Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold ( Talk) & Courcelles ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
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)
Not relevant to the point at hand. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 06:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Also, cut back on the ad hominems, please, they don't become you. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:03, 22 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)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/William Joseph Hammer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Glidden (paints) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Loring McMillen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Orpheum Circuit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Lloyd Espenschied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Oliver George Simmons Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Mabel Garrison Wikipedia: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)
Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold ( Talk) & Courcelles ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
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)
Not relevant to the point at hand. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 06:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Also, cut back on the ad hominems, please, they don't become you. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:03, 22 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)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/William Joseph Hammer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Glidden (paints) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Loring McMillen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Orpheum Circuit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Lloyd Espenschied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Oliver George Simmons Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence/Mabel Garrison Wikipedia: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)