"2009 to March 2009" - Huh? KTC (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC: The link in The article remained in this state from is missing space in front of July, July 2009 to May 2009 is probably typo of some sort and the permanent link version number leads to . Something is rotten in that sentence. --07:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)

Whoops, that was missed by me. Thanks to your eagle eyes and Closedmouth for the assist! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the version number to the first 2013 version one. Was this the intended version link or which one? --07:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)

I got to that just before you posted! I meant to point to revision 81104004, but a couple of numbers went missing somewhere. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report should really mention the words "Streisand effect" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks for your suggestion. The "Streisand effect" was leapt onto by just about every news coverage, and generally not glossed despite my suspicion that many people don't know the meaning. We intended that this report have its own angles. Tony (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had some experience of French official methods in 1979. Don't assume that the article in question is what they are really worried about. It seems quite likely that they wanted to warn off those who in future might push the envelope in posting sensitive information. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, that is scary. I don't doubt the likelihood you've raised. Tony (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment regarding « stewardship in senstivive countries » was from Rhadamante, not Elfix ; and I am not taotally convinced you accurately report his views (he did not really widened the scope, he echoed previous discussions on Meta that were metionned on Twitter a fex days before the events). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I've fixed the report. The text seems to be a harmless journalistic shorthand, given that Tony and I did not want to delve too far into the discussions, lest they take over the report. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't the intelligence services infiltrate Wikipedia using sleeper agents, some of whom eventually become Admins and Arbitrators while most others will remain content editors? Then they can have much more influence over sensitive content, without the World knowing that they are activily involved in subverting Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested the possibility that they are already doing so. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know all too well that the Chavez regime has been doing that—at least in relation to some Venezuala-related articles. Tony (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US, for example: Aerospace Data Facility, East. perhaps the time is ripe for a AfC? Dogue (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<An independent opinion> What an atrocious state of affairs. That it's on Wikipedia with sources should tell the Government that it's already public knowledge and thus there's no point hiding it. Secondly, the threatened admin should be aware that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog and thus have refused, because it's unenforceable. What has happened is total horseshit and shouldn't have ever happened.--Launchballer 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's worth nothing that it had only one source at the time. It was also a highly visible Wikipedian who was called in and threatened with jail and criminal prosecution. Regardless of his opinion on its enforceability in court, would you have really wanted to test that and call their bluff? Would anyone here? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're damn right I would. It's disgraceful what they've done and it needs someone to stand up for it. However, seeing now that there is only one source I'd probably go about sourcing it first before I do anything else. How many sources does it have now?--Launchballer 18:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs an event for banned articles and websites similar to the American Library Association's Banned Books Week. The Turkish ban on Wordpress subdomains immediately comes to mind, as does the various internet blockages in Myanmar and the proposed Saudi ban on Skype. Perhaps an award for the year's most boneheaded attempt at repression, named, say, the Remi Award. —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List yes, event no as that carries the risk of violating WP:NEUTRAL.--Launchballer 19:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any such list or article on Wikipedia, I have been unable to find it. —Neotarf (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create it?--Launchballer 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to create either Banned Wikipedia articles or Banned websites, but if someone else wants to write them, I would certainly read them. I see France has now been added to Censorship of Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud WMF Legal for posting a statement on the French Wikipedia's admin noticeboard stating When governments have security concerns about Wikipedia articles, they should direct those concerns to the Foundation, and only to the Foundation. We believe it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and often counter-productive for any governmental agency to contact users or volunteers of any Wikimedia website directly. But I was hoping they would have issued a general press release to the media stating the same thing, since not all security agencies are following that advice. Having it on the admin's noticeboard on frwp is great, but will not provide it with much visibility. Issuing a press release when the media attention was active would have helped circulate that advice to the rest of the world, thus helping to avoid similar future events. Perhaps they are working on something like that already. I'm hoping they are. 64.40.54.180 (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see an image used in the original piece, a photo of the Direction centrale du Renseignement intérieur, presumably the building where Rémi Mathis was taken for questioning, has just been deleted. At the same time, a photo from the article the French police wanted deleted has just been nominated for deletion. —Neotarf (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears that the images were intentionally deleted from Commons specifically because they were used in this article, and in order to forestall possible complaints from French security. —Neotarf (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, the images have been deleted on Commons because there is no freedom of panorama in France. These two photos of the DCRI are now on the Wikipedia in French [1] [2], where the licences are correct. What says Russavia is totally wrong. NemesisIII (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. Please read the link that Neotarf provided. Russavia made his intentions abundantly clear. And he is the person (before he was again blocked from en.WP, thank god) who tried an edit-war over the retention of the broken image syntax. Tony (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how an article like this might bring greater scrutiny to an image, and how editors might want to make doubly sure that such images have been properly vetted. However, the images belong in the article, and since properly vetted images are available, the images that were removed should be replaced. Since it was Commons that removed the images, I have asked at Commons for assistance with this. —Neotarf (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in your complaint on Commons you gave the impression that the availability of the 2 images (which have been deleted due to missing FOP-exemption in France) is a problem, I wonder why you haven't filed one of them for fair-use on :en, as NemesisIII even had provided links to both images on :fr. --Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a Commons admin. Neotarf brought the issue to us. The pictures of the DCRI HQ were deleted because they show recent buildings: France doesn't recognise freedom of panorama (see commons:Freedom of panorama#France). These pics, shot by Wikipedians and placed under a free licence, have been uploaded to fr: under a local exception similar to your fair use. I have no doubt you can upload them on en: too under a fair use rationale. You can use fr:Fichier:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg and fr:Fichier:DCRI.jpg to perform the transfer. If for some reason you prefer to take the files directly from Commons, I can undelete them temporarily. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have become well aware of what the copyright issues are, and the fact that you're coming here to explain this again to us many days after the damage was done is just plain weird.

The problem is the arrogant assumption by Commons people from the start that every editor in sister projects is an expert in multijurisdictional and cross-project image copyright. The worst manifestation of this was on display in the behaviour of your colleague, Russavia, whom you appear to be blithely supporting at Commons as a matter of admin solidarity (this is something that fosters suspicion and even hatred of admins by other editors). He and others have flagrantly breached your policy on blocking, and he has breached your policy on privacy. Yet you don't seem to give a fig for that, giving the impression that it's one rule for admins and one rule for other editors, at your whim.

Congratulations for fuelling a controversy rather than taking steps to resolve it at the earliest possible time. There would not have been a problem if this person had done the polite and practical thing, briefly alerting the Signpost, explaining the situation, and providing the location of another fair-use image from which to source an en.WP fair-use upload to replace the deleted Commons image. Given timezone differences, Russavia might even have organised a quick upload to en.WP himself, to prevent damage to the article—you people are supposed to be the experts, and Commons is supposed to be serving its sister projects. This disgustingly arrogant behaviour has done a lot to damage relations between the Signpost and Commons, and looks like not being resolved any time soon. You guys need to take a more cooperative approach rather than marching in and edit-warring over a high-profile Signpost page.

The fact that Russavia is still calling the tune at Commons suggests that your community is deeply dysfunctional; and the fact that there has been tit-for-tat blocking of me to pay for his re-blocking from en.WP for a month is just appalling.

It's a great pity that you and your friend Turelio just don't get it: the question is how to properly handle high-profile deletions in relation to sister projects in a way that doesn't disrupt a much-read article, and at the very least to communicate with editors on major actions that degrade their published work. To put it simply, the emphasis seems to be on asserting your power rather than connecting with other editors for the good of readers.

You and several others at Commons seem to be perpetuating that dysfunction rather than looking into ways of preventing it. Shame on you both, and shame on these characters Mattbuck, moogsi, and odder. It smells of a corrupt environment. Tony (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem under the impression that calling people corrupt is a trusted way of gaining collaboration. It's not. I can only answer for my own actions. As I understand the edit war happened here, on en:, so it should be dealt with on en:, according to your own policies. I had no part in the blocks. The blocking admin said you were blocked because you sent abusive emails, which seems good reason for me.

Our duty as Commons admins is to our project first. We are bound to delete copyvios when we are aware of them, and that's what we did. If we had to wait for every Wikipedia which uses problematic pictures to have a solution, no copyvio would ever get deleted. fr: was similarly affected by the deletion of these pictures, but they didn't throw any fuss. They saw it wasn't possible to keep the pictures on Commons; they knew they could host the pics locally, so they transferred them. We're not asking you to know multijurisdictional and cross-project image copyright: that's our job. Knowing fair use policies on every sister project isn't our job, though. It's your responsibility to perform the transfer, and we give help when it's needed. That's how it works on a daily basis.

I came here on Neotarf's suggestion to offer help in recovering the pictures. If you're unable to interact with a Commons editor without spewing anti-Commons rant, let other people step in and let's get the job done. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that everyone is aware of why the images were removed, and the amount of initial speculation and continued misunderstanding despite repeated explanation makes reiterating the point seem useful. I'm sorry if you think it's weird, but with the third or fourth attempt to explain gaining little recognition or acknowledgement from some, it's hard to know when to stop.

Allow me to state a few things from my perspective: I demonstrably have very little interest in drama as it occurs on Wikipedia. I did not know Russavia had been blocked here. It did not affect my actions in removing the email access of an editor who was using the system to abuse someone who is not Russavia. For the implication that I'm part of a "corrupt environment": it's dismaying to me that you think that this is the case, but I also find it baffling that you think Russavia is "calling the tune" at Commons. Part of connecting with editors for the good of readers is a bare minimal level of trust. Imagine there is no conspiracy against you here: how would someone feel about being publicly shamed and accused of something they're uninvolved with? moogsi^(blah) 08:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're dead right about one thing: there's now zero trust. Tony (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jastrow and Túrelio for your offers of assistance. I am in the process of contacting someone who can advise on this, however, given the difference in time zones, it may take a while for a response. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in answering. The response I received on this is that the Signpost cannot use fair use images; they can only be used in articles. There can be exemptions, but that doesn't apply in this situation. The applicable policy is WP:NFCCP. —Neotarf (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Jastowi, it's just not getting through, is it. Your own arrogance is on nice display in your post right now. And what is this you're spouting? Let's take a few statements:

• "You seem under the impression that calling people corrupt is a trusted way of gaining collaboration. It's not." I certainly don't want collaboration with Commons autocrats. What are you talking about?
• "I can only answer for my own actions." Yup, typical self-serving admin talk, while you support the corrupt behaviour of your fellow admins. Has it ever occurred to you that admins might function to resolve disputes rather than to shoot people down? No, I suppose it hasn't. That alone would be reason for having you resign from your role. Can we move on from this clubby self-supporting environment?
• "It's your responsibility to perform the transfer". Helpful, isn't he. Another cloak for arrogance. Any opinion on the flagrant breaches of your own policies by your friends? Or would that be to break ranks? Tony (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get a grip. We're talking about two pictures that have been deleted from Commons, and that can easily be transferred here. No need to start chewing the scenery. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you get a grip: it's not about the two pictures now, but the corrupt behaviour of your club of Commons people. Get your facts right: only one picture was required. And tell your friend Túrelio that if he continues to stalk me on en.WP, he'll be likely to be blocked from this project. Tony (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever. If a Signpost editor is interested in retrieving the picture and needs help from a Commons admin, they know where to find me. I'll be off now, so you can come down from your soap box Tony1. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]