Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page; non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Free-use and fair-use content[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Non-compliant non-free content[edit]

2) Media that do not meet the requirements described by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of editors who specialize in image review[edit]

3) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Often urgency is seen where it is inappropriate, and given as an excuse for poor behaviour.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) This is an appropriate principle. Perhaps nobody is going to remain civil at all times, but they should. Perhaps nobody is going to always be patient and answer every question accurately, but they should. These are goals all of us should strive for, whether likely to be achieved or not. That such things are difficult, make any resulting misconduct understandable, and provide grounds for considerations of mercy and forgiveness — but the fact of the misconduct remains.[reply]
  7. As Paul. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Our users are humans not robots. Nobody is going to "remain civil at all times". Nobody is going to always be patient and answer every question accurately. This is not a standard that Arbitration Committee members are able to meet at all times and we should not hold users to higher standards than we can meet. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I fear that this may have the effect of shifting too much of the burden to image reviewers. It's a difficult role. Many uploaders do not share our values. Editors who review images are perhaps more likely to encounter bad-faith assertions than any others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Requests for comment[edit]

4) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Dialogue[edit]

5) The working of Wikipedia depends on active communication between its users. When a request for comment or other attempt at communication is made, it is important for the editor who is being addressed to engage in dialog with other users.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Usually, yes. But not always. Sometimes the best approach is for an user to take a break if they are stressed or ignore other users that are being overly aggressive or trolling them. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) See alternate below.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. If 'unresponsive' is overused as a criticism, some sensible people will find themselves in the firing line. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue[edit]

5.1) Wikipedia's consensus editing model depends upon discussion among editors. Editors are generally expected to respond to good-faith requests to explain their actions.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Non-free content policy[edit]

6) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria makes clear that a non-free image can only be used in a Wikipedia article under strict circumstances. It must contribute significantly to the article it is in, not serving a merely decorative purpose. Additionally, it must not be replaceable by an alternative free image, if one exists or could be created. If the image is primarily used to depict a living person, existing object, or recurring event, then the fair use rationale must explain why a new, free, and equivalent image of the person, object, or event could not be created.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I support noting that our list of ways to secure an alternative free image is not exhaustive. FloNight 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Other options exist for obtaining free images and I think they need to be included if we are making a list. One is getting the license changed to make it a free image. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC) On further reflection...FloNight 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{sofixit}} :-). But I disagree that ArbCom statements are meant to necessarily be exhaustive. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Response of users whose images are questioned[edit]

7) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 21:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Use of contribution logs[edit]

8) If an editor has made errors, it is often useful to check their contributions to see whether they have made similar errors in other articles, or with respect to other images. However, aggressively checking the logs of editors with whom you are in a dispute may constitute harassment.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think that we are going in the wrong direction with this principle. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I do not believe we are well served by any sort of restriction on the checking of the contribution log. It is as fundamental a tool as the watchlist and we tinker at our peril.[reply]
  3. WP is transparent because it is so designed. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC) per Charles[reply]
Abstain:

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging[edit]

9) Where the validity of non-free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As a general rule but there are likely allowable exception. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I believe that this burdensome practice arose more by chance and groupthink than by design or consensus. Nonetheless I recognize that it has become our policy so I will not oppose outright.[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between policy and consensus[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. But note that the particular criteria in use have been left by the Foundation to the decision of each individual project. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Slight wording change for concision).[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy[edit]

11) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and to assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 22:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role playing[edit]

12) A user who engages in roleplaying is responsible for the consequences of all actions of any persona adopted, including the reactions of others.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) All editors are responsible for the consequences of their actions. One of those actions is the "role" they choose to "play".[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not entirely comfortable with this line of thinking about this user. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) As with Flo.[reply]
  3. Not sure where this is going. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:

Feelings matter[edit]

13) The feelings of other users matter. Repeated incivility reduces morale and thus damages the project.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Minor change to hook in to policy at large.)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

When you are wrong, quit[edit]

14) When a user's pattern of behavior results in wholesale disruption, it is the responsibility of the user to change that behavior.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Yes and no. For the time being supporting, but will consider alternative ways of expressing this.[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Uncomfortable with how this is worded; while it's true in the general case, enforcement of certain critical policies must be continued despite any disruption caused by doing so. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) There may be something here but at a minimum I don't believe this is especially well framed.[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

15) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Abu badali[edit]

1) Abu badali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Wikipedia for more than three years. He is not an administrator. In addition to his content contributions, he formerly described himself on his userpage as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor" and has added maintenance tags to thousand of images having wrong, incomplete or missing source and/or licensing info, as well as challenged the fair-use status of thousands of uploaded images.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Paul August ☎ 04:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Concerns raised[edit]

2) Over a period of months, numerous editors have raised concerns about the validity of some of Abu badali's challenges to their images as well as the way in which he has communicated and discussed such challenges. Rather than make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner, Abu badali has often disregarded and at times even mocked the concerns expressed. For example, his userpage has, in the past, contained statements such as "I have a sense of humor and a confrontational style.... Have a rant? Now I have my own RFC. Don't miss the chance!.... Call me a stalker. It's fashionable now." Though these statements were intended humorously, it could reasonably have been anticipated that they would hamper Abu badali's ability to engage in productive discussion with users whose images he was challenging. This edit removing barnstars, with the comment, "bad guys don't deserv barnstars", is an example of his maintenance of a persona as a "bad guy". Essentially, he was engaged in role playing, as one might in an on-line role playing game, essentially taking on the role of "Sheriff of Images".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I agree with the spirit of this.[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think that this is an overly negative interpretation of this user's contributions to the maintenance of Wikipedia images. FloNight 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I agree. Need a different way of expressing this, IMO.[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) While unfortunate, I don't think that the cited practices rise to the level that they should be trotted out here.[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Request for comment[edit]

3) On November 29, 2006, a request for comment concerning Abu badali was opened, raising concerns about Abu badali's approach to fair-use image challenges. More than 40 users endorsed one or more statements raising concerns about Abu badali's approach to fair-use issues and the way he interacts with other editors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Noted. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

RfC ignored[edit]

4) Abu badali has ignored and completely failed to respond to the RfC against him, although he has known of its pendency for more than five months.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) RFC is a real process and editors should be expected to participate.[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC) per UC[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not think that he ignored it. He read it. His reason for not participating in the discussion on the actual RFC is acceptable to me. I'm not at all sure that users should be forced to make a formal response to a RFC any more than they are forced to enter mediation if they do not think that it will be beneficial. FloNight 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Abu badali interprets non-free usage policy in a particularly strict way[edit]

5) Abu badali consistently interprets our non-free image use policy in the strictest way of anyone involved in the issue. Frequently in deletion discussion he deems the use of an image to be against policy when all other parties believe that our policy permits its use.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think this over states the situation. I'm basing this on my review of some of his discussions and the comments on this case's talk pages from experienced and trusted users that frequently work with images. FloNight 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I disagree. WRT the RfC, one of the images discussed was Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg. I don't care much for visual entertainment (but some people at FAC judge articles by pictures), and as it turned out, Cricket World Cup and Ian Thorpe was put on the main page as the daily FA in March. Both contained a few fair use images of sportspeople receiving trophies, celebrating victory, etc, under a "historic" justification, same as the Farrell beauty queen pic. User:Ed g2s slaughtered some of these instantly, on the justification that it is easy to imagine a person receiving a trophy/gold medal or jumping up and down after winning an event, and therefore the picture does not add much that the reader could not imagine without it. There was widespread acceptance with these actions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Even if this were true, it would be grounds for a medal, not an arbcom case. The problems created by unfree images are huge.[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Many users are unhappy with Abu badali's interpretation of non-free use policy[edit]

6) Many users react unfavorably when an image that they has uploaded is recommended for deletion. When this nomination is due to a clear application of policy, backed by community consensus, this displeasure is often tempered. However when a single user such as Abu badali nominates an image and advocates for its deletion, in a way inconsistent with mainstream interpretation of policy, many users take offense, whether offense was ever intended or not.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I do not think this accurately reflects what is happening in this case. Looking at the talk page of this case, Abu badali seems to have support from experienced and respected members of the community that deal with image licencing. From my reading of their comments, the bulk of his action are not so far out of the norm. FloNight 22:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We have no reliable metric to indicate whether there really is widespread dissatisfaction or not, and even if they did the wording suggests that policy enforcement, if it causes anger, is illegitimate. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I think this gives too much standing to a kind of loudmouth tendency, to dramatise a simple point such as 'does the project need this image?' Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu badali frequently nominates the same image for deletion for multiple reasons[edit]

7) Frequently, when an image nominated for deletion by Abu badali is not deleted, he will renominate the image for a different reason. For instance, he may advocate an image's deletion based on its alleged replaceability; when that fails, he may renominate it for being used for a merely decorative purpose; and when that fails, he may renominate it for detracting to the value of the copyright holder.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is accurate but not helpful and unnecessary for a Fof in this case I think. As written it is being interpreted by the community as commenting negatively about Abu badali's actions. As pointed out by several editors giving feedback about this case, users that do maintenance work with images need to pursue a correct license until one is obtained or the image is deleted. This may require multiple nominations and/or deletions of an image. FloNight 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As FloNight. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Abu badali frequently nominates for deletion multiple images by the same user[edit]

8) Because Abu badali uses user logs to find uploads by a user he has interacted with in the past, his nominations are sometimes viewed as "wikistalking" or an attempt at getting revenge when an image is not deleted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not wise to limit the use of contribution logs when we are attempting to eliminate improperly uploaded images or other content issues such as copyright violations. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that this is meant to discourage, merely observe, the behaviour in question. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I don't believe that characterization of use of the contribution logs as "wikistalking" deserves even indirect support.[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. They may be so viewed, but this sounds rather too like using personal arguments to limit the discretion of another editor to seek out work to do on the site. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility[edit]

9) Many users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not comfortable with validating the idea that he was being vindictive. We need to encourage both sides of the free-image content dispute to assume good faith. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Template[edit]

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Abu badali placed on probation with wide scope[edit]

1) Abu badali is placed on probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may apply appropriate sanctions should Abu badali engage in disruptive behavior with respect to image patrolling; such disruption includes, but is not limited to, stalking of other users, multiple nominations for deletion of images uploaded by any one user, multiple nominations of the same image, refusal to discuss proposed deletions, failure to participate in dispute resolution procedures such as requests for comment, and inappropriate role playing.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Can not support this remedy because I disagree with the list of actionable items under the proposed enforcement. FloNight 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [moved from below in merger by James F.] Too broadly defined for me. I want this user to be able to continue to work with images. I think that this broad list will make it impossible. FloNight 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, too broad. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Abu badali placed on probation with less broad a scope[edit]

1.1) Abu badali is placed on probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may apply appropriate sanctions should Abu badali engage in disruptive behaviour with respect to image patrolling; such disruption includes stalking of other users, multiple nominations for deletion of images uploaded by any one user in a short space of time, repeated refusal to discuss proposed deletions, and failure to participate in dispute resolution procedures such as requests for comment.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Note somewhat toned-down scope. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Kirill 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. After reading the talk pages of other users that work with images, I truly do not think that his behavior is any more disruptive than that of other editors/administrators. They have a constant stream of uncivil remarks and unfounded accusations from unhappy editors. That makes me wonder why we are giving him this harsh sanction. Infact, I think sanctioning Abu badli is sending the wrong message to editors that upload questionable non-free images. Like all other content, an image once uploaded belongs to the project and it is fair game for scrutiny and then modification or deletion if that best serves the needs of the project. I feel especially strong about this as it applies to fair use images that the uploader had no part in creating nor put effort into converting to a copyleft type license. This arbitration case needs to gently but firmly remind editors that swiping easily obtainable images from a copyright holder does not help the project's core mission of obtaining free encyclopedic quality content. Instead that this type of upload causes extra work and may undermine our core mission by discouraging others from obtaining a free image since an image is already present on the article. Based on my reading of this case's talk pages and workshop, I fear that this sancton does just the opposite so I oppose it. FloNight 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) per FloNight.[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Abu badali counselled[edit]

1.2) Abu badali is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way.

Support:
  1. This is enough. Abu badali conduct during this case has been calm and collaborative in the face of some misguided statements from other users. (Look at the talk pages of this case.) Also, he changed his user page based on feedback during this case. I think he now understands that he could have been more collegial and will do well with the support of other users. Otherwise, I have no problem with his work and think that the charges of stalking and harassment are completely misplaced. Some of the users complaining had ten or hundreds of images that were improperly uploaded. I do not see his continued actions as a problem. Rather he is attempting to enforce an unpopular and widely misunderstood policy. FloNight 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unconvinced that he's not one of those who misunderstands it; see FoF #5. Kirill 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See this comment. [1] One of the thoughtful users that made a comment on his RFC is now saying that his original impression of Abu abadali was wrong. He states that Abu badali's interpretation of the fair use policy is more common than he originally thought and no further from the average community consensus opinion than his own. He points out that in image deletion discussions, the community supports Abu badali's point of view about as often as it supports his own. I think that our remedy is going to unfairly handicap Abu badali's effort to bring images in compliance with our free content policy. Further, it is going to give aid and comfort to users that are being uncivil toward him and seem to have little interest in accomplishing our core mission of collecting free encyclopedic quality content. FloNight 13:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third choice. Kirill 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. James F. (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • Passing are:
    • Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13;
    • Proposed findings 1, 3, 4, and 7; and
    • Proposed enforcement 1.2 ("Abu badali counseled").

Please note that a couple of the findings may need to be slightly updated (see talk). Newyorkbrad 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the majority now at 7, FOF 7 no longer passes. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Close. Everything passes that should except maybe the "counseled" remedy.[reply]
  2. Close: Paul August ☎ 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) "counseled" now passes.[reply]
  3. Close. FloNight 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Kirill 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136070663"