Wikipedia talk:Keyspam

Intro

Feel free to revise this and post it places. I'd rather not see it drift too far from my core points.. That people are spamming us, that distributing the key isn't really helping freedom it's just a fad, and that Wikipedia's mission *is* something that helps freedom by offering an alternative. If you think I'm full of it I'd rather you copy and paste fork the document. But it's a wiki, and I don't own it... so have fun. --Gmaxwell 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

<<catmacro license=GFDL>I agree with this page.</catmacro> - David Gerard 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And our work is ... self evident?

Where the essay says "making our work harder to accomplish", it would be good to have a link to a mission statement or something that describes what "our work" is. That seems to be the crux of the problem, as many are assuming that this number is suitable for Wikipedia as it has been widely reported in RS, and is now notable. Maybe Welcome:About, m:Mission or m:Vision? John Vandenberg 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful link

You may consider working in the EFF's summary of the legal issues at hand. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people are so caught up in the quixotic fight against the Man that they don't realize just what a perilous legal position Wikipedia is in if it knowingly publishes information that is part of a circumvention technology. It doesn't help that there's an angry 800 lb. legal gorilla on the loose, either. -- mattb 21:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful not to misrepresent this essay!

I think this essay itself is fine, as the disclaimer explicitly notes that it is not official policy, but unfortunately many admins and other users have been linking to it in support of their actions as if it were official policy. Please be responsible in how you represent this essay when you link to it in other discussions!Konekoniku 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's written in bold letters across the top that this is an essay - Alison ☺ 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely what I noted.Konekoniku 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay ... but, y'know, most of the admins agree with it. I've taken some stuff out that I think is less universally considered. The real problem is not so much the key's legal status as that we're getting SPAMMED TO HECK AND BACK WITH IT - David Gerard 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but it is still misleading to represent it as official policy. Moreover, it should be noted that even with majority support from admins, the policy does not necessarily have majority support from the Wikipedia community at large.Konekoniku 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Although there isn't any evidence that it doesn't have such support. None of our official policies necessarily have the support of the majority of the Wikipedia community, since we're not constantly conducting polls we don't know what most people think about them... Further, this is not a policy and it wouldn't even look like one with the essay box removed: it doesn't tell people to do anything... it doesn't even say if we should really host the number or not.. it talks a lot about spamming, and I think that is a point about which just about everyone in our community would agree. --Gmaxwell 06:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How far on the side of caution is Wikipedia supposed to err?

What I don't understand is this: If Wired.com has had the full text of the key available on the Web since February 13; if Digg.com has surrendered to its users and is now defending the key; if Google.com continues to provide hits if you know the first few hex digits which so far as I know can legally be posted in and of themselves, and at least were posted on the talk page; if the key is revoked and no longer valid anyway; if the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to weigh in with anything but "no opinion" on the topic; and if Wikipedia has received no "take-down" notices despite postings of the key that have occurred - then what grounds is there for continued concern? Admittedly, I see now that the EFF says this is neither the world's best-known trade secret nor the world's shortest copyrighted number, but some kind of "Para-copyright" from the legal Twilight Zone, where even mentioning that something exists can hypothetically lead you to penalties without warning - but does the law truly stop for no barricade of common sense at all? If I'm to believe everything I'm told by the nay-sayers, even the mass media news stories that say digg.com is allowing the posts (which allowed me to find the code) are illegal (as is this comment, then!).

Nor do I think the spamming argument holds water (at least if the key is posted to relevant articles), because for every "spamming" of the key by one user there has been an equal but opposite spamming of deletion commands by someone else. The fact is that there is a very real difference of opinion to be discussed. Mike Serfas 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, deleting the key is spamming? DRM is freedom? Sony is your friend? Up is down? Britannica is Wikipedia? You've lost me here - David Gerard 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The DMCA was upheld in Universal v. Reimerdes, so precedence is not in our favour if we are publishing this knowingly. It is prudent to let Wired and Digg tackle this as the freedom of the press is vital to their ability to continue to pump out new stories unhindered; OTOH, the exclusion of the number from Wikipedia's article has little bearing on the quality of the article, and definitely doesn't affect our ability to keep creating a free content encyclopedia. John Vandenberg 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree - it pretty clearly would be detrimental to the article to have an oddly MacGuffin-shaped space in it. But we can wait a few weeks. And this isn't the venue - David Gerard 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised, given these comments, that you've added a link to the key itself (at Wired) to this essay. I thought posting a link was supposed to be the same as posting the key, legally speaking? Anyway, I'd better bring up something else, which is, how does this affect the fair use policy? Because I had put up a fair use image I requested a fair use review on for an edit near the beginning of all this. I haven't otherwise linked to it pending having someone review it so as to avoid any improper use, but nobody's reviewed it and I don't want it sitting there unevaluated endlessly. Mike Serfas 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a footnote, referenced from within the text. This gives more of an indication of intent, IMO (it's just a reference) - Alison ☺ 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that change. --Gmaxwell 03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am really riled up by comparisons of other online and offline publications of the key, with that wikipedia. The reason being that Wikipedia has by definition no real editorial control other than levels of protective lockdown. In all the other publications mentioned, it is impossible for a determined group to spam their articles with the key. However, in wikipedia it is every possible, and has happened in the past (Elephants and Colbert Report anyone?). The fact that an AfD was allowed on what was obviosly a speedy delete page (HD DVD Night, now merged) shows the community's response was a complex one, contrary to the spam mob's zeal. The initial reason the key eas blocked was to prevent spamming, admins saw what happened at Digg and reacted quickly.

I would have done things differently (ie gain concensus, do semi-protect instead of full protect etc) but one cannot claim any sort of censoring spirit when you are trying to protect the collective work of thousands. True, there is no concensus on the publishing of the key. But the spammers would make wikipedia useless the minute we lift the ban. I think people need to put WP:CENSOR in the context of WP:SOAPBOX and other, equally valid, parts of WP:NOT.--Cerejota 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I've commented out some paras that I don't think the community members concerned about the keyspam agree with necessarily. Keep it focused. (I commented them out to facilitate restoring them if needed.) - David Gerard 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said

>Radiant< 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that - Unloud 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarchists?

The essay criticized those who want to disclose the key because we might make Internet users look like anarchists in the eyes of congress. Well, the fact is many Internet users really ARE anarchists. In the virtual world we exist without race or class or national boarders. Many of us love this freedom and will do whatever we can to defend it. Why would any sane ethical person support exploitation and unjust hierarchy? You may already be an anarchist...It’s true. If your idea of healthy human relations is a dinner with friends, where everyone enjoys everyone else’s company, responsibilities are divided up voluntarily and informally, and no one gives orders or sells anything, then you are an anarchist, plain and simple. The only question that remains is how you can arrange for more of your interactions to resemble this model. Whenever you act without waiting for instructions or official permission, you are an anarchist. Any time you bypass a ridiculous regulation when no one’s looking, you are an anarchist. If you don’t trust the government, the school system, Hollywood, or the management to know better than you when it comes to things that affect your life, that’s anarchism, too. And you are especially an anarchist when you come up with your own ideas and initiatives and solutions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delirium of disorder (talk • contribs) 02:24, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

It was intended in same sense as "The prohibition against murder is an unjust restriction on my freedom to kill" or "the prohibition against theft is an unjust restriction on my freedom to drive any car I wish". I hope you do not think that internet users are anarchists in this sense... I used the word anarchists specifically because it was the same word used by one of the justices during the oral arguments portion of Eldred v. Ashcroft when he was making the point that it sounded like the Eldred side was promoting an extreme form of freedom which ignored the important social compromises. The US congress has already shown that they think limiting the trafficking of components of circumvention devices is an acceptable abridgment for the common interest. I don't agree with them, but they are likely to hold anyone who contemptuously ignores the law, rather than making reasoned arguments, in low esteem. --Gmaxwell 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically the law has been used to further the interests of those who own the means of production (capitalists), not the "common interest" of the majority of the population. The law says that we must do things like support an unjust illegal war for profit through federal income taxes (the majority of which go to the pentagon). Any ethical person must simply disobey the law and not pay tax. I don't care if I'm held in low esteem; sometimes the law is so wrong that participating in it means complicity in mass murder. Reasoned arguments are fine, but civil disobedience is necessary immediately. Laws like the DMCA are just the latest in a long succession of unjust laws made for the profiteers and plutocrats. The stakes of copyright law are much lower than in international law, but we should be no less willing to disobey them. No one can own culture or math or algorithms. While I understand that wikipedia is not anarchist, you must be willing to acknowledge that many of it's users are, as are many Internet users in general. We are a part of a powerful historical movement against all forms of unjust hierarchy be it social, economic, political, or religious. The extreme form of freedom that we are advocating with regard to the DMCA is simply free speech. Don't censor us. Anyone who uses force (the law) to restrict expression is a tyrant. Anyone who uses wikipedia edits to censor is just a coward. Delirium of disorder 07:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You must also understand that while many of the Wikipedia editors, users, and admins migh tbe anarchists, by the same measure many of them are not. And this is an important point: civil disobedience requires a consesual agreement of the participants, and trying to drag people into risking the wikipedia project to make a political point -however one might agree with it- is not consensus, but tyranny. To respect this differences is to understand consensus. --Cerejota 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is a fantastic comment. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an anarchist editor of Wikipedia and I run the most popular online anarchist website, Infoshop.org. I would point out that anarchists have been in the forefront of the fight against intellectual property. We've been against IP laws since before the Web became popular. Anarchists have been heavily involves in the free software movement too. I can kind of see Wikipedia's nervousness about users reposting the DVD key, but Wikipedia really needs to put its neck out more. If Digg can see the light and relax about users posting the key, then Wikipedia doesn't have to get all anal about this. I'm really irked that Wikipedia deleted the key from my user page. For me, that was the final nail in the coffin as far as my involvement with Wikipedia goes. What a bunch of pussies. Chuck0 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The key has been published. If being mature is being a pussie, then I am a proud feline. Buenaventura Durruti must be turning in his grave at your childish chest-humping disguised as anarchism!--Cerejota 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond legal threats

I'm fairly confident that wikipedia wouldn't get sued. But even so, wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech (which makes wikipedia a bit different to digg). It is not an instruction manual, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Andjam 17:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is already quoted in full in text on the Spanish Wikipedia and on an image on the English Wikipedia. This article really is about the spamming - David Gerard 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not only about Wikipedia potentially being sued. Besides Emmanuel Goldstein and Tom Vogt, 19 other people (that Wikipedia knows nothing about) were named, and 500 John Does were included in the initial complaint for the Universal v. Reimerdes case. Each person who posts the key on the Internet, anywhere, could be a party to the next case. Keeping the key off Wikipedia at this stage is not paranoia, as we have a brilliant well-sourced article on the topic, with one fact omitted. "Caution is the better part of valour."

I agree that WP:NOT is relevant. At this stage, there is very little known about the lasting significance of those digits, so the importance of the actual number is negligible. Putting the number in text would mean it turns up on Google searches for "09 f9"; leaving it as an image is sufficient for the purposes of informing a reader (at present). John Vandenberg 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And of course they won't be suing all the miscellaneous bloggers; they'll go after people with assets, whom it is worth suing. --bainer (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They will not be suing with the intent of taking anyone's money; they will pick defendants carefully based on who are the best target in order to establish precedent and to scare others. John Vandenberg 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Andjam is suggesting. I'm also not sure which "brilliant, well sourced article" John Vandenberg is referring to. I don't care much whether the 32 hex numbers are included in the keyspam essay or in the nontechnical article about the controversy, but Wikipedia certainly should include a technical article about AACS itself, and that article should include the key, just like Wikipedia's articles about MD5, SHA-1, and other such algorithms likewise contain parameters expressed as hex numbers, as well as test vectors and pseudocode. They are not "how to" articles in the sense of presenting step by step instructions, but they nonetheless give enough info for a competent programmer to create a complete interoperable implementation, which is what an article about this sort of topic should do. There was never editorial controversy over whether those articles or the hex numbers in them were encyclopedic, even though there was (and is) tremendous controversy about the use and dissemination of crypto technology. The AACS article should be written in the same spirit as those cryptography articles, at the same level of detail and including all the relevant hex numbers, presenting the info neutrally and straightforwardly without being embarassed about it or resorting to cutesy subterfuges like smuggling the numbers in through a Digg screen shot. 75.62.6.237 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and lack of recognition of WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF violations by certain admins

1) I think the point on the use of the characterization "anarchists" is valid NPOV one. (I wont get to the fact that anarchism has its own page in wikipedia that explains that its use as a synonym of nihilism is wrong.)

This is almost a meta issue: that wikipedia must defend itself against a legal threat is one thing that we all should understand but this cannot come at the price of removing from mention the POV that attacks the legal basis that makes protection needed (whew!).

This is done, for example, when we censor links to Kevin Rose's blog posting that has the key in the title. While I can think of only one existing page where this number can currently fit (AACS encryption key controversy), by framing the discussion in terms of a law-abiding wikipedia against an "anarchist" gang bent on getting us into trouble, we are pushing a non-neutral POV. As Jimbo did in his talk page, we must begin any response to the Keyspam issue by admiting the validity of all POVs, and by separating the business needs of the Wikimedia Foundation from whatever the actual content on the whole issue wikipedia has.

2) I saw in many of the editing comments rather uncivil statements on the part of admins when they set protection or when they deleted the key. We must recognize this was wrong: this was biting new users and a failure to assume good faith. While some were vandals, others were obviously people who didn't understand how wikipedia works, and that were editing to try to cover what is a notable event. The unfortunate behavior of a number of admins led to a further escalation of the problem. If the medium is the message, then we shouldn't ignore the interconnectness of the information flow in the internet, and adopt protectionist or isolationists policies even in violation of our own rules. In this spirit I also edited the {{09F9-notice}}.

3) The current policy of a blanket spamblock will soon have to be over, and we must mention this. Otherwise, we must change WP:CENSOR. Do w enot trustour community of editors and admins to take care of this? Do we have crystal balls that tell us that the key would be spammed now?

I think we should then edit this essay to reflect a more neutral POV, in the style of Jimbo's posting in his talk page. I also suggest we admit our fault in escalating the situation at one point by not following our own rules of engagement. Lastly we must either mention the spamblock is temporary or we must edit WP:CENSOR to include the fact that we censor materials if they are illegal. --Cerejota 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems to me like a fairly radical viewpoint was pushed into Wikipedia during the development of this discussion. In part I think that's because people on both extremes of the issue - AACS and the EFF - have their own reasons to claim that as much as possible is illegal. I suppose one wants to claim the need for some new mandatory kind of foolproof mechanical censorship capable of stopping any two people anywhere in the world from being able to communicate a 16-digit number, and the other wants to galvanize people against a system that seems headed in that direction. But there have been so many clear-cut indications that the legal claims were trumped up: hundreds of thousands (now 1.5 million) Google hits, Internet companies and mass media publishing the key, the key being officially revoked. I don't think it makes sense to make WP:CENSOR a joke or call people "spammers" and "vandals" and "anarchists" because they try to put one fact into the relevant article. I wish that Wikipedia wouldn't get hit with bogus lawsuits, but who's kidding who? No matter how cautious Wikipedia wants to be, sooner or later some agents provocateur will intentionally and anonymously hide a shipload of spectacularly objectionable content in a very obscure article and try to make off with the entire treasury in a lawsuit - and they won't tell you what it is first. When the sad day comes that Wikipedia makes its last legal stand, it might as well be for some well-intentioned edit with a reasonable rationale for its legality. Mike Serfas 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax USA is not the only democratic country in the world with the freedom of speech, we can always move wikimedia servers somwherewhere where they don't have "jackpot justice". In Poland (and probably other EU countries) even if we would be found guilty of misconduct a non-profit organisation like wikimedia acting in "good faith" would probably be ordered to pay a symbolic sum and cover the legal expenses. Mieciu K 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole essay assumes that any editor who has put 'the key' on a page or on their own page is purposefully 'spamming' or are trying to 'vandalize' wikipedia. It just assumes too many things all at the same time. It assumes that they know of what has happened already and what actions wikipedia has done to stop the code from being released, it assumes bad faith, it assumes that they know wikipedia policy and are purposefully trying to vandalize. Do we really think that someone remembering about the HD-DVD Key incident a few days ago asks themselves 'hey what does wikipedia say about that?' and then noticed that the article has one glaring missing detail and plugs it into the article -- are we really saying that there is intent here? I feel that this is a knee-jerk response and even if you remember me as the guy who asked Jimbo directly about the issue -- I still think this is a knee-jerk reaction to a large problem we had to deal with. Am I going to get flack over this? Yes. Do I want to see wikipedia get sued? No, I just don't feel that making these assumptions about your editors is correct and should be done in the manner it has been done. MrMacMan ^Talk 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignorantia juris non excusat when it comes to copyright violations no judge is going to buy the "but I didn't know" excuse so why should wikipedia administrators react differently? Mieciu K 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly WP:BITE/WP:AGF. Secondly, if my comments came across saying 'give them a free pass because they are inexperienced' I certainly hope they didn't. People need to know the rules of our community and they should, but throwing names like anarchist or spammer out there seems to imply intent, which, I'm not sure every editor who posted the key had. All I'm saying is that the tone of this essay doesn't seem to make me feel the way Jimbo wanted me to feel (yes it was me), 'my own view is that people should basically relax a little bit.' -- this doesn't relax me, this makes me rather aggravated. Since the 'core' value of the essay was that people are 'spamming' wikipedia I suppose I agree that people went too far -- it's just that you need to give people warnings and not give them a giant baseball bat to the head. MrMacMan ^Talk 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree MrMacMan, people need to remidn themselves once in a while that in wikipedia Ignorantia juris non excusat does not apply, because we assume good faith and WP:BITEdo not bite new editors and readers]]. Unfortunately, some of us forgot those overiding principles and with "Ignorantia juris non excusat" as their banner, chose to ignore a concensus of years in the building and draw their own vigilante justice. In fact, I think this deserves to be raised at WP:AGF and WP:BITE a part of the text.--Cerejota 12:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"if ignorance was an excuse, persons charged with criminal offenses or the subject of civil lawsuits would merely claim they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, whether criminal or civil". Ignorantia juris non excusat always applies, it is the fundamental basis of every modern legal system. How do you expect people to follow any kind of rules (including WP:AGF and WP:BITE) if they can just say "I didn't know" or "I forgot", and how do you expect people to learn the rules if not knowing them or claiming not to know them is better. People who want to include the 09... code without taking into account the complicted legal issues are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and it's the legal issues that makes these numbers a star of Digg. It may be "morally right" to add the numbers to Wikipedia but being morally right doesn't pay the bills (or in this case the fines). Mieciu K 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Mieciu. Perhaps you are ignorant of this: Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community..

I do know Ignorantia juris non excusat every modern (and even ancient) legal system. But Wikipedia is not a legal system. Please see below for my further elaboration, but let me use your example:

In wikipedia a person is allowed, under the terms of WP:BITE and WP:AGF to WP:IAR once or twice before being "prosecuted". Yes, unlike in every every modern (and even ancient) legal system, we assume good faith, which includes assuming the non-guilt of someone because of their ignorance. We do this all the time. Sometimes we misguidedly we call it ignoring all rules. But usually we do so because unlike lawyyers, judges, prosecutors and other such fauna, we actually assume good faith.--Cerejota 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I and Cerejota have different viewpoints. I believe that Ignorantia juris non excusat can be followed, but at Wikipedia that means that a user making their first edit probably doesn't think they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, they are just a New Editor and haven't learned any better yet. Also, the direct parallel to Ignorantia juris non excusat on wikipedia is WP:BITE. At wikipedia the first step in correcting an editor's behavior/actions is to go and talk to them 'in a constructive way.' Let me quote WP:BITE even further:

• When giving advice to newcomers, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia...
• Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, a vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not.

Does this essay even come close to that first standard? I can feel the rhetoric from this essay miles away, it assumes that the editor made edits in BAD FAITH. Yes, some parts try to educate the editor, but others punch a new user right in the face, "People who show up blasting Wikipedia pages with the HD DVD key are..." NEW EDITORS! -- they should be treated with respect and people should assume their edits are in good faith, you should "You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but do not scold." I think its rather understandable that we had a lot of editors coming here who didn't know policy, but this is what policy is, you don't assume their intent was bad and their actions deliberate. This essay sounds, feels and looks anti-newbie and I think while, obviously, ignorance of a law doesn't make you immune from punishment -- wikipedia's first step to education or correct new users behavior is talking to them in a calm manner, pointing them to related policies, then issue warnings, then further action if required. While you can't hide behind not knowing, the tone and way this essay deals with these new editors is, in essence, against policy. MrMacMan ^Talk 13:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do find it highly illogical and incompatible to have a principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat and then a WP:BITE and a WP:AGF:

The reason you do not bite newcomers is because you assume good faith.

But Ignorantia juris non excusat is precisely the opposite of assuming good faith: you discard good faith altogether for a prosecutorial mindsent that is discouraged in all of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The incompatability has to be resolved: you cannot possibly assume good faith and then proceed to prosecute the ignorant!!! The whole purpose of WP:BITE is precisely to force us to take time to make sure people are fully aware of of our policies and guidelines before we apply them. Hundreds of MedCab results have not gone into ArbCom precisely because Ignorantia juris non excusat was not applied.

This is a wider discussion beyond this article (I suggest we take it to both WP:BITE and WP:AGF).

However, the fact remains that this article fails to assume good faith and engages in biting newcomers and even expands the definition of WP:VANDALISM. I also restate my belief it would be a good opportunity to do a big mea culpa, like what Jimbo did when he edited his own page.--Cerejota 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't spamming. We'd just like for it to be posted once on the AACS page.

Besides, what's your point for NOT letting it be? You haven't made it.

The picture of Digg show's the key many times, yet you don't want to post it? Calling us spammers and etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Intro adjustment to remove unintended offensiveness

I have added "to an article where it is not relevant" to the intro. This qualification is needed since otherwise the intro to the article is unnecessarily offensive to those seeking in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia rules to have the number included in articles where it is relevant. -AmendmentNumberOne 04:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What offensiveness? this is an essay. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is offensive because otherwise it lumps in those seeking in good faith and under Wikipedia rules to have the number included in articles where it is relevant with those trying to include the number in articles where it is not relevant. -AmendmentNumberOne 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Smells like WP:POINT to me, especially given your username. Show me the Wikipedia rule that lets you have the number included? The office hasn't come out with an official statement on it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me the rule that say it isn't allowed! It has been included in Spanish Wikipedia since a few weeks ago and now at AACS encryption key controversy. Please assume good faith...--Cerejota 08:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, how is it WP:POINT? It is actually a good clarification that fleshes out the consensus that emerged in the correct pages.--Cerejota 08:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because of two things: 1. who is inserting it: he's been blocked before for keyspam and very nearly indef blocked, and 2. there's no consensus. There may have been on the Spanish Wikipedia. But the insertion at AACS encryption key controversy is still disputed, and there is no wikipedia-wide consensus on the inclusion of the key. There's certainly no consensus on this essay to include it. Not to mention it's against the original intent of the essay, AND it's contradictory with the last paragraphs of the essay. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Still making false accusations about Amendmentnumberone, he has not added the key anywhere! He was only nearly indef block because of FALSE accusations. Hypnosadist 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, thanks for defending me. I don't know why administrators continue to make these false accusations. Swatjester, I am having a hard time understanding your argument. 1. Because of who I am is no reason to revert my edits. 2. As Cerejota put it, "It is actually a good clarification that fleshes out the consensus that emerged in the correct pages." As you know Wikipedia is not censored. No one is trying to include the full number in this essay. I have not heard a definition before that equates wanting to include the number in an article where it is relevant with keyspamming. I don't think that was the original intent of the essay. Swatjester, please undo your second reversion of my edit. -AmendmentNumberOne 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, if you go to Talk:AACS encryption key controversy you will see there is no controversy as to including The Key because the spam block was removed.

In fact, the consensus has never really been about objections to including the key -in fact nearly everyone agrees it is both notable and encyclopedic to include it- , but rather (correct, IMHO) legal concerns that this was a matter for Wikimedia Foundation -which to date has not said anything either way- and of course support for the spam block to curb keyspam. We actually created a template for the talk page {{09F9-notice}}, which included a link to WP:KEYSPAM and some WP:BITE compliant messages.

It seems to me that you are not privy to the current consensus among the active editors of the relevant pages. While definitely consensus can change, it doesn't change just because you want it to. Of course, if you disagree with this consensus, please discuss with us!--Cerejota 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been on that page. There is no consensus to include, no consensus to remove. That's why that page is still under a slow revert war. There was never a consensus in the first place, it's still being formulated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, there's no 'slow revert war', it's all been settled with a summary of peoples views to ascertain consensus. I wholeheartedly agree that this essay should be ammended. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 18:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, SWATjester, please take a look at Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Summary of opinions to see that the overwhelming majority of the editors who commented support the the inclusion of the key, with the two caveats of no spamming and subject to the legal opinion of Wikimedia Foundation. And in fact, since the page was unprotected, there has been no removal of the key, there has only been some disagreement as to in what fashion to do so. Again, consensus can change and if you disagree with this consensus, please by all means discuss or be bold and edit the key.

I would offer you would be revert in a few minutes because the consensus is so overwhelming, but hey, you wouldn't the first one to go into an unnecessary edit war here... --Cerejota 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, consensus is not a vote, and it's not majority opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So consensus is minority opinion? Erk. Or is it majority opinion among a select cabal of people? You're right, consensus is determined from constructive discussion. Gracenotes^T § 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that the best you can reply with? *Yawn* :D --Cerejota 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. Normally consensus on conflicts are reached via discussion on talk pages.

It appears that that is consensus, what you have described. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 08:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean...

That people posting the key to their own user page in the context of talking about the controversy no longer get no-warning indefinte duration bannings (until emailign the admins and agreeing not to "violate copyright") like I did? And does it mean that an admin who banned an editor for posting something when the consensus is that there is no policy against posting it owes that editor an apology? Lurker 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty clear policy states that you should have been poked with a stick and then publicly humiliated. To be fair to the admin who blocked you -- there was a rather large outcry and no one knew what to do and how policy applied at the time. I'm pretty sure we know how to better and more calmly deal with the same situation today. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors with administrative privileges responded to other editors discussing the number in a bad way. They blocked them. I was blocked two times. First for discussing having an article about the number on Wikipedia. Then for discussing the block for discussing having an article about the number on Wikipedia. The blocking policy is clear: "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia." A genuine apology would be a good first step. -AmendmentNumberOne 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We all apologize. However, you should also apologize for disrupting wikipedia to make a point.

I agree some admins over-reacted and some even appeared to take advantage of uncertainty to push their own POV on the question.

However, the policies and guidelines are clear on the hierarchy here for conflict resolution, and the responses by you and others were less than stellar in this respect. Rather than seeking mediation or raising it in the noticeboard etc, you and others started edit warring and insulting all of us and our work. Seeing that Digg was melting down under a keyspam attack, didn't help matters either: we all love wikipedia, warts and all, and would hate to see it go down that way to push some POV.

I think now is the time to prepare for a better community response next time, in particular from admins, and this page is part of that effort. You can join it if you want, but please be more productive than to continue with a pointy-headed attitude... --Cerejota 12:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

However, you should also apologize for disrupting wikipedia to make a point.

I posted the key to my own user page (and breiefly as a sig, but I changed that after finding it it was disruptive- it meant the spam filter made talk pages uneditable), not irrelevantly in an article. I posted it to show how easy the spam filter could be circumvented. I did not insult anyone, I did not edit war (unless reverting changes made to your own user page, carried out by an admin who did not cite a policy supporting the change constitues edit warring). I also did not spam. I'm not sure what it was that I did that was disruptive (except for the unintentional breaking of some pages with my sig- which I corrected as soon as I realsied what was happening).

None of this is meant to reopen old wounds, I just want to clarify I did not do the things referred to above. Lurker 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, people still claiming that people only posted to the key to make a point?! really? Look, there were general people who actually edited pages that now have the key on the page, but the key was removed and they were blocked for what we now understand as a content issue that has actually reached consensus. I'm shocked to see you say that this editor specifically edit warred and was posting the key to make a point. I feel that your refusal to make a 'honest' apology is worse than just not making one at all. I felt that that sentence is not in good faith and assume that he was only making a disruption. I'm very saddened by your response. MrMacMan ^Talk 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost case, I say. I mean I posted it to show how easy the spam filter could be circumvented Is exactly what WP:POINT forbids! In the same paragraph where he denies his WP:POINT violation, he actually admits it! THE LOGIC!!! Even if it was in userspace, it was disruption. Disruption is not just edit warring: look at the Arbcom on pedophile userboxes for a lesson on that: potentially opening up wikipedia to legal liability is also disruption, no matter how otherwise stick-to-the-rules you are.--Cerejota 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota, I too did not do any of the things in your post. :( -AmendmentNumberOne 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No? I doubt you would have been banned for doing nothing. Man, I have done WP:3RR while edit warring with admins in controversial pages, and they didn't even raise it beyond my talk page. If you got banned, you did some pretty bulletproof mischief... No one is out to get you its just that admins are people too. :D --Cerejota 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

opening up wikipedia to legal liability is also disruption, no matter how otherwise stick-to-the-rules you are But since the key has been published on Wikipedia, including this article, why is it disruptive to publish in user space, if it is relevant to a section there? This seems inconsistent Lurker 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not extemporize: the behavior that led to the banning of AmendmentNumberOne happened in the middle of a preventive lockdown of the key, when the issue wasn't clear and where many mistakes on all parts where made. In the center of the controversy lay two things: concern over keyspam, and concern over legal liability. Users not capable of understanding how overriding these two issues were in the face of the Digg meltdown left no other option than to take extreme measures. Yes, babies got thrown with the bathwater, and we have apologized. But to continue to hard-headedly sustain there was anything but good faith in the actions of certain admins, in particular when there is a dispute resolution process in place, is not a beheivior I would agree with. For example, I was involved against User:bainer in Arbcom, and accept the outcome of that[1]. I didn't go around memespaming or crying censorship wolf... demanding one-sided apologies and disrespecting the project.--Cerejota 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No? I doubt you would have been banned for doing nothing.

Cerejota, since you seem to believe the blocks placed against my account were justified, please provide me with citations to the Wikipedia policy that supported those blocks and with relevant diffs to my edits. I would like a specific explanation of what I did wrong and to know how the indefinite blockings of my account amounted to anything other than a misuse of administrative privilege. -AmendmentNumberOne 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please read what I write and not what you think I wrote?

I do not believe the blocks placed against my account were justified. In fact, quite the contrary. However, I do think your response (engage in arguments, accuse people of things, etc) was a bad one, and that the admins in question acted in good faith against your actions. Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming justification of the actions. One can both assume good faith and be in complete disagreement. The fact that this nuisance seems lost on you is a source of much exasperation among some of those who defended you, successfully I might add...

Because in fact, that you still have an account means the system worked as it should. You were indeed bitten and the most important apology, restoration of the account, has happened. So, go ahead an edit wikipedia!!! Your continued inability to let the issue drop, even after a conflict resolution process only serves to reinforce the impression that you are just a single purpose account troll.--Cerejota 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to imply I violated Wikipedia's written rules when I have not ("I doubt you would have been banned for doing nothing.", "If you got banned, you did some pretty bulletproof mischief"). The relevant policy for single-purpose accounts is here. No dispute resolution process has occurred. The closest analog, when I posted my informal complaint to the administrative noticeboard, never completed because Ryulong blocked my account. The fact remains I was blocked after posting two comments to the article deletion review. Yes, I do accuse DragonflySixtyseven of violating blocking policy. I also accuse Ryulong of violating blocking policy. I am prepared to back up my accusations with arguments (as well as evidence). I do not think this is a bad thing. One thing I won't do, I won't block them from participating in the discussion on Wikipedia, especially during a disagreement over content or policy. I could forgive them if they would admit what they did. But they don't need my forgiveness. What is needed is for Wikipedia editors, especially the experienced ones with administrative privileges, to respect Wikipedia's written policies at all stages of the project. I can't very well drop that, especially when another editor brings it up. -AmendmentNumberOne 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you raised these serious accusations as WP:DISPUTE? You might be right or wrong, however, you are just trolling and launching personal attacks if you do not seek to resolve the dispute correctly. Do remember that one of the rules in Wikipedia is WP:IAR, and that admin consensus is indeed a rule. So an admin might violate policy with the backing of the admnistators. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy or a democracy. Also remember that unless you have a trully bulletproof case, you might end up getting yourself banned again because further study shows you did actually violate policy. --Cerejota 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should he atempt WP:DISPUTE when complaints about his treatment raised by other admins on AN/I results in an atempt to get him perm blocked for "trolling".Hypnosadist 00:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because AN/I is not part of the WP:DISPUTE process, nor is it meant to be. The only available remedy in case of unilateral ban (ie when not as outcome of ArbCom) is email.

He did one thing correct, which was contact the admin in question and others via eMail, and viola, his account was restored. As I have said before here, that is apology enough.

His continued accusations behind their backs is a form of trolling. Part of the dispute resolution process is also to drop the dispute, to let it slide. Certainly he hasn't.--Cerejota 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Part of the dispute resolution process is also to drop the dispute" You raised the dispute again with "If you got banned, you did some pretty bulletproof mischief". The whole dispute is about false acusations against Amendment number one and admins blocking without evidence or policies. Someone else reverting the completely BS block is not an apology by any definition of that word. Hypnosadist 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have got to agree with Hypnosadist. Further, Lurker asked specifically about no-warning indefinite blocks in relation to the key at the top of this thread. I am not sure why the belief exists that Wikipedia policy prevents another editor from responding, here or to the topic of an article deletion review. In fact, participating in even more general discussions of policy issues related to keyspam is appropriate on this talk page, as we have been doing. I was falsely accused of keyspamming. Reading badlydrawnjeff's arbitration request leads me to wonder if the source of the false information originated on IRC. Since no reasonable explanation consistent with the presumption of good faith has been forthcoming, questions persist. -AmendmentNumberOne 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Making it more generic

I've adjusted the language of the page somewhat to make it less specifically related to the AACS controversy as there have been other keyspamming incidents and I expect that there will be many more in the future. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this argument unconvincing

Essentially, my problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of non-notable numbers on wikipedia. Thus the argument that crypto keys are deleted 'becasue they are not enycylopedic' is unconvincing.

• Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy#unecyclopedic_argument_is_unconvincing

Thank you Decora (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)