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

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

Appeal of enforcement actions to AE
The decision provides that "Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement". That is unclear insofar as it does not specify who decides the outcome of appeals at WP:AE (one administrator, all participating uninvolved administrators by consensus, all participating uninvolved editors by consensus, or all participating editors by consensus?), and if consensus is needed, whether it is the qualified kind of consensus needed to overturn an AE action per your procedures. Just a reminder that this should probably be clarified generally in the course of the clarification of AE and DS procedures that I understand is ongoing.  Sandstein  15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've copy-edited enforcement proposal 1) in a way that should resolve that ambiguity. Thanks, AGK  [•] 11:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that this is the most appropriate solution.  Sandstein   22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Community discussion on copyrighted material
Before more arbs start voting in favour of having the community holding 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", they should consider reading http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. In particular, the following paragraph should be given full attention:
 * "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission." (emphasis mine).

Encouraging to have a binding discussion on a matter than courts of law determine on a case-by-case basis is, to put it mildly, not a good idea. I'm a bit surprised that the committee members known to work in the legal field haven't appraised their drafting colleague on why this remedy wouldn't work. MLauba (Talk) 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

General thanks to the parties & participants
I'd like to thank all of the parties and participants to this case for their contributions to this case and especially their conduct during it. As anyone who's seen any other arbitration case will know, this process is usually filled with animosity and bickering throughout; such behavior usually has the side effects of delaying the proceedings and clouding the evidence available to the Committee, making the final resolution of the case take much longer than planned and often less than ideal to resolve the situation. Your cooperation and respect for one another during this case is something that is unprecedented in my experience, and definitely helped to bring this case to a swift and (I believe) useful conclusion (as far as arbitration goes - yes, it took a month, but I think that this is the first case in some years to finish ahead of schedule). Thank you very much. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. An arbcom case is never pleasant, but in this case it in general was civilised and fact-based. Thank you to all that were involved, including Arbcom. Fram (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)