Talk:Caesar DePaço

Article Content Deleted by Office Action

Following the outcome of a legal case in Portugal, some content of the article has been removed by WMF WP:OFFICEACTION. See the discussion at the WMF noticeboard. Jahaza (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct link is Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Office action: Removals on the article Caesar DePaço due to the short URL linking to a specific revision. --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 00:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The new legal banner thing

Can we link or quote the text of the legal judgement on what-must-be-mentioned here on the talkpage, perhaps in a talkpage banner of FAQ or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Ping to @Barkeep49, since you added and created the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've been waiting to see what the answer is to this question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 We have a sort of answer at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Follow_up_on_some_questions_from_Foundation_Legal, I quote:

"How can the community deal with the article going forward? This is a good question, and it’s a point we’ve raised in legal arguments unsuccessfully in the past as well. For example, if a court demands that all information about a certain topic be gone, but it’s still floating around in sources, that makes it really difficult to prevent someone popping up six months later who researches the topic and just adds it back in. In this case, we were able to provide some detail about the topics that were covered that could be used as a talk page warning. To copy that here, it’s anything 1) relating to accusations of past crimes, 2) an organization DePaço was alleged to have founded, and 3) his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post. Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves."

However, my reading is that WMF office didn't remove [1] the "his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post.", so i think there is a bit of mixed message here.

That said, we can for example add "Per court order, this article must not mention anything 1) relating to accusations of past crimes, 2) an organization DePaço was alleged to have founded, and 3) his resignation (or dismissal) from a civil service post." to the article template you made, then it will be visible to editors and others, and everybody will surely be happy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Update on the civil service post thing: [2], we can have that because it's his own comments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree we have enough to update the notice. I'm not sure when I'll ahve time to do so, but hopefully someone else can get it done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång thoughts? It's quite long in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed a few words via copy-editing, if that helps. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 The "here" link would be better as Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Follow_up_on_some_questions_from_Foundation_Legal (made the change). We could add that the WMF intends to appeal the court order. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

On the whole, I think it's ok. Not too long, and it mentions NPOV. Should we also add something like "Editors who edit on these issues may face legal consequences."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should but should do that as an edit notice because that's where we normally warn editors of things. Truthfully I think we might want to complement that with an edit filter of some kind to give someone a second chance to see the warning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Small accessibility comment: don't hide links behind the word 'here', instead, be concrete like 'court order'. Saves words too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

"This might get us into trouble"

@ChildrenWillListen: how are we responsible for what's at wayback machine? Qdfghj22 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We're not, but linking to the material directly during an ongoing court case against us isn't the best idea. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Come on, we're not fighting censorship with an attitude like this. Qdfghj22 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

more consensus needed @Qcne, SunDawn, and CoconutOctopus: what do you think - should there be a hatnote with a link to an archived version of this article? Qdfghj22 (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

(Not Qcne, SunDawn or CoconutOctopus, but still:) No, I don't think there should be; that would be pretty contemptuous, IMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No. Fighting censorship is not something we do in mainspace, not by adding WP:EL:s in hatnotes anyway. And even if this whatever isn't in this WP-article atm, the internet is bigger than WP.

What should be done, mainspace-wise, is making this article excellent from the WP-perspective, WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION etc, in part so that if the WMF goes to court again, they don't have to defend a crappy article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I think that just opens us up to a lot of risk. CoconutOctopus talk 08:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

César DePaço wins new battle against Wikipedia

César DePaço wins new battle against Wikipedia

Make of that what you will. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if this gentleman is at all familiar with the concept of the Streisand effect? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I would note that what Wikipedia has actually done is not what that post says they will do. Make of that what you will. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Well you know, WP:SPS and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Other language wikis do not appear to be affected by the court order

The Spanish wiki in particular, is rather detailed. Interesting decision by the WMF. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I've started a French article on this gentleman... If you are able, let's create articles about this person on other language wikis. We are here to spread knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The WMF didn't make the decision. The Portugeese Court did because DePaco sued about enwiki and ptwiki. The WMF has stood by the content and they're clearly not going to go out of their way to take down more good content. So of course they didn't voluntarily choose to muzzle more projects that the court hadn't ordered them to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They made the decision to abide by the court ruling, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

So what's the interesting decision you're pointing out? The WMF has not been our adversary here so I don't find it all that interesting that they've done as little as possible to follow the law. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There were similar decisions in France and India, they did nothing for those articles. Singling out this article in particular over a legal case is troubling... Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see why we're having different reactions now. They actually did comply with the orders in France and India doing things to those articles (and in India they appealed and when they won, they put things back). So it's not surprising to me that they also complied with the Portuguese Court. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing it'll take time to shake this out. Quoting Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Follow_up_on_some_questions_from_Foundation_Legal, " Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

simple.Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Subject of court order

We say (my emphasis):

In 2025, the Supreme Court of Portugal ordered that Wikipedia remove certain content from the English and Portuguese Wikipedia articles

But is that so, or did the court order The Wikimedia Foundation to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That was a little funny

I googled "Caesar DePaço" Wikipedia to see what popped up, and I found this 2020 pressrelease: "Please help us thank Dr. DePaço for his generous donation of a Police Canine to the Beachwood Police Department. ... We encourage everyone to follow Dr. DePaço's life work by visiting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio

It would appear his image is also a copyvio, the website where it was sourced is not CC licensed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's fine, I looked yesterday on Archive.org; one from around when it was uploaded released it on CC license. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Caesar-DePaço.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)