Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.
Archive 12


Contents

Appeal again

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)

I would support an easing of your restrictions if you tried following Hipocrite's advice to you for a couple of months. We've seen some dramatic examples in the last little while of what happens when admins' soft, 'people' skills fall down. If you were to demonstrate a moderated tone and cool approach to critiquing and discussion admin actions I think that your broad familiarity with policy and long Wikipedia experience would be welcomed back to WP:AN. In the absence of such a demonstration, I fear that lifting your restrictions would just add fuel to fires that don't need any more combustibles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
While I cannot speak for the other arbitrators, I do reiterate my previous comment on this issue - "I will not consider lessening the decision in any way until I see a convincing evidence that you [Everyking] will refrain from the behavior that got you sanctioned." [1] I agree fully with TenOfAllTrades' observation that, if anything, allowing you to comment is far more likely to inflame opinion and cause trouble than it is to solve them. Beyond that, you are free to appeal to Jimbo. Raul654 20:47, 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)

Referring back to the same comment I previously referred to, "You have yet to accept responsibility for the behavior that got you sanctioned". Your above comment illustrates this all too clearly. "I want a chance to argue this and actually be listened to and given a fair chance of success." - you had this. It was called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. You did not then, nor have you since presented any reason why we should in any way modify the decision. In fact, your comments here seem to illustrate *exactly* why it was necessary in the first place - because you don't seem to understand that your harassment campaign against other admins was unacceptable, and persisted in it despite a multitide of warning signals. And try as you have been to appeal this every four to six weeks, there is no substance to your claims. Raul654 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, I suppose I'll just continue to appeal every four to six weeks, then. What else is there to do? Jimbo says every now and then that he is looking at my case or will look at it soon, but nothing has happened so far. Why don't you guys specifically ask Jimbo to look at it, if you're unwilling to look at it yourselves? Everyking 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Why should the arbitrators ask Jimbo to review your case? That does not make business sense. The arbitrators think that the restrictions were appropriate and that there is no need for Jimbo to review your case. I think that if you just continue to appeal every four to six weeks, without any material evidence that your behavior has changed, then you may be creating a case of being a vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the ArbCom incapable of error? I want them to review their own decision, not to judge whether or not my behavior has changed, so of course I'm not going to present evidence to demonstrate the latter—that would work against my goal, and benefit the ArbCom, so it's no wonder they want me to do it. I suppose if I really wanted the restrictions lifted I could say all the things they want to hear, and I'd get them lifted soon enough, but that's not the point; the point is I want them to get it right, not just lift various practical restrictions. The restrictions are annoying, but the insane injustice of the ruling itself is the real problem. Everyking 16:03, 9 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)

Some of us want the Arbcom to ban trolls and flamers. +You wanted to have the ArbCom hibernate because you thought that it was the wrong ArbCom after a delay in the election. You want the ArbCom to discuss a closed case with you at length, or you want to discuss it with everyone. As a result, some of us are coming to think that you may be one of the trolls and flamers. Robert McClenon 08:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not looking for your approval. In fact, considering all the things I've seen you write, I'm pleased to have your disapproval. Everyking 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case, we can be pleased to agree to disagree on that. Robert McClenon 17:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you start by telling me why I should want to look at it again. And it better be a better reason then justice. If I'm going to look at this, it better be for the good of the encyclopedia, and hopefully not just for an ego. Has anything changed? And will there be some kind of good for the encyclopedia in changing your restrictions? Dmcdevit·t 08:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think justice is for the good of the encyclopedia. Abusing volunteers is bad for the project. That's not just idealism like you're presenting it; there is a practical effect to it. Furthermore, I feel my views on administrative matters bring a perspective in favor of thoughtful deliberation and collectively-oriented decision-making that is helpful in steering things in the right direction. There is a strong current in the thinking of the Wiki "establishment" that tends toward action over discussion and individual decision-making over collective decision-making, and my ability to comment on administrative matters would probably help correct or at least mitigate this kind of erroneous thinking. Most likely controversies such as the recent wheel-warring would be reduced with a greater presence of the kind of perspective I favor. Everyking 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's say for now that all that's true. Has anything changed since the last ruling? What reason would I have of looking at it again and coming to a different conclusion? Dmcdevit·t 09:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The ruling was wrong in the first place; my appeal is not to ask the ArbCom to forgive me and go easy on me, but to review the case itself and reconsider it all. There are a large number of points to be raised, but the most essential one, I suppose (and one I'm allowed to speak about, also), is that the ruling against me hinged on the claim that I was "uninformed" about the matters on which I was commenting. This was greatly exaggerated and misrepresented, and couldn't possibly be grounds for such a harsh ruling even if it was true. I mean, I think even if you agree with the basis of such a preposterous ruling, you have to concede that the penalty was wildly out of proportion. A year's ban from discussing admin actions (despite being an admin!) for being "uninformed"? It was never even clear to me how I could have defended myself against it. Could I have presented evidence that I was informed in various cases, would that have disproved the claim? The ArbCom steamrolled over that issue entirely; my arguments were virtually ignored and my requests for more time were denied. Everyking 10:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There are a large number of points to be raised, but the most essential one, I suppose is that the ruling against me hinged on the claim that I was "uninformed" about the matters on which I was commenting. - just a thought - it *might* have had *something* to do with your campaign of harassment against other admins. Raul654 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyking, then how do you explain "I've never seen him [Boothy443] doing anything but making good contributions" [2]? This kind of statement is preposterous on its face, and in fact a direct violation of your ruling, ("Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"). You have yet to present anything to persuade me, other than your own (seemingly unresearched) opinion of yourself. Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
That comment itself is predicated on being informed: it is based on what I have seen that user do. And I've seen a good bit, probably more than most of the people criticizing him, but never anything bad on a significant scale (the routine oppose votes are maybe questionable, but I support his right to use his votes to make an all-around statement if he wishes).
Let's step back and look at the broader scope. In January of last year the ArbCom put me under a harsh ruling from editing certain articles on the basis of the idea that I was attempting to "own" them and keep out other contributors. But now, amazingly enough, many people edit those articles, and I happily watch and am perfectly content to have less work to do on them. No serious disputes have arisen in a long time. So, am I now repressing my natural tendencies toward article ownership, or is it that I was never actually trying to own anything to begin with? As I said then (and said, and said, and said some more), the problem was that a few contributors with strongly deletionist views (at least one of whom has since admitted he was wrong) were removing huge amounts of information from those articles without prior discussion and deliberation about the information, on the basis that it was non-notable (despite being fully cited with perfectly notable sources from both the web and print). I favored working out a consensus on what information to include and what to exclude, by discussing things point by point prior to removal, or at least only removing certain portions at a time instead of cutting out most of the info right from the start and then demanding all discussion be done on the basis of that butchered version.
No, the problem then was that people who didn't want an encyclopaedia swamped with trivia written by adoring fans were removing huge amounts of embarrassingly inane detail that was bringing the whole project into disrepute, but you happily ignored the strong consensus that existed in favour of getting rid of all the shit and put it all back in, via such devices as many 'partial reverts' that added up to a complete revert. Your behaviour was so tediously and relentlessly obnoxious that everyone with serious encyclopaedic intentions got bored and worked on more fruitful prjects. The original problem doubtless remains and would recur if anyone tried to get those articles looking any less risibly fawning. Worldtraveller 14:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My explanation seems to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by subsequent events: the deletionists went away, insane amputations and decapitations of article content ceased, and other, constructive contributors eventually came along and now everything seems to be going smoothly. It seems the problem was not with me, but with the deletionists; the problem was not my so-called ownership attempts, but their removal of cited information in huge quantities without first engaging in discussion—or making any real attempt at consensus building during the entire course of the dispute. In other words, the ArbCom took the wrong side, and it did so on the basis of an accusation that turned out to be nonsense. Now, my question is, how might all this be applicable to the present case? Is it possible that, if it acknowledges that it jumped the gun the first time around, it might recognize the need to study the accusations against me more carefully and critically? Perhaps the accusation in this case, of being uninformed, is also baseless?
I want to make a proposal. If the ArbCom will agree to review my case, I will agree to abide by the present restrictions until it reaches a new ruling—and if that new ruling turns out to be the same as the old one, fine, I will shut up and wait out my sentence until it expires in November, with no more appeal attempts. But give me a chance to argue this thing properly; let the process be a fair one. It can go on for a long time if the arbitrators want it to: that will keep me under my present restrictions for longer, which I suppose would make my opponents happy, and at the same time give me more time to make my case, which would make me happy. Everyking 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. I am now fully convinced there is no reason to revisit the case. What you say about Boothy443 is spectacularly wrong. I don't want or care about your offer to abide by the present restrictions. You are bound by them. Your compelling proof that should make me want to look at it again is that you think your first case was in error, so perhaps this one is as well? You've been sporadically arguing this since the decision was made, and been able to offer no convincing defense; there's no reason that would change once we gave you an evidence and workshop page to play with. Care to explain the six or seven blocks you've received because of violations of these restrictions? Dmcdevit·t 06:32, 13 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)

I recall Raul saying to me in IRC that the sole basis of the "uninformed" claim was that he found it inconceivable that anyone could hold my views while being informed. I would love for someone to present an example of me actually saying something that is seriously and demonstrably uniformed. What we're really talking about here is a difference of perspectives, and the ArbCom has hit on this "uninformed" line as a way to discredit and silence my perspective. Everyking 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The official basis of the 'uninformed' finding of fact was stated here. In several instances you even launched into criticism of admin actions while stating that you were completely uninformed.
It is possible to criticize–and even undo–actions taken by other admins without starting a firestorm on AN/I. I have done it on more than one occasion. Doing so, however, requires very careful research and preparation as well as an assumption of good faith on the part of your fellow admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I explained all this at considerable length in my last formal appeal request on the RfAr page and frankly I don't feel like doing it all over again. Everyking 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A better reason than justice - You do realize there are people, like me, who consider that a contradiction in terms? If something can't be done fairly, it's pretty much ipso facto not worth doing at all. Fortunately, I have yet to see any good reason to believe that's actually true of Wikipedia; this notion that justice is incompatible with getting an encyclopedia written seems to be one of those memes that's often claimed, but only rarely and poorly actually defended. PurplePlatypus 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Justice has the implication of some kind of moral or legal correctness. I, however, am concerned for neither policy nor fairness, except insofar as they help make an enyclopedia. I am certainly not saying justice is incompatible to that, I'm not advocating injustice; the issue is simply irrelevant. Likewise, cries based on principle of the matter will fall on deaf ears, except insofar as they are also based on expediencey and practicality for the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that the reference to "A better reason than justice" was poorly worded. The real issue should be what standard of justice is required. Some Wikipedians want it to operate under the same standards of justice as apply in political republics. Wikipedia is not a political republic. Wikipedia is a (volunteer electronic) workplace. In any workplace, the product has to be foremost. If an employee of a company constantly criticizes the company's managers (e.g., saying that they are stupid or dishonest), the company has a right to caution him, and if necessary, to fire him. An employee has the right to justice, in that he has a right not to be fired if the allegations (e.g., of maligning management) are incorrect, or if his statements are privileged (e.g., via a whistle-blower law). However, he does not necessarily have a right to a hearing on whether the company's managers really are stupid. Robert McClenon 00:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "workplace"? Workplaces are run in all different kinds of ways. You seem to think Wikipedia should be modeled on a top-down, non-democratic workplace style. Everyking 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to twenty-first century corporate workplaces. Employees should have rights, but a corporate workplace is not a democracy. Neither is Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 02:04, 13 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)

In both of the instances you cite I was familiar with the situation. In the latter two I was very familiar. Everyking 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point: According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3, "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." It doesn't matter whether you were familiar with the situation. Rhobite 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the ruling apply to admin actions that haven't happened, but might in the future? Does it apply to general situations, instead of specific actions—involving an admin action but not fundamentally based on the admin action? Everyking 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course it does. That kind of hairsplitting is what landed you in 3 separate arbitrations. Rhobite 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
How can that be hairsplitting? They are both fundamentally distinct from the ruling prohibiting criticism of admin actions. I would argue the contrary, that the rulings, which have always been abusive to begin with, have been abusively interpreted so as to make them even more restrictive than they would ordinarily seem. Everyking 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
They are both fundamentally distinct.. Like hell they are: they are both fundamentally (using the real meaning) about second-guessing admin actions, period/full stop. Or are you using some definition of "fundamental" other than is found in the dictionary? --Calton | Talk 07:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the very first paragraph on the RfAr page says:

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

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)

No, it would not. Raul654 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That is the answer I expected, from the person I expected to get it from. But I have a follow-up question. If that is not reasonable, why is it not reasonable? It seems to follow directly from the arbitrators' own policy. Why am I an exception to the rule? Everyking 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Every attempt to moderate your behavior (such as the agreement you had with snowspinner) failed. That is why the decision we did come up with was necessary, although even now you seem to be in denial about that. Now you seem to be trying to cook up procederial reasons for an appeal, based on the (false) assumption that the Committee cannot render a decision until all other steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried unsuccessfully. Raul654 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As you know, the agreement did not fail because of me, but because it was not fairly reciprocated. Up until this failure to reciprocate happened, the agreement had gone smoothly and without incident—two months. So, if that's the only thing you can fall back on to claim there was something prior to RfAr, then you essentially have nothing at all. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the normal parts of the dispute resolution would have failed, at least not through any fault of mine—in fact I had already offered pretty much every concession possible. I didn't say the ArbCom absolutely had to require those earlier parts of the process (so I am certainly not assuming that, as you are assuming I assume); my point was that the policy dictated in the paragraph I quoted indicates that prior dispute resolution would be expected in all but extraordinary cases, and if such an extraordinary case arises the ArbCom should be able to provide a good reason for not requiring the earlier steps. Everyking 01:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As you know, the agreement did not fail because of me... Wrong: you cancelled the agreement, period/full-stop. Make any excuses why you cancelled, it's still objectively true that you -- Everyking -- cancelled it. Which means it is objectively true that it failed because of you -- your action, period/full-stop, ended it. You've made your bed, lie in it.
There is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the normal parts of the dispute resolution would have failed You mean other than three ArbCom casesand countless blocks for violating same, one or two RfCs, and thousands of words of admonitions, advice, scoldings, complaints, and expressions of annoyance? You're living proof of David Gerard's Law of Esclating Admin Rulings, "No, you can't do that, either". --Calton | Talk 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There have been three cases altogether, and the first two had nothing to do with this. The RfC (there was only one) was also about a completely separate issue, over a year ago. Everything you're citing here that could possibly be evidence of prior resolution is actually from an article content dispute that has nothing whatsoever to do with this admin philosophy dispute. Everyking 10:59, 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)

I have done both of these things; actually I did them while the election was still ongoing. Everyking 04:58, 21 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)

I'm not sure I see why you think I shouldn't be there. How do my arguments reinforce your perception? Everyking 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on the above you seem to be a pain, that's why. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a situation that demands that one be a "pain". I don't think I'm a "pain" in general, though. At least I try not to be. Everyking 05:59, 21 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)

No opposition! This is definitely the best response I've gotten from the arbs so far. Sounds like I should go ahead and post my appeal request and keep my fingers crossed. Everyking 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb and speculate about possible reasons why your appeal requests have failed.
In the past I was always given appeals, and they were always granted, weren't they?
And you're back before the ArbCom, and back under editing restrictions, within a year. You're generally a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, but your judgement heads south when you feel the need to defend the wiki from destruction. Sheltering Ashlee Simpson or defending us from Snowspinner, certain issues seem to really push your buttons, and you have trouble making a measured, reasoned response.
The previous restrictions were lifted when you expressed remorse over your conduct and indicated that you wouldn't continue the behaviour for which you were censured. (At that, ending your edit warring on Ashlee Simpson topics required a second ArbCom case.)
In the current case, you have expressed no indication that you understand why your behaviour has so many people up in arms. You have regularly blamed the ArbCom instead for a lack of vision, understanding, intelligence, compassion, and competence. Take Oleg Alexandrov's words above to heart, and recognize that being a "pain" too often just isn't going to convince people that you're interested in working well with others.
Back in Everyking 3 I suggested a mentorship arrangement to avoid further arbitration: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. You rejected this suggestion out of hand ("I am not interested in making myself a fourth rate editor. If I'm going to become one I'd rather let somebody else do it to me, so at least I don't have myself to blame.") There's been no indication that you will voluntarily stop the behaviour that brought about EK3 and EK4.
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.
This may be true, but I'm pretty sure that you're in virgin territory. As far as I know, we don't have any other editors who've been before the ArbCom–and been sanctioned–four times in one year. The fact that you haven't been banned outright suggests to me that the ArbCom recongizes the value of your contributions to the project—but also notes that your approach to the resolution of certain types of conflicts is unproductive.
Now, you're making remarks (like the one immediately above) that are smug and border on trolling. The fact that the arbitrators have gotten tired of your ceaseless sounding off on this page should probably not be construed as agreement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record - I am not aware of any user besides Everyking who has had three arbcom cases without the third resulting in a year-long ban. The third is usually a very unlucky one (Lir, Irismeister, and MNH were all banned in their third cases. I suspect there are more that I'm missing) Raul654 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Rex071404 ;) Dmcdevit·t 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Lir was actually two cases to gone, not three. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Lir was involved in 3 cases (Lir, Lir/Guanaco, Lir/Snowspinner) although if memory serves he was not sanctioned in one of them. Raul654 19:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think TenOfAllTrades is exactly right, here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, even I am starting to get sick of your constant ranting, Everyking. Whether you want to admit it or not, I believe your rants above illustrate all too clearly your tendency to act too hastily before making proper judgment, as indicated by some of your ArbCom election vote comments. --TML1988 16:06, 23 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)

See my very first comment on this thread, which I made back on Feb 8 (which itself was a restatement of my comment from January 25) - "While I cannot speak for the other arbitrators, I do reiterate my previous comment on this issue - "I will not consider lessening the decision in any way until I see a convincing evidence that you [Everyking] will refrain from the behavior that got you sanctioned." [7] Raul654 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That answers nothing at all. Specifically what should I refrain from doing—exactly what did I get sanctioned for? Commenting without reading? That charge was untrue, but I guess the only way I can satisfy it is to include lots of references to specific details to prove I have extensively researched what I am discussing. So, if I start doing that, do I get an appeal? I'm a bit worried I will look silly if I do that. Everyking 09:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homework for Everyking

Snowspinner: The following users have, in the past two weeks, asked EK to look into what he's talking about more, provide evidence, use a form of dispute resolution, or otherwise lay off. Bishonen [8], Radiant [9] [10], Ta bu shi da yu [11], TenofAllTrades [12], Jwrosenzweig [13], Carnildo [14], Jayjg [15], JRM [16], Mel Etitis [17], me (Snowspinner) [18], Calton [19], UninvitedCompany [20], David Gerard [21], Raul654 [22], and Kbdank71 [23]. More or less without exception, Everyking's responses to these complaints, questions, or comments is to ignore them, or to make further accusations.
SlimVirgin:I don't hate your guts, James, far from it, and I've had very little contact with you, but I sometimes dread having to put admin actions on that board because of the almost inevitable criticism from you. On a few occasions, I've actually not put something up because of it (which ironically would have led to even more criticism from you had you realized), and on a couple of times (early on when I was first made an admin), I didn't take admin action because I saw you were around and I couldn't be bothered dealing with the comments. It's because of this kind of thing that negative feelings toward you grow. Maybe if you could start to see it that way round, instead of assuming the negative feelings come from nowhere. That doesn't mean everything's your fault, but I do think you triggered and now maintain the dynamic. On the plus side, if you're at fault, it means you're in control of it, and it's almost certainly not too late for you to change it, because this is a very forgiving community.
FOF 3: Everyking's behavior has often been uncivil, including border-line personal attacks

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)

You may also want to consider Luke 6:41-42:
"Why don't you notice the little piece of dust in your friend's eye, but you don't notice the big piece of wood in your own eye? How can you say to your friend, 'Friend, let me take that little piece of dust out of your eye.' when you cannot see that big piece of wood in your own eye! You hypocrite! First, take the wood out of your own eye. Then you will see clearly to take the dust out of your friend's eye."
Now, Everyking, I don't know what your religious affiliation is, but I think if the above passage doesn't illustrate your situation clearly, nothing does. --TML1988 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking you should take your misguided sanctimony elsewhere, since it actually illustrates nothing at all about the situation at hand. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Be careful in posting from Scriptures originally written in Hebrew or Greek. Someone might bring an RfAr against you having to do with which translation you are using. Robert McClenon 20:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the King James Version of that passage is so much more poetic. --Carnildo 21:22, 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)

I don't remember asking for Calton's opinions. No, you just whined generally about how you didn't understand what was going and no one had ever explained anything to you: I merely posted examples to demonstrate that you were delusional or lying, or, on the off-chance you suffer from severe memory-loss problems, reminders of the things you asked for.
I'd like an arbitrator to explain to me specifically what they think I did wrong Do you have a reading deficit? All I did was quote stuff and include links from your most recent ArbCom case, not offer my opinion, so your latest bit of disingenuousness in calling it "my opinion" is particularly bogus. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"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" See Calton's list above. "and what or how I can demonstrate to them to get them to grant me an appeal." I have answered this question with the same (verbatim) reponse on January 25, February 8, and February 24.
As it is apparent that all responses are simply going in one ear and out the other, this will not be replying to any more of your messages, Everyking. I would likewise encourage the other arbitrators to ignore your comments too, for the same reason - responding to them is a huge waste of time. Lastly, if I see you try to impliment the plan you described above (to lodge a new appeal every 4-6 weeks), my next action will be to make a motion to deem you a vexatious litigant and add "making arbitration requests and appeals" that to the list of things you are prohibited from doing. Raul654 05:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me the only purpose I have in using the arbitration process is to make appeals about this, so basically what you are saying is that I am not allowed to make appeals, and if I try, my penalty will be that I will be forbidden to make appeals. Anyway, you claim to have answered my questions before, but I've never seen these answers. If in fact you did write answers, you can quote your previous answers and paste them here. I suppose there's a possibility I might have missed them before. If you have taken a vow of silence, maybe someone else could be bothered to do that. Calton seems full of energy for this kind of thing. Everyking 06:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What energy? I cut-and-pasted a few paragraphs and links. You seem to have enough energy to look for new ways to game the system and complain every few weeks. And yet, you seem to have NO energy to read the ArbCom cases and the evidence and comments from a few dozen editors over the last year, no energy to read SlimVirgin's neat and brief encapsulation, no energy to read the single sentence of FOF #3. but I've never seen these answers? Try opening your eyes; try taking your fingers out of your ears and stop humming to yourself whenever something you find inconvenient is pointed out to you. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Homework detail for Everyking

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)

If you put "accused" in front of "trolls and flamers", then yes, you have accurately represented my position. I don't even believe the latter part of your conclusion expresses a right; it's just an element of process. Everyking 04:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is the development of the encyclopedia. Different Wikipedians disagree as to the extent to which due process is necessary or compatible with the development of the encyclopedia. Whether or not the good faith editors have a right to have the trolls and flamers banned, the completion of the encyclopedia does depend, among other things, on preventing the trolls and flamers from interfering with good faith editing. At least now I understand where Everyking is coming from: a position that process is more important than product. Robert McClenon 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, Robert, you're wrong. In my opinion, Everyking hasn't and doesn't consider the implications of whatever he says: he merely looks for whatever angle he can get to game the system in his favor. It's no eeper than that: any philosophical considerations or principles are, at the very best, secondary. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Then Calton and I can respectfully disagree. That is a harsher judgment of Everyking than my own. I think he is a utopian, and you think he is gaming a system.
That doesn't make sense; for at least some of the advocacy I've seen EK do, I don't see how his own self-interest is involved at all. (Which is more than can be said for some of his opponents.) I'll remain silent on whether it's "gaming the system" but I don't think "in his favour" applies, at least not all the time. PurplePlatypus 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
@Robert: I don't think it's process being more important than product so much as Process is Important, and is much more rarely in conflict with the best interests of the product than some people appear to think. And if that's not EK's view, it certainly is mine, though on the whole I've been a lot less vocally obnoxious about it; ignoring process is inherently harmful to the product, on this view, and rarely if ever brings sufficient benefits to compensate. PurplePlatypus 20:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
PurplePlatypus and I can respectfully disagree, because I have never known him or her to be "vocally obnoxious". If Everyking would agree that it is not useful to be vocally obnoxious, then he and I could also respectfully disagree, rather than simply disagreeing. Being vocally obnoxious violates civility, and civility is important too. Robert McClenon 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the real issue is not whether process is important in a workplace. Wikipedia is a volunteer electronic workplace, and the product is paramount. Improved processes result in a better product. My concern is largely about a viewpoint that due process is paramount. In political democracies, due process really is paramount. Political democracies are not primarily intended to produce products, but to protect human rights and provide a culture in which citizens can freely produce products of their choices. In Wikipedia, process is important, but must also be seen as a means toward improving the quality of the product. I disagree with Everyking's view that the rights of alleged trolls and flamers are more important than preventing the trolls and flamers from interfering with the editing of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon 22:18, 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)

It's hard to tell if you genuinely lack the metacognitive ability to understand why you've been sanctioned several times and really believe that somehow each of the three AC cases has been some kind of dreadful mistake, or whether you're just enjoying trying to piss people off. I think it must be the latter, because of the endless number of times it's all been explained to you very patiently, and you still bleat on about how no-one will tell you what you've done wrong. Frankly I think it would be to everyone's benefit if you were prevented from lodging any more of these vexatious and purely disruptive 'appeals'. Worldtraveller 14:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

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)

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)
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)

Was User:Dmcdevit allowed simply to Delete my Request for Arbitration?

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)

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)

Opening cases

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)

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)


CheckUser status: how does one go about gaining this?

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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. — Ilyanep (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)

Black letter law vs Judge made law

  • I'm one of the many editors who believes that we should not be constantly expanding the role and powers of the Arbitration Committee; in this case, my concern rests with the belief that we should try to stick to our mandate of policy adjudication, rather than policy creation. I don't think that really qualifies as a "cop-out". Jayjg (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) [comment copied from main page to here because I want to respond to it, but I don't want to be seen as commenting on a specific request. Ben ]

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)

  1. We don't have any lower courts.
  2. The arbcom does not set binding precedent. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
We have admins. They're more like a judge/jury/executioner than a court, but they serve the same role. Especially as contentious issues tend to get worked out between a handful of them. We also have RfC, which in theory isn't binding, but in practice usually is. And precendents can indeed be overturned or ignored, but not usually without a good reason. That reason is often something like 'that precedent doesn't apply in this special case because...' and then the judge(s) need to decide if it does or doesn't. Either way, a new precedent is set, unless it gets appealed in a higher court. Another way that precendents can be made irrelevant is if the black letter law changes. Otherwise, future cases can increasingly be predicted based on past cases. I don't see any of this is bad, it's just the way that civil society tends to run, and for good reasons. I can't imagine that Wikipedia won't head in the same direction over time. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a social experiment. Any society or community it fosters exists to build the encyclopedia, nothing more and nothing less. I have never heard of admins citing an arbcom case to back up their action(s), except in cases where the admin was blatantly in the wrong (i.e. FeloniousMonk banning a POV pusher from editing particular articles just because the arbcom had done so before to a totally different editor on a totally different article). RfC has never been binding, to the best of my knowledge, and most of the community seems to agree it's been totally useless, and is only adhered to as a formality before filing an RfAr. Precedent has never been used before on Wikipedia, AFAIK, so your original point is invalid. Our rules are not the laws of a nation; they are the by-laws of an organisation, where legal crap like "precedent" generally does not apply. Johnleemk | Talk 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I mostly agree. User conduct RfC is a historical vestige. It was originally a required step prior to asking Jimbo Wales to ban a user. He would not even consider such a request unless the required steps were met. The responses to the RfC served a role similar to the present-day RfAr proceedings. Now that there is an RfAr, RfC is largely obsolete. Robert McClenon 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry... whut? RfC, when I created it in (IIRC) 2003 before we had created the Arbitration Committtee, was initially about getting articles patched up before Featured Article nominations. It later morphed into a bitching-about-articles forum, and then lately a bitching-about-users forum as well. For this I am profoundly sorry (almost as sorry as I am about creating non-Babel user boxes).
However, user RfCs have nothing to do with appeals direct to Jimbo, AFAICR - ISTR that they came in after we started operation. ICBW, of course, but I certainly, fundamentally disagree that RfCs are in any way "obsolete" because of Arbitration. Feel free to review the dispute resolution proceedures that we wrote up over two years ago, and which still largely hold.
James F. (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, fancy that. Mav has claimed he created RfC (see the talk page of WP:RFC/E): "Make it so! This was kinda my idea all along when I first created the RfC process. But I never got around to creating an enforcement side to RfC due to the creation of the ArbCom at about the same time and my selection to be in that body. --mav 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)" Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
What have I started? I wasn't trying to say how things should be, just predicting how things are likely to be, based on what happens elsewhere. I agree that Wikipedia is not a social experiment, in the sense that we are doing it because we want to see how societies form. But we are a virtual society, and we are an interesting case study if anyone wants to record it. That's not good nor bad, it's just the way things are. As for who created RfC, success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. But still interesting to hear how it evolved. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne (blocked)

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)


Wikipedia:Civility and Time covers

Posted to User talk:Jdforrester

  1. ensured "Jmbos" e-mail text was posted to the appropriate policy page
  2. and politely placed a link to such an Offical Policy statement.


- 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)

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)

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)

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

Case law

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)

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)
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)

I only see two possible outcomes

  • 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)

Er...comments

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)

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)
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)

Section headings

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)

Hm...I thought that the 'new case' template used to include a horizontal rule. I've been bold and put one back in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
...And I've inserted horizontal rules between the current cases. If the ArbCom doesn't like them, I won't be offended if I get reverted. :D Incidentally, four hyphens (----) will generate a horizontal rule in wikicode.
Eurgh. It's horrible. Adding random bits of Wikitax for semantic reasons when there's semantic markup there already to do exactly the same thing is fundamentally at odds with sense, I would have thought. As well as h2 and h3 elements looking nothing like one another to most people (lynx users aside), under the Monobook skin (at least) a horizontal rule is already there. I fail to see how this isn't sufficient. Adding a further hr looks utterly silly. :-)
James F. (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the h3 and h4 levels look the same, then one can't separate one arbitration case from another. So, I would agree with you if we were talking about h2 and h3 levels. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll echo what Oleg said—Maybe there's something customized in your monobook.css, James...? The h3 and h4 styles look very similar, and neither one has a horizontal rule. I agree that adding a manual hr is not the most elegant solution; is there a way to alter the style sheet for this page alone so that h3 has a horizontal rule? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, hum, good point. ;-)
There's a very easy way to get them styled however we want - have them set to "class="arbreqfoo" and create the arbreqfoo in MediaWiki:Common.css. But you'd have to convince the rest of the people interested in the page that it wasn't a bad idea.
The harder way is to convince Brion to reverse his well-argued objection to per-page styles. :-)
James F. (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm... That leaves us with the unpalatable options of 1) Kicking all the case headers up to h2, which doesn't really make logical sense for our page organization; 2) Using the ugly hack manual horizontal rule; 3) adding something to Common.css which we'd really rather avoid; or 4) Putting up with difficult-to-see boundaries between cases. Yuck.
I propose a new policy: Nobody is allowed to file a request for arbitration while there is already a case on the page. This will make it easy to find the end of the relevant section, and simultaneously throttle the accumulation of new arbitration cases. All in favour, say aye! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:23, 4 March 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

Sample arbitration case

Subpart 1 of this case

Subpart 2 of this case

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)

Wouldn't a single header (=Header=) do the same thing? I realize that the use of single headers is discouraged on articles, but it has been used in other places to distinguish cases (see WP:RfM, for example) and levels. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent idea to me, not to apply in general on Wikipedia, but for this arbitration page only, which has lots of stuff. So, all the different arbitration cases would be under one big h1 heading, =..=, and each of the individual cases under its own h2 heading ==..==. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Any comments, and any clerk willing to do the job? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No. We're not changing the fscking headings back to another level. We've tried lots of different levels; the current set-up is how they're staying, please. :-)
James F. (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting evidence

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)

In my role as arbitration gadfly, I'll offer a few guesses.
  • It could be confusing to people not familiar with the structure and practices of arbitration. Some people might not be comfortable with creating subpages.
  • It makes monitoring more difficult—participants would have to watchlist more pages. (On the other hand, it would also allow you to see when a particular giver of evidence updated or amended his statement.)
  • Participants in larger cases might be more prone to repeating each other; keeping track of multiple subpages and the location of evidence on each one could be quite demanding.
  • Simple cases shouldn't require that much evidence.
  • Complicated cases shouldn't require that much evidence, either—unfortunately some litigants have trouble being concise.
  • Maybe nobody suggested it before.
I'd agree that there are certainly arguments pro and con. My own estimation is that we don't need to add to the number of pages that already make up each arbitration case, but that is only my opinion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)