Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/J.smith

Category talk:	6 Category:	1 Image:	       26 Mainspace	2058 Talk:	       1234 Template talk:	7 Template:	20 User talk:	841 User:	       122 Wikipedia talk:	155 Wikipedia:	672 avg edits per article	1.83 earliest	20:19, 26 December 2005 number of unique articles	2816 total	5142

2005/12 	56 	2006/1 	       230 	2006/2  	385 	2006/3 	        387 	2006/4 	        333 	2006/5 	        359 	2006/6 	        359 	2006/7 	        97 	2006/8 	        228 	2006/9 	        50 	2006/10 	424 	2006/11 	2025 	2006/12 	209

Editcount generated using Interiot's wannabe Kate's Tool.Kchase T 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neet. Thanks. ---J.S (T/C) 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by
Oppose "I have some understanding of the DMCA, and am a Federal copyright consultant and have been for nearly twenty years - I understand copyright, and no Wikipedia editor is uninquely qualified to know the actual copyright status of any given piece from reading the YouTube description. The mechanism for resolving copyright issues is there, and should not be on Wikipedia by editors. There is an assumption being made that material violates copyright, and I radically disagree with that premise, particularly when there is a specific legal federal mechanism to deal with it. You appear to have, for example, deleted all the video links from the Miles Davis page. I could care less how vigilant you or anyone else may have felt YouTube was or is in deleting material, that is their responsbility, not Wikipedia's. Tvccs 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

re: YouTube and the DMCA Wikipedia's policies have always been more on the side of caution then the law requires. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, it reduces the chance of a frivolous lawsuit even-more. Secondly, it is bad for the reputation of the project if we simply wait for a C&D order before we remove material/links. Thirdly, if Wikipedia ever does end up in a lawsuit over copyright infringement it is helpful to be able to show that we make an active effort to remove infringing material as we become aware of it. In the end this is equally about the law and the philosophy of the project. ---J.S (t|c) 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs"

While I appreciate your explanation, I also think it serves as a convenient cover for a philosophy of guilty first, and considerable arbitrary behavior as a result under that banner. I work with lawyers galore on copyright issues and have for decades up through the Supreme Court of the United States - and although this "lawsuit protection" rationale is bandied about with considerable frequency on here, I challenge your or anyone else to produce an actual pretext for liability for Wikipedia for linking to a YouTube page - my own opinion, especially under the provisions of the DMCA, is that liability is essentially non-existent and those that proffer it as a rationale are trotting out a red herring in defense of an overzealous protection of copyright that is grounded in neither fact nor law. One of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses remains inexperienced editors who would rather edit the content of others than make their own significant contributions in far too many cases - chopping away at content should be a last, not first, resort. Tvccs 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs)


 * But how this impinge on his qaulities as an Admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookie (talk • contribs)

"A: Well, I intend to keep working in the copy-vio field. With admin tools I'll be able to take an active roll on WP:Copyright problems. I also !vote in xFD often, so closing them is something I'd participate in.... by extension, CfSD tends to generate a backlog that I'd help out with. I've been watching unblock recently... a lot of requests end up sitting there for hours. I can see a little more help is needed in that field as well. ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" should be more knowledgeable in this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs)


 * sigh* Is the basic premise here that we should leave copy-vio material on wikipedia because we are too stupid to know the deference? ---J.S  (T/C) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"more on the side of caution then the law requires" and "judgement calls" should not be a valid reason to delete what wikipedia's first priority of providing knowledge to the world. i would not oppouse your nomination if your main goal wasn't to "enforce" the copy-vio.


 * Actually, Wikipedia's first goal is to build an encyclopedia. My removal of YouTube links, like I've explained many times before, isn't only about the legal concerns. WP:NOT urges us to use very few external links, WP:EL suggests linking only to content that is reliable, and WP:RS makes it clear that a good majority of the videos on YouTube can't be relied on as a source.  WP:EL also recommends removing broken links. Many of the link I'm removing have already been deleted off of YouTube.
 * Besides all of that, the US court has made it clear that knowingly linking to copy-vio material is contributing to the violation of those copyrights. You might want to check out Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.
 * "Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
 * ---J.S (T/C) 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SPA?
I'd like to tag as a SPA... The account has less then 100 edits and has been inactive for more then a month before editing this RFA. Would anyone object to a SPA tag? ---J.S (T/C) 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's odd that his first participation in RFA is this spirited opposition of your otherwise unopposed request, but I don't think the account quite qualifies as a SPA.--Kchase T 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Kchase - I think it's better not to. It's probably not technically a single-purpose account, given the other 100 edits.  In any case, given that the SPA status is not clear-cut, it could create unnecessary distractions.  I'd say it's better not to bother.--TheOtherBob 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Not like this RFA hinges on a single !vote. ---J.S (T/C) 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * here is an example of using judgment calls, often other people disagree. if he applied this method of handling EVERY youtube link I would not have any objections. however, there has been cases where he as remove the links first and then reviewed the matter in talk pages (too many for him to reply too). i am not an expert in the copy-vio, still i feel an admin that should handle this sensitive issue should be educated extenisvly on the subject to avoid ANY confusion.

p.s. encyclopedia = knowledge