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

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

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

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Deleted evidence

Due to the nature of this case, a fair portion of evidence will be unavailable to most participants, as it has been deleted and thus can only be viewed by administrators. The Committee recognizes that this is not an ideal situation, particularly since Richard himself is not an administrator, and thus will have some difficulty defending himself from claims. In an attempt to resolve this, the Committee will restore a limited number of deleted pages relevant to this case and move them to subpages of this page. These pages will be fully protected, NOINDEXed, and blanked, with the only visible content being this template. Parties will then be able to reference the content of those pages and link to specific diffs and old revisions of the pages as needed. Once the case is completed, the pages will be deleted again.

The pages which will be restored will be:

The eight pages referenced by Carrite at Wikipedia_talk:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20111108#Carrite.2FDavenport.27s_assessment_of_this_case_subpage
Up to four other pages named by the parties to this case (discussion as to which pages may take place in this section; you need not necessarily agree, but if there is disagreement the articles will be chosen by the Committee from those nominated)

If anyone has any questions regarding this procedure, please let us know in the section below or on the talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored pages

Discussion

Forgot to mention; because we cannot move files out of the File: namespace, nor hide the content of a file behind a template, we will not be able to restore any images or other files, sorry. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fram

Current word length: 954; diff count: 12.

Preliminary

I'll use RAN as shorthand for "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" throughout my evidence. I hope this is acceptable.

I'll not rehash the old history here, it can be seen at [1]. Basically, the first discussions about problematic file uploads happened in 2006, leading to a CCI on files in 2010, and a CCI on articles in 2011, coupled with a topic ban on creating articles from that time on. The topic ban basically prevented the further creation of copyright violations in article text (but also reduced RANs overall participation to Wikipedia severely).

A third topic which I'll not handle here, as it is less clearcut but also problematic, is the use of long quotes from copyrighted texts. While the excesses from before the article CCI seem to have stopped, a less liberal use of quotes (and not including them in edit summaries) would probably be good.

As far as I am aware, RAN has never tried to find any copyright problems; only when others point out the violations does he try to maintain the information, or he simply ignores the reports. I haven't seen any indication that preventing or correcting copyright violations is any concern for RAN.

My evidence will focus on two remaining problems: file uploads, and links to sites containing copyright violations.

File uploads

Many files uploaded over the years by RAN have been deleted for having wrong license information or invalid fair use claims. Despite this long history (including a CCI), RAN continues uploading files with problems.

November 2012

File:Irénée du Pont I.jpg , File:Robert Ruliph Morgan (R.R.M.) Carpenter.jpg and File:Sir Henry Rider Haggard.png: all claimed as PD (published before 1923), no evidence that this is true (images labeled as " circa 1920.")
File:Keens Steakhouse 1910.png unable to verify date or prior publication, both needed to be PD
File:Polo England 1915 circa.png; unable to verify 1915 date, evidence that this had no publication prior to 1923 is in the source (which states "private collection")
File:Bernard Lansky and Elvis in 1956.jpg has a FU rationale for the article Bernard Lansky, which is a redirect. Whether it qualifies as fair use on the redirect target is debatable.
File:Samuel Arthur Weiss.jpg: no evidence at all that this was published (or even taken) before 1923, as claimed in the PD-license
File:Frederick William Rowe.jpg: no evidence for the "ca. 1910" given.

December 2012

File:Larger print of Aftermath from the Hurricane of 1917, Isle of Pines.jpg is marked as PD, but probably isn't PD, as it is a previously unpublished photograph from a personal collection.

January 2013

To defend the now deleted file File:Gartler 01.jpg, he claimed that this 1990 picture was non replaceable because "he would be 89 in 2012"
File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png was marked as PD; when challenged, it was changed into fair use. It has since been deleted as not meeting the FU criteria.
File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg was marked as PD; when challenged, it got changed to FU, but is up for deletion for violating different FU criteria
File:SS James Iredell.gif, fair use, never used in an article, now deleted
File:Olson-Peder 1896 death.png: no problems with the file, but with the accompanying text, violating WP:NOTDIR #2 (genealogy)
Here RAN adds a fair use rationale to a file uploaded by someone else: as happens in other cases as well, this image is far too large to qualify as fair use though (1,848 × 2,142 pixels)

Links

This section involves all links (whether as a reference or as an external link) to things that would be considered unacceptable (for copyright reasons) on Wikipedia and are disallowed per WP:COPYLINK and (for external links) WP:ELNEVER.

January 2013 additions

Familypedia pages created by RAN, used as reference, containing copyright violations
- 21 January 2013
- 12 January 2013: nothing but a full copy of a 2012 article from the Wall Street Journal
- 11 January 2013: a scan of a 1949 Swedish newspaper article, probably copyrighted
- 8 January 2013: scan of a 1968 NYT article
- 7 January 2013: probably copyrighted
- 5 January 2013, adds external links to pages he wrote on Geni and Findagrave, and Familypedia. Both the Findagrave and the Familypedia page contain the same copyright violation from "The Collector's Encyclopedia of Pickard China", a 394 word copy of a complete entry. The Familypedia page is also added as a reference

Examples of older but still present problems

Frank Goldsborough: after File:EddieSchneiderCrash 03.jpg was deleted from Wikipedia, RAN uploaded it to flickr, and used that image as a reference for the article[2]. It is a scan of a complete article from the NYT from 1940, so obviously a copyright violation. RAN edited this article in January 2013, but didn't remove his copyright violating link. I noted this problem (together with similar ones, see below) on January 30 at the ANI discussion; RAN replied to my post, but didn't remove any of the links. The article is also an example of the rather excessively long quotes used by RAN.
Flickr copyright violation used as reference, RAN uploaded a complete copyrighted NYT article scan to flickr, and used this as a reference in this article. Still not removed. The same article uses RAN's findagrave pages as ELs; the first one contains the same NYT article.
Nancy Hopkins (aviator) still contains a 385 word quote from a 1979 book by George Vecsey (presumably copyrighted), an uncredited 156 word quote from 1930, and a complete short article from the 1931 NYT. The article then goes on to have an EL to findagrave (written by RAN), which has the exact same copyrighted texts, and then some more. When RAN, who is still the subject of a topic ban and a CCI for article copyright problems, edited this article in January 2013, none of these problems were corrected. Neither did this happen after the article was noted in the ANI discussion of late January.

Evidence presented by Carrite

Current word length: 975; diff count: 6.

Introduction

One of Wikipedia's most prolific content writers has in the past, and continues in the present, to make an unacceptable number of poor judgement calls and to commit an unacceptable number of potential or real copyright violations and violations of site policy. There are two foreseeable outcomes: either the subject of this case, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (hereafter "RAN") is going to see his future participation in the project placed within a rigorous supervisory framework which assures that these problems henceforth cease; or else RAN is going to be indefinitely banned from the project.

I believe that the evidence will show that the former outcome — supervised restriction — is vastly preferable to the latter. Moreover, I believe that this is an unusual case as a formula for successful remedy of ongoing problems has already more or less been arrived upon and is known to ArbCom through the MOST RECENT ANI CASE and its extension to the RAN TALK PAGE. What is needed is the full force of ArbCom to impose and enforce this or a substantially similar set of restrictions.

Prolific, useful content writer

Why should we care about this editor? After all, HE HAS BEEN SHOWN to have committed dozens of instances of copyright violation or unacceptable editing practices in the realm of text by a Contributor Copyright Investigation which began November 8, 2011. This investigation has in 15 months managed to examine about 9% of the pieces to which RAN has contributed. Aren't these problematic edits sufficient to merit WP's equivalent of the death penalty?

No. Context is necessary, even hundreds of violations would affect but a fraction of content contributed. As of this writing, RAN is #85 on the Total Edits list and #87 on the Article Starts list, with 2,984 pieces created. This level of production is not to be blithely dismissed. RAN is entitled our thanks and respect for the time and effort he has volunteered. He deserves the dignity of a reasoned evaluation of his past transgressions. No effort should be spared to return him to work under a set of carefully crafted restrictions which both allow him to create content productively while at the same time ensuring that this future work is within accepted legal and site standards.

The questions needing to be asked with respect to RAN's text contributions: Exactly what did RAN do that is unacceptable in terms of copyright law or site practice? Exactly when did he do these things? Have these unacceptable editing practices been attenuated or altogether stopped or are these problems ongoing?

Unacceptable past editing

The RAN Text Case by CCI was laid out to include some 6,539 text files, broken into 10 subpages. These are organized according to size of RAN's contribution (Page 1=Most Content Added, Page 10=Least). Problematic articles have been marked with a green check mark by the investigator, pages found clear of problems with a red X. This is binary and does not attempt to analyze the gravity or cause of the edit problems. The original form of the case page is difficult to interpret, AS SEEN HERE. As seen in the history, work on the case has been ongoing albeit at a declining pace. I have provided annotations for this first page as well as a tentative summary of my findings, which need to be revised.

In my examination of this case, I noted five primary volunteers working the RAN CCI Text case, whom I attempted to involve in the discussion of the Proposed Remedy for RAN mentioned above. These are SPhilbrick, Fram, Hut 8.5, Wizardman, and Moonriddengirl. Wizardman worked mostly on other subpages of the case. Others investigating the case include MER-C, Bilby, and User:Hurricanefan25 (blocked sock account). The opinions of all these committed CCI volunteers should be taken into close consideration in this case.

Interested in isolating the time and nature of problematic edits by RAN, I tried to systematically examine the problematic files identified on CCI Page 1. I made mistakes as I learned. I found myself thwarted by an inability to read original histories of blanked pages and attempted to gain reading rights through an RFA, which was unsuccessful. My original belief CCI had been "sloppy" was incorrect, the product of my misinterpreting the washed edit histories of pages restarted as a result of the investigation. In fact, CCI seems to have been correct in their assessments of fault. It should, however, be noted that not every alleged violation marked with a green check mark is a problem generated by the subject of the investigation (See: Eugene I. Gordon).

Transgressions seem to have clustered in the years 2004-2007 and consist of the following general types of problems, ranked in order from most grave to least:

1. Large unattributed paste-ins of text into article visible on mainspace ranging from PRETTY INNOCUOUS to MORE SERIOUS (April 20, 2006, from [3]).

2. Large paste-ins of copyrighted text cloaked behind < ! -- tags EXAMPLE, in at least one case rendered visible to mainspace readers by subsequent tag removal by another editor DIFF. - Seemingly a step in RAN's writing process rather than intended as content.

3. Excessively close paraphrase. (Compare THIS to ORIGINAL SOURCE).

4. Improperly attributed Inter-Wiki machine translations EXAMPLE and new articles split from WP pieces via copy-paste with improper creator documentation. - Little risk of danger to The Project.

5. Direct quotations from copyright sources in the "quote=" field of the WP quotation template deemed excessively long to constitute fair use. EXAMPLE. - Judgment call.

6. Large paste-ins of text from public domain works marked by a single footnote. EXAMPLE. - Formerly regarded as acceptable practice, e.g. 1911 Britannica.

Changing site standards for sourcing mitigate some of these transgressions, although significant copyright violations undeniably did occur in numerous articles. The great majority of these transgressions strike me as good faith errors, often within the norms of commonly accepted WP editing practice at the time they were made. — Carrite (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

Current word length: 389; diff count: 4.

Richard a conscientious editor who would be a huge loss.

Prior to Richard's topic ban he was an editing titan, with close to a hundred thousand quality contributions. For brevity's sake I'll expand on why RAN's work is so valuable on the talk page. Unlike genuinely careless copyright violators, he does care about the project. This is evidenced by the volume of his contributions - RAN knows someone of his extraordinary energy could be cashing in by contributing to sites that pay for content - instead he volunteers here where his work does the most good. Most of RAN's transgressions seem borderline, e.g. see the files uploaded as PD that are disputed for being dated circa 1920 instead of a definitive date prior to 1923 Or see Unscintillating's spot on Feb 7th statement where he quotes copyright expert Moonriddengirl describing RAN as "motivated and productive". Copyright is a devilishly complex issue and whether an alleged transgression ought to be treated seriously is often a matter of judgment. Anyone who knows a few academics or journalists should be aware they're typically delighted so see themselves quoted or cited in Wikipedia. There seems very little in Fram's evidence that constitutes a genuine legal threat or a moral transgression. Granted RAN is causing a genuine issue by taking up so much time from enforcement orientated editors who are equally as essential as content creators. But considering the huge value of RAN's work, an absolute minimum set of sanctions is to be preferred.

Fram's (and even Tim's) take far from centerist

As per ANI several of Fram's proposed sanctions were rejected by the community almost unanimously. Though Carrites' attempt to build bridges is hugely admirable, even he seems to be proposing too strict remedies: for example on Richards talk he proposed RAN be banned from linking to his own work on other sites, even though the community had roundly rejected that when Fram suggested it on ANI a few days earlier. On Richard's talk, Fram has stated the case against RAN so strongly that its been repeatedly seen as misrepresentation . Having known Fram to be a fair admin for years, I doubt this is malicious. Rather they've maybe became frustrated as their take on Richard's editing can be much stricter than community consensus. 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.

Evidence presented by Steelbeard1

Current word length: 147; diff count: 1.

My unpleasant dispute from August 2012

On August 23, 2012, RAN made edits to the article about the 2006 incarnation of CBS Records (which is now CBS Records (2006)) with too much information about earlier CBS Records entities which are not connected in any way with the current CBS Records. The edit is at [4]. As you read his edit, you will see that it contains obvious erroneous statements such as "CBS Records founded in 1960 by CBS Corporation" which are clearly false. This started an edit war. A compromise article was created by myself called CBS Records International which did not satisfy RAN. I later realized that the mess was created because RAN is banned from creating new articles so he screwed up an existing article. I wound up making CBS Records a DAB page. You can read all about the dispute in the Talk:CBS Records (2006) and Talk:CBS Records pages. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Garion96

Current word length: 96; diff count: 0.

It took me a short time to find two copyright violations at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, namely Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson and Katherine Sophie Dreier. I see a lot of volunteers working at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, the only person I don't see working there is User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) whose only post there was asking why the volunteers couldn't stub an article instead of deleting it. I don't think he should be allowed to create any new content (or any other editing for that matter) until, with his help, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 is totally cleaned up. Garion96 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Hut 8.5

Current word length: 486; diff count: 7.

I am going to summarise the history of the text-based contributor copyright investigation (CCI) on Richard Arthur Norton (RAN) and some of the related sanctions. This isn't intended to be comprehensive and I'm sure there is plenty of history I'm not aware of.

RAN has a history of copyright and related violations

In November 2011 a CCI was opened against RAN after he created two articles which were obvious copyright infringements. A previous CCI was also open on RAN for copyright violations in images. CCI is a process where editors go through the contributions of someone with a history of copyright violations to identify and fix any infringements. They are undertaken as an alternative to removing all of someone's contributions, as permitted by policy.

The CCI process is heavily backlogged (for stats see User:Amalthea/CCI/Overview). There are over 100 open investigations comprising over 70,000 articles, with the earliest investigations dating back to October 2009. RAN's CCI is still the third- or fourth-largest open one over two years later with nearly 6,000 pages awaiting checking. If it is ever cleared it will have consumed an extremely large amount of editor time. The fact that the investigation is largely incomplete is thus utterly unsurprising.

What checking has been done has established that RAN has a history of the following:

Copying large amounts of text from copyrighted sources (verbatim or very closely paraphrased)
Including large chunks of copyrighted text in hidden comments
Adding text translated from foreign-language versions of Wikipedia without acknowledging the fact (in violation of reusers' obligations under the CC-BY-SA licence)
Copying text from other Wikipedia articles without attribution (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)
Copying text from public domain or copyleft sources without acknowledgement. In the case of public domain material this is not copyright violation, but it is plagiarism.

RAN has only made one edit to the CCI, [5] though he has rewritten some pages after they have been identified as copyright violations by other people. Copyright violations are still being identified at the moment. [6] [7] [8] [9]

RAN has not complied with community sanctions

Once the CCI was opened, a discussion was held on what to do about it. The result was a topic ban on creating any new articles.
RAN repeatedly tested the boundaries of this ban. As a result an administrator left a final warning.
RAN violated the terms of the ban again, and was blocked. [10]
After the sanction expired another discussion was held. The topic ban was extended to indefinite (and it is still in effect now). There was significant support for a complete site ban in the discussion.
RAN has subsequently been blocked for violation of the sanction, in January and July 2012. The former block was shortened on the grounds that the violations occurred some time before the block.
RAN appealed the topic ban in August 2012. The appeal was unsuccessful, with the main reason being that he'd recently been blocked for violating it.
In the discussion which led to this arbitration case evidence of more violations of the topic ban was presented.

Evidence presented by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Current word length: 175; diff count: 1.

I accept that improvements are needed. I have admitted that I sometimes have trouble interpreting copyright guidelines for images, and may use too much text as fair-use and that my paraphrasing sometimes can be too close to the source material. I have suggested restrictions to my editing here. I look forward to cooperating with the advice and/or restrictions that are agreed upon by the arbitrators and I hope they allow me to continue improving our coverage of obscure biographies and continuing my work with the Library of Congress to get more obscure people from history recognized for future generations of readers of Wikipedia. Since I have been blocked from creating new articles no one has taken over that role. 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. I always assumed that once I stopped editing others would fill that gap, but it has not happened. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Unscintillating

Current word length: 153; diff count: 3.

Rather than being a fixed extension of any length of the experimental topic ban, the indefinite topic ban was a problem

Assertion: In the AN discussion that started 16 December 2011, there was agreement among key editors; specifically RAN, Carrite, SPhibrick, and Moonriddengirl; to continue with the status quo for a fixed term of a month or months. A reasonable reading of the consensus was to extend the experimental topic ban by either three or four months.

I don't know how much ArbCom can look at the general issue of indefinite bans being vague and indecisive and leading to editor confusion and downstream community confusion, but IMO this is far from a problem only with RAN. The case here is especially clear, as the closer doesn't mention "experiment" or "CCI" in the closing, and RAN seems to have been forgotten.

AN discussion starting 16 December 2011
RAN reported then that he had made 2000 edits on the CCI problems diff, diff
Moonrriddengirl stated, "...he has been making great strides recently. He's motivated and productive..."

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.