cache and so on. We are not talking about linking to http://lib.ru here. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An unsanctioned copy of a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet is a mirror. Nikola 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this way: (an unsanctioned copy) of (a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet) is a mirror.  Is that not correct? If not, all links to archive.org will have to be removed. Nikola 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing freely accessible with freely distributable. Let's compare Wikipedia and the Microsoft website. Both are freely accessible - anyone can access them any time. The difference is that Wikipedia is freely distributable - you can make your own copy of it as long as you abide by the GFDL (see WP:COPY) - but Microsoft explicitly disallows redistribution (see ). If a copy is unsanctioned, it's a copyright violation. -- ChrisO 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Stage 1 

message: :Please note that this is a sample format which all subsequent statement of views should follow.
My general approach is X:
*In my opinion, the main problem is Y
*What I would like to see changed is Sentence A (line J) changed to say XYZ, and Sentence B (line K) changed to say TUV.
Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,anthony[cfc] 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Anthony cfc|Anthony cfc]] 

message: Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; comments not compliant with WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY will be removed.
Post blanked - I really can't make it any clearer. Please copy and paste the above template, and fill in your own comments. DON'T post screeds of ramblings! Thank you; anthony[cfc] 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: My general approach is to allow the linking to any document that is relevant as long as that document is in a style that befits an encyclopaedia:
*In my opinion, the main problem is that ChrisO disagrees with the views expressed in the articles written by Prof. Gil-White and thus feels he must censor them.
*What I would like to see changed is all the links about Race, IQ, Yugoslavia, Arab-Israel conflict, etc. that ChrisO deleted to have the appropriate link to hirhome reinstated.
Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered, Ryan4Talk 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; comments not compliant with WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY will be removed.
*Ryan - do you have any policies or guidelines to back up your desired version of events? anthony[review] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ryan4|Ryan4]] 

message: ::Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; comments not compliant with WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY will be removed.
*Ryan - do you have any policies or guidelines to back up your desired version of events? anthony[review] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The main problem is that Ryan4 is seeking to add multiple external links to a website which is excluded per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:V, despite his own strong conflict of interest, despite multiple warnings and requests from other administrators who have concluded that the links are ineligible for inclusion, and despite his having been blocked in the past for spamming as well as being cited for this on WP:AN/I. He has been attempting to promote the website in question for nearly a year now. The issue has already been reviewed as a policy enforcement matter by multiple administrators, including an arbitrator (Jpgordon), before I even got involved in this matter. In my opinion, Ryan4 is attempting to (mis)use the mediation process to overturn a settled question of the application of long-standing Wikipedia policy. 
====Key points====
* Francisco Gil-White is a fairly minor academic whose works fall, broadly speaking, into two categories: academic publications, published through peer-reviewed journals and mainstream publishers; and political polemics, self-published through his own website at http://www.hirhome.com .
* Ryan4 has a major COI in this matter: he has previously acknowledged that he studied under FGW and admires his works. WP:COI#Close relationships applies. ()
* Ryan4 has repeatedly attempted to use FGW's polemical works as a reference. () These attempts have been reverted on multiple occasions by other users as violations of WP:V's prohibition of such self-published sources. 
* Ryan4 has also spammed Wikipedia with multiple links to FGW's polemical works. ()
* In response to the incident mentioned above, Ryan4 was cited on the administrators' noticeboard. All of the administrators and editors who responded agreed unanimously that the links to FGW's website were inappropriate and contravened policy, and that Ryan4's actions constituted spamming. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#User:Ryan4)
* Three administrators also told Ryan4 on his user page that the links were inappropriate and spammy. (User talk:Ryan4#Stop spamming)
* Ryan4 was blocked for spamming by myself after a second incident of the same, despite the earlier warnings from other administrators. () He had previously been blocked for extreme incivility. ()
* After a third incident of the same, I warned Ryan4 to desist or face a lengthy block. That warning appears to have triggered his request for mediation. (User talk:Ryan4#Spamming again)
====Desired outcome====
*What I would like to see changed is Ryan4 ceasing to waste everyone's time by attempting to re-litigate a settled matter. I recommend that this mediation be discontinued in the light of the history above. Ryan4's own lack of candour in failing to disclose the background should also be considered, as well as his bad faith in misrepresenting it as "ChrisO vs Ryan4", when I'm merely one of a number of administrators who have been involved in this. -- ChrisO 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 

message: *What I would like to see changed is Ryan4 ceasing to waste everyone's time by attempting to re-litigate a settled matter. I recommend that this mediation be discontinued in the light of the history above. Ryan4's own lack of candour in failing to disclose the background should also be considered, as well as his bad faith in misrepresenting it as "ChrisO vs Ryan4", when I'm merely one of a number of administrators who have been involved in this. -- ChrisO 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Desired outcome

message: * I do not consider myself to be a party to mediation here, because mediation is inappropriate for this issue.
* User:Ryan4 adds linkspam in violation of WP:EL and WP:COI. He has been warned about this numerous times by different administrators and other experienced editors on his talk page, twice; confirmed by discussion on ANI - please note his failure to AGF by accusing JPGordon, a highly respected and valuable contributor, administrator, checkuser, oversight and arbitrator, of a "personal vendetta". He has been blocked once for this spamming already. There is nothing to mediate; mediation does not override policies and guidelines and Ryan4 is violating both. 
* The solution is for Ryan4 to cease his disruptive attempt to insert links against policy and against consensus. I will not be watching this "mediation" - if further information is required, please message me on my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] 

message: *As far as I remember, I had little contact with Ryan4, which was limited to the article about Francisco Gil-White himself, though I am familiar with hirhome.com.
*In my opinion, hirhime.com is an inappropriate link per several Wikipedia policies (already mentioned above my others), at least as far as the Middle East and Islam is considered. The site author's expertise on these subjects is as good as the next guy's, and the site's notability is as good as any blog.
*In the past, I removed links to this site from literally dozens of articles which I found inappropriate.
Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,--Doron 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Doron|Doron]] 

message: :There's nothing to mediate here. WP:EL suffices. Any editor rightfully can and should  remove the links in question, and any admin can and should block Ryan4 if he continues to add links against policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]] 

message: To the excellent summaries above I will add just one point.  The list of peer-reviewed publications at Francisco Gil-White indicates that his professional qualifications are in a different area of study from the political opinion pieces he wants to cite all over Wikipedia.  Therefore, the exception we are allowed to make for blogs written by known experts does not apply in this case.  --Zerotalk 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 

message: I am not certain is this usual procedure, but I would like to comment on ChrisO's comments.
* I disagree completely that FGW is a fairly minor academic. Google Scholar gives him 513 results (which, considering rarity of the last name, I believe can all be attributed to him), including both his publications and citations of his work by other.
* At least in some related articles, Chris has a major COI: he has previously acknowledged that he worked for NATO, which is or was acting with extreme hostility towards individuals or organisations in the articles.
* Chris says that Ryan4 spammed Wikipedia with multiple links to FGW's works (I don't say that it is or isn't true, I haven't looked it up) which now he uses as an excuse to remove all links to FGW's works, even if they are not inserted by Ryan but by other, unrelated users. At least one such removal was completely unjustified, as it was just a republishing on TENC of a work primarily published in Forensic Science International, a scientific journal.
* Chris states repeatedly that TENC fails to pass WP:V but I can't find out WHY does he thinks so. Nikola 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I made the search correctly, there are 458 citations to his work. Allowing for duplicates, let's say that he published 20 papers, each cited 20 times on average. I'd say that is still fine. Nikola 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what the revised search shows. The original search produces two articles with a significant cite count of more than 50, half a dozen with ~20, and a few others with very few citations. All the rest are not articles by FGW. I'd say that's a fair amount of citations for a junior researcher, nothing more. And again, none of these are related to most of the volume of linkspam.--Doron 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It attempts to find all works which mention Gil-White but are not written by him, which should include citations possibly missed by Google. Probably not too important, now that I think about it. Nikola 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or are you arguing that removal of the link constituted a failure of Chris0 to check the pdf? Emperors Clothes is, as it happens, not a reliable source. If possible, an alternate source for the pdf should be located. Either way, this has nothing to do with FGW's writings. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is exactly what I said. Chris is using FGW linkspam as an excuse to remove links which have absolutely nothing to do with FGW. In this particular case, TENC not only is not unreliable, it is not a source at all. Nikola 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KillerChihuahua, TENC may be an unreliable source, but Elsevier isn't, and TENC was merely a host of a paper that was published by Elsevier. One can cite such a paper even without a link to a pdf. On the other hand, I'm sure all of us occasionally make a mistake, I wouldn't lynch him for this, certainly given the volume of genuine linkspam that needs to be handled.--Doron 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, Doran, had the link even been completely legitimate it would have fallen under the category of minor error and not egregious actions, as Nikola seems to imply. However, as we see below, the work was a copyright violation and as such, Chris0's actions were completely appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of one link would of course be a minor error, but I don't think that a systematic removal of all links to TENC could be called so. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be removing links to an unreliable source known for copyright violations. Good job, Chris! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was a plainly a copyright violation. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. We can reference the original paper, but we can't link someone's copyvio of that paper. A great many of the TENC links I found on Wikipedia were like that - see e.g. http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm , which was in 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. I started out removing links to FGW's publications on TENC (which all seem to have been deleted by TENC's owner following some kind of falling-out), but found that there were a whole lot more problems with TENC links. They seem to have a policy of pinching other people's publications in order to push their own political agenda - they use their local copy of the ABC News Learjet story as background for a "US government staged 9/11" conspiracy theory (). This is not the kind of website we should be linking to. -- ChrisO 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a ridiculous case of copyright paranoia. In many cases these works can be found on several places across the Internet and are created by people who have the same "political agenda" as TENC and would obviously agree to redistribution of their work. ABCNews news is an excellent example: a work was published online and was freely accessible, and was subsequently merely archived in full by TENC, without any pretense to autorship. If we shouldn't link to TENC in this case, we shouldn't link to archive.org too, which we do generously. Or perhaps it wouldn't be OK to link to TENC but it would be OK to link to archive.org's archive of abcnews.com? You can see how ridiculous would that be. Similarly, the paper published by Elsevier is available (free registration required) at an Elsevier's site. Nikola 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "copyright paranoia" I call following policy and the law. Do you not realize that violating copyright can lead to serious implications for all of Wikipedia and indeed the Wikimedia foundation? All copyright violations must be removed immediately, as must all links to copyright violations, and no amount of polemics about "paranoia" have any bearing on the situation at all. I advise you to reconsider your very questionable position, and perhaps re-read WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works, particularly "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Internet, it is common practice to make mirrors of works otherwise available on Internet, which is what this is about. Making such mirrors is generally not considered to be a copyright violation. In practice, we are commonly linking to archive.org, Google cache and so on. We are not talking about linking to http://lib.ru here. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An unsanctioned copy of a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet is a mirror. Nikola 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this way: (an unsanctioned copy) of (a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet) is a mirror.  Is that not correct? If not, all links to archive.org will have to be removed. Nikola 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing freely accessible with freely distributable. Let's compare Wikipedia and the Microsoft website. Both are freely accessible - anyone can access them any time. The difference is that Wikipedia is freely distributable - you can make your own copy of it as long as you abide by the GFDL (see WP:COPY) - but Microsoft explicitly disallows redistribution (see ). If a copy is unsanctioned, it's a copyright violation. -- ChrisO 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola Smolenski]]

message: Re: Google Scholar -- Note that only a few dozens of those 513 are actually papers written by FGW, and many of these entries are duplicate, so we really have only a handful of papers written by him that get a significant cite count. These papers are unrelated to most of the articles that were link-spammed, at least the ones I handled.--Doron 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I made the search correctly, there are 458 citations to his work. Allowing for duplicates, let's say that he published 20 papers, each cited 20 times on average. I'd say that is still fine. Nikola 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what the revised search shows. The original search produces two articles with a significant cite count of more than 50, half a dozen with ~20, and a few others with very few citations. All the rest are not articles by FGW. I'd say that's a fair amount of citations for a junior researcher, nothing more. And again, none of these are related to most of the volume of linkspam.--Doron 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It attempts to find all works which mention Gil-White but are not written by him, which should include citations possibly missed by Google. Probably not too important, now that I think about it. Nikola 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or are you arguing that removal of the link constituted a failure of Chris0 to check the pdf? Emperors Clothes is, as it happens, not a reliable source. If possible, an alternate source for the pdf should be located. Either way, this has nothing to do with FGW's writings. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is exactly what I said. Chris is using FGW linkspam as an excuse to remove links which have absolutely nothing to do with FGW. In this particular case, TENC not only is not unreliable, it is not a source at all. Nikola 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KillerChihuahua, TENC may be an unreliable source, but Elsevier isn't, and TENC was merely a host of a paper that was published by Elsevier. One can cite such a paper even without a link to a pdf. On the other hand, I'm sure all of us occasionally make a mistake, I wouldn't lynch him for this, certainly given the volume of genuine linkspam that needs to be handled.--Doron 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, Doran, had the link even been completely legitimate it would have fallen under the category of minor error and not egregious actions, as Nikola seems to imply. However, as we see below, the work was a copyright violation and as such, Chris0's actions were completely appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of one link would of course be a minor error, but I don't think that a systematic removal of all links to TENC could be called so. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be removing links to an unreliable source known for copyright violations. Good job, Chris! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was a plainly a copyright violation. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. We can reference the original paper, but we can't link someone's copyvio of that paper. A great many of the TENC links I found on Wikipedia were like that - see e.g. http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm , which was in 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. I started out removing links to FGW's publications on TENC (which all seem to have been deleted by TENC's owner following some kind of falling-out), but found that there were a whole lot more problems with TENC links. They seem to have a policy of pinching other people's publications in order to push their own political agenda - they use their local copy of the ABC News Learjet story as background for a "US government staged 9/11" conspiracy theory (). This is not the kind of website we should be linking to. -- ChrisO 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a ridiculous case of copyright paranoia. In many cases these works can be found on several places across the Internet and are created by people who have the same "political agenda" as TENC and would obviously agree to redistribution of their work. ABCNews news is an excellent example: a work was published online and was freely accessible, and was subsequently merely archived in full by TENC, without any pretense to autorship. If we shouldn't link to TENC in this case, we shouldn't link to archive.org too, which we do generously. Or perhaps it wouldn't be OK to link to TENC but it would be OK to link to archive.org's archive of abcnews.com? You can see how ridiculous would that be. Similarly, the paper published by Elsevier is available (free registration required) at an Elsevier's site. Nikola 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "copyright paranoia" I call following policy and the law. Do you not realize that violating copyright can lead to serious implications for all of Wikipedia and indeed the Wikimedia foundation? All copyright violations must be removed immediately, as must all links to copyright violations, and no amount of polemics about "paranoia" have any bearing on the situation at all. I advise you to reconsider your very questionable position, and perhaps re-read WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works, particularly "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." KillerChihuahua?!? 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Internet, it is common practice to make mirrors of works otherwise available on Internet, which is what this is about. Making such mirrors is generally not considered to be a copyright violation. In practice, we are commonly linking to archive.org, Google cache and so on. We are not talking about linking to http://lib.ru here. Nikola 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An unsanctioned copy of a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet is a mirror. Nikola 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this way: (an unsanctioned copy) of (a copyrighted work freely available on the Internet) is a mirror.  Is that not correct? If not, all links to archive.org will have to be removed. Nikola 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing freely accessible with freely distributable. Let's compare Wikipedia and the Microsoft website. Both are freely accessible - anyone can access them any time. The difference is that Wikipedia is freely distributable - you can make your own copy of it as long as you abide by the GFDL (see WP:COPY) - but Microsoft explicitly disallows redistribution (see ). If a copy is unsanctioned, it's a copyright violation. -- ChrisO 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This stage of mediation involves proposals for intended compromises; any editor can post a compromise.
===Proposed Compromise 1===
;Mediator's Proposal
*Close mediation as "no case - nothing to mediate" per above concerns?
anthony[review] 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment - actually, it is already addressed explicitly in policy - see WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. We're not dealing with anything novel here, it's long-established policy. -- ChrisO 10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know, what about archive.org? I suppose if it was such a clear cut issue, this dispute wouldn't have taken place. A clear policy about this kind of link would help us avoid future disputes. Is Wikipedia policy perfectly clear on this?--Doron 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive.org is kind of a special case - in some cases it's explicitly permitted to copy websites for the case of preservation (as in the case of UK government websites), otherwise it's generally tolerated as a unique public resource. Our copyright policy recognises this by calling archive.org "a rare exception to the general guideline". Having said that, using archive.org to reference an archived copyvio that was originally hosted on another website definitely wouldn't be legitimate. -- ChrisO 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Compromise Accepted ~ Anthony 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: okay I found on the Wikipedia: External links list of links to normally be avoided the following bulletpoint: "11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."  Again, Prof.Gil-White is a recognized authority on the issue of the psychology of ethnicity. He has written extensively on the subject in peer-reviewed journals and was also hired by an ivy-legue thinktank for his expertise on the matter. Clearly several administrators have a problem with hirhome, but that is not enough of a reason for instituting this kind of vigilante justice against a recognized authority. So long as the policy recognizes the right of experts to have self-published work linked to, relevant hirhome links will continue to be added. If you have a problem with this, work on changing the official policy. Cmart 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hirhome.com pages that are not related to Gil-White's areas of expertise do not fall under this exception.--Doron 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who gets to decide what is and is not related to Gil-White's area of expertise? It seems like Ryan4 assumes, and I agree with him, that as an anthropologist and member of the ivy-league ethnopolitical thinktank, Gil-White's expertise includes topics related to historic ethnopolitical conflicts and their psychological roots. Cmart 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cmart, I notice that you yourself have been active in adding hirhome links to articles completely outside Gil-White's academic expertise    .  Can you certify that you are only here suggesting that links in his area of expertise are acceptable?  Or, if you think that his political writings are also linkable, why are you not arguing for that openly?  --Zerotalk 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Very simple, Cmart. Recognition of academic notability is achieved by peer-reviewed publication. Gil-White has published articles in the field of anthropology, which arguably makes his blog-like website appropriate for external links in this field. All of Gil-White's pieces in the fields of History and Politics are self-published, so one cannot say he's a recognized authority in these fields, and therefore the exception to item 11 in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided does not apply.--Doron 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Stage 2 

message: ;Mediator's Proposal
*Close mediation as "no case - nothing to mediate" per above concerns?
anthony[review] 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment - actually, it is already addressed explicitly in policy - see WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works. We're not dealing with anything novel here, it's long-established policy. -- ChrisO 10:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know, what about archive.org? I suppose if it was such a clear cut issue, this dispute wouldn't have taken place. A clear policy about this kind of link would help us avoid future disputes. Is Wikipedia policy perfectly clear on this?--Doron 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive.org is kind of a special case - in some cases it's explicitly permitted to copy websites for the case of preservation (as in the case of UK government websites), otherwise it's generally tolerated as a unique public resource. Our copyright policy recognises this by calling archive.org "a rare exception to the general guideline". Having said that, using archive.org to reference an archived copyvio that was originally hosted on another website definitely wouldn't be legitimate. -- ChrisO 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Compromise Accepted ~ Anthony 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Compromise 1

message: ;Mediator's Proposal
*Sysops should block Ryan4 if he continues to add links in violation Wikipedia:External links.
~ Anthony 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay I found on the Wikipedia: External links list of links to normally be avoided the following bulletpoint: "11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."  Again, Prof.Gil-White is a recognized authority on the issue of the psychology of ethnicity. He has written extensively on the subject in peer-reviewed journals and was also hired by an ivy-legue thinktank for his expertise on the matter. Clearly several administrators have a problem with hirhome, but that is not enough of a reason for instituting this kind of vigilante justice against a recognized authority. So long as the policy recognizes the right of experts to have self-published work linked to, relevant hirhome links will continue to be added. If you have a problem with this, work on changing the official policy. Cmart 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hirhome.com pages that are not related to Gil-White's areas of expertise do not fall under this exception.--Doron 09:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who gets to decide what is and is not related to Gil-White's area of expertise? It seems like Ryan4 assumes, and I agree with him, that as an anthropologist and member of the ivy-league ethnopolitical thinktank, Gil-White's expertise includes topics related to historic ethnopolitical conflicts and their psychological roots. Cmart 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cmart, I notice that you yourself have been active in adding hirhome links to articles completely outside Gil-White's academic expertise    .  Can you certify that you are only here suggesting that links in his area of expertise are acceptable?  Or, if you think that his political writings are also linkable, why are you not arguing for that openly?  --Zerotalk 11:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Very simple, Cmart. Recognition of academic notability is achieved by peer-reviewed publication. Gil-White has published articles in the field of anthropology, which arguably makes his blog-like website appropriate for external links in this field. All of Gil-White's pieces in the fields of History and Politics are self-published, so one cannot say he's a recognized authority in these fields, and therefore the exception to item 11 in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided does not apply.--Doron 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Compromise 2

message: My thanks to all go out for a successful Mediation - a compromise was reached, consensus was established, and the maximum number of parties possible were left with satisfactory outcomes, within the bounds of policy ~ Anthony 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Closed