Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 12

message: 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)
replies: text: We shouldn't rush to give people checkuser.  It would be foolish for example to give Curps checkuser right now considering that he has an unauthorized bot that he runs with admin privileges and he refuses to explain how it works and how having checkuser would affect it's operation and whether it would factor into it even when requested privately.  To my knowledge there is no oversight on that and giving curps checkuser would just give him more power with no more oversight. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya I wouldnt think that would be a good idea, but there are a half dozen people off I can think of that would benifit having it. It is a tool that could be abused, but also the less people with checkuser (as it is now) the less oversight there is since the checkuser logs are restricted to checkuser accounts (atleast I believe they are). Mike (T C)  05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkuser 

message: 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)
replies: text: It appears that arbitrator Dmcdevit deleted that request for arbitration because the ArbCom had voted 7-0 to reject it.  The arbitrators saw no case of admin abuse.  At least one of them thought that there might be a bilateral case for personal attacks between Sam Sloan and Billbrock, but the RfAr was not presented that way.  In my opinion, and I am not an arbitrator, bringing the case against Howcheng looked like vexatious ligitation.  Robert McClenon 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was [[User:Dmcdevit]] allowed simply to Delete my Request for Arbitration? 

message: 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:
:Please do not open cases; only an arbitrator or clerk may do so.
Hopefully this will get the message across. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, actually JzG accidentally made the RfAr on the Jason Gastrich subpage before submitting it to the main RfAr page. Still, it's not a good idea to open cases if you're not informed of the procedure. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening cases 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there a need? You say "used to". Doesn't this imply you would no longer need this? Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not the world's greatest need, but there seems to be an immense backlog of work here and I'd find it incredibly useful. I also think I'm trusted enough to use it correctly. If I don't get it, no biggie, but there's no harm in asking, right? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's unfortunate.. perhaps RCU should be shutdown until you can come to an agreement? I do think the "Checkuser Vetting" that was done earlier this month was a reasonable idea (though perhaps a clerk should have been tasked with removing "votes" though and limiting it to strictly discussion). Would it be worth trying that again (with a clerk handy to remove comments by people trying to vote like it's RFA)? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to support/oppose "votes" in the vetting case, where that is what we are looking for. My concern is that I don't want a system where people can requst that they be given checkuser access, or else everyone and his mother will apply. Raul654 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the arbitrator that removed the checkuser vetting for Curps seemed to think voting/polling was bad, which is where I got the "voting is evil" idea from. Sorry about that. =) And FWIW, I agree that allowing anyone to request checkuser would be a very very bad idea. I take it since Curps doesn't have checkuser rights that his vetting didn't work out (either process itself or the voting in general)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, we're at an impasse - some arbitrators object to giving it to any non-arbitrator, while others are OK with it. (I am in the latter group). Raul654 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheckUser status: how does one go about gaining this? 

message: I have blocked User:Licorne  (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  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)
thread_title:  Licorne (blocked) 

message: Posted to User talk:Jdforrester
*Wikipedia:Civility is an official Wikipedia:Policy. Do you think when someone goes to all the work of posting a sincere request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Time magazine thumbnail deletions that your telling that person "Don't be ridiculous" is Civilty and in particular an example of the kind of conduct expected of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member? As "Ta bu" deleted my Time cover image and listed another for deletion withouit explanation, it seems to me that an Abritration Committee member would have:
# ensured "Jmbos" e-mail text was posted to the appropriate policy page 
# and politely placed a link to such an Offical Policy statement.
- Ted Wilkes 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, right under where it says fair use? No one is saying that Time magazine covers cannot be fair use; what's being asserted is that they're being used improperly. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: She was made a saint.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you have this on talk arbitration and think this dispute is relevant to the Arbitration Committee I will comment. The Arbitration Committee is for the purpose of resolving internal disputes within Wikipedia by reference to Wikipedia policy and practice. We do not and could not resolve any dispute between a Wikipedia user and an external copyright holder. We are simply not competent even in the slightest degree. What we can do is enforce the conservative policy Wikipedia has regarding fair use when there is disagreement between users. We do this without attempting to ascertain case law concerning copyright. We look instead to Wikipedia policy and practice which discourages fair use. Fred Bauder 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am asking for case law within Wikipedia. That's why I said let's pretend we are lawyers. I am not asking for outside legal opinions, I am asking for internal due process. Anyone can say "I emailed the creator of Wikipedia and he told me ...". I am asking for citation of Wikipedia policy and a case study of how magazine covers can be used and how they should not be used in Wikipedia, as if you were writing a well thoughout legal opinion using citation of existing Wikipedia case law.  I am also requesting that the deletions are stopped while the civilized discussion is occuring, otherwise the deleter wins by default. I am sorry if there was confusion. I also see we are both eponymous screennames. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify (by example), then... the Time cover shown in Stalin showing his selection as "Man of the Year" would not be covered under your interpretation of fair use? The article gives passing mention to his selection in 1939, and not at all of the 1943 second selection the cover shows. Granted, judgement call, but it seems not tied in at all, hence not covered? If so, then we do have a problem, as there are a fair number of those sorts of uses out there. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The problem need not be remedied by the removal of the image, but by the addition of content about the image. A paragraph or so (depending on the scope of the article and/or image) should suffice for us to claim fair use, although as usual, IANAL. Johnleemk | Talk 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Civility and Time covers

message: 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)
replies: text: Since you have this on talk arbitration and think this dispute is relevant to the Arbitration Committee I will comment. The Arbitration Committee is for the purpose of resolving internal disputes within Wikipedia by reference to Wikipedia policy and practice. We do not and could not resolve any dispute between a Wikipedia user and an external copyright holder. We are simply not competent even in the slightest degree. What we can do is enforce the conservative policy Wikipedia has regarding fair use when there is disagreement between users. We do this without attempting to ascertain case law concerning copyright. We look instead to Wikipedia policy and practice which discourages fair use. Fred Bauder 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am asking for case law within Wikipedia. That's why I said let's pretend we are lawyers. I am not asking for outside legal opinions, I am asking for internal due process. Anyone can say "I emailed the creator of Wikipedia and he told me ...". I am asking for citation of Wikipedia policy and a case study of how magazine covers can be used and how they should not be used in Wikipedia, as if you were writing a well thoughout legal opinion using citation of existing Wikipedia case law.  I am also requesting that the deletions are stopped while the civilized discussion is occuring, otherwise the deleter wins by default. I am sorry if there was confusion. I also see we are both eponymous screennames. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case law

message: *Wikipedia has blanket coverage to store and display Time magazine covers from the Time magazine archive if they are properly cited and dated and there is a link back to the Time magazine cover art jpg.
*Wikipedia cannot display Time magazine covers except within the article called Time (magazine).
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)
thread_title: I only see two possible outcomes

message: 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)
replies: text: Just to clarify (by example), then... the Time cover shown in Stalin showing his selection as "Man of the Year" would not be covered under your interpretation of fair use? The article gives passing mention to his selection in 1939, and not at all of the 1943 second selection the cover shows. Granted, judgement call, but it seems not tied in at all, hence not covered? If so, then we do have a problem, as there are a fair number of those sorts of uses out there. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The problem need not be remedied by the removal of the image, but by the addition of content about the image. A paragraph or so (depending on the scope of the article and/or image) should suffice for us to claim fair use, although as usual, IANAL. Johnleemk | Talk 03:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Er...comments