Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold (Talk) & Courcelles (Talk)

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions for Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

1. What is your opinion of the examples given in Fram's evidence? What, if anything, would you do differently in these examples? Which ones, if any, don't you see as a problem, and why? Fram (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would only use images that were published in newspapers and magazines before 1923, not those taken before 1923. Of course anyone can take an image used of a dead person and change that to a fair-use license, rather than delete the image. The need for images have become less important now that Google has filled in fair-use images for all the biographies on Wikipedia. For my own searches, I no longer click through to Wikipedia but just look at the Google extract and the image they provide. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

2. In User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Reworded counter proposal, you don't mention referencing; under your proposal, do you intend to continue using pages you created or contributed to on sites like Familypedia, Findagrave, Geni, ... as references? Fram (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Even though a link to Findagrave showing the grave and up to 5 fair use images is best for the reader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

3. In User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Reworded counter proposal, you state "Again, another misrepresentation: "it is quite clear that you did not contribute to the CCI" I made over 2,000 edits to older articles." in reply to a claim I made; can you give some examples from those 2,000 edits that contributed to the CCI? Fram (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The CCI began on November 8, 2011‎. My history has all my edits from the start of the CCI till I was banned. A typical edit would be here or here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Schlegelmilch, I note that you removed copyvio problems (thanks!), but why didn't you drop a note at the CCI about this, so people would know that that article was done? On Kenneth W. Bilby, all I see is a reordering of the text, nothing to do with the CCI at all. How did this work speed up or help the CCI? Fram (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that the CCI page was for third parties to vet changes I had made, not for me to add to. It that was made clear, I would have written there directly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The original question was something I was interested in, so I did a bit of analysis using a tool I developed. I used said tool to pull up a list of all of Richard's (undeleted) mainspace edits from the start of the CCI until now (well, a few hours ago at this point). This came up with a list of 10,655 edits. I then had another program scan through the CCI pages and filter the original list down to only those edits made to articles listed at the CCI. That resulted in 3,722 edits. Of course, I don't know if all of these edits were aimed towards resolving copyright issues, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a good portion of them are as Richard says. I'll list diffs to these edits on a subpage soon for all to review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It could be assumed, but from checking about 30 diff's from that list I haven't seen any copyright violations cleanup. Of course 30 is of course a small sample of the 3722 edits there in that list.Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

4. You have mentioned elsewhere that the direct reproduction of selected passages from the original source material in the "quote=" section of Wikipedia's Citation Template is an "editing best practice." What do you feel is a reasonable length for such passages under Fair Use law and Wikipedia's accepted site practice? Do you feel that this "acceptable length" is a function of total article length (that is, do very short articles have smaller limits for such "glosses" of quotes or is this "fair use" length fully independent of article length?) Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The snippet rule is best or the abstract rule. Google uses a snippet of a few sentences and the New York Times releases an abstract of a few sentences for search engines. Cutting it to an arbitrary length of one sentence or 10 words as proposed distorts the context. We could do the same for newspaper article titles. The New York Times has multiple sentence headlines for important events. We can also cut them down to the first sentence or first 10 words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

5. One of your editing behaviors identified as extremely problematic by Contributor Copyright Investigations was the pasting in of large blocks of text hidden behind < ! -- tags, presumably for future rewrite. Do you still use this editing technique? Will you use it in the future? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I no longer use that practice, I edit in MS Word and then cut and paste the final text in Wikipedia. I may still add in hidden notes to aid the next editor, say if I see an inconsistency in a birth year, or I add what sources I have looked at already so the next editor does not waste time. Those are being deleted now along with hidden text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

6. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being extremely dissatisfied, 10 being perfectly satisfied) how satisfied are you that the proposed remedy vetted on your talk page immediately prior to ArbCom taking this case would make it possible for you to work effectively creating content at Wikipedia in the future? Specifically, do you think the idea of using an intermediary to do the physical templating and uploading of all but the most uncontroversial graphics is something you can live with as a content creator? If you could change one thing about it, what would you change? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, rather than asking relatively close-ended questions about the proposal like this, I'd suggest proposing each of the elements of the proposal in your section of the Workshop below. This way others can have the opportunity to comment on them and suggest improvements. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Working within the constraints proposed should solve all the problems. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions for Fram

1. What do you consider to be the three most serious violations of copyright law or Wikipedia policies and guidelines uncovered during Contributor Copyright Investigations' RAN Text case? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen all violations that have been found so far (others have done a lot of work on the CCI, thankfully), but some I found truly problematic. E.g. Mod-2 was a 2009 copyvio from [1]; an obviously copyrighted, recent page (so no discussion about the exact age of the source), copied in parts literally, in parts nearly literally, in the text (not as a quote or some such), at a time when RAN could hardly be seen as a newbie anymore. The source was given as a reference, so it's not as if RAN tried to hide anything; he just didn't seem to understand or care about our copyright policies (perhaps there are other possible reasons, speculating about reasons is always dangerous: I just mean to say that if his intentions were truly malicious, he would probably not have added the source of his copyvio...). The copyvio version is deleted, if you want you can ask for it to be recreated as "my" temp undelete for this case. Or you can ask some uninvolved admin to compare the two.

George E. M. Kelly is an example that hasn't been deleted. Created by RAN in 2010, it was swiftly tagged by Corensearchbot. RAN then added the source and slightly rephrased the text, but the version he left it in was still a much too close paraphrase: User:VernoWhitney blanked it as such two days later. While this was perhaps not a major copyright violation, it is telling that even after being tagged by Corensearchbot, the changes made by RAN were far from sufficient to solve the problem. Again, this is from late 2010, not some newbie mistake.

Godfroy Langlois was a typical example of his unattributed translations from other Wikipedia's. In this case, a machine translation from the French Wikipedia[2], resulting in an article that states that a French language journalist worked for Freedom instead of La Liberté and that he is a native of Scholastica instead of from Sainte-Scholastique, Quebec; strangely the translation of "Langlois cesse de publier son journal" becomes "Lee continues to publish his newspaper" (indicative of the machine nature of the translation, [3]), which not only has the wrong name, but the exact opposite meaning of the original text (cesse = ceases, not continue); this part remains in the article until now. So while the mere fact of having an unattributed translation of another language Wikipedia article probably doesn't qualify as one of the "most serious violations of copyright law" here, it is another indication of how such work creates serious problems on different levels. This is again a creation from 2010, I have purposefully stayed away from his early contributions (2005-2007) to avoid claims that this ceased afterwards.

I repeat, these are not the three most serious violations of copyright; one is an example of a serious, obvious violation; two is an example of how his work to correct this after being found by a bot can not be trusted and needs more human intervention; and three is an example of how even his more minor violations (unattributed translations) can lead to serious problems, wrt content that is.

I tried to get this ArbCom case to be about his recent behaviour though, so I haven't focused on the CCI in my evidence or research, apart from the fact that it is relevant to show a long running pattern of copyright problems, and that he should be well aware of potential problems by now. But as the examples above show, the CCI produced examples of many problematic edits, throughout his editing career, not just at the start of it. Fram (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

2. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being extremely dissatisfied, 10 being perfectly satisfied) how satisfied are you that the proposed remedy vetted on the RAN talk page immediately prior to ArbCom taking this case would eliminate copyright issues by this editor moving forward? What specific additional changes would you advise? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See comment above. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hersfold. Basically, while the proposed restrictions seem an improvement, it depends on how RAN would interpret them in reality of course. Plus, does he mean that his article creation ban should be lifted immediately, or after he has shown that the restrictions have any effect? It seems to me that he wants the article creation restriction lifted immediately, but that isn't expressed that clearly. If that is the intention, it would lower my "score" considerably. Fram (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Do you believe that an additional exemption for "Images from Flickr Commons" can be safely added to the limited list of types of files permitted to be directly uploaded by RAN? Carrite (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but then he can upload them to Commons directly as well of course, that would probably be even better (and doesn't fall under any restriction we can impose here anyway). Fram (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note from Richard: "but then he can upload them to Commons directly as well of course" I suppose theoretically someone could hack into the Library of Congress Flickr account or the New York Public Library account and post personal photos in Flickr Commons, but that seems unlikely. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Fram means they can be uplaoded to Wikimedia Commons, not Flickr... Wizardman 17:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I got it now, thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions from Hersfold to all parties

These questions are directed to all parties, however non-parties are invited to respond as well to provide additional context (just add your username and response below the parties' responses). Please provide supporting diffs and/or other links where possible, but please also be concise in your response. Most of these questions are to enable me and the rest of the Committee to understand how each of your perceptions of this situation compare, and to help determine how this problem came about. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

1. What is your understanding of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright and fair use, both as they apply to text and to media, and do you feel your perceptions match those of the larger community? Describe a situation which you believe would be the absolute limit of acceptable use under this policy.

   Fram:: Fair use should be restricted to the minimum, not applied to the maximum. For things that are "instantly recognizable", fair use is often defendable (e.g. articles about a record showing the cover of that record, articles about cartoon characters showing one image of those characters), as such use does help many readers in understanding (or remembering) what the topic of the article is. But fair use doesn't extend to using one loosely related FU image because nothing better is easily available; if the image doesn't add any real value, it is better not to have an image at all than to have a fair use image that doesn't add any understanding. The deleted file File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png, given in the evidence, is an example of such an image. For text, "fair use" would mean that quotes are as short as possible, don't include irrelevant stuff, and are only used where really needed; it is not necessary to add a quote to every or nearly every ref, only for disputed or controversial things usually should it be done. The rules for quotes are less obvious than those for images though. Frank Goldsborough, also given in the evidence, is an example of in my opinion excessive use of fair use quotes, with the Time quote from 1930 in the text and in the refs, and more blatantly the NYT ref from 1940 which discusses not the subject of the article, but the death of a previous holder of the same record; the Time quote (once!) is about the absolute limit of acceptable use, the NYT quote is unacceptable and doesn't meet fair use by any stretch of the imagination. Fram (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Images: We should only use one fair-use copyrighted image per biography of dead people. Google uses up to seven fair-use images (for both dead and living) and Findagrave uses up to five. Text: Every fact should have a footnote and be paraphrased before it is incorporated into Wikipedia. A non-stub article should not rely on a single source. Best practices require multiple sources. When quoting text in the body of an article it should contain a standard reference citation as well as an inline citation. It should contain the least amount of text that conveys the most amount of information and sums up a person's career in a biographical article. This is my current understanding and it follows closely what the community has converged on. Some of the more arcane text and image licenses I will avoid until I become more familiar with them. If I had to choose a hard limit to text based fair-use I would say it appears around 5 or 6 sentences. I think there are some who would think even that is too much, but there is no consensus. Several people have tried to purge all the "quote=" parameters from citations, but others restored them. The community also needs to address how much of an article title falls under fair use. Here is the headline from April 12, 1945 in the New York Times: "President Roosevelt is Dead. Truman to Continue Policies. End Comes Suddenly at Warm Springs. Even His Family Unaware of Condition as Cerebral Stroke Brings Death to Nation's Leader at 63. All Cabinet Members To Keep Posts. Funeral to Be at White House Tomorrow, With Burial at Hyde Park Home. Impact of News Tremendous." Several people have begun to truncate them to the first sentence. The New York Times releases the full title to search engines as the abstract. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Carrite: Wikipedia is subject to American law and the international conventions to which the USA is a party with respect to copyright. Additionally, WP has a more rigid standard for "fair use" of text and (especially) images than that allowed under the law. I personally think WP's obsession with being a "free encyclopedia" rather than the best encyclopedia possible is a great mistake — I am not a fan of WP's more restrictive "fair use" standards. But I am also disciplined enough to understand and respect the more stringent standard. I don't know if my own views are majority or minority views within the larger community: the acceptance of the "free encyclopedia" is a matter of religious faith without much consideration of the precise implications of that particular form of fetishism. It is clear that there is no great movement to relax fair use restrictions at WP, if that is what you're asking. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   The main purpose of this (and several of these) question(s) is to determine what your interpretation of copyright policies are, not if you feel they should be changed. The "Describe a situation" bit is meant for you to express your interpretation in less abstract terms. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   WP's photo rights people have very rigid resolution standards for fair use images. They tend to toss perfectly valid "fair use rationales" as frequently as they accept them. I don't think my description of the "absolute limit" of such things has much to do with anything — these things are all well established among the rights people themselves. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   I'm concerned in particular about your (and the other parties') views on this, however. The views of the "rights people" are certainly important and I would appreciate their input on this as well, yes, but I have a method to my madness, which I will be happy to explain in more detail later on in the case once I have a better idea of where to go with things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   The reality of Wikipedia for graphics use is far more restrictive than my own personal tastes. If it were up to me, Wikipedia's "Fair Use" practice would mirror legal standards in the United States. So the "absolute limit of acceptable use" would be that set by the law — if it were up to me. But that doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the situation at WP. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Since you began editing Wikipedia (for context, please state when that was), do you feel that Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright and fair use have changed significantly? If so, in what ways?

   Fram: I started editing here in 2005. I don't remember exactly when it happened, but at the moment that the Foundation ordered every Wikipedia to have a fair use policy, this Wikipedia already had one. It hasn't changed significantly since. As has been explained in this discussion, e.g. the attribution rules were more implicit than explicit originally, but I don't remember any real changes in the rules, certainly not for the last few years. Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think I started in 2005. I remember when all fair use images of living people were purged and when all Associated Press images were purged. I do not think a photo of an 80 year old man taken now and released under a free license is a substitute for a person in their prime when they starred in a movie. We should reconsider fair-use of living people. It may take a year to continue to look over all my edits. The majority of close paraphrasing was between 2005-2008 and most of them have already been looked at. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Carrite: I started editing in December 2008. I believe that copyright and fair use practice has been stable from that date, although it was not all that much earlier that these standards were in flux. I do believe that I've witnessed a significant expansion in the use of footnotes over this period, which touches upon matters of copyright and fair use. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

3. How effective do you feel Richard's topic ban has been in reducing the number of alleged copyright problems? Do you feel as though Richard's topic ban has had any negative impacts on the project? (Feel free to point to your evidence section if you have addressed this there)

   Fram: The positive impact is a reduction in text-based copyright violations, the negative impact is a reduction in overall edits (not only creations, which is logical, but also other edits). If there hadn't been any negative impact, we wouldn't be here, as it is usually not controversial what to do with people who create copyright problems but have no positive contributions. ArbCom cases tend to be about people who have a clear track record of positive or well-meaning contributions, but have other long-term editing problems which don't seem to get resolved. This is a typical case in that regard. Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Because of the topic ban I have a backlog of 400 people flagged as notable in the Library of Congress collection for which I matched a New York Times or Time magazine obituary. I also had saved over 100 obituaries with no matching image in my New York Times account from the pre-1923 archive but since I was no longer contributing new articles to Wikipedia I stopped my digital subscription. I assumed others would eventually add them, but that has not been the case. When I find someone notable in the LOC collection, I only contribute as a comment at Flickr Commons. I went from spending four hours a day contributing, to just addressing requests at my talk page which may add up to 15 minutes a month. I may also make an occasional redirect if I find a term is not in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Carrite: The topic ban on new article starts is absolutely unconnected with the question of copyright and needs to be terminated by ArbCom if no other single thing is accomplished. It has been a short-sighted and enormously destructive remedy which has reduced a highly productive editor's output needlessly. RAN's new article starts aren't the problem, certain editing practices from the 2004-2007 period are the problem. His issues with the handling of so-called "Fair Use" graphics in the current period are the problem. His apparent fudging the edges of using prohibited graphics by linking to his work on other sites is the problem. His violations in the realm of text after 2008 are very few and very far between, in my opinion, speaking of the most serious cut-and-paste and extremely-close-paraphrase variety of violations as opposed to the technical failure to properly attribute cross-wiki translations, etc. The ban on new starts was shoved down RAN's throat by a mob enraged by a body of 6600 affected articles showing a significant number of green "check" marks indicating "violations." It was an ill-advised effort at damage mitigation jammed upon somebody who in actual fact was not editing text in those wrong ways any longer even at the time of the ban. It has additionally had unintended negative consequences (see evidence of Steelbeard1). Carrite (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Understanding that the community has not established a set limit on the length of quotations, but advises editors to use "good judgment" when quotes are necessary, what is the maximum length you feel would be acceptable when quoting from a copyrighted work of a) the length of a newspaper article, b) the length of a short novel, and c) the length of a larger work such as a textbook?

   Fram: From a newspaper, usually one sentence max. If more is absolutely needed for context, or because the answer to some controversial topic is in two sentences or so, then of course exceptions can be made. From larger works, at most a short paragraph, but preferably not more than a sentence as well. In general, quotes (certainly of copyrighted material) should be used only when necessary, not as a general practice with every or nearly every reference. Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Restricting to one sentence as suggested or 10 words as suggested is arbitrary and can lose context. I an comfortable the same amount Google uses as fair-use and the New York Times releases as fair-use as an abstract, usually two or three sentences and the full article title. If we have to have a hard limit maybe 3 or 4 sentences for newspaper article, 4 or 5 sentences for a short novel, and 5 or 6 sentences for an advanced textbook. We might also want to put a total limit on the number of quotes used in an article body. Writers put so much effort into their creations we need to find the right balance of providing an understanding of their work, without diminishing the commercial value of their work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Carrite: I don't think there are numerical answers for any of these things, everything does indeed rest upon "good judgement." Certainly, a direct quotation from a contemporary newspaper article should not be a major part of the whole. Multiple paragraph block quotes, appropriately footnoted, would be fine in certain contexts from a novel or a larger work. The issue in the Norton case relates to his committed use of the "quote=" parameter in the citation template — which is completely 100% unnecessary. The simplest solution in this case is to stop him from using it unless until the community issues a broad and exact limit on the number of words permitted. Bear in mind that I completely fucking hate cluttering up footnotes with quote glosses and RAN feels strongly that these are an editing best practice and that various volunteers at CCI have cumulatively been a bit schizophrenic about how many words or what percentage of an article is allowable. The answer is that there is no answer; the problem, if there is a problem, can be stopped with an exact prohibition of quote glossing. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

5. As of the time this case opened, the CCI regarding Richard's text contributions (Oldid's for each CCI page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) had 119 (1.82%) articles found to contain one or more violations (most corrected), 422 (6.45%) articles found to not contain any violations, and 5998 (91.73%) articles yet to be reviewed (6539 total; for pages where work had been done, I obtained these counts by replacing all * characters with # characters, previewing the page, and adding up the counts. Five pages had no work done aside from the occasional note or deleted page. On page 10 I assumed a page was found to have no violation if it was in a collapsed box unless otherwise noted (the two deleted pages were deleted for concerns other than copyright). It's worth noting that page 10 has since been completed.). Assuming that this ratio of violating articles continues through the rest of the CCI (22% of reviewed articles), how long do you believe it will take to fully review and correct as necessary all articles listed at this CCI? Edit: Updated to reflect all 10 pages. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Fram: First, since most work had been done on the first pages, the rate will probably go down a bit, since the shorter edits in later pages of the CCI will probably have less problems. Having said that, no idea. Speaking only for myself, it is rather discouraging to be spending many hours on the CCI for an editor whose only clear contribution to it was to complain about article deletions and to spend a lot of time in recreating (without the copyright violations) any articles found to be problematic, but who didn't seem to be bothered by the copyright violations at all and didn't help out (going so far as to demanding to receive a note about all deletions or CC blankings, instead of just watchlisting the CCI pages). I don't know whether the same applies to other people in that CCI. Having the editor and others request a lifting of the article creation ban, when the previous CCI isn't finished and a new one may be necessary to handle the problems created since that one, is not encouraging in the least; some willingness to first clean up previous problems before starting the creation of new articles would show that RAN has his priorities correct. Fram (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I do not know. We need a better system like Corenbot to search for text that is too similar instead of listing every article I contributed to. Every article in Wikipedia should be matched to books and news articles and compared to find blocks of text that are too similar so they can be reworded. Checking 100,000 edits in chronological order just wastes time. I was given a month to check 100,000 edits and stopped when I was banned from article creation after about 4,000 edits to my older articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Carrite: Based upon the declining pace of CCI work on the Norton case, resolution of every article using CCI's established methods will take between 12 and 25 years. I have advocated that CCI simply "hat" the RAN Text case as "unresolved" and move along with life — they have limited resources and better things to do. They need a new way of working, making use of scientific sampling BEFORE leaping into massive cases such as the Norton case. This was an entirely predictable outcome and CCI's case load is steadily growing — RAN's case isn't the oldest on the books. CCI needs to do more investigating rather than rushing to take the approach of a toxic waste cleanup squad. They are hardworking volunteers, I don't mean to piss on them by saying this. It is just this: their model of work is unsustainable, given the very limited human resources at their disposal. They need to find the worst violators and to isolate and eliminate them from WP. RAN is miles and miles and miles away from being one of these worst actors and he has been needlessly embroiled in a Kafkaesque process that has been running for 15 months and counting... He frequently edited in the past (2004-2007) in a manner unsuitable in the present. He has trouble discerning the difference between LEGAL fair use standards and WIKIPEDIA'S fair use standards with respect to graphics. The fix is to come up with a remedy to keep him straight going forward and at the same time to free up CCI's valuable volunteers for more urgent work. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If we move the RAN's case unresolved there is a huge chance bordering on certainty that many copyright violations will stay in Wikipedia. That doesn't seem like a good option to me, just in five minutes I already found two violations in the list last month. From what I read of the start of the investigations many copyright violations had at the beginning been spotted, as a result of the investigation already 119 copyright violations (ranging from large to minor) have been found (and many more pages to go through). That to me makes the investigation needed. How do you suggest we clean up the copyright violations? Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I favor a realistic approach. We need to accept that there are tens of thousands of copyright violations and examples of insufficient footnoting and huge paste-ins of excerpts from "public domain" works with inadequate line-by-line attribution which are essentially grandfathered into WP from its early days. To quote the first drafter of the document which ultimately became Wikipedia's Plagiarism guideline, the late Franamax: "Large portions of articles have been directly copied from PD sources in the past. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 was used as a source to build many articles in 2002. These articles were noted by use of the { {1911} } template. At a certain point in the development of Wikipedia, we welcomed new content no matter what the source. This is no longer the case. As a mature encyclopedia, we now insist that all contributions are properly attributed. (shaky ground here, just putting it out there)." (June 21, 2008). RAN made mistakes, learned, and grew as he went along. I don't see microexamination of his contributions to be of sufficient benefit to the project to offset the cost in lost volunteer time pursuing a "toxic waste cleanup" approach on his contributions, nor were his transgressions severe enough to justify nuking 8 years of work and perhaps half a million contributions by tens of thousands of others who have subsequently edited on pages which he either created or touched. If copy vio is found, by him or anyone, it should be addressed as it arises, of course. I just don't think RAN in 2005 was that different from any other Wikipedian of that era, in terms of what he did in terms of pasting in with insufficient footnoting or paraphrasing too closely. Carrite (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, point of clarification: there are not "119 copyright violations" in the RAN text case, there are (accepting your number) "119 problematic edits," which include copyright violations, insufficient attribution, material deemed to be excessively close paraphrase, footnote quote glosses deemed excessive, failure to properly attribute inter-wiki translations, and cases of hiding (and leaving) blocks of copyrighted text behind < ! -- tags. It's not as simple as Red X Good, Green Check Bad — there are a whole range of problems, ranging from very little and subjective to quite large. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Wizardman

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license as defined by the parts of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that pertain to licenses. Media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria (also known as "fair use criteria").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; this and some others taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, the only case I could find similar to this one. Wizardman 22:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content policy

2) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria makes clear that a non-free image can only be used in a Wikipedia article under strict circumstances. It must contribute significantly to the article it is in, not serving a merely decorative purpose. Additionally, it must not be replaceable by an alternative free image, if one exists or could be created. Likewise, any text used in a Wikipedia article must be significantly and sufficiently paraphrased.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. First part's from AB, second is original. Tried to word it best I could, may need improving. Wizardman 22:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The relationship between policy and consensus

3) Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus. However, the question of whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decisions reached. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions which are believed to violate policy can be appealed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wizardman 22:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Fram

Proposed principles

Linking to copyright violations

1) The policy Wikipedia:Copyrights, section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works states "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Specifically for external links, this is further explained in the guideline WP:ELNEVER: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Play it safe

2) The policy Wikipedia:Copyrights, section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others states: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." (emphasis in original)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the emphasis in the original has not been there since time immemorial. Here's the version that was in effect Jan. 1, 2009: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself." Obviously, this is very basic stuff and no news to any party in this case. Still, we must be careful to view each problematic edit in its historical context, not through 2013 policy goggles. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that while the older stuff is necessary background, my bringing the case here and my evidence is about late 2012 - early 2013 violations, so looking at it through 2013 policy goggles is perfectly appropriate. Fram (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Every violation should be viewed through the standards and practices of the moment in which the violation occurred, not though the prism of some ex post facto ideal reality of today. The fact is that most of RAN's text offenses took place in 2005 and 2006 and the fact is that his editing behavior in that historical interval was not greatly different than the norm at WP. Carrite (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that he was already blocked for copyright violations in 2006. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive33#Help needed with image uploads from one user, linked to at the start of this case, has the background. Apparently even then his editing behaviour was sufficiently different from the norm that people noticed it? Fram (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copyright violations

3) The policy Wikipedia:Copyrights, section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Copyright violations states: "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." This is further detailed in the policy Wikipedia:Copyright violations, sction Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors: "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Non free content

4) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria has some principles that are applicable in this case, not only for files but also for text: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Particularly relevant are (for text) criterion #1: ""Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer [...] is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion."; criterion #2: "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."; criterion #3b: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice."; criterion #4 (for files): "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia."; and criterion #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.".

Basically, non-free content should only be used when the same information can not be conveyed without using non-free content, e.g. by using your own (properly sourced) text; should only be used when it significantly increases the reader's understanding of the subject; and only the minimal part needed for this understanding should be used, nothing more.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

RAN has a history of copyright violations

1) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a history of copyright violations stretching back years, from 2005 on. Evidence for this can be found at the two WP:CCIs, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 (files) and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 (text), or in his block log, where his first block in 2006 was for "repeated copyright violations in the past, was asked to stop but did not cooperate"[4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he can be said to have been the source of a "series of examples of problematic editing behavior, including copyright violations, dating back to 2005." Carrite (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

RAN continues to violate our copyright policies

2) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), despite being warned about and sanctioned for copyright problems (see proposed finding of fact 1 and his topic ban), has continued to create copyright problems and violate our copyright policies, as evidenced in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence#Evidence presented by Fram.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence, the implication being that nothing has changed from the problematic text editing of 2005 and 2006 and the fair use templating issues of the current period. Past editing was not a binary set of "copyright violations" vs. "good edits" but rather contained a range of problematic edits ranging from the inadequate footnoting that was typical of the day to bad editing technique (hiding blocks of copyrighted text for paraphrase behind < ! -- tags) to subjective problems with quotation length in the citation templates to technical failure to correctly provide the source history for cross-wiki translations to over-close paraphrase to cut-and-paste copyright violations. The last and most serious of these being the most infrequent. This is more or less "off with his head" language, in my estimation, which should not be part of the remedy here. Carrite (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that you reduce the problems listed in the evidence section to "the fair use templating issues of the current period". I disagree that that is all there is to it, the evidence shows incorrect PD tags and linking to clear copyright violations (created by RAN offwiki) as well. No false equivalence is used. You also ignore that the earlier problems were not solely for "problematic text editing of 2005 and 2006", the problematic text editing continued right until the text CCI, and there had been a file CCI for "problematic file editing" from 2005 to 2010 as well. The only change between the pre-text CCI and post-text CCI period seems to have been accomplished by the ban on creating articles, and the subsequent massive reduction in edits RAN made. But the basic problem of an editor who in many edits doesn't follow our copyright rules in many aspects (for whatever reason) remains unchanged. Fram (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

RAN has made very little effort to correct any of the problems

3) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has not participated in the CCIs, and while he has made many edits to the articles listed at the CCI since the start of the CCI, very few can be said to have done anything about the copyright problems. Similarly, his reactions to problems signalled over the last few months has been to defend the info (links, files) by all means possible, without actually fixing the copyright problems or without taking care to only use correct fair use rationales, and to drop any files where fair use didn't apply. His actions have not indicated any serious willingness to comply with our copyright policies. File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png is an example of this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Fram (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is self-contradictory. One can not be said to have "not participated" and to have "made many edits to the articles listed...since the start of the CCI" simultaneously. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, one can easily make thousands of edits to articles listed at a CCI, without in any way contributing directly or indirectly to the CCI. RAN has provided evidence that at least in one case, he indirectly contributed to the CCI by removing a copyright violation (without noting this anywhere, so it didn't really reduce the workload of the CCI), but looking at the thousands of edits he made in the months after the text CCI, the vast, vast majority of them did nothing to help the CCI. Fram (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that the "thousands of edits" is also somewhat misleading; on an article like William Herbert Sheldon, where the only original issue was a poorly formatted ref to the NYTimes (no copyright problem), which had since been solved, he made 31 edits to rewrite the article. I have no objection to the rewrite, but while these are edits to an article listed at the CCI, they can hardly be counted as "having participated in the CCI". Fram (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

RAN topic banned from uploading any files

1) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is topic banned from uploading any files to the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note that he is still allowed to upload PD files to Wikimedia Commons, and to use those in articles, so this topic ban does not make it impossible for him to upload any images. Fram (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Foists things off on Commons, which may not be the worst case scenario. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nice and simple, totally takes care of the media side of things, and still leaves Richard with considerable scope to use his exceptional research skills and judgement in selecting images for educational and aesthetic value. Richard, I know this may not seem ideal, but unless moderate copyright admins say this is OTT, I'd urge you to accept this. I hope the Arbs might set something like a 3 year time limit on this, so it expires by default, with extension requiring a consensus that RAN's editing remains problematic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN topic banned from linking to his own off-wiki work

2) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is topic banned from linking to any off-wiki sites where he has been a contributor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Note that this applies to references and external links. Off-wiki is meant to allow linking to e.g. Wikimedia Commons, but to exclude his links to Familypedia, Findagrave, Geni, his own web pages, ... Fram (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. Carrite (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose . Per ANI ANI , this was recently strongly opposed by the community, with no one supporting except for the proposer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the first one to oppose, Carrite, then went on to include the very same topic ban in his proposal at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#External linking: "Richard Norton is expressly prohibited from linking in the future to any external page to which he himself has contributed content, whether or not this content constitutes a copyright violation." This case is here, and no longer at ANI, because it is sadly typical there that at some time, people start reacting empotionally, not rationally, i.e. they give a knee-jerk reaction instead of looking at the evidence presented. That's one of the reasons that an ArbCom case is better suited for situations like this. Fram (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's complete bullshit. The case is here instead of ANI because somebody lost their temper and went running to ArbCom before the process was even done at ANI and ArbCom (for reasons that remain unexplained) did not defer the case until the still open ANI case had reached its finish, thereby undercutting the process. Don't try pinning this on anyone except for yourself, Fram, you, the filer of the case. YOU caused this case to come to ArbCom because you got in a snit and went running to Maxi Mommy. Carrite (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it bullshit that you did everything you could to disrupt the ANI process (and at the moment the ArbCom process as well) by again and again minimalizing the copyright violations, claiming that his violations were not so at the time, and so on and so on, being extremely aggressive in your treatment of opposing editors; while at the same time you did a complete about-face at the more "hidden" process of discussion at RANs talk page, there basically acknowledging that I was right all along and that your protests and your vilification of me was merely for show? I have no idea why you approach this whole process in such a way, but it isn't helpful at all. By the way, you attempted an RfA and then got ArbCom to undelete 8 articles, with more promised if needed: have you done anything with all this trouble you made? Fram (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Carrite was being excessively blunt here Fram, otherwise Im not sure you've got a good handle on this. It's always important to view these things in context. The reason for the apparent "about-face" is that on ANI , Carrite was speaking as an editor, giving his own opinion on the matter. Later on his talk page, Carrite was wearing his mediator hat, and doing an excellent job of it too, which is why his proposals attracted broad community support. Carrite's personal opinion may not have changed, to be a good mediator like Tim you sometimes have to support proposals you don't personally think are necessary. If anything Carrite went a little too far trying to take your concerns on board, so its understandable if he's frustrated you insisted on escalating this to arbitration.

As for the the reason why little has been done re the deleted evidence, that's actually a complement to your skills as an investigator. I gave your evidence almost an hour of my special attention, and on technical grounds couldnt fault it at all. Thats why rather than contesting your assertions in detail, folk have been trying to suggest you're not seeing RANs admittedly numerous technical infringements in context: his titanic contributions to building this encyclopedia; his efforts to correct past mistakes before the demoralizing topic ban; his acceptance of past mistakes and clear desire to improve. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

For your second part: thanks for the compliments, but I have to disagree with your "technical infringements" indicator or his clear desire to improve: he made many clear and rather basic infringements, and so far his desire to improve has only been shown by what he says, not by what he does. If he really wanted to improve, he wouldn't have done anything to save his policy-violating examples. Take e.g. File:David Emanuel Wahlberg 1949 obituary 2.png; I noticed in my evidence that he used that same file in this edit, but as a link from Familypedia. However: it turns out that he also uploaded this file to Commons on 11 January 2013. I noted this in [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Richard Arthur Norton continuing violating topic bans despite previous blocks]] on 2 February 2013: "His "creative" use of two different, equally unapplicable, public domain licensing templates, doesn't give me any confidence that he can be trusted with file uploads and the determination of whether things are public domain or not." What is his reaction? To go to Commons, and remove one of the two unapplicable PD licenses, while leaving the other one intact. If he truly accepted his mistakes and wanted to improve", that file would be long gone by now.

With regards to Carrite: nice interpretation, but hardly related to what happened in reality. First of all, where do you see the "editor" vs. "mediator" relation explained? Where was mediation started? More importantly, you seem to have the timeline wrong: I started this ArbCom case on 1 February, Carrite started his "mediation", his talk page proposals, on 4 February, i.e. 3 days later. So it's not really true to state " If anything Carrite went a little too far trying to take your concerns on board, so its understandable if he's frustrated you insisted on escalating this to arbitration."; he only tried to take my concerns on board after I had escalated this. At the time this ArbCom case was opened by me, all he had done was dismiss the concerns with comments "Oppose - This stupid diversion. Stop throwing mud." Fram (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RAN topic banned from linking to any unreliable sources

3) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is topic banned from linking to any unreliable sources, specifically all kinds of wikis and user-generated content sites, excluding Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Less complicated than the proposal 2, but more broad as well. This would further reduce the chance of RAN linking to copyright violations. Fram (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the world is a dichotomy of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources. There are some involved with WP who do think this way, but I think it is a puerile view of reality, which is actually multifaceted. What is "reliable"? That's entirely subjective and difference over this matter between RAN and his opponents will doubtlessly be a cause of future conflict. This is ill-considered and should not be part of the remedy. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. Overkill. We know from the outcome of the Dec 2011 restrictions how counterproductive overly broad and harsh restrictions are when applied to previously prolific contributors. Also this is very similar to proposal 2. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN restricted in his use of the quote parameter

4) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is not allowed to use quotes of more than one sentence from non-public domain sources, with a maximum of five per article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. He has used excessive quotes in the past, and putting a clear restriction which falls normally short of any problems will avoid discussions of what is allowable and what is too much. Fram (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's just make it zero sentences. The quote parameter should not exist, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I though you were talking about the Quote= parameter in the citation template. No, this is excessive. RAN's use of properly footnoted quotations is not the issue here. It's the improperly footnoted things from the past that are the issue. I will additionally note that for someone who was obsessed with contemporary violations of file templating and fair use graphics in the present, there is an awful lot of remedy being proposed here relating to text on matters not in evidence of even needing remedy. There has been evidence that some have thought RAN's use of the "Quote=" parameter was excessive. Instead of addressing that, we are moving off the board here with a remedy created from thin air and addressing nothing in evidence. Carrite (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"An awful lot of remedy"? This is the only remedy that is not directly linked to his file uploads /justifications or his use of copyright violation links in references and external links. Note that in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence#Examples of older but still present problems, I noted "The article is also an example of the rather excessively long quotes used by RAN." Further, I note that you proposed in User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Article creation: "Richard Norton is prohibited from using the "quote=" section of the Wikipedia Citation template." You could, instead of reacting in such a hostile way (see below for more of the same), have asked for clarification, whether I meant all quotes, or only quotes in footnotes. As could be seen from the title of this section, "...the quote parameter", I meant this to be about the, well, quote parameter in cite templates, not quotes directly in the text (although he has used these excessively as well, but one thing at a time!). Fram (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Richard, again I'd urge you accept this unless folk like Moonriddengirl, Wizardman or Sphilbrick say its OTT. I know a highly respected editor argued that this sort of restriction should be opposed, and I can see how medium sized quotes can be great for our readers, and for helping other editors allay any concerns over OR or WP:V. But this seems like a good compromise as Carrite has explained, and if folk require to see a fuller quote, a single sentence can make it a lot easier to find the relevant section in the original source. Again, a fixed expiry would be nice. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Analysis of the evidence

There is one article in the evidence, Frank Goldsborough.  Combining the references and the "Further reading" yields these statistics for the number of sentences in the quote-equal parameter (QEP):

• 1 reference with 9 sentences

Note, this 169-word quote is a duplicate of the one in the body of the article.

• 1 reference with 6 sentences (121 words)
• 1 reference with 3 sentences
• 3 references with 2 sentences (note that one duplicate is ignored here)
• 3 references with 1 sentence
• 13 references with zero sentences

The 9-sentence example is a special case because it duplicates a quote from the body of the article.  The six-sentence example is relevant, but is not from an online source.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The requirement of a limit of five quote-equal-parameter (QEP) quotes per article would come into force on articles with six or more references.  The requirement is not related to a problem shown in the evidence.  Nor is there any obvious relevance based in theory.  Is there some property of articles with six or more references such that RAN need not characterize and identify the individual references with quotes?  IMO the QEP quotes are more a function of the individual reference than a function of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• IMO this is an ill-considered proposal.  It is harmful for the encyclopedia because it uses this ArbCom case to advance the agenda of those opposed to the current accepted practice of using the quote-equal parameter (QEP).  It is harmful because it arbitrarily and indefinitely prevents an experienced editor from using good and artistic judgment in selecting material for the encyclopedia.  It restricts RAN on the basis of unquantified concerns that arise from the grey area between safe editing and exceeding fair use.  The main benefit appears to be that because it is clearly specified, it can be clearly enforced.  However, because it does not reflect current practice and is not intended to advance RANs skills as an editor; it is only relevant to the people who remember that it exists and who see a benefit in arbitrary enforcement events.  In general, it will inflict damage on RAN each time that RAN concludes that it is best for everyone involved (editors, readers, the author, and the publisher) to use more than one sentence in a QEP quote.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• If Arbcom sees a need to get involved here, I'd suggest a fixed-term experimental guideline.  I don't see legal concerns in the evidence, but I also don't dismiss that legal concerns exist.  I suspect that the QEP quote issue is mostly about WP:MOS considerations, from editors who are not familiar with seeing QEP quotes, which includes public-domain material.

“ Six-month experimental guideline for RAN

For six months, RAN shall use quote-equal parameter (QEP) quotes of from 1 to 4 sentences, including from public-domain sources.  For copyrighted sources, RAN shall mostly use QEP quotes of one sentence, such that in the majority of these cases the number of sentences used shall be one.  Also, RAN is advised to use mid-sentence ellipses.  For example, in the Frank Goldsborough article, the NYT quote that reads, "Both Schneider and his passenger, George W. Herzog, 37, a contractor living at 535 North Second Street, New Hyde Park, Long Island, were dead when their bodies were pulled from the submerged wreckage." could be changed to "Both Schneider and his passenger...were dead when their bodies were pulled from the submerged wreckage."  At the end of six months, RAN is requested but not required to report on the effects of this guideline.

”

Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Unscintillating, no, please don't give him bad advice; that shortened quote you propose still has nothing to do with the article it is used in, or the statement it is sourcing. The only quote that could be used (although really none is needed here, just a ref would do) is "Eddie Schneider, who started flying when he was 15 years old and set a junior transcontinental record in 1930 at the age of 18[...]". His dead is totally irrelevant for the Goldsborough article or for the junior record. Your quote would not be "fair use" at the Goldsborough article. Fram (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion that RAN use mid-sentence ellipses during the six months of a proposed experimental guideline is consistent with the substantiality factor of 17 U.S.C. § 107.  Your claim as a fact that the shortened quote, used as an example, is not a fair usage, is not a fact but an unsubstantiated opinion; and in this context the opinion is a red herring, because the opinion has no relation to the elision.  Your claim of what "really" is needed doesn't seem to have much to do when any reality other than disparaging an editor's contribution.  Your statement that the example "has nothing to do with...the statement it is sourcing" shows an incorrect belief that the QEP quote is always used to show verifiability of material in the article.  IMO the primary purpose of a QEP quote is to characterize and identify the source.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

RAN is banned

5) User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is banned from the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Multiple people at the ANI discussion preceding this ArbCom case claimed that having this many topic bans and restrictions on one editor was ridiculous, and that we could just as well ban him then instead (these comments were made in opposition of these restrictions). So I offer the possibility for discussion: is it better to try to keep him on board with a number of restrictions as a last chance, or is this making things too complicated and bothersome and should we just, after seven years of problems and attempted fixes, ban him? Fram (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Off the wall overreaction. Not much more to say without skipping off into the realm of personal attacks... Carrite (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could try to articulate "why" this is an off the wall overreaction. Why is stating that after seven years of attempts to get him to follow our policies, enough is enough, and no further chances are given, such a ridiculous position? Obviously you disagree with it and feel that another chance (or chancesà should be given, fine, but there is no need to dismiss a possible solution in such an uncivil manner. It is not as if I ask for RAN to be treated worse than other offenders; there are few people still around who are having the same kind of fundamental problems with their editing as seven years ago, most people who don't learn in that time have been banned. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Too laughable to take seriously. But I'd like to address the side point about seven years of problems. That is only half the story. Carrite has already made this point perfectly plain, but we ought not to judge older work by current standards. Before 2009 there was much less emphases on Copyright and Plaigurism. My own experience as a new editor in 2008 was that several were advising me about the OR and Synth guideline, but I saw no mention of WP:CV or WP:PLAG until May 2009. It's understandable that veteran editors might sometimes over do efforts to stick close to the sources. As per Unscintillating the Dec 2011 community judgement was less than perfect, no wonder it produced a drastic drop both in RAN's content building contributions and his efforts to correct previous issues. Can't really believe that someone could proposes a solution that makes the 2011 decision look lenient and well considered. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You received, as the first edit of your talk page, a welcome template which is still there: it contains "And here are several pages on what to avoid: [...]How to avoid copyright infringement" (with a link to Wikipedia:Copyrights). There may have been less emphais on plagiarism before 2009, but the emphasis on copyright was there already for a long time (note that RAN was blocked for copyright violations in 2006, so he should have been aware by then that copyright violations were taken seriously). It also links to the 5 pillars. This is a version of that page from late 2005: it contained then Do not submit copyright infringements, with a link, again, to Wikipedia:Copyrights, which was a policy from late 2005 onwards[5]. I am not "judging older work by current standards", I'm judging work by the standards applicable at the time, and I notice that throughout his career, RAN has violated those standards quite often. This proposal is also less lenient than the 2011 one because the problems have continued since then, as shown at the evidence page. Since it is obvious that he often produces copyright problems and violations, no matter if he contributes text, files, or references, and that years of discussion, blocks and topic bans haven't solved this, the only two ways left open are either more and more restrictions, or simply going for a full ban. Not making copyright violations is one of the few basic requirements all editors should try to follow, and while an occasional error can happen to everyone, at some point we have to conclude that enough is enough. Whether this is or isn't that point already in the case of RAN is to be decided by the ArbCom, but I believe that what you consider "too laughable to take seriously" is a very realistic option. Fram (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Hersfold

Proposed principles

Free-use and fair-use content

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license as defined by the parts of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that pertain to licenses. Media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria (also known as "fair use criteria").

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, as suggested above by Wizardman (thank you!). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Non-free content criteria

2) Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that copyrighted or otherwise non-free media may only be used under strict circumstances. Such media must not be of high resolution and must provide significant value to one or more articles that cannot be easily replaced with a freely-available equivalent. Wikipedia:Non-free content states that brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea," but notes that all such uses must be accompanied by an appropriate citation and must not be excessively long.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed quality to resolution. Quality here is somewhat ambiguous; we do want "high quality" non-free content in the sense of not using garbage images. Courcelles 03:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Linking to copyright violations

3) The policy Wikipedia:Copyrights states "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Specifically for external links, this is further explained in the guideline Wikipedia:External links: "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, modified slightly from Fram's proposal above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Policies with legal considerations

4) While Wikipedia works on the consensus model, certain policies that have legal implications (including Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) may not be overruled by local consensus or personal preference. However, questions regarding whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decided by the community. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions which are believed to violate policy can be appealed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, taken in part from Wizardman's proposal above. I include the "personal preference" bit as this drives towards the point of my question #1 up above. Aside from the use of text quotations, Carrite and Richard actually seem to have fairly similar views on how copyright should be handled on Wikipedia; that is, Wikipedia's standards are (perhaps needlessly) considerably stricter than what would be allowed under applicable laws, and indeed is much stricter than what you'll find on other (more-or-less) similar sites. However, it appears as though the difference - and thus the problem - arises in the separation from this personal preference to actual implementation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• To me, "and decisions reached" seems vague—although the meaning is probably clear. What about changing "the question" to "questions" and then simply having "discussed and decided by the community"? Otherwise, this is good. AGK [•] 20:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good suggestions, and I've made those changes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sanctions and circumstances

5) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor who is the subject of an Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Taken and slightly modified from our old list of boilerplates; no idea which cases this comes from. Normally I hate principles like this as they tend to imply that the worst disruption can be at least partially mitigated by good editing, but I'm proposing it here for three reasons:

1. Except for Fram's proposal above, which I think is mostly there as an "if all else fails" option, the parties to this case do not seem to want Richard banned, but are willing to continue to work with him (under appropriate restrictions) to continue editing while resolving current copyright issues and avoiding further ones.
2. The responses to my question #3 indicate that all parties to this case agree that Richard is a useful content contributor and that the project as a whole would be worse without him, despite the copyright troubles.
3. In his evidence (really more of a statement than actual evidence, but irrelevant to this point), Richard acknowledges that he has made errors, is willing to improve, and has proposed a number of restrictions to achieve that end. In past cases, the Committee has been more lenient on those editors who make such admissions, and this is the primary reason I am including this principle here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• An unimportant point of wiki-history: I think this was first proposed in Ryulong. AGK [•] 20:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that's rather ironic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

6) Per the Arbitration Policy The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia.

The Committee has no jurisdiction over...Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia. The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, and copied directly from the policy with a clause that is irrelevant to this matter dotted out. Courcelles 05:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

1) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since 2004. During his time on Wikipedia he has made well over 100,000 edits to a variety of subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Introductory finding. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s copyright history

2) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been responsible for adding or linking to copyrighted content, including both text and images in various forms, to Wikipedia since 2005 (Fram's evidence, Carrite's evidence). A substantial number of these additions have been found to be in violation of applicable policies, and have resulted in a block in 2006, two Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCIs) (one for images and another for text), and a topic ban from creating new articles. At the time of this case, neither CCI has been completed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Finding addressing the main problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would add something to the effect that the two CCI's, though long existing, are not actually that long in the tooth by the standards of that process -- the easy assumption is something that has been open for 3 years is unique doesn't really hold in CCI. Courcelles 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps easier could be to simply remove the last sentence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contributions to Contributor Copyright Investigations

3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has done little to contribute to resolving the alleged copyright concerns listed at the Contributor Copyright Investigations (Garion96's evidence). When asked about his work on the investigations, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) provided two diffs demonstrating his work ([6] [7]), however the first of these edits comments out, but does not remove, copyrighted text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a large part of what concerns me about this situation. The fact that the one of the diffs Richard provided in his defense would do better making a case against him tells me that there has been little effort to improve since the CCI's were opened. It may also be worth noting that I looked into the second (Schlegelmilch) diff as well, and after doing a brief Google search, I found that the "Tillowitz" section still appears to be entirely copyrighted text following Richard's edit (possible source, note the "Germany/now Tułowice" syntax, indicating the site is not a live mirror). I don't mention that in the finding, however, as it doesn't appear as though Richard added the majority of that text himself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has violated his topic ban

4) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) was blocked three times for violation of his topic ban on article creation. This case was opened following a report at the Incidents noticeboard of another violation: [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Violations of a remedy should be taken into account when removal of the remedy is being considered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has acknowledged errors

5) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has stated that he accepts that improvements in his editing are needed and is willing to accept restrictions to prevent further incidents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Definitely worth noting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Courcelles 03:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) strongly admonished

1) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will not go so far as to propose banning Richard at this time, however he needs to be aware that he is on his last strike; any continued violations, even relatively minor ones, may be the end of the road. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

2) The Committee acknowledges that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s community-placed topic ban on article creations was a valid and apparently successful attempt to curb his text-based copyright violations, and further recognizes that this sanction has been violated a number of times. However, in an attempt to more directly address the issues presented in this case, this sanction is suspended for a minimum period of six months. After at least six months have elapsed, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) may appeal to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted in full. However, if, by the consensus of uninvolved administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is found to have created an article that contains copyrighted content, the suspension will end, and the topic ban will be assumed under the Committee's authority.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am not willing to completely lift a sanction that has been violated so recently, nor when it does seem to have had the desired impact. However, in this case it is possible the impact went a bit too far, and it seems as though the sanction has a chilling effect on Richard preventing him from moving on and resolving these problems; further, I don't believe that any of his violating edits have included copyright problems. As such, I'm willing to temporarily lift the ban to see how things go; if all goes well, the Committee can vote to have the topic ban lifted entirely. However, if any copyright violations arise from any newly created articles, the topic ban will be reinstated as an arbitration remedy rather than as a community sanction. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the right solution at all. The simple fact is that the remedy worked on one aspect of the problem. Regardless, I'm going to wordsmith "At the end of the first six months" to something that would not require the appeal to be filed at the end of the sixth month, merely not allowing one before six months have elapsed. Courcelles 03:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

CE again to direct discussion by uninvolved admins to AE. Courcelles 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking of alternatives to this already based on the comments below; one possibility could be to include assuming the topic ban under ArbCom's authority from the start, then allowing him to appeal it after demonstrating substantial work on the CCI's. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I like it, the CCi's need to reach a conclusion, and more effort from RAN would help that greatly. Courcelles 04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Basically agree with Garion96 here. So when one route to create copyright violations was closed, he succeeded in creating them through other routes; what is the purpose of opening up the first route again? WP:ROPE? Wouldn't the logical way be first to get him to contribute without problems, and then to get him to contribute more again, instead of the other way around? "allowing Richard to return to his more usual mode of editing.", which Hersfold states is his aim here with this proposal, is exactly what worries me about it. So far, for seven years, his usual method of editing has caused the copyright problems. He has some 4 million articles he was and is allowed to contribute to anyway... Fram (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

As Feyd points out below, a fair amount of evidence has indicated that Richard has made improvements with regard to his text contributions. You yourself have admitted that there's been a significant drop in the number of text problems in his recent contributions, and that this ban has had negative consequences. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't make many text contributions anymore, so he can hardly make any violations in them. I don't think this indicates that he "made improvements with regards to his text contributions" though. His other contributions show no improvement, and he has not made enough substantial other edits the last year or so to indicate any improvement in that department. The negative consequences of his ban are his own choice; he could have edited much much more than he has done, e.g. by cleaning up the copyvios in the articles in the CCI, or by just expanding articles. He hasn't given any indication that the problems from before the topic ban won't reoccur, and has given sufficient indications that they are likely to reoccur, since he continued creating copyright problems and violations. So yes, his ban has had negative consequences, but these are mostly of his own making. If you topic ban an editor, and instead of moving on to other topics, he just stops editing, would you then conclude that the topic ban has to be lifted because it has had negative consequences? I don't follow your logic here. Fram (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable approach. I think the topic-ban was ill-considered to begin with and I have high confidence that RAN will create new content without copyright controversy if the ban is temporarily suspended as proposed here. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@Garion. You're advocating that a 53 or 54 year old content creator be given what may well be a 25 year topic ban on new article creation ("...until CCI is finished...")?!?! It's actually a pretty simple math question to show they're not going to be done for more than a decade using current methodology, with current levels of staffing... Carrite (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So to summarize. He did multiple copyright violations. He did, as far as I can see, barely a cleanup of his copyright violations of which many are still in place. He violated the community sanction repeatedly. As a result the sanction is suspended and after 6 months perhaps lifted? Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. The evidence posted indicates that there has been little concern about his text copyright contributions since the topic ban was put in place; that was the primary intent of the topic ban, so despite the violations, its purpose has more-or-less been served. This suspension will allow the community to determine if that is in fact the case, while allowing Richard to return to his more usual mode of editing. We are not lifting it entirely, and the Committee is not obligated to lift it after the six months have passed if there are still any concerns. If any problems do arise, the topic ban becomes an Arbitration sanction, with the increased severity such a sanction entails. I did consider some form of sanction to require that Richard make a definite effort towards aiding the CCI, but decided against it, as it would be difficult to enforce and would likely have to take the form of a ban on any other sort of editing to be effective - not a step I'm willing to take at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not in favour of a ban and the tar and feathers. But to have the current sanction still in place until the CCI is finished or at least some progress has been made by RAN himself doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. So many editors (not me btw) worked and are working to clean it up. And he will just continue what he likes best (which is creating articles). Garion96 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shame about the restrictions on linking, otherwise a most impressive set of proposals. Just to address the logic based argument for retaining the topic ban. Logic works best when its married to empiricism - that is fundamental to modern science and everything it's achieved. To paraphrase Lord Keynes , logic without empiricism leads to bedlam. Maybe those who want to keep the topic ban missed Unscintillatings posts showing that before the topic ban, some of our most respected copyright admins like SPhilbrick and Moonriddengirl were in part agreeing with RANs and Carrite's approach, praising RAN for "... making great strides recently. He's motivated and productive..." Since the topic ban, the empirical evidence is that RAN hasnt been very productive at all. So relaxing the self defeating topic ban seems very wise indeed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Carrite For one, RAN could really help speed things up. Other volunteers have to search for the copyright violations. He should know more than they about the original sources. Your 25 year estimation is ridiculous of course. Also, extend your quote. I said "until the CCI is finished or at least some progress has been made by RAN himself". So far I haven't seen much evidence that RAN helped much to clean it up. After all, he did created this mess by himself. Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from uploading images

3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from uploading images to the English Wikipedia, subject to the following exemptions:

• Photographs he has taken himself
• Images from Flickr Commons
• Government works that, according to the government's laws, are available under the public domain

All images uploaded under these exemptions must be appropriately attributed and tagged with the appropriate licensing information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is based upon the restrictions proposed by Carrite and Richard himself, made a bit stricter in part to make enforcement of the remedy a little easier. Any images meeting these criteria should be unambiguously acceptable and easily attributed, and this should allow Richard to continue doing the work he's stated he wishes to continue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world? We don't actually want these images on ENWP, no matter who uploaded them, all of them should be uploaded directly to Wikimedia Commons. A mucxh simpler restriction that forbids uploading images to ENWP would make much more sense, given that any images uploaded here validly under this restriction would just be moved to Commons by bot or script eventually, so why make more work for those folks? Courcelles 03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why should we foist a potentially problematic uploader onto Commons? The "why make more work" argument applies to Commons admins as well - it looks like over half of his uploads there have been deleted. I didn't look into why, but given the subject of the case, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were copyright deletions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I strongly support this. Eliminate the "fair use" grey area, eliminate the problem, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bear in mind that one problem highlighted by Fram's evidence is a history of uploading "public domain" images without providing the necessary supporting evidence. Hut 8.5 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why this restriction is very narrow and requires full attribution. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is unenforceable as images can be uploaded to Commons and not violate this restriction, and the Committee cannot sanction conduct on other wikis except in extreme cases. Perhaps a better phrasing might be regarding the use of such images on enwp. --Rschen7754 04:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from uploading images

3.1) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is indefinitely prohibited from uploading images or other media files to the English Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee notes that media files can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a project which is outside the jurisdiction of this Committee. However, if RAN should upload a copyright-violating image to the Wikimedia Commons, then subsequently make use of that image on the English Wikipedia, he may still be subject to Arbitration Enforcement as though the image was uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia in violation of this remedy. This shall apply retroactively to all images currently uploaded by RAN to the Wikimedia Commons at the time this remedy is enacted but shall not apply retroactively to any uses on the English Wikipedia in existence at the time this case closes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wordsmithed with Hersfold to propose an alternative that fixes the problem with the uploads, and prevents make-work with moving images around. As a Commons admin, I can see that RAN had two deleted edits there from 2012, and only four from 2011 (this is not deleted uploads, deleted edits. Including one tagging something as a copyvio.), so the copyvio problem on Commons does not appear to have existed in recent times, so I don't think this is adding a burden to the Commons admins, indeed, a reasonable user might have well decided to never upload an image here and only to Commons under the original proposal. Courcelles 05:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from referencing external sites to which he has contributed

4) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is prohibited from linking as a reference any external site to which he has contributed. He may provide such links on the talk pages of articles, so they may be reviewed by other editors for acceptance according to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies; if accepted, another editor may add these links as desired.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Also somewhat based on the proposed restrictions, but worded in such a way that Richard can still contribute. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I support this, but see this as less of a problem than do others. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community discussion on quoting copyrighted material

5) The community is strongly advised to hold a binding discussion on the subject of quoting copyrighted material in articles, most specifically on how long such quotations should be to still qualify under the terms of fair use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We cannot make any ruling on this ourselves, of course, but the issue of quotations seems to be a fairly major one to this case; I believe it's been discussed a number of times, but some firmer guidance on this point would be very helpful both in aiding Richard in his improvements and the community as a whole to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Standard enforcement

0) If needed, the typical standard enforcement verbiage will be added.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hopefully this won't be needed, but how is enforcement of further (new) copyright violations or problematic copyright edits handled? Assuming for the sake of argument that Hersfold's proposals are accepted, he can stay within these and create new problems; should these be noted at AE, or otherwise? Fram (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Violations of these remedies could be reported to AE; violations not covered by this could be handled through other means. I carefully avoided anything specifically addressing copyright violations (other than the admonishment) because I felt that this enforcement paragraph would limit the ability of administrators to effectively deal with copyright issues. The admonishment itself does make it clear, however, that uninvolved administrators would be quite free to indefinitely block for any further copyright issues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comments on proposals by User:Hersfold

Comments by arbitrators

• (Started a stand-alone section for general comments.) These all look very good. Thanks for writing this draft. AGK [•] 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by others

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: