Wikimedia Forum/Italian Wikipedia

Advocacy - Index

Background

Current Proposals

European Commission copyright consultation

See also the local discussion on ending the strike, local discussion with poll to start it, [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia, [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea (and following threads), bugzilla:31353, #wikimedia, #wikipedia-it, Internal-l, ComCom list, w:es:Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/Actual#Wikipedia_en_italiano, w:fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/4_octobre_2011#Wikipedia.it_en_voie_de_disparition_.3F, w:nl:Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Italiaanstalige_Wikipedia_gesloten.28.3F.29, w:en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Italian_Wikipedia, w:en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Possible_shutdown_of_the_Italian_Wikipedia

Declarations: WM-RS, WMF, WM-IT, de.wiki, WM-SE, nl.wiktionary, pt.wiki, mk.wiki, WM-FR. Thank them!

News about the law: [1] [2]. About the strike [3]; w:it:Wikipedia:Rassegna stampa; w:en:Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2011#October; w:it:Wikipedia:Comunicato 4 ottobre 2011/Media (many languages)

Please consider joining in the discussion at project-wide protests on how these should be handled in general.

Initial discussion

Have you seen how Italian Wikipedia is being closed? Is this endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Liliana • 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard someone about it yesterday. Will ask him for more information. Trijnstel 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just asked information on the it.wiki chat and some users told me it has been discussed yesterday on it.wiki village pump (which is of course not accessible at the moment), no idea how long this "strike" is going to be. Is this however the right place where to ask further information? The impossibility of accessing it.wiki doesn't give any chance to understand whether there was a clear consensus by the it.wiki community on this action --Rutja76 19:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed that Italian Wikipedia has started to do actively politic following the campaigns of some Italian political party. I'm very disappointed that Italian Wikipedia has stopped to show its Articles, which is its first and primary aim. I'm very disappointed that such communicate is signed "The users of Wikipedia" while no poll between the users has been done. I'm a Italian and and user of Italian Wikipedia, but for sure I dont agree with such political manifesto. A ntv 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A poll in 48 hours? Not too much. One post by troll and you must pay 13k euro... One wandal - next 13k... Przykuta 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13k for (every) older vandalism... Yeah - we don't exist only in wirtual world, Neo. Sad but true. Saint George will be fight against dragon tomorrow ;) Przykuta 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the discussion to close it.wiki has been open yesterday evening and it is accessible here (at least right now). The proposal at the top of the page is either to put an information on the site notice or to close it.wiki for a day. No information at the end of the discussion about what kind of decision has been taken (e.g. for how long it.wiki will be closed) --Rutja76 19:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bill is dated June 30, 2008!! It has been stopped for more than a year, it was on the schedule of the Parliament since three months ago, all amendments are still to be voted, and even if approved without changes (almost impossible) the bill will return to the other chamber, with the further possible veto of the President.

There was plenty of time to organize a poll and to have a open debate (not all the Wikipedia user connect all the nights to the Pump). The general schedule of the Parliament is known by months and it was formalized in details (day by day schedule) last 27 Sept. There was no reason to keep a debate open only a night! That is a coup d'etat !!

There were lots of other solutions (such as a public statement without blanking the site). There is not even a page where to write own comments. Wikipedia shall be impartial !!! Wikipedia shall be open !!! I'm disgusted. A ntv 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Antv. Yesterday there was a public poll about this initiative, with almost all agreeing with this form of protest. We are going to discuss further on it.wiki about this, but we can't accept any form of political censure without reacting in any mode. --Pigr8 20:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it is closed for a day, and new comments can be made when it reopens tomorrow. IMHO the concerns expressed in the message are justified. Regards, Guido den Broeder 20:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time we discuss about this topic. For example here's another very recent one and here is a statement about the same topic signed by over 300 hundreds users.--Sandrobt 20:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@A ntv: The bill is date June 30, 2008, right. Fact is, it was put aside by the Parliament and only now (for well-understandable reasons) it has been resumed. And since a vote of confiance on this bill is very likely to happen, we're really close to the most Iranian-like law we've ever had in Italy. I'm sorry if it happens to be quite non-understandable from outside, but Wikipedia itself is at stake. -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This denial of service is a small but necessary attempt to preserve the future existence of wikipedia in Italy (unless WMF is ready to pay legal assistance to all those users or sysops who will be sued). --Paginazero - Ø 21:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian government does not have jurisdiction over Florida. Seb az86556 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone acting illegally against italian citizens is prosecutable by italian law, even if the fact has not occurred in Italy; this applies also to internet and to informations retained abroad. --Pigr8 21:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There're gonna send their secret service to my house in North America? I'm scared.... Seb az86556 21:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true, Pigr8: this is a common law bill, it's not concerneing criminal law. 93.58.120.244 19:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poll has been started 24 hours before taking a decision: I personally think it is a very short time, no matter whether the subject had been discussed also before. Furthermore, the terms of this "strike" are not well stated: in the discussion there was a proposal of either putting a notification on the site notice or close it.wiki for 24 hours. In the discussion we can see users agreeing for a 24-hour "strike" or for a "strike" of undetermined length, so the consensus wasn't very clear. It.wiki has been closed and in the notice there is no information whatsoever on how long this "strike" will last, nor how and where this can be discussed.

This is a crucial issue: assuming that there was a community consensus on starting this action, who will take the decision of stopping it and where? Since it.wiki has been closed completely, there is not proper way of reaching a new consensus. Not entering into the matter whether this was a right decision or not, I think this action has been handled in a very controversial way --Rutja76 21:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seb* the Italian government can block the DNS of it.wiki if it.wiki doesn't not respect the italian laws. How many users which speak italian will improve the project if it.wiki becomes illegal? --Giancarlodessi 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some of our smart tech-people will find a way around it. You wanna tell me they're gonna block any traffic from and to every EU-country? I don't think so... Seb az86556 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of the Great Firewall of China? :) They can pretty much block websites for access if they want to. You can access them in China via special proxy settings but that's still illegal and if you are caught, you face the consequences... Teemeah 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 users by legal way make a project one user by illegal way does make anything. This is the fact, but you like to dream... --Giancarlodessi 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seb, it's clear that you don't care absolutely for liberty in Italy. We all appreciate your position, the same way we appreciate this very american idea of "Liberty". Thanks a lot, really! --Pigr8 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? what? I care a lot, but I don't care about mole-hills that become mountains. I just don't think the Italian government, a member of the EU, is as powerful as some people think it is. Tell us what you think could happen, and I'm sure there are people who can find a way around it. This isn't the 1940s, there is no Mussolini, and Italy is not China. (by the way, this doesn't mean I'm against your protest, I think it's great. I'm just looking into the future) Seb az86556 21:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support this action entirely. In my opinion, the Italian Wikipedia is doing the right thing, and in the right way. For those of you who say it's disappointing to see politics creeping into Wikipedia, ask yourselves this. In a country which has a President who owns damn near most of the media, and where laws exist already to prevent defamation, slander, etc, (Section 595 of the Italian Criminal Code), why is a new law needed to create such havoc among the web and media community? It's tosh, utter tosh, and I hope it.wp get their message across. I wonder how many Italians tonight are realising wikipedia is gone? Good job guys, keep it up. BarkingFish 21:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's not politics, we're just trying to protect our Project. --Vituzzu 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reaction is really radical. I support this, but a part of me thinks it's not fair. Sure everybody should know what this law could affect the web neutrality, but the readers are taken hostage. The community has decided to do this, so of course, here, we can't do anything to change this. But I hope they will quickly change their type of reaction. So wait and see... I hope the debate will quit the screens and keyboards in order to be IRL. Otourly 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initiative of the Italian-speaking users would also protect the WMF which will get dozens of requests for corrections from Italian personalities who do not like what is written on it.wiki or on any other version of Wikipedia. --Amarvudol 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this action. I think this proposed law is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, of, and I am sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something about this. If this law was to pass it would not only affect the Italian Wikipedia, but all Wikipedia's that have content about italian individuals (so even en.wp). I really hope this gets sorted out. Steven Zhang 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is just making sure there's clear communication about the origin of the closure, how long it's meant to last, who's organizing and maintaining the closure, and who/how to contact with problems (for instance the site's broken entirely with JS off, and some of the discussion pages that are readable have scrolling problems...) --brion 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the Italian job on the matter. However, I would ask the timeline be established as I do not want to see Italian Wikipedia permanently gone. Protest could be downgraded to the sitenotice afterwards probably. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous. WP has always been about neutrality and away from politics. And suddenly, some users on one of the major WP decide to put their political battles on the front line? If they disagree with their politician, the only regular way is canvassing, and voting. Certainly not to take advantage of the huge PR power of WP to advance their cause (whatever its merit). As someone said on the french village pump, it: just blew up most of the ongoing efforts, started 10 years ago, to build WP's credibility. Meodudlye 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "...some users... decide..." is not an accurate description, since this action is based on a community decision. Mathonius 23:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's vote for closing it.wiki, if this law will pass it will be no longer neutral or it won't longer exist. --Vituzzu 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hm. You can always be neutral, unless there's a gun pointed at your own head. Or would you like to neutrally discuss the merits of your own gang-rape? The question is not whether or not this protest is right. The question is how to prepare for the bill actually becoming law. Seb az86556 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your last question is very easy : get out to vote. WP is note about your personal political views and taste. I have no idea what the legislative process in Italy is, and what are the true chances for this bill to pass,and I could not care less. WP is not the place to do some politics specially insuch a brutal and ridiculous way. That's all. Meodudlye 05:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all take into the highest account the credibility of WP. In the near future, anybody, telling that any content (whatever true or not) in WP offends his/her honour, could compel Italian contributors to WP (thus, not exclusively the ones in it.wp) to emend the text by publishing his/her declaration. It would not be possbile neither to give a response nor to cancel the page, and the servers location does not matter at all.

I (and almost all the ones discussing this issue in it.wp) think that this law is a huge violation of the wp pillars, such as NPOV and voluntary freedom to contribute or not. The current dimostrative action seemed us the best way to preserve the credibility of the Project. --151.45.121.162 23:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: : the nutshell of this topic says that "The Italian Wikipedia is on strike since about 20...". What does that mean? 20 hours? Mathonius 23:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means 20:00 UTC, and have edited accordingly. If I'm wrong, please correct.

James F. (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, USA; Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Seoul, South Korea. Only their laws should apply, just as say, Iran's laws do not apply to my dad's favorite American liquor store. If Italian citizens wish to persecute us according to Italian law, they have to catch us committing a crime in Italy. Italian editors are adding information to American, Netherlands, and Korean sites that happen to be in Italian, but these are not Italian websites. Ian.thomson 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only goes for corporate law. Guido den Broeder 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're doing so in Italy, being Italian-citizens against Italian subjects. --Vituzzu 23:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid misunderstandings: this is not a "political protest". We don't want and don't need to go in favour of any political party. In the latter days, I have seen in my community absolutely the widest and most uniform consensus since it.wiki was set up; and this consensus came from users of any political preference, even people who do vote for the current ruling coalition. So please, don't tell it is a political protest, it is a protest against an act which would give a legal protection to refined trolls. According to this act an article could be corrupted by "no matter how many" interruptions by any troll who simply can say that the article offends him. With no serious reasons required. I.e.: if I read an article about an asteroid, and I feel offended by the fact that no one ever named an asteroid in my honour, I could write an email and an admin should post it inside the article, that finally would look like:

Soandso 1234 Doe is an asteroid named in honour of John Doe. According to the Law about Press, this is from Mr. Rossi who says: "Yes they named it in honour of Doe, but my career is for sure more interesting and important, since I used to play billiards until I was 18". The asteroid was discovered by Mr. Smith in 1978. According to the Law about Press, this is from Mr. Bianchi who says: "No merit in Doe's discovery. Me too I could have discovered it, but that evening there was a soccer match on TV and this has to precised, indeed." The asteroid is the the Disturbed Galaxy. ...

Unfortunately, I'm not kidding at all, this is actually and really what the act would bring us to: to see our work disappear among and under the attacks of legal trolls. And just think, just for a minute, what if a politician happens to find an interest in the game.
Against this hypotesis of outrageous destruction of years and years of our honest work, users whose political individual identity goes from the far right wing to the far left one, passing by the "central" ruling parties, were all together in preparing and putting online our document. A few years ago we were all together already, in another (less noisy) protest against a differently ruled government trying to enact a similar limiting legal manoeuvre. All together from any personal political belonging, just like today.
Press and televisions are giving an unprecedented coverage to our protest. The Net is giving us a moral support which I would have never expected Wikipedia could receive. One only thing I dare to ask you here: don't describe us for what we are not. We are Wikipedians and we love our Project. We want to bring it back to freedom and independence asap. The context in which we are forced to do this is rather unusual in the Western World, so please leave aside a little place in your mind to consider that we fiercely are Italians and it is a sad ordeal, right now, to try to be proud of being Italians once again. But we are Italian Wikipedians and we want a free Wikipedia in Italy. Whatever migh it cost to have it. Deep thanks for your comprehension --g 23:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and an heartfelt thank you to the Italian Wikipedia community for taking a stand on this issue. Bouchecl 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:The general schedule of the Parliament is known by months and it was formalized in details (day by day schedule) last 27 Sept. There was no reason to have a one-day decision !!

The problematic article of the bill is secondary in respect of the whole bill. Even the proposers of the bill made declarations that they agreed with modifications simply because it was "bad written" (the aim of problematic article of the bill wass to give the right to have modified some offending statements on internet, something that Wiki already made possible). Moreover the bill is only in an intermediate stage, and even if approved shall return for a new debate and possible approbation/changes to the Italian Senate. A drama for nothing. A ntv 05:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support our fellow Wikipedians at it:wp and thank them for trying to preserve free speech and for upholding our founding principles. I applaud the WMF for standing in solidarity with the Italian Wikipedian community. I'd also like to thank former WMF counsel, Mike Godwin, for his support of it:wp. He expresses my views perfectly. Thank you. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some effect was obtained... Cassinelli (Member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies): «After an intense awareness of the issue, I think I can say that it is now matured in all, including in government, the belief that paragraph 29 should be changed.» --Amarvudol 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a huge misstep. Most people read this as "our S@### government closed wikipedia" or some other rubbish. That law is unfair, but we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a way to try and change it... that's doing politics, and Wikipedia isn't about that... neither it is about protecting Italy's freedom, for how important this is.

And there's no way the discussion held at the "Bar" can be considered enough to take such a radical decision... the 300 users signed in favour of an official communication by WMI, not for this foolhardy action.--109.116.215.120 12:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I would like to know on the basis of which principle, of which authority, a group, an "elite" of users censors an encyclopedia that belongs to the entire world.

Who are the "monarchs" that have access to the shutdown buttons? Who gave them the infallibility? Are they lawyers, philosophers, researchers that analyzed in depth this "law" that is brought forth as the excuse for this "censorship"?

There is complaint for a law that could damage the freedom of Wikipedia. Well, I haven't even read that law because I trust in the Italian democracy and in Italians. And the Italian users that live abroad, especially those who know those countries where there's no freedom of speech or press, they know what I am talking about!

The true attack to liberty comes from those who "obscured" the encyclopedia! To complain about a law that, for good or for worse, could cause the rectification of some content, can an entire encyclopedia be obscured?

I leave this comment without registering, because the many things to do don't leave me time to participate to the discussion: again, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, thus I don't need to register to contribute. But I am disgusted also for this absurd act, and I have the right to state it, here and now.

When the "obscuring" was done by Nonciclopedia because a singer sued due to the voice that ridiculed him, we all smiled, because it was a farce. But when Wikipedia does the obscuring, for political reasons, then the farce becomes tragedy, and we don't laugh, we worry.

Wikipedia in Italian does not belong just to you, it does not belong just to those users that have contributed more or less to the development and the administration of its resources! It belongs to all Italians, even those abroad and even to those who, although not Italian, share with us the knowledge of the most beautiful language of the world, the language of Dante.

Take a look at the "press review" that you openly show in your press release: you made the whole world laugh at you, and you threw mud once more on our wonderful country, a nation of writers, of poets, of geniuses! Shame on you! On you and on the politicians that you criticize! 74.225.255.11 (talk) [moved]

Ban all Italian based IP addresses

As I point out here, closing the Italian Wiki does not prevent any violation of the law. Instead, citizens and residents of Italy are still editing other projects while closing of the Italian Wiki would deny access to non-Italian citizens and residents not affected by the law. This is unacceptable. If we agree that something must be done to prevent the Wikis from being affected by Italian law, the only way we can do that is to ban all Italian IP addresses and ban anyone from editing any WMF wiki from an Italian IP address. Any other course of action is meaningless and would not address the actual proposed legislation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I well remember, only one admin isn't Italian and he's got a sort of illness, by which he sometimes goes to work, other times he gets asleep. Funny syndrome, but not enough for 850k articles. Do you speak Italian? --Fantasma 00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That action is totally and completely bloody stupid, Ottava - and you damn well know it is. What you're basically proposing is we cut off one entire country from editing. Do you realise how utterly ridiculous that sounds? What I'm hoping is that said proposed legislation gets shot down entirely, and hopefully never surfaces to see the light of day again. Jeez. Way to throw the curve. BarkingFish 00:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so shutting down Italian Wiki wont cut them off from editing how? Furthermore, shutting down the Italian Wiki wont prevent en.wiki, Meta, Commons, etc., from falling under Italian law when those Italian editors without a home decide to work on other projects. If they really think that action is necessary, they must accept action that can be affective. You either keep the Italian Wiki or you ban all Italian IPs. Those are the only two choices. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one-day protest; no-one's said anything about a complete shut-down yet. As for the IP-bans, we don't do that for China or wherever, so why Italy? If the Italian government is so concerned, they can do that themselves. Wikpmedia certainly won't. Seb az86556 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing that people want more than a one day shut down out of protest. My statement is merely to say that if they really want to avoid the penalty, this is the only appropriate solution. I don't want the it.wiki or Italian users banned. I am merely pointing out that meaningless statements don't accomplish anything and that real solutions would be far too painful for them to want to accept. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava has a point. What is going to prevent the Italians from editing, say, the English Wikipedia and violating Italian law from there? If the Italian government was willing, they would ban all access to all WMF projects by their directive. However, that has not been the case, and this certainly looks more like a propaganda move on the part of the Italian Wikipedia than anything else. Not to say that is bad, though, to say the least – perhaps the Italian government needs a "swift kick in the pants" as far as freedoms of the press are concerned, and this I think is a means to that. MuZemike 06:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. We must talk about the worst case scenario. It must be feared that within the European Union any editor is a risk. An Italian subject could demand by any British citizen sysop to remove such content even from the English language Wikipedia and if he does not fulfill this demand he would commit a crime in Italy for which he likely would be tried, maybe convicted even in absentia and after some months British law enforcement would have to execute such a convivtion. The same would apply for sysops of German, French or any other citizenship amongst the other EU member states. This law pretty much affects the English language Wikipedia as well.

There's another problem. If a complaining person can demand to remove an unwished content, so I am understanding the law, it must be removed as well from the article's history. Imagine a case in which that content was already in the article in the very fist version, all the versions in the history would heve to be at least hidden, maybe deleted. That would effectively break CC-BY-SA as well as GFDL. That would certainly need to delete the article in its entirety. What leads to the next catch: the law allows the complaing person to demand that a sentence or a phrase in the next would be permanently changed into any version that person wishs. It does not matter wether true or not. And it says permanently, maybe it would be unlawful to delete such an article anyway. What certainly leads to the situation that we perhaps won't be able to delete articles we want to delete because of it would be unlawful to do so. The only solution to circumvent that problem would be to delete each and every article on a living Italian person. Off course in each language version which is commonly used within the EU because a citizen of an EU member state can be held responsible for committing a crime in any other EU member state. --88.102.101.245 11:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian government could not demand a sysop to do something to a Brit because they would have no authority to request information to the WMF and locate the Brit or prove that he did do the actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's really not necessary to ban all the italian IPs. Surely italian editors are responsible even for their edits on other wiki projects, such as meta. en. ... WMF and their offshore (talking about italy) servers are no way compelled to host any non-editable correction.

WMF and their offshore servers could be only sentenced to some fee if an italian editor published (without correction by WMF or its representative) something that it's a crime for both the italian and the USA law.

Really no reason to fear about this italian proposed law. Should it pass, then italian editors could be compelled to publish corrections and offshore admins would be free to delete them. Italian editors only then would be sentenced to pay some fee. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 14:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a proposal to do anything, so you don't need to vote oppose. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actions come from ideas, voting while discussing it's a shortening path... ZipoBibrok5x10^8 14:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BarkingFish said What you're basically proposing is we cut off one entire country from editing. That's the point. Do you realize now the consequences this bill would have ? Do you understand what we're trying to oppose ? --Webwizard 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a drama (with political purpose) - Please stop this nonsense

I'm an Italian user, and a lawyer. I feel compelled to describe the abuse that Italian users are experiencing. About the content of the announcement and the motivation given I must underline that the protest is not against a law, but only against a "draft-law", a bill, that hasn't yet even been discussed in any of the two houses of the Italian parliament since 2008. The issue, however, concerns common law, not criminal law: a difference that I would define "essential". Among other things, the "DDL" (the bill) absolutely would not change the current situation, because the faculty to request the correction of the articles already exists. The Wikimedia servers are located in Florida and are not subjected at all to the Italian law: please no more stories!

About the surprising method used to imposea Project blackout and an absurd official statement to an entire community: it has been an initiative of few administrator of it.wikipedia, signing wikipedia users is unfair and biased.

1: There was no consensus at the base of the publication of the press. No consensus. Some italian admins and (few emails in the andmins' mailing list) aren't enough to blackout the Project.

2: It was decided to publish a communicate and to blackout the project without the right advertising: all has been done in one day, no threads on irc, no serious discussions on the village pump. Where is consensus? Had Wikimedia foundation been warned that a political communicate had benn published on every single page of it.wiki? Do it agree? I don't think so. Who takes responsability for that? Which admin?

Wikipedia has been deliberately obscured just with a political purposes. Wikipedia has become a vehicle of disinformation and mystification: the Italian government can block the DNS of it.wiki if it.wiki doesn't not respect the italian laws.. False: what does it mean?! I has nothing to do with this stupid bill. Wikipedia has been used by Italian admins for political purposes. What a shame. 109.117.158.191 03:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed something: Wikipedia is political. We take the stance for free speech and information. That in itself is political. Tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance; neutrality does not mean being neutral about the question whether or not there should be neutrality. Seb az86556 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now seems to be only political. I can't read any article. But, who need articles, education, quality content? Too much drama to me, sorry. Leandro Martinez msg 05:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

109.117.158.191, You are 100% right, the blanking has been made only for political purposes, and mistifications. Too much drama for nothing. It was only a proposed clause in a law concerning other issues. Not even the final deliberation. A ntv 05:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

109.*, dato che sei italiano, te lo scrivo in italiano: le tue affermazioni sono false e tendenziose. Il consenso c'era eccome, le discussioni pure. Trecento wikipediani che sottoscrivono questo ti sembrano pochi?? E dove e quando si è fatta sentire la gran massa dei contrari? Di certo non al bar! --151.75.14.198 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: i reati commessi in Italia sono soggetti alla legge italiana. I contenuti inviati dall'Italia devono rispettare la legge italiana, a prescindere dalla locazione dei server - in Florida, in Svervegia, o dovunque ti pare. Che ti piaccia o no, la maggioranza degli utenti di it.wiki è italiana e risiede in Italia. E meno male che sei un lawyer. --151.75.14.198 07:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(109 .*, because you are Italian, I am writing in Italian: Your statements are false and misleading. The consensus was all right, the discussions as well. Do three hundred Wikipedians who subscribe to this seem to you a few? Where and when was heard the great mass of opposites? Certainly not at the bar! - 151.75.14.198 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC) PS: the crimes committed in Italy are subject to Italian law. The content posted in Italy must respect the Italian law, regardless of the location of the server - in Florida, Svervegia, or wherever you like. Like it or not, the majority of users of it.wiki is Italian and lives in Italy. And thank goodness you're a lawyer. - 151.75.14.198 07:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

You are misrepresenting the signatures' purpose there, it seems. They did not sign to blank all pages, only to endorse a position statement of the Italian Wikimedia verbally protesting the law/draft. I see nothing in that statement that proposes or authorizes the mass blanking of all Italian Wikipedia pages. Have mörser, will travel 08:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The darkening of Wikipedia in Italian, which has undeniable political purposes, is a nonsense that discredits the principle of neutrality on which Wikipedia is founded. It is also ridiculous and offensive that a few dozen Users, exalted and fanatical, they can make such a decision, signed on as "The users of Wikipedia."
L'oscuramento di Wikipedia in lingua italiana, che ha innegabili scopi politici, è una scemenza che scredita il principio di neutralità sui cui wikipedia è fondata. Inoltre è ridicolo e offensivo che poche decine di utenti, esaltati e fanatici, possano prendere una simile decisione, firmandosi come "Gli utenti di Wikipedia".
--93.70.41.106 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points more:

The consensus was total among those who discussed day after day in it.wiki. Of course there are differences, but I believe that the action is almost the best interpretation of the community's feelings on the topic.
As the eldest Wikipedian in it.wiki in terms of Wikipedian career, and I say this just to give a historical context, I witness that this was the widest and most uniform consensus I have ever seen in our Project. Ever. To find a similar consensus, I must go back to the (short) times in which I was the only and sole user and I had, indeed, a few minor doubts; but here I am, as you can see...
Before the action, the community's discussion was visible, known of, and read by externals too. I privately received a sort of "sign of attention" by an individual who I verified could effectively happen to be influential for an eventual "diplomatic" solution. I described our issues and worries. The prompt answer (by other fellows) was a proposal to reduce the economical amount of the fine...
No one of us, in case the law will be enacted, will be able to take personal risks about 850k articles in which any single word could be instrumentally used to make trouble. No one of us can afford the risk in a moment in which many of us already have economical problems due to the crisis. And our families, our sons deserve that we make a good encyclopedia to help them in their growth, they don't deserve that their father/mother gets into economical/legal trouble for it. Translation: if that law is enacted, I won't be able to work in it.wiki any more, and so won't the other users.
Our admins are called in Italian "amministratore"; in legal terms, the legal meaning of this word is somewhat similar to what describes our developers, with an additional undefiined responibility on the site they manage. In Italy an "amministratore" can be called to respond of what the site contains at any level. This is a permanent risk which was pulling us to change their name and there was a discussion about a renaming option. In such a peculiar condition we could not count on any Italian admin to help going on. The project would be deserted the same day the act should pass.

So, we have no alternative opportunities. The true sense of our action is that if anyone wants to turn off it.wiki, we won't allow him to do it, if necessary we turn it off by ourselves, with our hands. With our clean hands. This law won't be eternal. We will be back. By now this is the scenario in which we have to wander around.
Two things are important to me in this moment:

the action allowed me to watch at the most perfect unanimity and harmony among so many differently minded persons. This is what wikiworld in my humble opinion is for. We saw it in Italy. And this is a success, an astonishing positive fruit for all these years of patient sowing.
the support we are receiving is absolutely fantastic, as well, and this is a good food for our hopes.

Thank you. No need to tell more: thank you :-) --g 09:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Gianfrà, ancora ci provi a parlare con Ligabo? Magari lo scriviamo pure "be aware of 93.70.41.106, he had just an hundred sockpuppets."? --Vituzzu 09:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View Gianfranco, I am not "the user older," but on wikipedia in Italian (and beyond) since 2005 I have written hundreds of items (some listed here [4]) that have been deemed worthy of translation into other languages and also have been copied thousands of websites.
It may seem strange, but none of these items I feel threatened by the new law. Maybe because I have always respected the NPOV and sources.
So, I confirm that the dimming of Wikipedia in Italian only has a political purpose and discredits the encyclopedia.
My answer to you, recognizing you from the builders of the encyclopedia.
I can not answer Vituzzo who has never contributed to building the encyclopedia, but that is only to assert his POV. Clearly the idea of signing "Wikipedia users" is his: he thinks he is Wikipedia.

Vedi Gianfranco, io non sono "l'utente più anziano", ma su wikipedia in italiano (e non solo) dal 2005 ho scritto centinaia di voci (alcune elencate qui [5]) che sono state ritenute meritevoli di traduzione in altre lingue e, inoltre, sono state copiate in migliaia di siti web.
Ti sembrerà strano, ma per nessuna di queste voci mi sento minacciato dalla nuova legge. Forse perché ho sempre rispettato il NPOV e le fonti.
Quindi, confermo che l'oscuramento di Wikipedia in italiano ha solo uno scopo politico e discredita l'enciclopedia.
Rispondo a te, riconoscendoti tra i costruttori dell'enciclopedia.
Non posso rispondere a Vituzzo che non ha mai contribuito alla costruzione dell'enciclopedia, ma che è presente solo per affermare il suo POV. Chiaramente l'idea di firmarsi "Gli utenti di Wikipedia" è sua: egli pensa di essere Wikipedia.

--93.70.41.106 10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma te lo trovi un babelfish migliore? Btw non sei tu quello che se c'era 'sta norma pagavi 12.500 euri sull'unghia? --Vituzzu 12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The Wikimedia servers are located in Florida and are not subjected at all to the Italian law: please no more stories!

About the surprising method used to imposea Project blackout and an absurd official statement to an entire community:
it has been an initiative of few administrator of it.wikipedia, signing wikipedia users is unfair and biased.

Back to the main topic, this strike has to be immediately stopped since:

it's useless
it should have been decided using a global it.wiki polling

If a few admins fear that being the italian admins will be a risk, in terms of possible 12k euro fees, then they should resign their rights and simply substitute the main page with a strong manifesto. Global denial of wiki-service is an unbearable abuse. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write just because you have to move your fingers. Write only if you really know the subject. The Wikimedia servers are in Florida and are not subject to the Italian laws, but the content which is sent from Italy must respect those laws indeed. I.e. the gratest part of the contributions on the Italian wikipedia must respect those laws. Ecchecavolo, scrivete solo se avete cognizione di causa, altrimenti si capisce la vostra ignoranza sull'argomento e la cattiva abitudine di non leggere ciò che gli altri hanno già scritto. --151.75.21.114 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentence above: It was decided to publish a communicate and to blackout the project without the right advertising.
I feel a strong protest was needed, because the law under discussion is really very dangerous - but protest should have been limited to the communicate, without full, immediate blackout. We cannot kill the baby in order to save it from killers - that is, we need to protest against a real threat to wikipedia itself, but we must find better strategies.Rdelre 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close the Italian chapter

Well, there does exists a remedy against this shame of political misuse of WMF resources by the Italian: close the Italian chapter of WMF, an action which WMF can do. Also, WMF should immediately take the appropriate steps against this ridiculous action and make It.Wp immediately available at once. A "Cease and desist" action, if properly set up, could also do. Then, appropriate measures should be taken by WMF against the responsibles of this behaviour. What a deprecable situation. --79.21.209.78 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian chapter, AFAIK, is not having a role in this~~, and I don't recall reading a statement from them about it~~. What I do recall is support from Jimbo, Sue and many others on foundation-l and other websites. --Elitre 09:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the initiative has been taken by local community (not the chapter), so, I guess, to you is worth to close Italian-speakers community, it's a good point. --Vituzzu 09:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Italia has posted a message on their website denying responsibility for the blackout, but supporting the community for their actions. I don't think chapters should get the blame for what their communities are doing: remember that the chapters are entities distinct from their national editing communities. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they support the action. -- Dragonòt 15:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone know that all members of Wikimedia Italia, the WMF italian chapter, are it.wiki admins or ex-admins? WMF must take action against this abuse of hundreds of thousands of Italian users' rights. --109.112.86.120 16:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. As far as I can see on this page, there are 383 members on WMIT. On it.wiki, there are 101 active sysops and less than 80 former sysops. So, it seems strange, from a mathematical point of view, that "all members" are (ex)admins. Also, I know at least one sysop who is not a WMIT member. Your statement seems a bit superficial, presuming good faith. --Baruneju 17:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be a member of Wikimedia Italia (and I will be again when I remember to pay the fee). I am not an admin. I never was. And I support the strike. So, please stop making unfounded allegations. --Lou Crazy 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the user above meant that quite all members of board of directors of Wikimedia Italia are admins or ex-admins

The WMI BOARD is formed by: members of board:

it:Utente:Frieda, Frieda Brioschi - president, ex-admin
it:Utente:DracoRoboter, Roberto Corda, vicepresident, ex-admin
it:Utente:Aubrey, Andrea Zanni, secretary
it:Utente:Cotton, Alessio Guidetti, treasurer, actually admin
it:Utente:CristianCantoro, Cristian Consonni, projects director

ombudsmen:

it:Utente:.mau., Maurizio Codogno, actually admin
it:Utente:Paginazero, Gianluigi Gamba, actually admin
it:Utente:MM, Marina Milella, actually admin
it:Utente:Marcok, Marco Chemello, actually admin
it:Utente:Sannita, Luca Martinelli, actually admin

so please, let's stop giving wrong information to the community. This is an admins political protest, not a Community protest. 93.58.120.244 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what? Admins are trusted users on all wikis. We are not evil. Przykuta 15:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So please don't say Italian chapter are indipendent from it.wiki adminship.

So please don't say Italian Wikipedia strike wasn't an admin protest.

So please don't say Italian Wikipedia blackout was supported by the Community: it.wiki has more than 670,000 registered users, and actually 9,000 active users. The users who participated to the one-day long discussion about starting the strike was less than 0.02% of them.

So please don't say that there was enough consensus on the blanking of the Italian Project.

Thank you. 93.58.120.244 17:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, definely:

Support closing of Italian chapter and immediate deflagging of all admin involved in this misuse of their role and in the abuse (in a politicized way) of a WMF Project spreading false news about the content of a law proposal. 93.58.120.244 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ombudsmen are not part of WM-IT board (they were created in the case some member of the Italian chapter disagree with the board - so this is an internal issue of WM-IT). If you peruse the discussions, you may check that I did not vote for (or against) the block. Since I knew that I had to speak about it, I just suggested some minor modifications of the prose. Maybe 93.58.120.244 has not clear what the duties of a spokesperson (or an ombudsman) are. --.mau. ✉ 09:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins making threats

What happens if the admins of the Italian Wikipedia decide to carry through with their threat and attempt to delete all articles on the Italian Wikipedia? Should the WMF continue to support them even then? Surely a Wikipedia with no editors and 850K articles would be more useful than a Wikipedia with no articles. It seems like we need a plan B, in case support and solidarity doesn't work out. -- Tim Starling 12:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really belive we're all got crazy? Do you really belive we have been working to it.wiki for 8 years to destroy it?

--Vituzzu 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not drunk... And I've not created over 1,200 articles just to see them deleted. --151.56.109.170 12:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is meant as a threat from the admins; it's saying "this is what we could be forced to do by the government". Seb az86556 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What admins did is supported by many italian editors as you can see in our village pump (and most of them wanted it.wiki closed until the law will be changed). As 151.56... said I'm not glad to see my 4,000 new articles in over 4 years deleted, but it needs. Ramatteo 13:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you really belive we have been working to it.wiki for 8 years to destroy it?" Yes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. ^^ --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 14:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't joke, please. If any of our admin just thinks about deleting articles, will be physically eliminated, and they know it :) Really, we are discussing about continuing the protest, but the idea of destroying articles is not matter of discussion. There is no need of plan B because there is no such plan A. --Pigr8 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not crazy: they are simply a bunch of hooligans who have finally found the opportunity to gain national visibility, using honest and generous work of others. --93.70.41.106 14:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come te che ti tieni l'egobox su commonse? Ma yawn! --Vituzzu 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have no need: the items that you list them written on a postage stamp. It would be space.

Tu non ne hai alcun bisogno: le voci che hai scritte potresti elencarle su un francobollo. E resterebbe spazio. :)

--93.70.41.106 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noto una certa necessità di autoglorificarsi sul vuoto...urca! Comunque un consiglio, non postare in inglese perché non si capisce una verza e ci facciamo cattiva figura noi italioti. --Vituzzu 17:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks to use English, Vituzzu.[reply]

I'm sorry you to create inferiority complexes. As for the "English version", I enclose the translation Google for reasons of courtesy, and who is not satisfied, can translate the original text.

Mi spiace crearti complessi di inferiorità [6]. Quanto alla "versione inglese", allego la traduzione Google per ragioni di cortesia; chi non è soddisfatto, può tradurre il testo originale.

--93.70.41.106 07:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why nobody knows when this strike will end? Where is consensus about it? Who decided it? Vituzzu and other admins isn't it? Please stop this admins' shameful strumentalizzazion of our Project. Please, asap. 109.116.191.78 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very idea that someone (even the devs, given the worldwide distribution of the dumps!) could - even willing (and no one expressed such intention) - effectively delete the articles of it.wiki is PURE NONSENSE, and is revealing of the understanding of Wikipedia by the average critics of the Italian Community struggle. --Piero Montesacro 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia reasonably well, check my user page. I'm not talking about deleting all copies of Wikipedia, I'm just concerned that someone will try to "delete", i.e. temporarily through the web interface using a bot, a large number of articles. This would cause a lot of database load, and it may well fall to me to stop it and clean it up. So I'm glad Vituzzu says he's not going to do it. -- Tim Starling 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't' check your signature, sorry. Please read again your statement at the start of this section. It says something entirely different to what you have just said here above. Now that I have read your signature, I feel even more compelled to ask you where *you* got the idea that someone will try to "delete", i.e. temporarily through the web interface using a bot, a large number of articles. --Piero Montesacro 22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Moreover, being, as you are, one of the historical developers, I hope you can agree on the fact that the blanking of it.wiki has been done in a way that - at least under a technical viewpoint - vas aimed to minimize any possible damage to the system (it can be reverted with just a few clicks and it does not appear to cause any overcharge to the infrastructure). So, should not be shown a reliable source of the alleged threat of "deleting it.wiki" to which you referred, I do tend to believe that you should apologize for diffusing such baseless rumors, whose aim is and remains unclear. --Piero Montesacro 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to it:Wikipedia:Comunicato 4 ottobre 2011/en, which says "As things stand, the page you want still exists and is only hidden, but the risk is that soon we will be forced to actually delete it." If you don't want people to think that you are threatening to delete articles, then maybe you shouldn't redirect every page on your wiki to a page that contains such a threat. -- Tim Starling 01:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I really can't imagine what you might have read, the only fact is that if the law is enacted, there is a possibility that someone starts considering that 845k articles will be there without any users looking at them apart from proxy-vandals. And without admins. So I can think, in that case, maybe a dev could be asked to simply turn it.wiki off. That's all, nothing more (!). The climax here can be resumed in this fact: admins are working full time, serving in absolute correctness, even on things they don't completely agree upon. We have excellent admins, whom any Project would be proud of, no risks at all under this pov. The only mass-deletions which we can think about, might regard some BLPs, because I believe that there should be consensus about a restriction of currently "generous" criteria for inclusion. This would eventually cause many deletions (which however ought to be well organised before). In our database BLPs (98,000, more or less) represent 11.5% of all articles. But... it's too early to get into that topic at the moment :-) --g 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, to me, that means: there is a risk that the wikipedia page you wanted to read is one of the pages which would fall under the scope of the new law, and it might be deleted or defaced in the future because someone asks for a "rettifica"...

--Lou Crazy 01:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thanks for replying. Much of course, I do share the views expressed above by Gianfranco and Lou Crazy. At least, I hope that this section helped to further remove some misunderstandigs about our struggle, after all. So, thanks again. --Piero Montesacro 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, I have just added "by Law" to the statement that sounded ambiguous to Tim. Hoping this fixes the problem. --Piero Montesacro 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Starling hit the point. Admins used threats to make their communicate more impressive. Here above we can read italian admins and ex-admins worried to assure nobody wants to delete the articles. So why they put that threat in the statement? It:Utente:Vituzzu/Comunicato 4 ottobre 2011: who did prepare the text? Community or admins? This is a dark page of Wikipedia history. 93.58.120.244 14:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim: I guess nobody will hold a flag being forced to do anything. --Vituzzu 20:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to stir up the pot here, but legally speaking it may end up being better for at least those editors who live in Italy to have the articles deleted completely or at least be "off-line" until the law can be changed. This should be considered only after extensive discussion with legal counsel and something done jointly between the WMF and the Italian Wikipedia community, but there may be some valid reasons for removing everything. The issue here is how far the Italian government might want to reach with its judicial system in enforcing these laws and what impact that law may have upon contributions by Italian editors if the contents in even a "read-only" version of Wikipedia are subject to these libel laws. How this impacts the contributions by editor/contributors from Italy on projects other than the Italian Wikipedia is to me just as concerning, although those contributions can be dealt with on a case by case basis. The defacto impact of this law may result in the elimination of any content contributed by Italian citizens subject to this law.

For myself, I would hope that the Italian Wikipedia stay on-line in spite of the law even if it passes, and simply "dare" the Italian courts to act. If the United States Congress (since I'm an American) were to pass a similar law, that is precisely what I would do and deliberately challenge the law in such a blatant fashion refusing to make the accommodations this law is insisting upon and reverting what I would consider to be trolls. But since it isn't my behind on the line, I can understand the concern which the Wikimedia users in Italy are going through. This is a serious issue, and I can certainly understand the motivation of the administrators at it.wp to say the things they said and did. --Roberth 01:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News

(Italian) It seems that things are going well, the government is changing the paragraph 29 --80.252.224.242 15:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That confirmed the political purpose of the "strike". --109.112.86.120 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, you can see this decision was made official today, but the changes in the law were already presented in the last days. This shows how much this action by a few sysops and users of it.wiki has been foolhardy and taken without the necessary discussion and calmness. I hope they understand this action *didn't* "make the government change the law" (which would be negative by itself, as the user over me explained), but just damaged Wikipedia's reputation to a great extent, spoiling years of work... Who will believe us, now, when we say we're indeed neutral?

And signing that communicate as "the users of it.wiki" after just 30 or so people gave their consensus to that is just disrespectful.--109.117.192.255 16:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with political actions. Perhaps you missed that, but the very fact of releasing an encyclopaedia under a commons license has a huge political significance. The action is targeting one particular bill that could cause serious problems to it.wiki; it is neither against the Italian government per se, nor against the majority party. ~~In any case, I don't know why I'm wasting my time speaking to someone that has been banned ~100 times (including reincarnations).~~ Balabiot 16:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Ligabo, sorry :) (I didn't think my english was terrible enough to be mistaken for his... :P).

I'm not saying the users who did this thought about it as a political action. But people either badly misunderstood the action ("the f***** government closed Wikipedia!") or interpreted it as political. And that's what matters, sadly. And taking such a strong decision after such a short discussion, signing it all as "the users of Wikipedia", is very, very bad.

But if you're saying Wikipedia *is* a political project, then I'm the one wasting my time I fear... Unless you mean "political" in a wider way than it's commonly meant.--109.117.192.255 16:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doh, sorry for the innuendo about your English. :) Yes, I mean "political" in a very wide sense. I'll just quote Kat Walsh: "Our existence itself is not politically neutral, and I do think that WMF, as well as local chapters and communities, should get involved in policy where it affects the ability of the sites to operate". Balabiot 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "political". The blanking out of the pages was a political decision in the sense that it affects politics, but was not a decision against the present government or majority. I do not even know who put Paragraph 29 in the text of the bill, and I cannot exclude that (s)he was a member of the opposition. --.mau. ✉ 09:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why Italian Wikipedia strike is just a shameful political issue

The communicate on it.wiki says:

Today, unfortunately, the very pillars on which Wikipedia has been built - neutrality, freedom, and verifiability of its contents - are likely to be heavily compromised by paragraph 29 of a law proposal, also known as "DDL intercettazioni" (Wiretapping Act).: it's false.
anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia can directly request to publish a "corrected" version, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources': even false.

The truth: paragraph 29 of this law proposal should modify an italian law in force since 1946 (article nr. 8 of Law nr. 47/1948, february 8 1948). This law specifies that a Judge, a court and a trial is needed to decide if a news is or is not false or offensive, and only a court may impose the obligation to rectify. The paragraph 29 of this bill just extends the effects of this law to online newspaper and websites: nothing strange or new (it's a legal praxis already introduced by several sentences of the Italian supreme court) and something similar to other European Countries. That's a political issue, and it was filled of falsity, misrepresentations and misinformation. Signed: 109.114.109.112 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC) «Wikipedia users»[reply]

As I told you yesterday I'm wondering if you really took a look at the proposal. --Vituzzu 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, of course. I think you'd better to give adequate and trustful explanations about your conduct as admin in a WMF project. 109.116.191.78 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 8 states "The director or responsible person will insert declarations or corrections freely in the newspaper, magazine or press agency releases, as requested by subjects whose pictures were published, or to whom acts or thoughts or affirmations were attributed that they consider to damage their dignity or to be against the truth, as long as publishing said declarations or corrections does not expose to prosecution". Article 21 states that whenever article 8 is not followed the "pretore" (who is not a judge) will examine the matter. So of course the intervention of the "pretore" is needed to fine editors, but anybody can request the publication of declarations or corrections under the threat of suing the director or responsible person (which could be either the editor or a random admin---in any case not a good outcome). Balabiot 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC) (by the way, the article modifies that law as it has been modified previously; the text visible in wikisource is the original text, which is different even though the bulk of them is the same).[reply]

No! Not at all. I'm sorry but you are wrong. A Pretore is a judge of a common law tribunal (and the law nr.47 is in force since 1948). This is one of the reasons why Italian admins' communicate is false, and this is one of the reason why that is just a politcal (and politicized) protest. Italians admins who promote the blanking of the Italian Project should immediately desysopped and WMF should take distance from this ashameful manipulation of Wikipedia. 93.58.120.244 13:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be precise the "pretore" does not exist anymore as it was meant in the 1948 law, but at the time the law was written the pretore operated in a pretura rather than in a tribunale (court). Anyway, he/she is only involved after you have rejected publication of the rebuttal; the real problem is that (unless you want to go through a long and expensive civil lawsuit) you can choose whether to abide by law, or by NPOV. Do you know the (true) story of the guy who rebutted to a newspaper that the report of his incarceration was offending his dignity, and at the same time was sending the letter from a state prison? Balabiot 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the truth Balabiot. The text of 1948 law was upgraded years ago and the word "pretore" was substituted by "common law tribunal". Juridical situation has been completely mystified by who wrote the communicate, and you are helping to keep mystifying it. 93.58.120.244 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that: "the text visible in wikisource is the original text, which is different even though the bulk of them is the same" from the one that is being modified. Anyway, what part do you disagree with? That a judge could fine "Wikipedia" just because they didn't publish the rebuttal, even if Wikipedia were presenting sourced facts? That the judge would fine whoever was brought to a lawsuit rather than the abstract entity "Wikipedia"? That users, administrators and WMI (which has been sued in the past) would be the one at risk of being sued? That whoever were sued would have to bear untolerable legal costs? That if Wikipedia abode by every single request of rebuttal (including the request to publish them in an unmodifiable way and without comments) or even one such request it would not be free anymore? These points are the crux of the matter. Balabiot 17:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warn Italian based IP addresses

In case the law gets approved in this form, I suggest simply to warn the Italian based IP addresses through a message before editing (like the ones IMSLP sends before downloading about copyright) which says something as "You may have legal issues etc.". I don't think banning Italian IP addresses would be a great idea, because the main articles dealing with this law are biographies of living persons (It is not realistic that the heirs of en:Dante Alighieri will ask me for a fine of 12.000€ just because they dont like what i wrote about him, while some politicians may disagree if we talk about the trials in which they are involved...), not other kind of articles.--Nickanc 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity with the Italian community

Hi dear Kolleagues. Here you can see that german wikipedians did address their solidarity with the italian community. de:Wikipedia:Solidaritätserklärung_mit_dem_italienischen_Wikipedia-Streik. We invite you to participate in our solidary adress or would encourage you to initiate another solidarity adress in your own. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 20:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to enable read mode in Italian Wikipedia (Firefox)

If you want to gain a read access again to Italian Wikipedia's article without waiting the block being removed, and without extension's help, there are two simple step to follow:

Create a file named "userContent.css" in "your profile/chrome" folder How to locate Firefox's Profiles with the following content

  @-moz-document url-prefix(http://it.wikipedia.org/)
  {
  .portlet,#siteNotice,#siteSub,#contentSub{display:inline !important}
  #bodyContent,#footer{display:inline-block !important}
  #catlinks,#firstHeading{display:block !important}
 }

Create a file named "user.js" in "your profile" folder with the following content

  user_pref("capability.policy.policynames", "wikipedia");
  user_pref("capability.policy.wikipedia.sites", "http://it.wikipedia.org");
  user_pref("capability.policy.wikipedia.Location.replace", "noAccess");

The first step will enforce the browser showing hidden content, the second step will revoke at the Italian Wikipedia the right to redirect pages trough javascript. When you want to disable those two file you simple need to delete them, double checking your pref.js not showing again the lines you added in user.js --174.122.236.227 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or just use the mobile version. :P Balabiot 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for resignations

I am calling for the resignation of those people from the Foundation who have supported the Italian move. The ones that are supposed to be the last ones standing for the defense of Wikipedia's neutrality are currently those preventing the free access to information and destroying our neutrality. What will we say to the Chinese when we will come to them and ask them to stop blocking our sites for political reasons? We are doying the same, and with the full support of the Foundation! Thierry Caro 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The protest is radical, but necessary. The DDL intercettazioni will destroy the italian Wikipedua. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.170.229.140 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation is supposed to defend Wikipedia. The law under discussion threatens Wikipedia. so the Foundation was right in supporting the strike. I support them!

--Lou Crazy 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling for the resignation of Thierry Caro as a user on the WIkimedia projects, because what s/he's written above offends the intelligence of whoever reads this page. --151.75.37.66 06:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with Thierry Caro. 93.58.120.244 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting our colleagues

We all know about the situation in Italy, the prosposed law would make it impossible to edit in the italian edition, as noone can be expected to do voluntary work, that is endangered by high fines. The italian colleagues deserve support. They use a different language, but those, who want the spread to knowledege of mankind should not be seperated by those small boundaries. The fact, that the corrupted italian governement can not reach us with its courts does not mean, that it does not strike the basic ideas of the complete Wikipedia. The italian colleagues try to defend our basic values like the freedom of information. We should not only be solidaric with them, we should support their protest. The German Wikipedia has mentioned the protest on its main page. I do not know if it has been the major cause, but this issue is present in many blogs, forums and also all the major media. There is also a solidarity page at the german Wikipedia, where local users can sign to show their support. It would be great, if the english Wikipedia could mention this issue on the main page. --Liberaler Humanist 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full support. I think that this is indeed necessary. -- Andreas Werle 21:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this section is supposed to demonstrate that there are more supporters than people against, stop it now. I do know that. And that is precisely what makes me sad. We do not care anymore abit'sout our encyclopedias. What counts is the childish passion for lobbying that has become our new motto since we have realized that we are big. We are now ready to block our contents just to have our power prevail. Thierry Caro 21:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you don't understand what's going on, first of all you should inform yourself much better. We are facing the termination of the project, and if you see this just as a "political misuse" of the project, you are really shortsighted, assuming good faith. The alternative is that you're just trolling... --Webwizard 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you care about Wikipedia, but I do. --Liberaler Humanist 22:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to beat a dead horse: We are political, we do lobby; always have been, always have. So stop using the words "political" or "lobbying" as if it was some accusation of evil. If you are against being political, you are in the wrong place. Seb az86556 22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do lobby... through our local chapters. Not on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, indeed! Thierry Caro 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I refuse to be brought into the debate over the Italian legislative project. The problem is: we are using our encyclopedia for the promotion of something else. The rest is not my problem. It is the one of those who want to get into it through other ways. Thierry Caro 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are using our encyclopedia to protect two pillars; 'Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view', wich will be no more if anyone could force wikipedia to show his POV on any page and 'Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.' which will also collapse. Seems quite fair to me to have some survival instinct. 79.2.8.131 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. That's just not the right way to protest against this, and I'm terribly disappointed by the way in which it was decided to do so... Do you understand Wikipedia's reputation has taken an hard blow because of this strike? May you at least consider that for a second? May you consider the fact such a short discussion is in no way enough to sign the communicate as "the users of Wikipedia"?--109.114.50.120 05:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support. It's a politicized and manipulated way to protest. Only a part of Italian community supports the protest, and only after the blanking was already done by the admins. If WMF has a political point of view we must knew it. 93.58.120.244 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian media

Italian media which are tools of the "regime" speaks very bad about Wikipedia ... translate it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RygPOmuTBc0 --151.74.59.9 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very old. :) --Pequod76^(adminiubbo) 22:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attacks against Wiki are not uncommon. Maria Stella Gelmini sayd that's a bad way to the knowledge cause affirms the false. Find it. They wanna go against this "dangerous" project --151.74.59.9 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) _{e poi sono italiano anch'io}[reply]

non so se sei italiano, ma posso affermare con assoluta certezza che non sei inglese :P --151.75.43.133 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point of it all, really. "Fight our f***** Government!! They're attacking Wiki!!!". How sad...--109.114.50.120 05:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{eheheh era scritto così male?} --151.74.0.172 14:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, sì. La costruzione è italiana, le parole sono inglesi. (il risultato è che sbagli la grammatica.) Non pensare in italiano per tradurre in inglese. Invece dovresti pensare direttamente in inglese. Chiudo qui l'off-topic. :) --151.75.70.100 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Success?

Ok, now we know that it.wiki will be kept out of the norma ammazza-blog. THAT'S GREAAAAT :D --151.75.43.133 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment has to be approved yet. :-(

--Lou Crazy 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When IT wikipedians voted LMO wiki closure

IT wikipedians are usual to do political actions. Do you remember when IT wikipedians opened and voted LMO closure: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lombard Wikipedia? That was a political action, supported by italian chapter president. Now IT wikipedian are in strike for freedom of their wiki, but in the past they violated LMO wiki freedom. -- Dragonòt 07:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Balabiot 08:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all, you don't have many contributes on Meta, but your nickname is referenced a lot of time here: Requests_for_comment/The_meatpuppeting_attack_to_the_LMO_wikipedia_-_Corrective_actions_requested. -- Dragonòt 09:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the old LMO.wiki was better than the current one, you could have forked it any time. But this is so OT I don't care. Balabiot 10:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The demonstration that IT wikimedians do political actions, the current strike as the LMO closure request, is completely In Topic. -- Dragonòt 12:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put a huge ^{[citation needed]} on the fact that reporting the sorry state of lmo.wiki was a political action. Please answer my doubt, do you think that LMO.wiki was better in ~~2008~~ 2006 than today? Balabiot 13:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the illegal actions of you and of IT wikipedians (Requests_for_comment/The_meatpuppeting_attack_to_the_LMO_wikipedia_-_Corrective_actions_requested) were before the 2008. -- Dragonòt 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wikipedians do not need your personal endorsement to do any action they feel to do with a respect to the Five Pillars and to guarantee their respect in the country in wich they live (since that the law would affect - through IP addresses - the people who makes edits and who receives the request to force the contents of a page). Anyway, you are free to read this (ne esiste anche una versione in italiano, purtroppo non una in piemontese) and the mailing list Foundation-l. Of course, you are free to say what is your opinion concerning this, as well as we are free to say what is ours, both without demanding to be in the truth. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're stating lmo.wiki is such a political instrument by only existing, maybe it's your view but, to me, it's simply the wiki of a language recognized by ISO. such as the English, the German, the Oria, the Swahili and the Italian ones. --Vituzzu 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ("warm water discovery" in tuscanian). Unfortunately in the past IT wikimedians voted LMO wiki closure, with the support of italian chapter president, with motivation "Absence of a Lombard language" (Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lombard Wikipedia). -- Dragonòt 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lmo.wiki at the time was being turned into an instrument to propagate the idea that it is possible to define a single Lombard language rather than a continuum. We then learnt, with help of Norwegian wikipedias, about other experiences building a Wikipedia when there is no single defined language (like nynorsk/bokmal). This, together with the cleanup of bad quality bot-generated articles, was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist. The ones that you attack did contribute a bit to lmo.wiki ns0 at the time; unfortunately it is not easy because almost no one is able to write in (their dialect of) Lombard. It's good that lmo.wiki was able to build a community after it was refounded. Balabiot 08:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here Requests_for_comment/The_meatpuppeting_attack_to_the_LMO_wikipedia_-_Corrective_actions_requested it's written that you voted in a sysop election a few minutes after registered in LMO Wiki. I.e. you has been recruited from outside and recruitment is forbidden. -- Dragonòt 12:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that Roberto dosn't answer to me, but I'm happy that Balabiot has answered for him writing This, together with the cleanup of bad quality bot-generated articles, was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist. I explaine for the last time to you and to your italian wikipedians friends that you haven't the right to decide which wikipedia may or may not exit, I repeat, you have no right to decide which wikipedia may or may not exit and you and italian wikipedians have no special power on Lmo, remember, no special power, lmo is not a italian colony. Of course every wikipedian can edit Lmo ed if there is a problem we can solve them following five pillars and wikipedian roles and if we need help every steward and every global sysop can help us, italian steward and italian gs haven't special power. I repeat no special power for italian wikipedians and no right to decide which wikipedia may or may not exit. First the illigal election then this your phrase, I think your position is more and more problematic. --Aldedogn Lmo - administrator 15:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragazzo non so cosa dirti. Se gli unici che all'epoca hanno mosso il culo erano utenti di it.wiki (non incluso tu non è colpa mia. All'epoca i global sysop non esistevano, se fossero esistiti probabilmente le cose sarebbero andate diversamente nella forma, ma non nella sostanza. Balabiot 20:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: write in english please, this is meta, not it.wikipedia. Second: I think that wikipedia has roules, you and your italian wikipedian friends haven't complied with the rules. If there were problems on Lmo, they could have been solved following the roules or do you think that wikipedia has no enough rules to solve problems and this allows you to be a Death Wish? Third: what you say about global sysop is completely off topic, because Global Sysop may not work on Lmo now too (option out) and more important Global Sysop usually work against vandalism but they don't close a wikipedia! Fourth: you say This, together with the cleanup of bad quality bot-generated articles, was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist. Can you understand how much is dangerous this phrase? How much is antiwikipedian this idea? So I must repeat to you that you have no right to decide which wikipedia may or may not exit and you and italian wikipedians have no special power on Lmo. It is really dangerous that you don't know what wikipedia is and how it works, so I explain to you that only lenguage committe may decide to close a wikipedia, not you and your friend: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee . Last: about my contribuitions don't worry, they are more than 8.000 and I started to work in time to be blocked without a good reason from your friend, because he hasn't understood my lombard words, because he was a lombard administrator but he cannot speak lombard and when everybody said and explained to him that it was just a misunderstanding, your friend keep on blocking me! Another good reason to say that you and your italian wikipedian friends haven't complied with the rules! --Aldedogn 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First: fine. Second: Wikipedia's fifth pillar is "ignore rules". Third: regarding "Global Sysop usually work against vandalism but they don't close a wikipedia": yes, lmo was ruled by vandals pursuing original research for their personal agenda (note I'm not saying political). I don't think anyone was happy to do a hostile take-over. Fourth: I meant "a reformed lmo.wiki" (i.e. what it is now) rather than one that is rebuilt from scratch (and possibly split into milanese/bergamasco/mantovano, which was the reason behind the comments that a single lombard language does not exist—and the inconsistency between :lmo:Druvadur and lmo:Special:Dupradur still makes me believe that had a point). Nobody ever declared to have a saying on the existence of "lmo.wiki", but still they had the right to propose whatever they wanted, and to dirt their hands in the 95,000 crap articles that composed the bulk of lmo.wiki.

Then, about "Italians": I don't give a damn about nationality. It sounds like you have problems with nationalities and it's your responsibility to show that you do not have a political agenda, just as much as it was responsibility of the "Italians" you despise. I'll repeat what I said in my Italian message above, in English and with other words. It's just quite natural that if someone cares about lmo.wiki and has the balls to fight vandalic attitude of the admins, they are wikipedians, possibly with sysop status, and active on either it.wiki or en.wiki. I'll just note that the bureaucrat who gave sysop flags, Kemmotar, is Norwegian.

Finally, I'm sorry about any initial problems with the sysops, especially if that's the cause of your sour attitude. I wasn't a sysop and I don't know about your problems, but rest assured that it was as easy to be blocked by Clamengh and friends, just ask lmo user Codice1000.lmo. If you think that all Snowdog and others did was damaging lmo.wiki, I wonder why you haven't undeleted lmo:United States and the other 95,000 crap articles yet. I think this is OT anyway, we can take it offline on my lmo talk page or the village pump, in whatever language you prefer. Balabiot 10:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 10:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you don't want understand and that you try to transform this question in a quarrel, but I'm not interest in quarreling, so you can write that I have a sour attitude, you can call me "boy", you can tell that I have political pourpose, ecc ecc, but these are only words and I don't care. More it is really off topic If you think that all Snowdog and others did was damaging lmo.wiki, I wonder why you haven't undeleted lmo:United States and the other 95,000 crap articles yet. I think this is OT anyway,. And it is off topic and absolutely absurd speaking about my problems with nationalities (problems with nationalities and it's your responsibility to show that you do not have a political agenda), simply absurd, I cannot have problems with italians because I'm italian like you and you know this very well! absolutely absurd, maybe I have problems with some italian wikipedians, but you don't want understand. We are speaking only about the right to close a wikipedia and I has asked you: do you think that wikipedia has no enough rules to solve problems and this allows you to be a Death Wish? Now you have answered that Wikipedia's fifth pillar is "ignore rules", perfect and thank you for your answer, so it 's clear that you think to be a Death Wish and has forgot the other four pillars. I need no more. Best regards. --Aldedogn 18:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is really not the case. Nobody ever wished the death of anything, in fact people were glad that a plan for "refounding" lmo.wiki was proposed and supported by former lmo.wiki bureaucrat Kemmótar. A plan that indirectly helped building your community, and that unfortunately required a large amount of "ignoring the rules". I went in more detail on the lmo village pump. My 2 cents, Balabiot 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A plan for "refounding" Lmo and in the same time a request for closing Lmo, because lmo.wiki couldn't exist? Wonderlful and perfectly logical! And I repeat to you that if Lmo is better, this is due only to me and ninonino and eldomm and mondschein and grifter72 and reimono and ducarix, ecc and it is not due to you or to your imaginary plane or to your sure large amount of "ignoring the rules". Wow, another confession... Best regards. --Aldedogn 21:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC) ps Do you know what means in italian Death Wish, sure?[reply]

Oh please, no more dramas! It's curious that you talk about "political" actions referring to it.wikipedians and it seems that you ignore the real problem of old lmo.wiki: a fake language supported by local politic parties for some stupid nationalistic reason--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all. There's the luck that Wikimedia Community understood the nature of IT wikimedians action about LMO wiki, and this failed election (Stewards/elections_2009/statements/Fabexplosive#No) it's the demonstration. -- Dragonòt 20:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ balabiot: of course now Lmo is better, but this is due only to me and ninonino and eldomm and mondschein and grifter72 and reimono and ducarix, ecc

The old Lmo had a lot of problems, yes of course, but the illegal election has just been one more problem.

@roberto: please can you better explane to me this: Italian wikipedians do not need your personal endorsement to do any action they feel to do with a respect to the Five Pillars and to guarantee their respect in the country in wich they live (since that the law would affect - through IP addresses - the people who makes edits and who receives the request to force the contents of a page). Expecially I would better understand what means in the country in which they live. Maybe do you think that italians wikipedians can do something to Lmo wikipedia, just because Lombard is spoken in Italy too? Thanks.

--Aldedogn 21:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC) LMO administrator.[reply]

First afterthoughts

I think that now we have some time for the first considerations, and given the surprise we caused, you have a real right to know more.
The problem with this law started one year ago, when it was first proposed and issued by the Italian Senate. An act in Italy must be issued in the same form by the Senate and the Low Chamber (where it is now). One year ago, with the help of WMI (local chapter) we had prepared a protest letter with massive signing by WP users; the act was issued, but this in Italy is seldom followed by an integral approval in the second step. We didn't worry that much.
Obviously we live a real life too, and that one gave us the perspective that this time the act could be effectively enabled. So we started discussing at our "bar" (village pump) and we tried to figure out which concretely would have been the practical effect of the act on our articles. I hope that you don't mind if I copy-paste once again the same example I had made a few paragraphs above. Example of effect on an article about an asteroid:

Soandso 1234 Doe is an asteroid named in honour of John Doe. According to the Law about Press, this is from Mr. Rossi who says: "Yes they named it in honour of Doe, but my career is for sure more interesting and important, since I used to play billiard until I was 18". The asteroid was discovered by Mr. Smith in 1978. According to the Law about Press, this is from Mr. Bianchi who says: "No merit in Doe's discovery. Me too I could have discovered it, but that evening there was a soccer match on TV and this has to precised, indeed." The asteroid is the the Disturbed Galaxy. ...

Please consider that this would be the resulting text of the article. And this is the required grade of seriousness of the additions. Legalised trolling, in our jargon. Now imagine a BLP. Better: imagine a BLP about a politician...
When we understood that any attempt to let politicians take a look at what they would have been causing to it.wiki failed, we asked ourselves if we really deserved all this. Without any sort of reply from the MPs involved in the "study" of this bill. In the meanwhile, we also had written them, knowing that they were waiting for it, a note about the context in which they were inserting their act into. Context means for us that it.wiki has the same proportional weight in the Italian web that Wikipedia generally has worldwide in the Net. The first non commercial content provider in the world, and in Italy too.
As already said, the only "answer" was a proposal of eventully reducing the fines.
We had very little time to decide. The discussion in the Parliament should have been held today (thursday 6th). Little time for such a problem. When some of us whispered for the first time "let's obscure it ourselves, before others do", a chorus came out, an angry unanimous chorus (among those who were there discussing and who were relevantly more people than usual for important topics on it.wiki).
In a very short (yet intense) while, we discussed with the maximum care each and every word of the "comunicato". Then we were ready to go, and so we went.
We choosed a time for this, 8pm CET, the time in which we have the peak of our visits and the time in which all the journalists are busy to catch any news they can. In a couple of hours, all the online editions of principal Italian newpapers were giving the news, on twitter the hashtag #wikipedia became TT in italian and later universally. During the night the first Facebook groups appeared, an online petition was launched, websites, blogs, news agencies, everywere in the italian web they were talking about us. The proportions of this reaction was overwhelmingly greater than any of our best expectations. Our IRC channel was flooded like no one of us could rembember it ever had in the past.
The morning after, traditional press (the one printed on paper) all had the news in front page. Radio news too were talking about that. And the absolute majority of informative Italian sites were on the spot.
Titles which I can remember: "Astounding Wikipedia self-censorship" "Incredible protest" "Wikipedia isn't there anymore" "Unpredictable action" and lots of similar.
Most of the sites included most part (if not all) of the comunicato. Pretty all of them quoted our taglines.
Only a few newspapers criticised the action. Of course, consensus in not unanimity. Some rant, as well was spent, but we were able to read on our side individuals and organisations that we would have never expected. Several scientific sites applauded to our initiative, a psycologists' site "cloned" ours, blanked every page replacing it with a very similar comunicato.
And, in the juridical field, I dare to read some sort of approval in the words (that press reported) by Stefano Rodotà, the father of the Italian privacy law.
At 4pm of the same day, from the Parliament, news came that a sort of supervisors' committee had reached unanimous consensus among all the political parties to correct that act in the sense that we asked for.
As this rumour, then a true news, started spreading, titles turned to: "A save-Wikipedia correction to the bill" "Bloggers safe thanks to Wikipedia" and similar.
Current situation: this result could be a Pyrrhic victory, because the government is tending to use a different procedure for the act's approval, asking for the so-called "fiducia" (trust), by which the government says "this the act, accept it or don't", without any minor change like the one we battled for. The government's party, officially, has a majority which could allow the fiducia to be accorded.
But we had a result. A tremendously important result.

In a few hours from our blackout, all the parties together agreed on a correction which should keep us safe, and blogs and other individuals' sites safe as well. I told that this is not a definitive victory, but I'm nearly 50 and I had never seen such a quick effect on our Parliament before. If you had ever dreamt that one day you could have used the word "unprecedented" in politics, well this is the case.
ALL the Italian web was shocked by what this protest has meant for us, for them, and for the web in Italy.
Facebook and other social networks gave astonishing numbers, which in total should correspond to no less than 700,000 people supporting us IN ONE DAY!
We received support from any part of the Wikimedia galaxy, and this was of a terrific importance for us. Thank you, we appreciated each and every comment, and we certainly would like to thank you personally. You were part of our passion in the whole.

I already sketched out what was another important result in my humble opinion. During all this, we found ourselves speaking with the same words, thinking the same way, coming to this from very different personal political perspectives. it.wiki was well beyond any personal thought. And, last but not least, I have to publicly thank the users whose political perspective is the one of the ruling government: I entirely appreciate their state of mind and their frank cooperation. Our community's unity in the name of the big W was a really delightful surprise :-)
So, when Jimbo pointed out that this was already a success, and we saw that by now there is nothing else that we can do in front of such an important political agreement, we brought back the site to the normal layout.
To conclude, we still are waiting for facts. Politics is made of words, we need facts, and the parliamentar discussion has been re-scheduled for next wedneday (12th). Some days seem to be relevant in history: the 5th of October was Denis Diderot's birthday (and he had a special gift from Italian Parliament), the 12th is the anniversary of quite an important discovery...
Thank you all, the battle is not over and the problem is not solved, but by now Wikipedia proved to be a fundamental part in the web and a relevant subject in our society. I wanted to share this with all of you --g 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been dragged into the political battle that is tearing itself apart Italy.

After three days of darkening of the pages, we discover that the problem is not solved, and maybe even never existed.

But everyone is happy for the great interest of the media.

A really great result: now Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but an active political force: Forza Wikipedia.

Wikipedia è stata trascinata nella battaglia politica che sta dilaniando l'Italia.

Dopo tre giorni di oscuramento delle pagine, scopriamo che il problema non è risolto e, forse, neppure è mai esistito.

Ma tutti sono felici per il grande interessamento dei media.

Davvero un grande risultato: ora Wikipedia non è più una enciclopedia, ma una forza politica attiva: Forza Wikipedia.

--93.70.41.106 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, will you quit ranting already? We've always been a political force. Seb az86556 10:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. Someone gave a link to them to the de:Wikipedia and now the link is written in our newspaper (Wikipedia:Kurier). I hope that next Wednesday the Italian WP and the Italian blogers could celebrate. --92.204.80.63 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicability of neutrality

Because I think I can get more input here, allow me to quote myself from the project-wide protests talk page:

“

I'm very curious as to how neutrality got into this debate, especially considering the case of the Italian Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, neutrality is implied to be editorial neutrality, where Wikimedia content would be written from a viewpoint which attempts to straddle disparate POVs in projects where NPOV is a necessity. I don't think however that "neutrality" in the Wikimedia sense is the same as how Jehovah's Witnesses claim neutrality in worldly conflict: just because we espouse an editorial policy which advocates neutrality of content, it doesn't necessarily imply that the projects themselves should be neutral in cases of so-called "worldly conflict", like the the Italian Wikipedia strike. Does this mean therefore that Wikimedia projects should also be inherently apolitical? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

”

As a political science major, I'm curious as to how neutrality got into this debate because at least for me, this is a new dimension to the word "neutrality" which is embraced by the Wikimedia projects as a concept which embraces editorial independence and the need for a balanced view in the articles that we write. This is the first case that I have seen the word "neutrality" be extended outside its original definition, implying that Wikipedia is supposed to be politically independent when it operates in an environment which is inherently political, and by which the actors that edit it are political beings as well. So if Wikipedia is editorially neutral, how did it become politically neutral? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a grave misunderstanding by some. The concept of being editorially neutral is in itself a poltically non-neutral statement — a politically neutral statement would be "We take no position on the need for editorial neutrality." This is at the heart of the complaints, and those who do voice these complaints have utterly misunderstood the mission of the foundation. The need for editorial neutrality is the core (and perhaps the only) political stance taken by wikimedia. Seb az86556 09:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know the dynamics of the Italian Wikipedia debate aside from what I'm reading here on Meta, but it is possible that some people read editor neutrality as two-way: as being neutral in what we write and being neutral in the worldly conflicts which happen outside the realm of Wikimedia. But I don't believe Wikimedia belongs in an ivory tower: you have people contributing every single day, all with unique political, social and cultural perspectives which are in themselves shaped by political factors. So how can I possibly buy the argument of some of the people who commented claiming that Wikimedia has lost its political independence when it was never politically independent to begin with? (I could argue this theoretically, but I do not have the materials to do so at the moment.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could even follow if the stance was indeed that the foundation should be neutral with regards to conflicts "which happen outside the realm of Wikimedia" — but in this case, the perceived threat was to wikimedia itself. I think your comparison to Jehovah's Witnesses is right on spot: while their stance is respectable and even admirable, no-one can be expected to be so a-political as to not even voice an opinion when one's own execution is being discussed. Seb az86556 11:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism about the decision of obscuration of the Italian Wikipedia

Hello everyone, I would like to draw your attention about the obscuration [[7]] of the Italian version of Wikipedia.

Regardless the reasons of the protests, I believe that this "strike" was a mistake, because:

the serious choice to close the Italian Wikipedia has been made by a limited number of people, on the basis of a discussion [[8]] that involved few participants;
the closure means that Wikipedia is not really free because its opening / closing depends on the decision of a few people, not democratically elected in any way by thousands of users of the Encyclopedia;
the protest was signed as "The Users of Wikipedia" ("Gli utenti di Wikipedia"), while in fact it was a grave decision made by a small group of people.

I am afraid that the freedom of the Italian Wikipedia is in danger, because few people cannot decide the obscuration of an entire site to which EVERYONE is free to participate.-- Omega Ray

I count about 60 different users involved with this discussion and at least three dissenting opinions out of that group. I wouldn't call that a "limited number", and is typical for a large project of this nature in terms of the participation with discussions like this. That some might be complaining here after the fact is fine, but I will stick to my guns here that the proper process was followed which has long acceptance within the Wikimedia family of projects. A concern was raised, discussion happened on widely read community discussion pages, consensus was reached on the issues being addressed on what was arguably the best forum for that sort of discussion, and then action taken. Unless you can point to some other page where the discussion would have been conducted to involve more people, I don't know what else could have been done.

Perhaps, and I'll give this some wiggle room, a "banner advertisement" notifying the it.wp community that a major community decision was being made should have been put onto all of the pages of it.wp for about a week or so with the discussion running the whole time and genuinely trying to canvass more Wikipedia users. This is done on en.wp for things like ArbCom elections and other major project decisions, and I believe that was used on Wikibooks when Wikiversity was spun out as a separate project. Still, I don't buy the complaint this was done by a "small group of people" when it is the very people who are going to be impacted the most from the enacting of this law in Italy. --Roberth 01:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only the freedom of IT wiki is in danger. As a IT.wikipedian wrote above, "This ... was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist", also Regional Wikipedias freedom is continuously in danger. "Those it.wikipedians" (cit.), in fact, think that they can determine if a Regional Wiki could exist or not, regardless of Language Committee or regional Wiki community. -- Dragonòt 11:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job extracting sentences out of context. Balabiot 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This ... was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist" means "This ... was what convinced those it.wikipedians (including myself) that lmo.wiki could exist" in every context. -- Dragonòt 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"was" is past tense and as such its context includes the historical context. The context was that of a wiki used by the admins as a tool to push their own work on a unified lombard ortography. Google "Institud de studis Rhaeto-Cisalpins" for proof. Balabiot 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that "it.wikipedians (including yourself)" cannot decide if LMO wiki can exist, neither in the past neither in this moment. For your illegal actions, there's none giustification. -- Dragonòt 21:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Balabiot 11:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that it.wikipedians (including yourself), the italian chapter president, etc., shud apologize as requested here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. -- Dragonòt 21:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very bad point is taht this "hacker style" blackout of it.wiki was an admins' issue (with political purpose?).. That underline the deep split from Italian adminship and the rest of the it.wiki community. 93.58.120.244 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO White hat style. Przykuta 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons learnt in the Italian lockout

Hi. I'd like to register my point of view on the matter, hoping that this will be handled with more transparency in the future.

If indeed it is possible and WMF-sanctioned that any edition of WP could be deliberately obscured by its community, who can use it as a PR tool for protest, this should be spelt clearly in WP's mission statement and in the edit disclaimer. It strikes me as an invisible sixth pillar.
The decision has been made on the back of a discussion that was not publicized to the wider audience that it would affect (i.e. editors, registered and unregistered, and readers), and therefore only 56 habitués of the "Bar" really made the decision. I would expect that for decisions of such wide impact and importance, all should be warned and invited to participate before the decision is made, for example by adding a banner pointing to the discussion. Instead, the discussion pages were actually variously and pre-emptively protected, and this was done, according to an admin "to avoid trolling". As it turns out, as it can be seen in this very page I'm writing, as well as in another indefinitely protected discussion page, many people actually did not agree with this move, which suggests that next time the process should be more open from the start.
Which law applies to Wikipedia? Florida? Italy? Canton Ticino? Vatican? Netherlands? EU? The consensus seems to be: we have no frigging clue, and therefore we took the liberty to paint the most dystopic, alarming and far-fetched scenarios (e.g. it.wiki obscured in Italy and/or closing for lack of volunteers etc), because nobody could possibly prove them wrong, and these made-up fantasies would be good enough grounds for theatrical statements such as "the approval [of the law as it is] would void most work done on Wikipedia" - this much can still be read in the it.wiki banner. I would really like to have an expert in International law, libel and whatnot to come up with clearer advice. If they can't do a pro-bono, it would be money well spent.

Hopefully we will be better prepared next time. 220.210.182.158 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working backwards, The law that applies to Wikipedia in terms of what happens in the servers is Florida law, and the laws of the United States of America. There are some Wikimedia servers from time to time in other parts of the world, and those servers can be subject to the laws in those other countries as well (South Korea comes to mind for one server farm that I'm aware of in at least the past... I don't know if it still is up and running). At the same time, editor/contributors are also simultaneously responsible for the laws in the country where they are in when those contributions are made, particularly in regards to copyright infringement although libel laws defamation laws, and other laws may also apply. BTW, this is precisely the issue that contributors from Italy are facing, because they are subject to Italian law and there were some pretty severe consequences even for inaction which could apply. There are several professional lawyers who have offered opinions on this issue, including some "pro bono" support at least for the Wikimedia Foundation and the actions they took. If you want to spend your own money for legal opinions and share that information with the rest of us, I hope that "well spent" money is justified. Don't go demanding others spend money on your behalf if you aren't willing to spend some yourself.

The Italian Wikipedia Bar decision appears to be completely valid and consistent with similar kinds of decisions made in the past on a wide variety of topics. This is how policy is enacted and how issues are resolved on Wikipedia... in all languages. The decision made here impacted only the Italian language edition of Wikipedia, at least in terms of what actual action took place. Furthermore, this was only a temporary action and not something of permanent impact upon the project. Given the nature of what happened and the number of people involved in this decision, it was not just a "small" number of people but a topic which had widespread consensus. That this consensus is not necessarily what in your opinion should have happened is irrelevant in this case.

As to the appropriateness of this action, there is going to be fallout from this decision. For myself, I think it was a proper action given the situation and the legal implications. Time will tell, but for now don't go making a mountain out of a molehill. If you are involved with the Italian-language Wikipedia, make your voice heard there including how you think this situation was mishandled from your perspective. In terms of if or how other Wikimedia projects may or may not engage in a similar action in the future, it will have to be on a case by case basis. The situation here in regards to the Italian-language Wikipedia is a unique situation that I don't see will be specifically repeated in the future because it involves unique circumstances that specifically attack Wikipedia administrators and those who maintain these projects. Very likely this sort of situation will never happen again, even though I can't count on it. --Roberth 07:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Links to opinions offered by professional lawyers would be welcome.

"Don't go demanding others spend money on your behalf if you aren't willing to spend some yourself." - I find this sentence most unfortunate. I was not demanding anything, just making a suggestion about how to spend the money that *I* have donated to WP.

"This is how policy is enacted and how issues are resolved on Wikipedia... in all languages." - No it is not. I don't think discussion pages are pre-emptively protected in other languages, certainly not at en.wiki. And as you reminded us not long ago in this page, for important decisions (such as IMO this was), it is customary to put a banner on top of each page, in order to canvass as many users as possibly, whereas as I quoted, admins here tried to do the opposite in an attempt to have "fewer edit conflicts" and t0 "keep trolls to a minimum". I find this a bad way of running a project that is supposed to be open.

"it was not just a "small" number of people" - you are entitled to your opinion.

"a topic which had widespread consensus" - funny how the consensus vanished after the decision was published and implemented.

"That this consensus is not necessarily what in your opinion should have happened is irrelevant in this case" - another cheap shot, trying to make it sound like I'm whining because I took part to the discussion but didn't like the outcome.

"If you are involved with the Italian-language Wikipedia, make your voice heard" - I am trying, but as I said many discussion pages on the subject are semiprotected, some pre-emptively, and frankly in my experience most decision makers are not willing to listen. That's why I am here.

220.210.182.158 09:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This decision became stricly urgent after a few unespected facts suddenly showed us that we merely had two days left and no attention at all by those we needed it from. Who was there was there, and everyone among those who were there, immediately acted as a member of a team. An experienced team in which we work everyday side by side since years. A team in which I'm sorry I just can't remember you ever helped before, at least with this ip range, in solving problems from inside. Users who were here were all experienced "troubleshooters", and that was what we needed at that time. What was done, in fact, already is a partial huge success, which is suprising only for the proportions of this success. That's not all, indeed, but it has already been something.
A project that is supposed to be open is also supposed to be a project in which people work. So it is open to all those who wish to help. There are many ways to help. One, at the moment, is to rapidly and usefully lobby to persuade lawmakers that we currently are going towards a terrible danger. So this is an official call: this is what we need now, if you can help, you welcome. --g 12:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik Mattia you wrote on your blog a "final statement" (I cannot state if it's simply insulting or an aborted attempt to be ironic) about it.wiki's strike, with no appeals, about two or three days before asking for further informations. That's, definitely, what can be deemed "prejudice". --Vituzzu 13:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An experienced team in which we work everyday side by side since years. A team in which I'm sorry I just can't remember you ever helped before, at least with this ip range, in solving problems from inside" - So you confirm it then, it's a cricca. Input from outside of it is not weclome. Thought so.

Vituzzu, as usual you are not making any sense. 113.197.210.196 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. --Vituzzu 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were there problems with "trolls" posting random nonsense? When did you try to post a contrary opinion on the matter? In terms of semi-protected pages, those do keep out ip-address users and I can understand a bit of a resentment if somebody is excluded. Still, it doesn't take much effort to set up an account and be able to edit semi-protected pages. I can only imagine that such efforts were taken to filter the discussion to regular contributors, particularly if there were some people who might have been involved with sock puppetry or other games with the page.

I've been on the "losing side" of some major policy arguments, so I do know what it is like when that happens. What I'm trying to say here, however, is that this situation was a unique set of circumstances. Your points do address several issues that would bear to address in other formats, including what role IP address contributors might have in key policy decisions (generally their opinions are diminished or dismissed outright in some kinds of discussions... perhaps not for the best either) or in terms of what policies ought to be in place for major decision making decisions.

I'll also note that people involved with community projects like this tend to gain "credibility" over time through their contributions and what they've done with the community. Somebody who has been involved for a very long period of time tends to have much more credibility than somebody who is brand new. If a name is familiar to the community and has been involved in some extensive projects, their opinions do tend to get more weight in discussions in a variety of ways. BTW, that is true for almost any organization and not just wiki projects. There are some IP users who have done that without creating a formal username, but those are very much the exception, at least from my experience. It is so much of an exception that I doubt you can name more than a dozen such users across all Wikimedia projects. --Roberth 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about me. This is about the millions of users who have not registered, can't work out how to register, have no intention to register, don't care enough to register, etc etc.

It.wiki is far less welcoming to IPs than en.wiki. As I said, key policy discussions at en.wiki would not be semi'ed unless there were considerable and consistent IP disruption. Here it was done pre-emptively.

Want another example? A "troll" voiced their opinion against the lockout and asked a few questions, admittedly with a few exclamation marks and a couple of "shame on you", but nothing that I would define untolerably uncivil, given the circumstances. The comment was reverted with a mocking edit comment. That IP was blocked with no warnings, together with another IP that tried to restore the comment, crying foul. Almost simultaneously, the talk page was semiprotected indefinitely. I think anyone at en.wiki would call this reaction at least heavy-handed.

I have been operating as an IP for years, and so I know what you mean about credibility, IP's "votes" not counting as much as registered users etc. I'm cool with that, although I always thought that at WP, what matters is what one says, not who is saying it. But I think there should be a minimum of transparency and openness, and I think it.wiki has not displayed much of either. 58.138.12.34 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wiki on strike again ?

This post's aim is mainly to obtain a kind of statement from WMF in terms of moral suasion to it.wikipedians. The point is to avoid a new list of anomalies in the protest form they will probably soon put in place in the next few days. In fact, yesterday morning a new proposal was raised at the it.wiki village pump with the name "Possible self defence means for italian language Wikipedia" ( Possibili strumenti a difesa di Wikipedia in italiano - see here the post) As far as we learnt from the previous case, as no or very few administrators are actively following the debate on the issue on that page, this probably means they are again mainly debating in their restricted access mailing list - this is quite normal and obvious - and taking decisions other editors will face soon. The controversial Italian wire-tapping bill, a minor paragraph of which is the protests target, is still undergoing its transformation in law process and, due to the Italian bicameral system, even in presence of well-known mistakes or unpopular parts, the bill could be frozen in law in its original form, in order to speed up its approval. This means that even if some members of parliament, part of the nowadays government coalition, are lobbying in favour of Wikipedia and internet blogs and raised a welcomed modification request, the original bill could pass in the old form, mainly due to the presumed higher importance of the other parts that are bill huge majority and could deserve more priority in the proponents agenda. In this case, I strongly suggest that WMF has to foster the writing of a "don't do that" list, aimed to improve the consensus verification process before a new strike, this time also threatened by the hardliners as sine die (no ending date). The next protester's suggested actions list could be made starting as follows, taking inspiration from anomalies we have seen the last time:

Prior to start a new lockout, call for opinions in a village pump post with name "Very important: new proposal of strike". Last time the post where the strike consensus was verified had as a title an obscure "paragraph 22 and Wikipedia", a part of the community very probably missed. As the entire public debate lasted open roughly 24 hours only, the possibility lots of people had no idea at all of what was going to happen was real.
Avoid mass voting from admins in strict sequence at the beginning of such these obscure posts. Last time in the very first hours the post appeared, 14 admins wrote their support to the strike, several of them separated by few minutes only, while very few users took part at the discussion at the beginning and mostly with "don't support the total denial of service" opinions. More transparency will improve results analysis, better if it will take into account that users cannot easily coordinate their actions in restricted mailing lists and cooperating in groups in order to reply protests or approvals, against or in favour of the lockout, as it happened last time;
Declare clearly and in written form the strike duration decision, defining the end date during the debate and before the strike starts, when all users are still able to raise remarks or write opinions. Last time no statement on this matter was put as a summary at the very end of the post and the duration decision was left partially open. It is useful to remember that no public discussion page on the topic was available for hours after the denial of service began, and when a different public discussion page was created, it was opened to registered users only, so no anonymous posts were allowed, even from experienced users that could prefer to stay anonymous, you can easily understand why. Quite oddly, administrators carried on writing their opinions in support of the strike in the first original village pump post, even several hours after it.Wikipedia was obscured and all articles blocked for editing to all other users. This practice should be probably deprecated also because in recent after-strike analysis, those opinions are often considered part of the original whole community consensus verification process.
Keep always at least one page open to edits, in order to allow comments, opinions and, if the case, requests of reopening coming from regular users. For what it happened last time, see the point before;
After a kind of consensus starts to raise towards a new strike decision, send to WMF a message informing of what it is going on and present in the public page the community knows the message contents, paying attention to community reactions and remarks. Nobody since now knows what was written exactly to WMF last time, reading it in a public page, and, much more important, the exact time that message was sent, is still undisclosed to the public. It could be interesting to know how many supporting opinions were considered enough in order to raise to WMF the denial of service proposal;
After WMF statement on the matter, or a simple "acknowledged" response, open at least a post on Meta in order to inform as a minimum the world community on what it is going to happen again to it.wiki. Last time posts were opened on Meta and in mailing lists by users not from it.wiki, totally unaware of what happened;
The blocking actions aimed to deny the it.wiki service should be clearly determined and described (maybe in a restricted post circulating among admins and stewarts), giving opportunity to each administrator to restart the project if a consensus on it is determined, according to his/her opinion. Last time the blocking actions were experimental and required several actions creating an obviously undocumented mix of class redirects, black list modifications, page blocks and so. With the reasonably poor information available on the topic, we have no clue useful to determine if it was simple enough for each and every administrator to end the strike and it is not known if all administrators were capable to unblock the project, without the need for asking for it to the ones who technically put the strike actions in place. If this last was the actual scenario, I guess it should be deprecated and appropriate actions should be put in place in order to avoid situations like that;
On the it.wiki village pump there are still today reports of anomalies in it.wiki common pages visual aspect after the protest ended. It was confirmed those are side-effects of the denial of service actions put in place during the protest. As it was hopefully the last (and since now the worst) huge case in the Wikipedian history of unwanted vandalism, probably a developers committee should quickly determine the proper way to deny the service, avoiding a new do-it-yourself approach like the one used last time. Maybe could be useful to prepare appropriate restricted documentation, useful for the rollback activities also for the scope I previously highlighted of giving to every admin the rollback capability. Messing with the full functionality of the project following different ways from the well established ones, should be highly deprecated or, if consensus is achieved on the rule, sufficient reason to revoke admin rights immediately to any individual involved in similar practices, even if consensus for a lockout is present according to his opinion.
Last, but not least there is the need to state that "all-out stikes" are strongly deprecated, despite last time several it.admins also, proposed it and argued on that scenario against contrary or baffled users. Last time the actual ending strike time seemed a complex compromise in which hard-liners were presenting the "sine die" option as a really possible one. If a closure with no expiring date of the it.wiki chapter is a possibility openly supported by WMF, I suggest to present this to the whole Wikipedian community, in order to allow people to re-examine their involvement commitment in the project under these conditions.

I suggest this or a similar policies should be improved and issued as the Italian protest could restart again in few hours and this time the lockout deadline could be a more complicate issue. --EH101 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with those who are trying to do everything they can think of in order to avoid bad times, very bitter times for it.wiki. In this I presume good faith in those who disagree about the opportunity to protest. I'm very sorry I have to record tonight that this is now a difference between us. You love our Project as much as I do, you are certainly free to propose anything you like, but please forget this hunt for conspirers which sounds a little bit strange on the lips of an experienced user like you. You know that if it was an article, you should heavily correct many points of your post for... let's say... "precision"...
Of course I'm at WMF's disposal for any question or need about any action I take into one of its Projects, and so do all the other users involved. I'll answer a question before WMF asks me: a new strike is a possibility, but - at the moment - it's not so likely we will enact it again, given the current situation. This is a better moment for bright diplomacy rather than muddy controversies. --g 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In this I presume good faith in those who disagree about the opportunity to protest." - This, as you know, is the standard mode of operation here, so why would you point it out?

"hunt for conspirers" - I think it's all in your head. EH's post seems completely reasonable to me, and I happen to agree with most points.

"you should heavily correct many points of your post" - That's the point of this debate, you are supposed to point out anything specific that you think EH got wrong. 113.197.210.196 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote yesterday, anomalies are completely unrelated with the strike, simply mediawiki version has been upgraded to 1.18. --Vituzzu 23:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we learnt from the previous case, as no or very few administrators are actively following the debate on the issue on that page, this probably means they are again mainly debating in their restricted access mailing list - this is quite normal and obvious - and taking decisions other editors will face soon.

What? -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(There was a plot! ZOMG) Anyway it makes a little sense to write down guidelines about an exceptional event.

It's also strange to expect that the first (and I hope the last) time such an extraordinary event happens, all goes like a clockwork... --Vituzzu 23:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can shrug off criticism with sarcastic comments all you want, but it.wiki here has shown a number of systemic failures which led to this situation. If you don't listen, other "exceptional events" are bound to follow. 58.138.12.34 12:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand. Assume good faith is an important part of Wikipedia principles and I did so in not presenting my point of view in terms of accuse, but in terms of plea - just in case - for a similar event in the future. Please reflect on the fact I signed my post and I did not prefer to stay anonymous, despite it could be done very simply and in perfect harmony with Wikipedia principles. I presented my point and I will better explain it again: in my opinion what happened last time can not be considered a rules infringement, for the very simple reason that no rules existed (and they do not exist right now) to manage such these matters from both technical and users involvement guarantees front. It could be highlighted that some anomalies occurred at the most, or, much better, some events that happened could be considered like misunderstandings. Much more important than a looking back study, I am concerned now for the future and I thank you for your attention to my post. Now everybody can more easily assume that extreme care will be spent in the future in order to involve the entire community in such these horrible matters as any repeat of any of the anomalies or misunderstandings above listed will be considered differently now. Frankly speaking, I am quite worried not to see any of these next future misunderstanding avoiding useful analysis in a public page and with exactly the same people that wrote their favour to lockout last time, sometimes in terms of "all-out strike", despite the lockout main responsible legal issue cannot be considered fully addressed yet. If "what to do next" is not subject to an internal debate among the dozen of it.wiki admins that fully agreed on extreme protests forms last time, I am not surprised: I am frightened. I really hope that the world community will not face once again effects from a few hours poll hosted in an obscure it.wiki village pump page, which result could be a new lockout, with a lesser clear than the last time expiring date stated decision, despite it is quite foreseeable that something bad could happen again on the Italian Parliament front. Anyway, I prefer not to think that such these matters must be addressed now in terms of hope, or faith: my very personal view is that it is time to think now in terms of rules: new rules, if they are necessary. Yours faithfully --EH101 12:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Last Wednesday (12th) nothing happened regarding the act we are interested into. On Thursday an influent member of the party which leads the ruling coalition said that the proposal of the act would have been postponed; many observers believe he meant that it would have been postponed for a long while. Today (Friday), while Jimbo was in Italy (Bologna) as a special guest to attend (and open) a convention of an important artisans' guild, the government obtained the so-called "fiducia" (trust) on another proposed act, winning the parliamentar majority for 1 (one) counted vote. Besides, another member of the same party whispered that the bill we are looking at could be proposed again for its approval in next November. So, the situation is as follows:

after our protest, an amendment has been agreed upon by all the political parties represented in a restricted committee of supervisors; this unanimity included a rep. by the Government's party. This amendment would keep it.wiki safe.
whenever this bill should be brought to vote, there are two alternative options:

the vote is an ordinary vote and if the bill is enacted, it would be amended as above, per the Committee's amendment. The act should then be sent back to the Senate for an approval in the identical text. Wikipedia safe.
the Government asks for the "fiducia" on this proposal. In this case the act's content wouldn't be discussed for what it means and implies, but the proposed rule would be voted as a sort of YES/NO approval of the Government (instead of the act in itself); as such, no amendements have effect on the originally proposed text. If enacted, only the originally proposed text would pass: it.wiki and Italian Wikipedians will be in dramatic trouble.

The question is how many chances a "trusted vote" could have to be asked for by the Government. The political situation in the country is quite dramatic, the Government is going to enforce a severe ECB's (European Central Bank) directive of last August about drastic economical measures in Italy, and a certain anger among the citizens is very far from being unlikely in the next weeks. For instance, the Ministry for Environment was today (with the act for which it obtained the fiducia) practically left without fundings, and other public services are following in this decline. There are protests (about which press says very little) throughout the nation at many levels, for many reasons. This "wiretap" bill couldn't perhaps be a true priority, being in this mood, but it could as well become a priority if someone finds that it could fit to personal scopes (...) or that it merely could be instrumental to "distract" people from the tragedy of the current economical crisis. This is to say that really many factors - for what may regard us - could have an influence on the decision of asking for a normal or a "trusted" vote on the bill.
So, by now we are waiting for what will happen, there are no scheduled terms for "our" bill and it could come out again at any given moment. We are not condemned, we are not safe. We had indeed what Jimbo seems to have called today (I'm re-translating from interviews to Italian papers) a "marvellous success", but still we are not at the end of the story, yet. In the meanwhile, we are of course studying eventual countermeasures for the case the bill is enacted. A common opinion at the moment, among it.wikians, seems to prefer the option of a denial of acceptance of such an act, which we wouldn't obey to, but eventual consequences must be very carefully evaluated. Eventual steps in this unsought direction will obviously require approval and cooperation from the Wikiworld, namely WMF.
Consensus about what we did is growing even ex post, it.wiki's community is stronger than before and is seriously determined to protect the Project at any extent. We will see in the weeks to come, precisely, at what extent. --g 01:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012: Italian website http://vajont.info/ blocked for one defamatory phrase by all 226 Italian ISP’s

Digital censorship – Italian judges close down disaster information site: "Imagine the closing of an entire newspaper/magazine/portal online because judges deem one simple phrase published, on one of its pages, to be defamatory. No need to imagine it, as it’s already happened this month – not in China, as one might think, but in the heart of the EU; Italian judges, deeming one phrase published on the disaster information site Vajont.info to be defamatory (injuring the reputation of two of Italy’s highest profile politicians), and have apparently instructed Italian ISP’s to block access to the site. (..) A Judge in the provincial capital of Belluno ruled that the site should be obfuscated, and ordered Italy’s 226 Internet Service Providers to ‘inhibit its respective users access to the address www.vajont.info, to its relative alias and to dominion names present and future forwarding to the same site, at the static IP address that at the moment of the enforcement of the seizure results associated to the aforementioned dominion name and to every other static ip address associated to in in the future (interdiction to the address resolution via DNS)‘"
"And it doesn’t appear to be just vajont.info affected – as it’s hosted on a non-Italian shared hosting service. Reports suggest that all the other sites on the same server are affected, including sites like www.jacklondon.com." [9]
See also german NZZ, german futurezone, italian corriere, italian repubblica

Wow. This looks a lot like the kind of internet censorship that the Italian Wikipedia strike opposed. http://vajont.info/ seems to be accessible outside Italy, it covers the Vajont dam disaster of 1963 (2,000 deaths). Any analysis by Wikimedia Italia? --Atlasowa (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the court decision of March on Legal and Community Advocacy/Censorship#Italy: Freedom of press and expression: The blocking of access to users Italians adopted through the seizure of the the Italian providers’s IP and DNS, in case of alleged defamation is illegal, an Italian Court said. March 12th, 2012 (decision by the Court of the Freedom of Belluno, Italy, on March 9, 2012 accepting the claim of the 200 Internet Service Provider of Confcommercio, belonging to the Association “Assoprovider”, that had protested to the amplitude of the measure imposed by the judge for preliminary investigations of Belluno.) --Atlasowa (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]