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

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Coren
 * 3) Courcelles
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Hersfold
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) NuclearWarfare
 * 9) Risker
 * 10) SilkTork
 * 11) Timotheus Canens
 * 12) Worm That Turned

Inactive:
 * 1) Roger Davies
 * 2) Salvio giuliano

The value of exceptional content builders like Richard Arthur Norton
No sensible person could deny Richard has contributed hugely to Wikipedia. Many of RANs alleged violations fall into the grey discretionary area; the unambiguous negative is that he has taken up a lot of time from enforcement and administratively orientated editors. To come to a balanced decision about the best remedy it will be good to have a clear idea of the value of RAN's work, so we can avoid unnecessarily harsh sanctions which might demotivate Richard from making further contributions.

Richard seems to like to specialise in 19th / early 20th century history, a hugely valuable area, as without it you often cant understand the modern world. For example, the worlds largest and most successful hedge fund, Bridgewater, credits its success partly to the insight that basing models just on the 70 years or so of post WWII history is insufficient as until 2008 there was no significant de-leveraging. RAN often seems to get attacked for making borderline decisions with old photos. Readers are often demanding exactly these sorts of pics with article feedback, for example with Simone Weil I noticed the same IP leaving multiple requests, even seeming to get angry when pics were added that didnt depict the subject herself. Some might not understand why pics are so important as its sometimes impossible to make a linear, logical demonstration that they enhance the understanding. But for readers with phenomenological tact a pic really is worth a thousand words. History is best understood this way, especially if one wants to understand its lessons for the current world. As per Lewis Namier "The crowing attainment of historical study is a historical sense - an intuitive understanding of how things do not happen".

Given the volume and quality of Richards contributions before his topic ban, I hope this case will overall lead to a relaxation of his restrictions, especially the ban on article creation. Unless of course if copy right experts like Moonriddngirl attest that his work constitutes an ongoing and credible legal threat or moral transgression. This case is likely to attract the usual deletionist battle grounders who wont be happy unless they see blood on the carpet. I expect the Arbs to stand firm and ensure we get the best possible outcome for the project, which will likely mean Richard given clear advise about how to ensure reasonable compliance, while having his editing freedom restored so he can to return to productive encyclopaedia building. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I largely agree with you, If you are suggesting that the Arbcom would vote to weaken his sanctions that would be unprecedented and thus highly unlikely. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's only fair that participants here know that IP 108..125 is User:Kumioko. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any idiot can see that if they bothered too look. Its not like I am hiding or inferred anything to the contrary. Who I am is irrelevant to the statement. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point, why should anyone be required to look at your contrib history to see who you are? You assume that it's obvious, but that's not the case.  No one should have to mount an investigation to determine who the participants in a discussion really are, that's the entire point of the policy against "avoiding scrutiny" by using an alternative account.  As you've admitted on your talk page, you knew it was against policy for an undisclosed alternate account to edit arbitration pages, and yet you did it anyway, and gave as your justification some rhetoric about how fucked up the project is. Well, the hot news is, you're not responsible for the project as a whole, but you are responsible for your own behavior, and you've screwed the pooch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ken no one is avoiding scutiny and to assume that is just bad faith on your part. I have absolutely no reason to hide nor care too. In fact I made it intentionally obvious who I was. If my comments aren't of value then delete them and show what happens when an IP edits. Otherwise leave them be and drop the sticks. If you want to continue this on my talk page go ahead. Other than that this isn't the place for it. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The straight-forward way to make it "obvious" who you are would be to edit with your account, or, at the very least, to sign your edits using this IP with your name. Expecting other editors, of varying experiences, to recognize who you are is solipsism of the worst sort.  No one is focused on you to the extent you seem to believe is the case, and your insistence that others know who you are, instead of your properly identifying yourself, is rude and selfish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point x.125, though others who value RAN's work such as Unscintillating seemed to think that an Arb case might be in the RAN's best interests. One of those who supported escalating this suggesting that Arbitration is more "deliberative" than community discussion.  Well deliberation can go both ways. In this case we have a filing party whose proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the community at ANI, and who insisted on a hearing  despite Carrite, making progress towards a community solution on Richards talk. It might be useful if such litigious editors arent always rewarded for taking up the Arb's valuable time by getting sanctions changed in the way they expect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI needs more people as well as a new way of working
I had this line in my evidence but need the space. I move it here: ArbCom, please make this one of your takeaways from this investigation: CCI is overwhelmed. They have an enormous backlog of cases and they are massively understaffed.

This is not a slight on CCI, the volunteers are extremely hardworking and excellent at what they do. Unfortunately their backlog now includes cases launched in October 2009 and there's no shortage of more necessary investigations flowing through the intake valve.

One of the things I was most upset about when the original RAN text investigation was launched was the way that the case was set up — to dump in 6600 files and then start picking through them one-by-one to clear them and to effectively freeze RAN from making new starts (i.e. contributing productively as a content creator) until the matter was fully resolved. This "toxic waste cleanup" approach might work on small cases, or if CCI had a cast of several hundred volunteers. It simply does not scale and CCI's cadre is closer to a dozen than several hundred. "Solving" the RAN text case in this way, assuming they could replicate the pace of investigation of the first year, would take approximately 12 years. A more realistic estimate given the declining pace on the case is 20 years or more. Again, this is not intended as a slight on the excellent case workers, this is a very legitimate criticism of a structural flaw inherent in CCI's method of work.

Rather than launching all inclusive investigations on big cases such as this, I believe CCI should make use of scientific sampling and a two-part investigative process. The initial sort should be done by date rather than contribution size, breaking things into annual or semi-annual chunks, these further sorted by contribution size. Then a random sample should be closely inspected and a report drawn up as to whether a full audit for any given date or particular type of subject matter is merited.

In the RAN text case, it seems clear that the most serious errors took place in 2005 and 2006, running into 2007, with outlying problems as late as 2010. Files containing large contributions from these 2 key years could have then been systematically addressed. I believe this approach is really the only way to handle big cases like this. I believe the solution for them going forward in this particular instance is just to hat the RAN Text case and archive it. Many or most of the problems seem to have been or less resolved by the crowdsourcing process, which has washed away the most flagrant paste-in errors, which are the most serious form of copyvio. There are definitely problems remaining to be found, but the needle-in-a-haystack approach with the remaining files in this case would remove key copyright volunteers from more pressing work.

The essential thing is to create a binding remedy which will ensure that this sort of problem does not reemerge in the future, while freeing RAN to get back to productive work. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that your views on this have been heavily influenced by this particular case and your approach to it. If you want to conduct a statistical analysis to prove that problems with the editing of a CCI subject all lie in the past, as you do, then the current system isn't very useful. If on the other hand you want to clear the CCI then it is useful. Sorting contributions by size means that small edits (which are far less likely to contain copyright violations) are segregated, whereas under your proposed alternative volunteers would at least initially have to plough through them. If you don't believe me then look at the last page of RAN's CCI. The edits there are almost all minor formatting changes which are extremely unlikely to contains copyvio and which can be cleared relatively quickly. In any case the idea that all CCI subjects will have only placed copyvios at one point in their editing career is not true of CCI investigations in general. (It isn't true here either - the CCI was started because RAN added two copyvio articles in November 2011.)
 * One other point: in your evidence you note that copyvios make up only a very small proportion of RAN's edits. This is true but meaningless, as all CCI subjects have only a small proportion of copyvio edits in their contributions, even people like Darius Dhlomo who we banned straightaway after their behaviour came to light. The problem is that a) RAN has so many edits that even if only a tiny fraction are copyvio there's an awful lot of violations out there, b) somebody has to go through all those edits to identify the copyvio ones, and c) he should have known better. Hut 8.5 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also it isn't accurate to claim that RAN is still subject to the sanction because the CCI hasn't been cleared. If you look at the relevant discussions a far more common reason is that he hasn't kept to the terms of the sanctions. Hut 8.5 21:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's cost effective to "go through all those edits to identify the copyvio ones." The case backlog is going to just get longer and longer, presumably with more current and more flagrant violators escaping scrutiny while CCI microanalyzes 2005 and 2006 and 2007 RAN edits. It's a matter of prioritizing cases. CCI has its own way of working; I don't think it scales given the number of volunteers and the number of cases. Anyway, I've said my piece: there needs to be sampling to identify the nature of problems before the full "toxic spill cleanup" approach is employed, I think. Think about the way the IRS conducts audits: they pick their spots carefully, they don't try hauling in a case and auditing every last receipt back to the days when the subject was a paperboy... This is a general observation, bigger than the single RAN cases. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * CCIs are conducted in two phases. In the first phase, an editor is raised at WP:CCI as a potential problem. Sometimes they come straight there after another editor has spotted a pattern, sometimes they are there as the result of an AN/I discussion, but during that stage they are being raised as possibly warranting a cleanup. Informal sampling is used to determine whether or not there is evidence that a cleanup is needed, and, in some cases, whether or not the problem can be managed without starting one. This is probably where your IRS example applies.
 * If it is clear that there is a problem that warrants a full cleanup, the second phase starts, where the editor's significant edits are listed on a subpage and checked individually. This is not intended to be for evidence collection, as by this stage it is already known that the editor has added copyright violations to articles. Therefore the role of this phase is to remove all copyright violations that the editor may have added. To do this the only viable option is to check every edit made by the editor, and that is always going to risk being big and complex and time consuming, but that's the nature of the task. In an ideal WP this wouldn't be needed, because editors would understand copyright and not add problems to articles, but that's not going to happen. Instead the best we can hope for is that we are able to spot editors with potential problems before they make large numbers of contributions. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case with RAN, leading to a large cleanup that will take a long time to complete.
 * Otherwise, yes, more volunteers are desperately needed. The backlog will continue to grow without more volunteers, but the alternatives are not to check all edits, leaving potential problems in place from a person who is known to have added copyright violations, or to remove all of a person's edits automatically without checking to see if they might be ok. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you know where there is a link to the original debate on the RAN cases? Also, certainly there has to be a middle ground between total minute edit analysis and total annihilation, yes? Has CCI cleared every case that it has opened? Carrite (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly there are open cases, or CCI wouldn't be in need of volunteers. :) The list or closed cases is at Contributor copyright investigations/Archive. That also includes the list of declined cases, either where there wasn't found to be sufficient problems to warrant a full cleanup, or where an alternative was available. Sometimes the number of edits are small enough that it can be fixed without opening a case, in others either there wasn't really a problem, something could be worked out with the editor concerned, or the issues were out of scope. In each open case the "background" section covers any discussion that was held at CCI prior to opening the case, although discussions aren't always held there, and in many cases discussion isn't needed as there was a clear problem - before listing you need to show at least five examples of copyvio, although the opener generally checks sample edits to determine if there is a wider problem or not.
 * Just as an aside, I'd love a finding by ArbCom that CCI needs more help, and I don't imagine that anyone would be upset with a model that makes it work faster or better, so longer as it is still complete. :) And I think it is great that you're highlighting the difficulties faced at CCI. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom needs to lead a community discussion resolving questions of appropriate editing
Without considering the significant issues raised by this case in the realm of graphics, there are two aspects of text editing that need to be resolved. Hopefully this case will lead to clarity.

1. Is the formerly common editing method of copy-pasting huge blocks of public domain content with a single footnote (e.g. "1911 Britannica style") an acceptable editing practice? Is it permitted under some cases, and if so what are these? Is it a banned editing technique used only in yesteryear but inappropriate in the current era in which nearly every line of a properly-written article is footnoted for verifiability?

2. Should the Wikipedia quotation template used by some content writers include a "quote=" parameter for direct quotation of the original source? Is it indeed, as has been contended, an editing "best practice"? If it is an acceptable practice, what are the limitations of length for such a quotation? Or is it, as others contend, inherently problematic and a magnet for lengthy quotations which exceed legitimate permissions under the doctrine of fair use?

I and others would like ArbCom to offer substantial opinions on these matters as a portion of whatever the final remedy may be. Carrite (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the case of the first question the answer is clearly No. The guideline Plagiarism insists that in-text attribution or an attribution template be used when text is copied from an external source. Merely citing the source as you would any other reference is not an acknowledgement that you copied any text from it. Hut 8.5 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is important for ArbCom to reiterate this so this message gets out. I'd also personally like to see an RFC calling for the elimination of the "quote=" parameter altogether — but maybe that's just me. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is key - What was the Plagiarism guideline when most of this sort of editing behavior was taking place? It looks to me like THIS was the guideline in effect from the Middle of 2008. That's much more ambiguous about large-pastes-with-single-footnote (e.g. 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). What was the Plagiarism guideline before this? Can somebody help us out? Carrite (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I really do need some help here... I'm not seeing any WP Plagiarism guideline before the example I have linked above, written June 21, 2008, apparently by Franamax. Before that there was something called "Citing Sources." Here are some snapshots of the "Citing Sources" Guideline for RAN'S most problematic 2004-2007 interval. JUNE 3, 2004; JAN. 1, 2005; JULY 2, 2005; JAN 1, 2006; JULY 1, 2006; JAN. 1, 2007; JULY 1, 2007. I see that Franamax died last November, so we won't be able to get any institutional history from him, sadly. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I well remember some of the key history as its connected to perhaps the most traumatic event Ive ever witnessed on Wikipedia. The May 2009 witch-hunting of one of the most friendly, helpful and good natured young editors we've ever been blessed with. She was accused of plagiarism by a small but determined group of elite editors, led by a WR account. One of the results was the promotion of the Plagiarism essay to guideline status. As I recall from the discussion at the time, even hardliners admitted there was at the time no substantial policy on plagiarism above essay status. They justified their attacks with the laughable claim that any uni educated person should be aware of the issues. So you make an indisputable point Carrite, none of RANs pre 2008 edits were made in violation of this guideline, and even up to May 2009 it was only an essay. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that there was no rule against plagiarism on Wikipedia before 2009 is nonsensical. Hut 8.5 10:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you define as a "rule" doesnt it? Plagiarism is understandably an emotive and well known issue for folk with an humanities background., and they might not need an explicit guideline. Remember that many contributors, including RAN, come from an open source / tech / science background. I took science at one of the UKs best Unis during the 90's and I dont recall plaigurism being mentioned once. Many Science orientated folk tend to be motivated by a desire to share knowledge, not to assert property rights over ideas or artistic productions. As such, the absence of an guideline before May 2009 is highly relevant. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You really are being very tenacious here. Awareness and prohibition of plagiarism is virtually universal in Western education and academia. According to our article it originated in the 18th century. Copyrights was not tagged as policy until late 2005 - does that mean we didn't forbid copyright violations before then? Hut 8.5 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again it depends on what one means by plagiarism. Everyone knows its wrong to publish a piece of work in your own name when its highly derivative and you don't even credit the original author. That's very different from classing plagiarism as adding a few lines to a quasi anonymous article from a cited source with minimal paraphrasing. I dont feel this is the case with yourself, but it's good to be aware that some accounts deliberately present a simplistic view of what constitutes plagiarisms as it helps them witchhunt and permaban constructive editors. Thanks for helping to get this clarified. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are saying that. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. Hut 8.5 17:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hut. Obviously, there were laws against copyright violation at the time of the establishment of WP and no doubt some sort of site rules about copyright violation and plagiarism from a very early date. It's a history I'm going to explore in the coming week and hope to publish a little essay. It is starting to look like there was no specific site guideline on Plagiarism until June 2008. In the current case, one can't even measure the copious 2004-2007 problems against that guideline. Site rules in effect at the time of the problematic edits have to be unearthed and these edits weighed in that light.. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The early versions of copyright policy in terms of submissions are in WP:Copyrights. WP:Copyright violations was spun out from there much later, leaving the focus more on reuse and CC, but if you go back even to the end of 2002 you get some pretty clear statements about not violating other people's copyright . - Bilby (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There also is of course the standard mediawiki warning every time you you are at the edit window. Already in 2003 it stated quite clearly "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" (caps not mine) See here Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bilby's link from 2002 does actually mention plagiarism, Public domain (tagged as guideline in 2006) forbids plagiarism, and people have been using templates such as Template:EB1911 to avoid plagiarism since at least 2003. Hut 8.5 18:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Garion. That's an excellent link, it essentially runs all the way back through the problematic edits of this case: "Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see $1 for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" (Dec. 3, 2003 version). Carrite (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Garion. And here's the AUG. 2006 version of the same warning: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." Carrite (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you guys mind setting up a timeline of this sort of stuff on the Evidence page itself? Wording of edit page warnings, major changes to relevant policies, etc. Thank you! Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm at my 1000 words. I'm off work now for the next few days and will try and get a little essay together in that time which I'll probably make a subpage of my User Page, which has a bit of WP history stuff already. I'll put up a link here when it's ready to rumble. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to get something set up I can add it in as evidence myself, since I'm not planning on submitting anything to that spot so character limits aren't an issue. Wizardman  23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Copyright Problems"
I've sent out a couple queries about the history of copyright control at WP from people who might know. It now looks to me that on AUG. 24, 2003 something called "Copyright Problems" was launched, seemingly the forerunner of CCI. The COPYRIGHT PROBLEMS ARCHIVE starts with material dated Sept. 11, 2002, but there is very little content before 2006 on the first archive page. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CP was there first. CCI was made later when it was obviously needed for serial copyright violators. Like User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Garion96 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the current case notwithstanding, so the Copyright Problems notice board was the first copyright control entity, is this right? The history of that message board page only goes back to April 20, 2005; we know from the archive that there was something by that name at least as early as Sept. 11, 2002. Does anyone know where is the earlier edit history of the board? Carrite (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the opinion on the case itself, isn't it a statement of fact that RAN is/was a serial copyright violator? But the earliest edit on WP:CP is this edit in 2003. There are earlier edits actually but they can't be found because of some database error in 2003. Garion96 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the more accurate phrasing would be that he has "frequently made problematic edits, including copyright violations, especially from 2004 to 2007." Carrite (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Boing's thoughts

 * Yes, there is clear evidence that RAN has created copyright problems, but as a number of people have pointed out, copyright is complex (and Wikipedia is probably more rigid about it than most sites). The issue of putting up copyrighted material at other sites and linking to it is also problematic, but I would prefer to assume good faith and think that RAN believed it was acceptable if the material did not violate the copyright policies of the hosting sites.
 * Is there evidence that RAN has made major contributions to the project? Yes, of course there is.
 * Do we think that if the copyright issues can be addressed, RAN will continue to make positive contributions? I certainly think so, and others clearly do too.
 * Do we have evidence that there are community members who are willing to put in the effort needed to try to address the copyright issues? We certainly do, in the shape of Carrite's offer to observe and mentor.
 * Is it better to solve a problem and retain a valuable contributor than to kick him out? Undoubtedly.
 * Although I think this case was brought prematurely before the Community discussion was finished, it has been accepted now. I sincerely hope that ArbCom will see fit to support Carrite's initiative and assist in the retention of a contributor who potentially has a lot more to offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright can be complex, but that it's not allowed to copy & paste copyrighted text to Wikipedia really is quite simple. What I find perplexing about this case is RAN's seemingly unwillingness to help cleaning up the mess he left behind. He has cleaned up some articles when they are pointed out to him, but he only made one edit to the copyright investigation page. He wants to have the topic ban lifted so that he can create more articles. But why not clean up his own mess first? Garion96 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't answer specific questions for him. My point is more general, that seeing as we have someone willing to take charge of the task of trying to solve the problems (especially such an experienced and trustworthy contributor as Carrite), we should be taking advantage of that rather than reaching for a ban - addressing specific questions would presumably be part of Carrite's process. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a very important general point you make too. Even when editors "copy & paste copyrighted text to Wikipedia" it's not a black and white issue.  It can be good scholarly practice to do this when a direct quote is helpful for the reader - providing there is attribution and the quote is short enough that copyright is not violated. Some accounts dont want the community to see the shades of grey here, out of a sadistic desire to witchhunt constructive editors. We need to guard against this, or almost all prolific content builders who like sticking close to the sources are at risk from attack.  Alleged copyright and plaigurism violations fall across a spectrum, at one end you have clear ethical and legal breaches, at the other end there is no legal or ethical transgression at all,  just technical issues with good faith editors trying a little too hard to avoid WP:Original Research.


 * Richard accepts that too many of his past contributions have fallen into the grey area, taking up valuable time from the copyright crew. He's tried to assist clean up efforts and offered to accept multiple restrictions e.g. here  To answer Garion's question, the reason RAN isnt always as commutative as we might like is because he is a exopedian. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It really is astonishing what people are prepared to say to excuse the offences here. We're not talking about short direct attributed quotes to provide context for the reader. On the contrary there are a lot of examples of simple, blatant copying with no mitigating factors whatsoever. As I've noted in my evidence RAN has not contributed to the CCI, and if he has tried to fix his old problems he clearly hasn't been very thorough.
 * To answer Boing's comment, it might be possible to resolve this if RAN were to accept mentorship from an editor with substantial experience in copyright, together with some sort of restriction that he cannot perform certain tasks without the approval of the mentor. The obvious problem with such a solution is that previous community restrictions on his editing have simply been ignored. I wouldn't suggest Carrite for the mentorship position though. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 00:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hut, we're discussing a real name editor who has volunteered huge amounts of time to the project, accused of an offence that is often career ending if really committed with "no mitigating factors whatsoever".  Please dont make such extreme accusations without diffs! No one denies RAN has sometimes added excessively long quotes or not included full attribution, but where are the recent diffs showing copying from a copyrighted source without even a citation?  It might be best if the less centrist editors  (including me) pipe down a little here, and wait for moderate admins who are widely respected for their copyright expertise to have their say. I cant imagine strongly disagreeing with anything suggested by someone like Moonriddengirl or Sphilbrick. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hut, nobody is talking about "excusing" anything - so you really have no cause for astonishment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The consistent trend on this page has been to downplay the problems found as much as possible. We've been told that Wikipedia did not have enforced standards against plagiarism before 2009, that plagiarism is widespread in the scientific/open source communities (or was until very recently), that RAN needs to be entirely derestricted unless his contributions represent an ongoing risk of lawsuits, that his contributions fall under a "grey area", that the problems in question consist of attributed quotes (they don't), and that people involved with this issue are "the usual deletionist battle grounders" who "wont [sic] be happy unless they see blood on the carpet" to "witchhunt and permaban constructive editors". Carrite's attempts to review the CCI for this case display a similar attitude. Almost every problem found was labelled as "minor", "technical", "impolite", "subjective" or "very light", and even that a "bad copyvio" is merely "due to bad writing technique". The tone here needs to change. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this section is about my thoughts, and I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just looking at what I think is the best way forward for the encyclopedia, and I think that if we can get RAN to follow all of the rules properly in the future, and hopefully help with the CCI, that would be a win. Carrite wants to try to achieve that, and while he's willing I think we should give him the chance (and thank him for it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the first paragraph of this was aimed at FeydHuxtable's previous comment rather than yours. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 13:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Boing. I have been ruled out as a mentor (or as I prefer to call it, "copyright advisor") during the discussion phase. I am fine with that and retract my offer in the interest of helping to achieve a solution free of such (relatively minor) sticking points. There are probably many qualified Wikipedians who would serve in this capacity if called upon. I believe that physically removing the uploading of all but the most clearcut of graphics files from RAN is the key component to a lasting solution of this case; he should be compelled to submit them to a third party, who could assess their appropriateness and adherence to site standards and select the correct copyright template. Then once these files go up, assuming they are deemed appropriate, Richard can use them to illustrate his work. In a few words, this is the problem: RAN has one view of Fair Use, based on a liberal interpretation of the law; Wikipedia has quite another, based on an ultra-conservative application of the law. That's the huge graphics problem, in a nutshell. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd missed that - and I'm a bit disappointed to hear it. But if someone else will take on the task and follow the strategy that is being developed, I still hope it can work. And yep, I think your suggested approach to uploading files makes a lot of sense. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Hut. Per your: "We've been told that Wikipedia did not have enforced standards against plagiarism before 2009..." - No, not at all. The fact is that WP did not have a formal site guideline about Plagiarism until June 2008 (which may have been an essay until 2009, I'm still not clear on the point), May 21, 2009 and that any edits made prior to that date — which means the big majority of flagged problematic edits identified in this case — can not be judged against that formal site guideline. That's fundamental fair play, is it not, application of the principle of the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws to Wikipedia rules... Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found the diff for when the collectively written and extensively polished Plagiarism essay was marked as a guideline: May 21, 2009. There was no formal RFC on the document, it was simply accepted as guideline-level WP doctrine and so marked. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a formal RFC; it's here. It was actually promoted on May 20. A section on plagiarism was in the WP:CP header from September 2007 (see also talk page). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Hut. I plan on going over each flag on Case Page 1 again from the top, as I mention in my opening evidence statement, I did make mistakes as I got acclimated to what I was looking for — and what was entirely missing due to wiped histories for restarts (far and away the biggest source of my own errors). I appreciate that you and Fram in particular feel a bit under attack from me and that is not my intent at all. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Feydhuxtable's evidence
Feydhuxtable claims in his evidence " On Richard's talk, Fram has stated the case against RAN so strongly that its been repeatedly seen as misrepresentation.", but that diff a) doesn't show "repeatedly", b) is a response by RAN, hardly a neutral party here, and c) doesn't provide any evidence of actual misrepresentation. Further, " Evidence seems to suggest that when we get to crafting specific proposals, it may be best to head off further time wasting arguments by advising Fram to disengage from RAN."; which "evidence" suggests this? Obviously, if you silence all opposition, it will be easier to reach a compromise. But I don't think that that is the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work... You also state that "There seems very little in Fram's evidence that constitutes a genuine legal threat or a moral transgression." On what do you base that conclusion? Which parts of my evidence are not policy-violations? Many are undeniably copyright violations, and others are possible copyright violations which are presented by RAN as being copyright-problem-free without any evidence for their licensing as such. The burden of evidence falls on the person claiming that something is not copyrighted, not the other way around; copyright is always presumed unless evidence to the contrary is presented, not the other way around. Fram (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand my evidence was nothing personal. Its traditional for me to create a section against the filing party when I see an inclusionist I like under attack at Arbcom. I even did that with MBizanz, despite considering him to be one of the most trustworthy eidtors in all of Wikipedia. To answer your points:

a) In fact the diff does show that misrepresentation was "repeatdly" seen - I've bolded the key word in the diff:  another misrepresentation" b) RAN is exactly the person with whom you ought to have a workable relationship, if you want to continually engage with him. c) I used the phrase "seen as", I didnt say there was neccessarily any actual misprensentation.

Evidence that it might be wise for you to disengage from RAN is abundant - the obvious lack of trust between the two of you, your insistence on an arb case when progress towards a solution was being made by Carrite and the rest of the community, the fact that your proposals were so divergent from community consensus as per my ANI diff...

No ones claimed your evidence doesnt show violations of copyright policy. A moral transgression is something beyond a technical infringement, such as when you hurt the copyright holders ability to generate revenue or damage them in some other way, regardless of whether or not you break the law. I have more hardline views on moral transgression than many editors, for example I didnt oppose SOPA as I accept the need for original content producers to have their livelyhoods protected from free culture activists. But Im not seeing RAN frequently committing this sort of violation.

This isnt to argue that technical violations arent problematic. Of course they are, they take up valuable time from the copyright crew. But it's important to recognize there are mitigating circumstances here. In the last couple of years RAN has caused vastly less issues than he did before. And he's accepted there have been issues with his editing and suggested more fine tuned restrictions to prevent re-occurrences.

Possible you're not aware of all the related recent history? It might encourage you to take a more moderate view, or at least to understand possible reasons why your proposals for sanctioning RAN were so overwhelmingly rejected by on ANI. Arb cases have consequences, for example last year another editor whose real name was known was permabanned - and this was reported in the media, causing him considerable RL consequences and distress.

Only a few weeks back, another real name wikipedia was witch hunted to the point where he took his own life. His contribution to internet culture dwarfs even Richard's, making projects like RAN's work with the LOC seem small time by the comparison. While his alleged copyright offences happened outside of Wikipedia, he was attacked by a small band of zealous officials who insisted on branding him as a felon, even though many others argued that his alleged offense was not a black and white issue. (Not naming the editor as it seems bad form, you could check the list of recently deceased editors if you dont know who Im refering to.)

Please try and take a less forceful approach here, and appreciate that you're maybe not the best person to be interrogating RAN as you seem to be trying to do on the workshop page. RAN is a volunteer, and for him to be motivated to continue his valuable work here we need a solution that is agreeable to RAN as well as to those concerned with policy enforcement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a volunteer here as well. For him to be allowed to continue his valuable work, he needs to change his actions drastically. You are claiminng that my proposed restrictions didn't have community consensus (but neither had the lifting of his creation ban), but you don't seem to notice that the restrictions proposed by Carrite, apparently after having checked the situation a bit more, where strangely reminiscent of mine? Your arguments are not really convincing in any way, e.g. "he has caused vastly less issues" is only natural, he only made vastly less edits. Whether the proportion of problems is any lower is dabatable, it certainly is still much higher than with most other experienced editors, certainly those who already have had two CCIs. Your reply to the "misrepresentation" issue speaks for itself, I'll let everyone see and judge instead of continuing to debate the point.
 * Finally, your motivation to come to this ArbCom case is very poor; you seemingly divide Wikipedia into different camps, inclusionists and others, and see it as your duty to defend fellow inclusionists you like, and to create a section against the filing party? How is that in any way helping to find an objective, fact-based solution, based on policies and guidelines? Having partisan editors injecting their opinions from an emotional point of view instead of from the available evidence doesn't really help a case or any of the parties. (And comparing an ArbCom case to legal action, as in your example, and bringing in his being on Wikipedia as well as if that is somehow relevant, is a rather new low, even for you. "His contribution to internet culture dwarfs even Richard's" (emphasis mine) seems to indicate that you have really lost all sense of perspective.) Fram (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you re read my evidence, it clearly suggests that Carrite (Tim), like yourself, also seems to be taking a stricter approach than many in the wider community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN's "evidence"
In his (extremely brief) evidence section (which really is nothing more than a personal statement, with no supporting arguments or diffs), RAN writes: "There are over 400 images at the LOC waiting to be loaded to Wikipedia and over 100 notable people with obituaries in the New York Times archives without articles that I had flagged" Wikipedia (or, rather, Wikimedia Commons) is not intended to be a mirror of the Library of Congress digital collection, or the New York Public Library digital collection for that matter. If someone has the need for one of those images to illustrate an article, they can easily port it over at the time, if it is appropriate to do so. RAN's apparent belief that images should be ported to Commons whether or not there is any demonstrated need for them is rather indicative of his approach to the "content creation" for which he has been so lauded. It is also difficult to believe that 100 Wiki-notable people died in this period without any of them being recognized with a Wikipedia article. Instead, it appears to me that RAN has a rather overblown view of his importance to the project. He seems to take is as indisputable that his contributions cannot be replaced by the efforts of any other editor. A more reasonable interpretation of the situation would be that it is only RAN who is concerned about these specific un-created articles, and that the Wikipedia community, taken as a whole, will create the articles they feel are appropriate to enhance the encyclopedia, whether or not these are the articles that RAN seeks to create. In short, the take-away for the Committee from RAN's "evidence" is his overblown sense of his own importance to the project, always a danger sign in a cooperative and consensus-driven project, especially when it is linked to numerous copyright violations. It appears that RAN is so totally committed to creating the articles that he deems to be necessary for the encyclopedia, that he is willing to ignore or run roughshod over the copyright policies that keep us out of harm's way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had hoped not to take further part here, but the army of straw men being assembled on this page is starting to become a serious fire hazard. RAN's evidence is brief as he dosnt dispute the basic foundation of this case.  You seem to have missed that his evidence does in fact contain a diff, showing RAN suggesting various restrictions to advert the risk of him causing further issues for the copyright crew.


 * The only thing overblown about this case is your manipulative and ridiculous rhetoric. Far from having an inflated sense of his own importance, RAN is in fact an editor of considerable modesty. Perhaps you also missed him saying "I always assumed that once I stopped editing others would fill that gap" - how does that square with him thinking its "indisputable that his contributions cannot be replaced by the efforts of any other editor". ?  It doesnt, as RANs view is clearly the very opposite.


 * Not sure how you took RAN to be saying  "100 Wiki-notable people died in this period without any of them being recognized with a Wikipedia article".  An average 12 year old ought to see that Richard is saying that out of large pool of notable obituaries in the NYT archives, there are 100 remaining that still lack Wikipedia articles. If you plan to make further contributions to this case, please stop living down to your username! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're accepting that RAN's notion of "Wiki-notable" is accurate, and that he didn't pull the nice round number "100" out of the air. RAN gives lip-service to the copyright problem, but has yet (to my knowledge) taken responsibility for the numerous copyvio edits he made, and continues to make.  Given that, RAN's evidence should be rather more detailed, but he appears to be relying on his repuatation as a content-creator to save him. Also, cut back on the ad hominems, please, they don't become you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What sort of detailed evidence could RAN offer? Fram's evidence seems solid, there are few if any obvious mistakes to point out. If Richard had tried to counter with a long list of quibbles, he would have likely have been inviting serious sanctions, as it would suggest he's not committed to trying to improve.   You're right about the ad homs. I wouldnt have been annoyed if one of the usual battle grounders had made such an attack, but having seen you about on Liddel-Hart and elsewhere you've previously appeared to be an  editor of class and discernment. Maybe the reason for this out of character attack is that you're getting wiki-stressed? Even a saint would get frustrated if they edit here too much. A wiki break for a few weeks might be a good idea. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how your use of ad hominems means that I should take a Wiki-break. Wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that perhaps it's you who is Wiki-stressed and would benefit from a rest? (Or perhaps we both should -- I do agree that it can get quite enervating.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

how The evidence noted by both RAN and the others who post such will be evaluated accordingly. This and the above section provide no benefit for, well, anyone. If based on the evidence you feel certain remedies should be posted, by all means the workshop is right over there, as a former arb I'm suprised by how quiet it is there. Wizardman 02:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as the workshop is (I suppose) intended to assist the Arbs in shaping a resolution to the case (and to give an indication of how some members of the community are thinking), my comment here is intended to assist the Arbs in evaluating one aspect of the evidence that's been provided -- not that they aren't capable of evaluating it themselves, but there's no harm in pointing out one person's opinion. They're free to ignore it or not, as they please.  It's not a closed system, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not copyvio
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/William Joseph Hammer Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Glidden (paints) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Loring McMillen Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Orpheum Circuit Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Lloyd Espenschied Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Oliver George Simmons Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Mabel Garrison Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/George Dashiell Bayard

I looked a number of these while the case was running - at least one (probably more) was not a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

A) You could of course have posted this on your talk page while the case was running, and the pages were visible for everyone. B) Without indicating which one you don't believe to be a copyvio, it is rather a wild goose chase. Basically, your comment here is a clear example of spreading FUD without any added value or real merit. Fram (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The merit is that the accusations made about RAN can be re-evaluated. There is no merit to perpetuating incorrect claims of copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC).


 * So, no merit, no evidence, nothing anyone can use, just FUD. Thanks for reconfirming this. Fram (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram, Are you a licensed copyright lawyer, currently practicing in the State of Florida, or anywhere in the U.S.? Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram, In response to the initial assertion that one of these files was not a wp:copyvio, you've responded not with affirmative evidence but referred editors to [Fear, uncertainty and doubt], which is not an article about copyrights. An article about both copyright and [appeal to emotion] is WP:Avoid copyright paranoia.  Your revert of yourself shows that you've seen this posting and declined to identify either that you are or are not a licensed copyright attorney.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note On 25 March 2013, one of the editors in this discussion was blocked.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As per this diff, an article that is probably not a copyvio is    Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/William Joseph Hammer.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian Institution claims copyright the first page of the pdf., "Watch out for quasi-governmental organizations", has some useful info on their copyright status. Just to note: WP:Avoid copyright paranoia is not an article - it's a discussion page that has been evolving for years.  And I'm confused: why ask if Fram is a copyright attorney, but not ask Rich? What makes Fram's credentials more important or suspect than his? Or even relevant? We have copyright policies which we maintain ourselves. If copyright cleanup on Wikipedia rested on attorneys, we'd be even further behind than we are. (IANAL) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)