Talk:Australian Communications and Media Authority

Internet Censorship and Criticisms

According to the article, "Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies."

I don't know if this particular criticism is sensible enough to be included. The reason I say that is that the Australian Constitution does not allocate powers to the States, only to the federal government. In some very particular cases the federal constitution does restrict the rights of states, but certainly not when it comes to censorship. The State Parliaments are basically free to legislate on anything else, whether it is mentioned in the Constitution or not. Should this be removed or, better yet, replaced with a more sensible example of criticism? Troyac 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I fixed this as part of a general clean up. The error emerged from a 2006 edit to correct the flow of the paragraph but, in fixing the narrative, it introduced errors. It looks like the original claim was trying to show how Internet regulation fit into the broader landscape of content regulation in Australia... but then this got flipped around in a subsequent edit. LegalReckoning (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

removed link

I have removed the actual link to the graphic pictures. I don't think it adds to the article, and we don't do content disclaimers such as "warning, graphic pictures". Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the link. If you remove it again I will report you. Note another user here has already been given final warnings for doing what you just did, by two admin users, not random users.

As for discussion. The ACMA were given powers in 1999 to secretly censor pages on the internet, with no appeals process and no transparency. This was rushed through our parliament with arguments like it being necessary to keep child pornography pages secret. This is the very first time something has leaked about what pages they have blocked, and what they have issued a take-down notice for. And the content itself is not particularly graphic. It's really quite tame, you see worse on the anti-smoking campaigns. So to say it is not relevant to the article is simply, idiotic. Cheers. --119.12.170.248 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

as for content disclaimers. Wikipedia does indeed do them. see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer

So unless you have any more arguments for why the link shouldn't be included that's about that. --119.12.170.248 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, I'm not some random user. I've been here, for awhile. Administrators do not have more editorial power then me, they are equal with me.

The link does not add anything except shock value to the article. That is basic. A simple descriptive will suffice. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

the link shows the extent of the lower end of australian internet censorship, and is so very relevant as people can see exactly the kind of content they are trying to censor.

I didn't say you were a random user. Administrators do have more power, including the ability to ban. Two individually have issued final warnings the only other user who tried to remove that link.

Also I object to your latest note when removing the link again. " Why is *one* ip removing the edits of many users?". Here are the users that have reverted censorship of that url

211.27.106.139: [1]

Leo Lazauskas: [2]

BoomerAB: [3]

Mjquin_id: [4]

And myself.

So please, before claiming 1 person is removing the edits of many people, do your research. It is 5 people reverting the deletions of 2 people. You are in the minority here, and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

• I stand corrected. I misread the edit history. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the link, as placing it inline in such a manner is very poor form, not to mention the fact that the "warning" is completely contrary to Wikipedia practice. There may be a case for a link to be included, I have no opinion on that at this time, but it should not be included in that way. For now, please keep the discussion to the talk page and stop the revert warring. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and I have again included the link. The link is in the censorship and criticism section, clearly as an example of a takedown notice issued. If you think another type of warning is suitable I'd love to hear your suggestion, instead of your censorship. But wikipedia surely does do warnings. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and if you follow the link on that page you will get a list of controversial articles in wikipedia that include lots of graphic content. Note this content isn't included, merely linked. The precedent is clearly here.

as for your "for now keep the discussion to the talk page", given you are in the minority and this has already been addressed by two administrators to have it included, I respectfully suggest you engage in the discussion and desist from the censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.100.82 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not think another type of warning is necessary. Did you actually read what I said, or did you just assume I was some kind of "protect the children" wacko? We do not have warnings of any sort within articles. I removed the link, not to censor the article, but because in its current state (ridiculous warnings and inline links) it looks terrible. Thankfully, we don't vote, and administrators have no more power than anyone else with regards to content discussions- I'm an administrator, and I could quite easily summon a number of other editors to remove the link. Lastly, and most importantly, do not accuse me of censorship. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, can you actually point to a single reliable source that states that that website was the one concerned? If the information is unverifiable, then it should obviously not be included. It appears to be currently referenced to a forum post that doesn't actually give the address, and I can't see anything on Google News. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are a protect the children whacko. If you are going to ask me to not accuse you of censorship, it would be nice of you not to make ridiculous claims like that.

Yes I read what you said. Read the link i gave

"Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See a list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not."

There is plenty of objectionable content on wikipedia. If your concern is merely that the inline warning looks ridiculous then remove the inline warning. Then your issue is addressed, correct?

If you follow the multiple references included it explains that the link was the one prohibited. There are two levels of censorship here by the ACMA. The first is prohibiting a website ( they add it to filters, since they can't control non-australian content). The second is issuing the takedown notice for someone including the link in a comment in Whirlpool. Read the two references that have been included since yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.100.82 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear what is referenced and what is not, due to the poor referencing (and citing of questionable sources). The issue I initially rose was concerning the inline link and warning. I have again removed the warning (though I wouldn't be surprised if it has now been reverted with "OMG STOP CENSORING MY WARNIGNS") but the link is still there. If you seriously want the link included, at least make it look presentable. I have been accused several times of censorship, despite the fact I made clear that I was removing the link for stylistic reasons. That's the reason I'm struggling to assume good faith here. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

well there were two citations on the takedown notice of the link. I have added a citation as you requested, for the point on theACMA secretely blacklisting the actual site, not the link. I thank you for making the link look presentable. I believe that engaging in improving content is much better than deleting it. And that action was the reason I was struggling with good faith. Censorship isn't always a bad word... but engaging in war edits deleting content saying "it's not presented well" is something I personally classify as such. But now we have reached a compromise through cooperative edits. Much better. The article has benefited as a result. Yay for the internets? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The newly added citation still doesn't offer a link to the website... J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

well it can't can it. The ACMA go and issue a takedown notice if someone does. Welcome to our censorship country. I believe if you read the sources cited, you can reliable put together that the issues is the same. The person quoted in the new citation is the same person who reported the site as a test of the ACMA -- theonly way anyone in australia can find out if they censor something or not. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you admit that you don't have a source for the material, but you think it should be included anyway? Original research is not suitable for Wikipedia- what is included must be referenced to reliable sources. Can you provide a reason I should not remove the link as original research? J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the citations? I'll add a fourth for you. How many do you want exactly? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I want one- One reliable source that links to the website. A non-notable pressure group could hardly be considered a reliable source, while the reputable news sources very blatantly do not include a link to the site. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and you have been provided with 5, one of which quotes the exact email which the user received from the ACMA including the url. You will not see that link posted on an australian site for long. What you will read is reputable journalists reporting that the url was prohibited and then a takedown notice was issued for the url. Those links have been provided, and are reliable sources. I encourage you to read all of those articles. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, unless you have a decent reference for what the URL is, it cannot be included. The one that quotes the email is unreliable, and the URL is redacted anyway (unless I've completely missed the point- link?) I don't really care how or why there is not a decent reference for it- I only care that there isn't. I have not been given five, as none of those sources say "this was the website that was removed". Again- do you have a source, or are you going to continue to insist on using original research, and hiding behind "sources" that don't actually give the information you claim them to? Again, is there any reason the link should not be removed as original research? J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a second that links the URL, which is from EFA.org.au. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And since you have now gone quiet, I guess we are done for now. I also thank you for giving valid reasons for your deletion so the issue could be addressed and improved. "looks messy" isn't a very valid reason to delete content. See how much better it works when you engage people in improving content? Cheers. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As a style issue, I have added the site link to the External Links section. Perhaps this is a compromise. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have disengaged the issue. I'll make no further edits to this article, and I will contribute nothing further to this discussion. Best of luck. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

the problem with the edit you just made is that the reference ends up as one of three references at the end of that sentence. A user has no way of knowing that the reference in particular is exactly the site in question. The other references are providing reputable sources for the entire paragraph. I think it is better linking the word "web site" or perhaps the phrase "a page" that just preceeds it, or if necessary putting the reference marker right next to "a page". Otherwise it is just lost. Someone else will need to make that change though as somebody locked this page for editing by new users or anonymous users. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

J Milburn - if you want evidence that the site in question is the actual site that has been banned, have a look around on the internet - several sources which will confirm the site in question here - specifically listing the exact URL that has been banned. In addition a copy of the email to the ACMA and subsequent response can also easily be obtained. 58.108.41.212 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA Censorship

Moved from User talk:Petri Krohn#ACMA Censorship -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Petri. Thanks for trying to clean up the reference a bit. I can't make edits right now, but will make this suggestion here. Perhaps you will agree. your change

The web page — #6 of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses — had been secretly prohibited by the ACMA

Isn't future proof, as #6 as a reference is dynamically generated and if someone inserts a reference higher in the page it will no longer be #6.

I suggest one of the following: leave it as a deep link, and put it on "the page". Leave abortion.tv there and link it, or revert back to "website" and link that to abortion.tv.

Alternatively, if you particularly feel it is better as a reference ( I don't! ) then put the #6 reference right after the text "page", which will help indicate that reference is the page itself. But honestly, this isn't a reference this is a source item; it's not something a person goes to so they can validate a reference, it is the thing itself. That is what hyperlinks are, afterall. But either way, if you could address the #6 not being future proof somehow that would be appreciated. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ou! You are from Australia! Then you cannot see what is on th pages. The "#6" refers to the name of the page, "AbortionTV Pictures #6" on the page itself and on the link on this warning page. It has nothing to do with how references are listed or numbered on Wikipedia artikles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We can see what is on the page. Prohibited does not mean illegal. It is legal to view. Also, the blacklist currently is meaningless. There is currently a debate going on whether to force ISPs to filter the blacklist. So we can see it, and we can do so legally. Currently. We can even legally link it on an autralian site. although the ACMA would then act on a complain to remove that link. Anyway, #6 was just a bit unclear as it was. Also, given there was just an extensive conversation sourcing and adding references for the specific page that was blocked, I think it is not particularly helpful of you to come in and remove it. Can you state a wikipedia policy that does not allow linking to that page? If not, why try to obscure it -- what does that achieve? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT seems to cover the situation. Also, inline citations are discouraged. - Nunh-huh 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate on WP:POINT as it covers here? I can imagine a couple, i suppose, but I admit it's a bit of a struggle. Just asking for what you saw there.

Also, can you point where inline links are discouraged? It's not really a citation, but the thing itself. It just strikes me as odd that the absolute core element of the success of webpages -- hyperlinks -- wouldn't be used on wikipedia, especially given that external ones are given a special markup indicating they are external. Thanks! --Reasonwins (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By POINT I meant specifically the actions mentioned in the article "Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator". With regard to inline links, my apologies, I may have made it harder for you to find by calling it a citation; the relevant policy is that on WP:External links, which, in brief, states "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". This particular link is only tangentially relevant, and is certainly not meritable. "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." The link in question does not fit any of the criteria for "Links to be considered" and fits several of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided". - Nunh-huh 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've reverted the "POINT"-y re-addition of the link. We wouldn't remove a link that we deemed proper just because ACMA said to; we similarly shouldn't add a link that would otherwise be deemed unnecessary just because ACMA forbids it. - Nunh-huh 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that article in particular, however I agree with you what wikipedia contains should have nothing at all to do with the ACMA. I note that you turned it into a non-deep link, and then someone came and make that link a reference just so it was clear. I think that is a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, the most recent edit is an anonymous australian user ( 203. is AU ) who just deleted the whole thing again without any justification. Perhaps IP blocking would be suitable again. I do tend to agree with you though. A deep link by itself is a bit of a surprise, while the full url adds a bit of context. And yes it is not directly related to the article so a deep link may be misleading. However, the link it self is very relevant to the ACMA right now as it is the very first link in 7 years which we have known about. We have a senator right now pushing for that secret blacklist to be forced on all ISPs, and he claims it is "child pornography" and "ultra violent sites". Having the very first published link being someing as mundane as a pro-abortion site is incredibly hot news right now. ( just google ACMA australia abortion ). I did read over external links "links normally to be avoided". I can't say I agree with you that it fits every criteria. In fact, I can't say that it fits any of the criteria. Could you point out which ones you think this link fits? ( note I do agree it is not directly related, and have conceded a ref rather than deep link seems appropriate ). So a reference seems ok, would you agree? --Reasonwins (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I would say that adding a reference to a url that consists entirely of that url so that you can turn it into an actual link from this page is the sort of gaming of the system and WP:POINTiness that is to be avoided. Since you seem to be the only person agitating for addition of the link, I'd suggest you try to build consensus for addition here on the talk page rather than merely adding it again on your own volition, which will only inspire more wikidrama. Now might also be the time to point out WP:3RR, just in case you're not familiar with it, and in case this sort of thing continues. If you like, you could make a request for comments to help determine if others think the link belongs. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that I haven't actually made any edits here (today, i am the other longwinded person above obviously), other than to add text to a reference somebody else put in, and remove a comment added to the article that was clearly inappropriate. But thanks for the heads up. You say I'm the only person agitating. If you look at the edit history, there are about 10 people who have either added the link, restored the link, or improved content around the link. So i'm really not the only one. The POINT doesn't apply very well here. Firstly, wikipedia doesn't respect australia's M15+ ( that is what the ACMA rate on ) rating scheme -- if they did I think half of wikipedia would disappear. But more importantly, the POINT refers to making edits within wikipedia to support arguments made within wikipedia. It's quite a stretch to extrapolate it here. If POINT were the case here, you would be going to every article and removing external links ;) I did ask you which of the "several of the criteria" it fitted for "links normally to be avoided", since that seems to be your only justification for taking it out. Could you respond to that? --Reasonwins (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course it's hard telling who is who when there are anonymous IPs involved. POINT applies quite well here, ("Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"), but if you feel it doesn't we could bring it to the Administrator noticeboard's attention to see if others agree or not. As to the links normally to be avoided: the most pertinent is #13, while 1, 2, 4, and 11 are also arguably true. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now come on, there are also some IP users *removing* the content. Look at the most recent edits. By my count, there are 7 users who have directly put that link in, either as text, inline url, external link, or reference. 5 of them are named users. In addition, 3 users -- two of them named -- have improved content directly next to that link ( literally right on it ). two are IP users ( one of those ip users is me, and as this registered user, I have not put the link in so haven't counted myself twice or anything ). More IP users have taken the link out. So it's not very hard to find out, you just have to look at the edits before assuming you're on the majority, or that we have IP users here fudging the results.

I've mentioned the problem at WP:AN/I, so we can anticipate further input there. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. I was adding this while you added that:

re #13. #1, um absolutely not. #2, the site quotes organisations in it's research. That's verifiable. #4, the context and 6 other references clearly shows this isn't primarily to advertise. But anyway, that relates to external links, and yes already conceded that mostly on #13. This is however relevant, and a reference would be appropriate. Part of the ACMAs job is to blacklist webpages, but they do so in secret. There have been 6 references added about this first publicly discovered censorship. The story has hit all of our major news sorces, and numerous small ones. It isn't a passing issue. It's relevant to their section on internet censorship, and at least 7 other users have said so. It certainly seems appropriate for a citation. On POINT, you do realize don't you that the ACMA will blacklist content that is MA15+ ( that means prohibited to people under 15 years of age ), and so this isn't needed. The article you quote is also not a reputable news source. ( refer to your point #13 ). My point is, if that article were reputable they would realise that all one needs to do is find any MA+15 content. The link itself achieves little to that goal. --Reasonwins (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think our useful discourse probably ended when you made your "gotcha" (but false) accusation of 3RR violation. The paragraph above is a splendid example of wikilawyering, but while it throws a lot of wiki-terminology around, it also fails utterly to address the issues involved. So we will have to rely on the good offices of others if any progress is to be made here. - Nunh-huh 08:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

123. You have come in and forced your opinion on a topic that has already been extensively discussed. You reverted 3 times, how is that false? --Reasonwins (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. 3 times is the maximum allowable. Even if we count all three diffs as reversions, the fourth reversion, the one that would exceed the maximum allowable, isn't there, because I didn't make it. - Nunh-huh 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it. 3 is the absolute maximum, in a best case scenario. You can be banned for less. I've had this pointed out recently, so just letting you know. In doing 3 reverts to try and force your view of the page you aren't using that guideline in good faith. That is why I stopped at just 1 revert. Try reading it again, and read all of it. Glad I could help. --Reasonwins (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd be more far helpful if you'd stop making false accusations. Switching to ad personam argumentation isn't going to bolster your case for adding an extraneous link in order to use Wikipedia to make a point with your local censorship board. - Nunh-huh 09:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite ridiculous that the link to the URL in question has been removed from this article. Let's put all of our agenda's away for a second and accept the fact that including the link is essential if this article is to be informative. Face facts people - if the link was not so confronting nobody would have removed it in the first place. Seeing this sort of censorship occurring on Wikipedia is quite disheartening.

So can I at least on the talk page mention the link in question, so that others can verify the status of the sources, reliable or not? If I said that according to wikileaks that the Complaint Reference is 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278 and it deals with http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm would that be allowable? In the talk pages I mean, not the article itself? Or will this part of the talk page be ruled somehow inappropriate? If so, I hope that while the link I've spelt out may be deleted, a marker saying (deleted URL) would be inserted in its place, and a plausible justification for the edit given. Zoe Brain (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is the gaming that's going on in order to insert the link here, and the insistence that "the link is essential" as if that were not a point in contention. It's possible to provide explicit information without actually linking, as I've illustrated by altering the wiki markup of your addition. - Nunh-huh 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For which my thanks. I entered it in without any markup originally, but it seems the editor automatically inserts that. I wasn't aware of the existence of <nowiki> tags. It was cluelessness not gaming, as the important thing is the text string to search for, not that it be linked. From the ACMA viewpoint, it doesn't matter anyway, text, hyperlink, image, search engine result, anything which can be used to determine the URL is equivalent. Hence the need for blurring of this image in a story in an Australian publication about this controversy. Zoe Brain (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

220.253.112.137 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the references can be sorted out satisfactorily I think anti-abortion page incident in relation to the ACMA action will be far more informative and less biased than currently. At the current edit it looks like ACMA is taking action against Anti-abortion websites. That's not the case since this is an action taken against a specific url after processing a complaint. If that page itself was reproduced on a different URL the ACMA won't act unless there is a fresh complaint. Just saying that they blacklisted an Anti-abortion website without letting readers know the specific content URL adds bias in relation to the ACMA action. (220.233.17.206 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

I personally don't believe that the link adds any encyclopedic value to the article, and I was going to remove it until I noticed the page was locked, and this discussion was here. A text description of what the website contains, as is already in the article, already seems sufficient to me. And, what makes that one site out of all the sites ACMA must have banned so special that it deserves to be an external link, anyway? Xmoogle (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is important for several reasons:

1. It was the first confirmed link on the blacklist
2. It appeared before the ACMA lists were leaked, so that "all the sites that ACMA must have banned" were actually unknown at that point
3. The site's purpose is political, although its addition to the blacklist was I presume due to its graphic nature
4. It caused a take-down notice of the post in the Whirlpool forums, which might be the first confirmed take-down notice
5. It had a wide exposure in the MSM

cojoco (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

Comment It is clear that SoWhy attempted to protect the page from the addition of the link now being added by Reasonswins and Leo Lazauskas. Their comments at his talk page - go close to being uncivil. I have fully protected the page in order to protect the project and this matter (especially for those intent on adding the material) must get full approval before the page is unprotected for the purpose of adding the material.--VS ^talk 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What was "uncivil"? SoWhy repeatedly assisted in removing a perfectly good link to a relevant site, and I mused about his own self-assessment as an "inclusionist". I even added a smiley-like face to show that I wasn't being overly serious.

Furthermore, it is merely your opinion that what some of us have been doing is vandalism. Just as some of us regard what SoWhy and others have been doing is vandalism by removing the link. In fact, why are they so concerned with the link being removed. Is that their political spin showing through? Why else would someone repeatedly remove a link that gives a hard example of what ACMA regards as offensive? Sounds like a vested interest to me. Leo (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo Lazauskas, I suggest that you start assuming good faith since calling those who are protecting the project (Wikipedia) are doing vandalism is unhelpful, bad faith, uncivil and also disruptive and FYI, I'm against the internet filtre but I don't use Wikipedia to protest about it and don't disrupt it to prove a point. Bidgee (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with suggesting that those removing the link are vandalising the efforts of the majority of editors who want it? Do I have to include an emoticon after every phrase to ensure that nobody is offended? ;-)

As regards the inclusion of the link, I suppose I must bow to the minority and its imperium. They have all the power to ban us and our ilk, so we can but tug our forelocks and submit to their greater power and influence. <sniff>.

I would love this edit war to end soon, so we can include some other information that would be of great value to anyone consulting the page. Sadly, that is unlikely, so the poor readers will have to make do with the current sanitised version. Leo (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo, while I am also frustrated that we have a) a majority of people including the link, b) two admins restoring the link, and c) multiple hit and run users who have reverted edits, acted to get the article blocked and then abandoned the discussion, what helps now is to focus on the facts. That is, a majority of people have put the link in. Most that have removed it have done so with bad practice, by deleting and running. So we can just focus on the actual points for why it can be included, which I have summarised above, in the numbered points. Note, that nobody has added anything yet to the "reasons against" list. If you have any to add to those lists, please do. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections User:BoomerAB and User:Mjquin id are not Administrators (as to what you have listed on the talk page below). Calling me and Nunh-huh hit and run editors is bad faith and you have been warned about that and has it come to you that I may be busy ATM. Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out, they issued a final warning for being banned to a user so I'll double-check and update the below text if correct.

Look, I don't mean to act in bad faith, but can you accept that you have also acted in bad faith? You are not following your own quoted assuming good faith but instead jumping on a low-key publicity grabbing article, which doesn't even have multiple sources. I figure, if you can work to get an article reverted or locked, you can then engage in discussion over why you think that should be the case. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

reviewing those users' pages, they both seem to monitor for vandalism, and have the ability to block users. That sounds like admin to me. But if there is a more accurate term I should be using, feel free to make a suggestion. Or am I getting this completely wrong? --Reasonwins (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Both users are WP:VANDALISM patrollers, that use tools to attempt to detect and undo vandalism in any form (including edit warring) and hand out warnings to users who engage in vandalism or vandalism like behaviour. Additionally they have the WP:ROLLBACK permission to revert edits more efficiently than normal users. They do not have the ability to block users, though they as any user have the ability to report people of interest to administrators who might use their block permission. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, administrators have no requirement to engage in the editorial proces. They protected an article because they observed that "normal" editors were unable to write this article without getting into heavy disputes. As such admins "freeze" the entire proces in hopes that such a thing will be able to be done properly at a later time. It is a shame an admin had to step in, but it is how Wikipedia works. The admin does not have to engage in assisting in writing this article, though they sometimes might do so voluntarily. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You sum that up incredibly well, DJ. Good job :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I contend that a majority of Wikipedia editors want that link included. I am a wikipedia editor, and I don't like to see Wikipedia being abused in this way, wading into controversies that we are not a part of. It is inevitable that those that feel strongly that the link should be included are more likely to come here to express their opinions than those that feel otherwise would. A flash mob does not constitute a consensus. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now the Wikipedia Controversy about this page has made it into a Reliable Source. Which because it's in Australia, now has to even fuzz out the URL in the screen capture of the Wiki page. This is surreal. That's not a POV, it's an objective reality. Zoe Brain (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. And a minority doesn't constitute much of a representative sample either. Leo (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended protection

I have extended the full protection of this page by another 5 days. I have done so because the matter of inclusion of the link is still being debated and I see it as my duty to protect wikipedia and its editors. That is especially the case following some of the events by Australian Police today in relation to another organisation. I should also like to add that I have been in contact with the Wikipedia Foundation by email and they have asked me to de-escalate the on-wiki situation if possible - I see 5 more days of protection as assisting in the de-escalation. I hope that those AGF'ing me in this matter will agree with my actions today.--VS ^talk 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A sensible and justifiable move in my view, well done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

Two blacklists

I think the current description of the ACMA blacklist leak misrepresents what occurred. Wikileaks posted two sets of blacklists, from two separate sources. SC stated that the first was not the ACMA list, and that the second looked like the ACMA list. It probably takes a few reliable sources to puzzle this out, but it's all there, and if you look at WL it doesn't even require any interpretation. cojoco (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I wrote "it was reported that..." Got any links to news stories about the 2nd list? Salmanazar (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the primary source, which has the updated list, and this newscorp article, which says that the "updated list" is "like the ACMA list". cojoco (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Salmanazar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The second of the three "External Links" "ACMA's AM/FM/DTV broadcast station listings" is broken. I don't know how to fix it. ACMA's new layout seems to be rather different, but I suggest https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-Radio/Television/Lists-of-broadcasters/list-of-licensed-broadcasting-transmitters Could someone who knows how please fix it? Solong2go (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)