This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
Can the ArbCom provide me with a date at which it will promise to hear my appeal? It has almost been three months now. Hell, I'll settle for a partial appeal. Let's just look at one aspect of my case again, and see if I can get just one of my many restrictions lifted, and then we can move on to another. I don't mind the pace, as long as there's light at the end of the tunnel. Everyking 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What I wanted was to be told a date. I disagree with the whole basis of the ruling, so my goal is not to present the ArbCom with some phony argument that I've "reformed", but rather to persuade the ArbCom that it, and not me, was the one in the wrong. The point of my appeal request is that I want a chance to argue this and actually be listened to and given a fair chance of success. I am more interested in being vindicated by the ArbCom than in having the practical restrictions lifted. I would happily agree to pragmatically adhere to the restrictions until next November if the ArbCom would in turn set the record straight about me. Everyking 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, there's a lot of other people on the ArbCom besides Raul. Do any of them read this page? What do they think? There's a big problem in all of this in the lack of any dialogue. Back when the case was active, the only person who talked to me seriously was Raul, in a private IRC chat (ironically, I think he is one of the most wrongheaded people on the entire committee, yet I keep getting stuck discussing all this stuff with him). How about some discussion? Everyking 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I signed off on the proposition that you were uninformed about a number of issues you commented on. I was skeptical about it at first, but on checking out a number of you comments came to the conclusion that it was true. A lot of knee jerk responses, but not always appropriate when a person digs into the facts. I by no means consider you a hopeless case, after all, I supported you for arbitrator, but I do think you need to spend some time investigating situations before you sound off on them. Fred Bauder 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said in EK's late January appeal, I don't think the ArbCom should accept any appeal until EK stops commenting on the behavior of other admins. Edits such as these [3] [4] [5] [6] show that he continues to comment on actions by other administrators, often without familiarizing himself with the situation. Rhobite 17:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the very first paragraph on the RfAr page says:
As you can see, it says last step. Last resort. Other avenues must be exhausted. This seems to be what it says, right? Well, clearly this did not happen in my case: there was no RfC, no mediation, and nobody even seriously listened to my offers, arguments and suggestions. RfAr was the first (and last) step. So, on that basis, I think the ruling against me is invalid. Would it be reasonable for me to request an appeal on that basis? Everyking 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, you may want to consider why you received 100 more oppose votes than support votes during this year's Arbcom election. You may also want to read some of the comments associated with the "oppose"/"neutral" votes. Perhaps that should tell you something. -- TML1988 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
One day I will be in big trouble for sticking my nose where I shouldn't, but Everyking, if anything, your persistent "request for appeal" and your arguments above can't help but reinforce (at least for me) the perception that having you off WP:AN and subpages was a great thing to do, and the longer you are out of there the better for everybody else. Sorry to put it that way, as I very much agree with your belief that admins are not heeding the community and seeking consensus as much as they should, but frankly, the best you can do is drop this. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, all right, to come at it from another perspective, look at precedent. In the past I was always given appeals, and they were always granted, weren't they? Regardless of what I think, it seems the ArbCom sees merit in giving people (or at least me) appeals after certain lengths of time. For example, in the EK2 case, I was given an appeal after two months, and at two months I allowed to resume editing with mentors, and then four months after that I appealed and was allowed to resume editing unrestricted. Why shouldn't I be given an appeal this time around, then? Surely the ArbCom can be flexible. Normally, if the ArbCom were to take the appeal, it would be assumed at the outset that they would reduce the penalties. I'm not even asking that—if you review the matter and give me a fair hearing, and still decide to subject me to the same draconian penalty, then I will shut up and wait out my sentence quietly. I'll even propose something novel: if the ArbCom as a whole can't be bothered to review my case, why not empower a small subset of arbs to review it? Never in Wikipedia history, as far as I know, has anyone else so utterly open to compromise and concessions been subjected to such harsh penalties. Everyking 09:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to be grateful to the ArbCom for not banning me after three cases. That's absurd, twisted logic. I've been innocent in all three of those cases; each case only adds to the indignation, it doesn't make me feel more blessed. And to TML, I am sorry if he or she finds me irritating, but I believe that of just about everyone involved in the situation, I am the one who can be accused of acting hastily with the least justice. Everyking 19:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, why don't the arbitrators tell me what I can do to earn the right to an appeal? This presumes there is something I can do, of course, short of groveling. It seems like a better way forward for the arbitrators to talk than for me to talk; me talking hasn't accomplished much and, I note, actually tends to just get my grave dug even deeper. Everyking 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a start. If you really don't understand what you're doing wrong, it's not from lack of attempts to explain it to you nor from a limited number of people doing the explaining. -- Calton | Talk 12:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember asking for Calton's opinions. I already know what his opinions are and I've long since given them the consideration, or lack thereof, that they are due. What I've been looking for is discussion with the arbitrators. I'd like an arbitrator to explain to me specifically what they think I did wrong—and it only counts if it's something covered by the decision—and what or how I can demonstrate to them to get them to grant me an appeal. That's actually a very simple request, or at least it would be if the basis for this whole thing was something more than: "EK gets on the nerves of some influential people, and questions practices that we aren't really comfortable seeing questioned, at least not so prominently and persistently, so we need him to shut up." But if that is the basis, then of course it could be difficult to articulate reasonable answers to my questions (unless they were willing to abandon everything they've been holding to thus far), therefore the natural inclination, in this case, would be to simply avoid answering my questions. As they have been doing.
And as for the scripture quote, I don't have any religious affiliation, but I have always been fond of that bit. I think it could be applicable here, but not really in the way that you're presenting it. Everyking 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, the ArbCom told Everyking not to comment on situations without familiarizing himself with them. On 4 January 2006, in response to the non-controversy about the ArbCom election delay, he proposed that the ArbCom simply not close any cases until the election was finalized. The cases that were open and needed closing including AndriyK, Gibraltarian, EffK, and Beckjord, all of whom were banned. At the time, I asked Everyking which previous ArbCom cases were badly decided. I asked him to score all ArbCom cases decided since 1 October 2005, and to review all open ArbCom cases, to decide whether they involved trolls or flamers, and if so, whether a longer backlog would be useful. I did not get an answer. My conclusion, but I probably misinterpret Everyking, is that the rights of trolls and flamers to due process are more important than the rights of good faith editors to have trolls and flamers banned. It was clear to me that Everyking was not familiar with the EffK case. He had no obligation to be familiar with it, but he was commenting on open cases without knowledge. I am not commenting on AndriyK or Beckjord because I did not familiarize myself with them. I am not saying that Everyking is a troll. He is not. But he does seem to be sympathetic with trolls whom admins are trying to control. If he thinks that trolls should have rights, then I suggest Usenet. Robert McClenon 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Calton once attributed my position on content issues in Ashlee Simpson-related articles as being due to my alleged desire to have Ashlee call me and/or give me a backstage pass. My new ulterior motive, apparently, is to game the system in my favor. In both of these things I have failed dismally: no phone call, no backstage passes, a whole series of harsh ArbCom restrictions, and the emnity of the whole Wikipedia establishment. I think if I really wanted to game the system, I would learn from some of my critics, who are skilled in this regard, as the history of the ArbCom indicates. Rather, I chose the path of principle and the consequence has been that I have been attacked, punished and mocked to no end, and yet I continue down that path without deviating. Everyking 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As ArbCom is responsible for granting checkuser access can they PLEASE look into promoting 2-3 crats or admins to checkusers as the checkuser situation is getting quite ridiclious. Mike ( T C) 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
At 06:23 on February 11, 2006, User:Dmcdevit deleted my request for arbitration, which was entitled User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch.
Why did he do that? Was he allowed simply to delete my Request for Arbitration? Sam Sloan 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In the past two days, we've had two cases opened by non-arbitrators and non-clerks. This is not a good thing, because the next arbitrator or clerk who stumbles on the half-opened case will still have to recheck every step of the opening process, and have hir job complicated further by the statements, etc., and any stuff added to the evidence/workshop, which may or may not be in compliance with procedure. I've added the following notice to the main RfAr page:
Hopefully this will get the message across. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello all. I would like to find out how to gain CheckUser status. I believe I have the required network experience (I work in IT, I've done my CCNA, yadda yadda yadda), and I believe that I would have the support of the community not to abuse the priviledge. I would find it very useful to identify sockpuppets (I used to be asked all the time about sockpuppets and was never able to give an answer). I would definitely use the priviledge sparingly.
So... can I gain CheckUser ability? Is this the appropriate forum to ask for it?
Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In previous discussions, the Arbitration Committee unanimously agreed that Arbitrators who want it should be granted it. Beyond that, there is disagreement about giving it to non-arbitrators. We all seem to agree that checkuser access is a tremendous responsibility (particularly with regard to the Foundation privacy policy), and access shouldn't be doled out lightly. We also agree that an RFA-like system is a very bad idea, because it is tantamount to opening the floodgates for requests. For these reasons, some arbitrators are opposed to giving it to any non-arbitrators; others, like me, feel that there are a few special cases that giving checkuser access to a non-arbitrator would be a good idea. So, in this regard, we are at an impasse. Raul654 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was also interested in getting this access to help out with the immensely immense backlog of work in RCU. The arbitrator I talked to basically told me that she would forward my message to the arbcom mailing list but that there was little chance I would be granted it. I think that if there are ever CU privelages handed out to people outside of ArbCom I'd be pretty trusted since I'm a bureaucrat and I seem to have gotten quite a good level of support in the recent elections considering the concerns about my age (although I really don't know what people think about me). Anyways, mark me down as interested. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I think they should grant checkuser to a few trusted people on a temp basis to get rid of the backlog, because it is retarded the amount of requests on the page. Mike ( T C) 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In all but trivial cases, applying existing law extends the margins of law slightly, because it creates new precedents. That is especially true for high courts - if the existing law is clear, the case should be dealt with by a lower court. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Licorne [24] (and indeed a suspected sock User talk:67.78.143.226) for 3RR on Hilbert. Naturally enough, that makes it hard for Licorne to answer here. OTOH I *did* previously unblock Licorne [25] to give a chance to answer here, and Licorne didn't take it.
If any arbitrator feels that Licorne ought to be unblocked to allow an answer here, then I'm sure you will William M. Connolley 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Posted to User talk:Jdforrester
-
Ted Wilkes 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, if as Jdforrester says at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Time magazine thumbnail deletions: "Wikipedia is not a copyright violation repository" then why is "Time magazine cover" part of the Upload file process? -
Ted Wilkes 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What is your assertation? You haven't made any cogent argument. You have made a statement and used the word "fair use". Please explain in more than a sentence why you feel it is not "fair use" and why they are "improper". Here is Wikipedia policy on fair use: (this is called a citation, and I am citing to you Wikipedia written policy)
There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include: Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). see: Wikipedia:Fair use
What part of this are you saying does not allow fair use of Time magazine covers? I'll even help you. Are you arguing that we are not using them in "good faith"? Are you arguing that we are not using them with "identification without critical commentary". Are you arguing fair use of a Time cover should only apply to covers appearing in the article titled [[Time (magazine)]] ?
No one should say they have a communication from the Wikimedia Foundation. They don't promulgate policy to individuals. They post to their protected namespace. They also don't email individual users concerning policy. Joan of Arc also claimed she talked to God, does anyone know what happened to her? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets pretend we are a real court. Please cite cases studies for fair use and cases showing where fair-use is prohibited. Lets have a discovery process where the people deleting the images cite existing case law and cite relevant legal documents. Tell us your argument: Are you arguing that the time covers are not low resolution copies? Are you arguing that fair use is only allowed in the article called Time (magazine)? Also issue a "stay" so that the deletions are stopped during the arbitration process. If we wait another 5 days the point will be moot as the covers will already be deleted. As a reasonable person I would assume that a low resolution copy would be one where the original size of the image is less then 1/4 of the original image; and contains the entire cover of the magazine. And if you have discussed this with the Wikimedia Foundation please cite the reference in official Wikimedia protected namespace postings. When Moses told people he talked to God, at least he showed up with the ten commandments inscribed in stone. So far all I have is seen is two people telling me that they have personally chatted with Jimbo, and I have to accept their word for it. The Wikimedia Foundation promulgates policy throught their protected namespace, not in emails to individuals. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Whichever policy is chosen, a new boilerplate license template needs to accompany each image, that clearly specifies which of the two constitute fair use. There should be no need to justify why any individual Time cover is fair use in a biography, and another is not fair use in a biography. If some magic word is missing, put it inside the biolerplate template so it gives blanket coverage.
Also, policy should be in place to discuss then delete. So far I have only been notified after my images have been deleted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
From my understanding, fair use is very very very very very strict. We can't be uploading images willy nilly to Wikipedia. Fair use images should never be used to illustrate articles (i.e. it's not fair use to include a picture of Katie Holmes from an ad on her Wikipedia article just to show what she looks like, nor is it fair use to slap a fair use picture of a blonde on blonde to illustrate blonde hair). They are there to depict events/persons/organisations/objects discussed by the article; the incident in the image must be discussed extensively by the article. Therefore, it is fair use in, say, Ketuanan Melayu, to show a picture of a prominent Malay leader brandishing a dagger because he was doing so in defense of the idea of ketuanan Melayu, and this particular incident is discussed in the article. The Katie Holmes article also has some very good examples of how fair use images should be done up. You can't just upload a fair use image to Wikipedia, use it inappropriately, and then go mad when it's deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
When scrolling through the requests for arbitration cases, it is rather difficult for me to tell when one case ends and another one begins, because each request for arbitration is cast as a subsection, === ... ===, and each of its parts is cast as a subsubsection, ==== ... ====, and they basically look the same font and style to me. I wonder if other people noticed that too, and whether this is thought as an issue. If so, I think this would be rather easy to fix by a clerk by modifying the style of subsection headings, say by using a bigger font or inserting an <hr> like the way it is between sections, == ... ==. Just a thought. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would go for the silly option
===<font size="+2"> Sample arbitration case</font>=== ==== Subpart 1 of this case ==== ==== Subpart 2 of this case ====
which yields
But maybe it is not worth bothering. So far I seem to be the only person minding the same font size in h3 and h4 (subsection and subsubsection respectively). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there some reason why evidence is presented "flat" and not in subpages through the magic of hypertext? Guettarda 05:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
Can the ArbCom provide me with a date at which it will promise to hear my appeal? It has almost been three months now. Hell, I'll settle for a partial appeal. Let's just look at one aspect of my case again, and see if I can get just one of my many restrictions lifted, and then we can move on to another. I don't mind the pace, as long as there's light at the end of the tunnel. Everyking 10:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What I wanted was to be told a date. I disagree with the whole basis of the ruling, so my goal is not to present the ArbCom with some phony argument that I've "reformed", but rather to persuade the ArbCom that it, and not me, was the one in the wrong. The point of my appeal request is that I want a chance to argue this and actually be listened to and given a fair chance of success. I am more interested in being vindicated by the ArbCom than in having the practical restrictions lifted. I would happily agree to pragmatically adhere to the restrictions until next November if the ArbCom would in turn set the record straight about me. Everyking 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, there's a lot of other people on the ArbCom besides Raul. Do any of them read this page? What do they think? There's a big problem in all of this in the lack of any dialogue. Back when the case was active, the only person who talked to me seriously was Raul, in a private IRC chat (ironically, I think he is one of the most wrongheaded people on the entire committee, yet I keep getting stuck discussing all this stuff with him). How about some discussion? Everyking 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I signed off on the proposition that you were uninformed about a number of issues you commented on. I was skeptical about it at first, but on checking out a number of you comments came to the conclusion that it was true. A lot of knee jerk responses, but not always appropriate when a person digs into the facts. I by no means consider you a hopeless case, after all, I supported you for arbitrator, but I do think you need to spend some time investigating situations before you sound off on them. Fred Bauder 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said in EK's late January appeal, I don't think the ArbCom should accept any appeal until EK stops commenting on the behavior of other admins. Edits such as these [3] [4] [5] [6] show that he continues to comment on actions by other administrators, often without familiarizing himself with the situation. Rhobite 17:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the very first paragraph on the RfAr page says:
As you can see, it says last step. Last resort. Other avenues must be exhausted. This seems to be what it says, right? Well, clearly this did not happen in my case: there was no RfC, no mediation, and nobody even seriously listened to my offers, arguments and suggestions. RfAr was the first (and last) step. So, on that basis, I think the ruling against me is invalid. Would it be reasonable for me to request an appeal on that basis? Everyking 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, you may want to consider why you received 100 more oppose votes than support votes during this year's Arbcom election. You may also want to read some of the comments associated with the "oppose"/"neutral" votes. Perhaps that should tell you something. -- TML1988 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
One day I will be in big trouble for sticking my nose where I shouldn't, but Everyking, if anything, your persistent "request for appeal" and your arguments above can't help but reinforce (at least for me) the perception that having you off WP:AN and subpages was a great thing to do, and the longer you are out of there the better for everybody else. Sorry to put it that way, as I very much agree with your belief that admins are not heeding the community and seeking consensus as much as they should, but frankly, the best you can do is drop this. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, all right, to come at it from another perspective, look at precedent. In the past I was always given appeals, and they were always granted, weren't they? Regardless of what I think, it seems the ArbCom sees merit in giving people (or at least me) appeals after certain lengths of time. For example, in the EK2 case, I was given an appeal after two months, and at two months I allowed to resume editing with mentors, and then four months after that I appealed and was allowed to resume editing unrestricted. Why shouldn't I be given an appeal this time around, then? Surely the ArbCom can be flexible. Normally, if the ArbCom were to take the appeal, it would be assumed at the outset that they would reduce the penalties. I'm not even asking that—if you review the matter and give me a fair hearing, and still decide to subject me to the same draconian penalty, then I will shut up and wait out my sentence quietly. I'll even propose something novel: if the ArbCom as a whole can't be bothered to review my case, why not empower a small subset of arbs to review it? Never in Wikipedia history, as far as I know, has anyone else so utterly open to compromise and concessions been subjected to such harsh penalties. Everyking 09:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to be grateful to the ArbCom for not banning me after three cases. That's absurd, twisted logic. I've been innocent in all three of those cases; each case only adds to the indignation, it doesn't make me feel more blessed. And to TML, I am sorry if he or she finds me irritating, but I believe that of just about everyone involved in the situation, I am the one who can be accused of acting hastily with the least justice. Everyking 19:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, why don't the arbitrators tell me what I can do to earn the right to an appeal? This presumes there is something I can do, of course, short of groveling. It seems like a better way forward for the arbitrators to talk than for me to talk; me talking hasn't accomplished much and, I note, actually tends to just get my grave dug even deeper. Everyking 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a start. If you really don't understand what you're doing wrong, it's not from lack of attempts to explain it to you nor from a limited number of people doing the explaining. -- Calton | Talk 12:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember asking for Calton's opinions. I already know what his opinions are and I've long since given them the consideration, or lack thereof, that they are due. What I've been looking for is discussion with the arbitrators. I'd like an arbitrator to explain to me specifically what they think I did wrong—and it only counts if it's something covered by the decision—and what or how I can demonstrate to them to get them to grant me an appeal. That's actually a very simple request, or at least it would be if the basis for this whole thing was something more than: "EK gets on the nerves of some influential people, and questions practices that we aren't really comfortable seeing questioned, at least not so prominently and persistently, so we need him to shut up." But if that is the basis, then of course it could be difficult to articulate reasonable answers to my questions (unless they were willing to abandon everything they've been holding to thus far), therefore the natural inclination, in this case, would be to simply avoid answering my questions. As they have been doing.
And as for the scripture quote, I don't have any religious affiliation, but I have always been fond of that bit. I think it could be applicable here, but not really in the way that you're presenting it. Everyking 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, the ArbCom told Everyking not to comment on situations without familiarizing himself with them. On 4 January 2006, in response to the non-controversy about the ArbCom election delay, he proposed that the ArbCom simply not close any cases until the election was finalized. The cases that were open and needed closing including AndriyK, Gibraltarian, EffK, and Beckjord, all of whom were banned. At the time, I asked Everyking which previous ArbCom cases were badly decided. I asked him to score all ArbCom cases decided since 1 October 2005, and to review all open ArbCom cases, to decide whether they involved trolls or flamers, and if so, whether a longer backlog would be useful. I did not get an answer. My conclusion, but I probably misinterpret Everyking, is that the rights of trolls and flamers to due process are more important than the rights of good faith editors to have trolls and flamers banned. It was clear to me that Everyking was not familiar with the EffK case. He had no obligation to be familiar with it, but he was commenting on open cases without knowledge. I am not commenting on AndriyK or Beckjord because I did not familiarize myself with them. I am not saying that Everyking is a troll. He is not. But he does seem to be sympathetic with trolls whom admins are trying to control. If he thinks that trolls should have rights, then I suggest Usenet. Robert McClenon 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Calton once attributed my position on content issues in Ashlee Simpson-related articles as being due to my alleged desire to have Ashlee call me and/or give me a backstage pass. My new ulterior motive, apparently, is to game the system in my favor. In both of these things I have failed dismally: no phone call, no backstage passes, a whole series of harsh ArbCom restrictions, and the emnity of the whole Wikipedia establishment. I think if I really wanted to game the system, I would learn from some of my critics, who are skilled in this regard, as the history of the ArbCom indicates. Rather, I chose the path of principle and the consequence has been that I have been attacked, punished and mocked to no end, and yet I continue down that path without deviating. Everyking 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As ArbCom is responsible for granting checkuser access can they PLEASE look into promoting 2-3 crats or admins to checkusers as the checkuser situation is getting quite ridiclious. Mike ( T C) 18:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
At 06:23 on February 11, 2006, User:Dmcdevit deleted my request for arbitration, which was entitled User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch.
Why did he do that? Was he allowed simply to delete my Request for Arbitration? Sam Sloan 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In the past two days, we've had two cases opened by non-arbitrators and non-clerks. This is not a good thing, because the next arbitrator or clerk who stumbles on the half-opened case will still have to recheck every step of the opening process, and have hir job complicated further by the statements, etc., and any stuff added to the evidence/workshop, which may or may not be in compliance with procedure. I've added the following notice to the main RfAr page:
Hopefully this will get the message across. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello all. I would like to find out how to gain CheckUser status. I believe I have the required network experience (I work in IT, I've done my CCNA, yadda yadda yadda), and I believe that I would have the support of the community not to abuse the priviledge. I would find it very useful to identify sockpuppets (I used to be asked all the time about sockpuppets and was never able to give an answer). I would definitely use the priviledge sparingly.
So... can I gain CheckUser ability? Is this the appropriate forum to ask for it?
Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In previous discussions, the Arbitration Committee unanimously agreed that Arbitrators who want it should be granted it. Beyond that, there is disagreement about giving it to non-arbitrators. We all seem to agree that checkuser access is a tremendous responsibility (particularly with regard to the Foundation privacy policy), and access shouldn't be doled out lightly. We also agree that an RFA-like system is a very bad idea, because it is tantamount to opening the floodgates for requests. For these reasons, some arbitrators are opposed to giving it to any non-arbitrators; others, like me, feel that there are a few special cases that giving checkuser access to a non-arbitrator would be a good idea. So, in this regard, we are at an impasse. Raul654 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was also interested in getting this access to help out with the immensely immense backlog of work in RCU. The arbitrator I talked to basically told me that she would forward my message to the arbcom mailing list but that there was little chance I would be granted it. I think that if there are ever CU privelages handed out to people outside of ArbCom I'd be pretty trusted since I'm a bureaucrat and I seem to have gotten quite a good level of support in the recent elections considering the concerns about my age (although I really don't know what people think about me). Anyways, mark me down as interested. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I think they should grant checkuser to a few trusted people on a temp basis to get rid of the backlog, because it is retarded the amount of requests on the page. Mike ( T C) 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In all but trivial cases, applying existing law extends the margins of law slightly, because it creates new precedents. That is especially true for high courts - if the existing law is clear, the case should be dealt with by a lower court. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Licorne [24] (and indeed a suspected sock User talk:67.78.143.226) for 3RR on Hilbert. Naturally enough, that makes it hard for Licorne to answer here. OTOH I *did* previously unblock Licorne [25] to give a chance to answer here, and Licorne didn't take it.
If any arbitrator feels that Licorne ought to be unblocked to allow an answer here, then I'm sure you will William M. Connolley 21:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Posted to User talk:Jdforrester
-
Ted Wilkes 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, if as Jdforrester says at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Time magazine thumbnail deletions: "Wikipedia is not a copyright violation repository" then why is "Time magazine cover" part of the Upload file process? -
Ted Wilkes 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What is your assertation? You haven't made any cogent argument. You have made a statement and used the word "fair use". Please explain in more than a sentence why you feel it is not "fair use" and why they are "improper". Here is Wikipedia policy on fair use: (this is called a citation, and I am citing to you Wikipedia written policy)
There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include: Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). see: Wikipedia:Fair use
What part of this are you saying does not allow fair use of Time magazine covers? I'll even help you. Are you arguing that we are not using them in "good faith"? Are you arguing that we are not using them with "identification without critical commentary". Are you arguing fair use of a Time cover should only apply to covers appearing in the article titled [[Time (magazine)]] ?
No one should say they have a communication from the Wikimedia Foundation. They don't promulgate policy to individuals. They post to their protected namespace. They also don't email individual users concerning policy. Joan of Arc also claimed she talked to God, does anyone know what happened to her? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets pretend we are a real court. Please cite cases studies for fair use and cases showing where fair-use is prohibited. Lets have a discovery process where the people deleting the images cite existing case law and cite relevant legal documents. Tell us your argument: Are you arguing that the time covers are not low resolution copies? Are you arguing that fair use is only allowed in the article called Time (magazine)? Also issue a "stay" so that the deletions are stopped during the arbitration process. If we wait another 5 days the point will be moot as the covers will already be deleted. As a reasonable person I would assume that a low resolution copy would be one where the original size of the image is less then 1/4 of the original image; and contains the entire cover of the magazine. And if you have discussed this with the Wikimedia Foundation please cite the reference in official Wikimedia protected namespace postings. When Moses told people he talked to God, at least he showed up with the ten commandments inscribed in stone. So far all I have is seen is two people telling me that they have personally chatted with Jimbo, and I have to accept their word for it. The Wikimedia Foundation promulgates policy throught their protected namespace, not in emails to individuals. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Whichever policy is chosen, a new boilerplate license template needs to accompany each image, that clearly specifies which of the two constitute fair use. There should be no need to justify why any individual Time cover is fair use in a biography, and another is not fair use in a biography. If some magic word is missing, put it inside the biolerplate template so it gives blanket coverage.
Also, policy should be in place to discuss then delete. So far I have only been notified after my images have been deleted. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
From my understanding, fair use is very very very very very strict. We can't be uploading images willy nilly to Wikipedia. Fair use images should never be used to illustrate articles (i.e. it's not fair use to include a picture of Katie Holmes from an ad on her Wikipedia article just to show what she looks like, nor is it fair use to slap a fair use picture of a blonde on blonde to illustrate blonde hair). They are there to depict events/persons/organisations/objects discussed by the article; the incident in the image must be discussed extensively by the article. Therefore, it is fair use in, say, Ketuanan Melayu, to show a picture of a prominent Malay leader brandishing a dagger because he was doing so in defense of the idea of ketuanan Melayu, and this particular incident is discussed in the article. The Katie Holmes article also has some very good examples of how fair use images should be done up. You can't just upload a fair use image to Wikipedia, use it inappropriately, and then go mad when it's deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
When scrolling through the requests for arbitration cases, it is rather difficult for me to tell when one case ends and another one begins, because each request for arbitration is cast as a subsection, === ... ===, and each of its parts is cast as a subsubsection, ==== ... ====, and they basically look the same font and style to me. I wonder if other people noticed that too, and whether this is thought as an issue. If so, I think this would be rather easy to fix by a clerk by modifying the style of subsection headings, say by using a bigger font or inserting an <hr> like the way it is between sections, == ... ==. Just a thought. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would go for the silly option
===<font size="+2"> Sample arbitration case</font>=== ==== Subpart 1 of this case ==== ==== Subpart 2 of this case ====
which yields
But maybe it is not worth bothering. So far I seem to be the only person minding the same font size in h3 and h4 (subsection and subsubsection respectively). Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there some reason why evidence is presented "flat" and not in subpages through the magic of hypertext? Guettarda 05:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)