Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Free-use and fair-use content

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").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, I should think. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd reccomend changing equivalent to compatible. We look for liscenses believed (by us or the FSF) to be compatible with the gfdl, not equivalent. -M^ask? 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, changed. Newyorkbrad 13:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. We do not look for licenses that are one-way compatible with the GFDL for licensing media and this is obvious by the fact that we accept other copyleft licenses for images (GPL, CC-BY-SA, etc). I have modified the text to more accurately describe the situation while still being succinct. (I am not married to the wording but it certainly should jibe with foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.) Kotepho 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-compliant non-free content

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, I should think. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording changed drastically, but I think this gets to the heart of the matter and holds the same spirit. With the variety of speedy deletion criteria we have some require notification and others do not and not all of the issues involve things that are adequately described as tagging. I tired to make this more general and not conflicting with policy and practice. Kotepho 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Role of editors who specialize in image review

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this completely. TheQuandry 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly approve of this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly approve. But would it be possible to expand beyond the requirement of just being civil and respond properly? For instance, having such statements on one's own user page that is certain to not be well-received by the users whose images are challenged is unlikely to improve the perception of the retaggers actions. --Irpen 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If my user page is considered improper, I will change it. But, as I said, anyone taking the statements on my user page seriously should be prepared to accept the fact that I am a Tenebrist creature in my real life. For a really offensive user page edit, I would point you to this edit, that ultimately led User:Jeffpw (an involved party on this arb case) to be blocked for 3 hours in March 28. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I found the reaction of User:Jeffpw sad as I would think that any departure of well meaning wikipedia editors would have had a different outcome if handled differently (the user is still around tho). Yes, I personally took your user page seriously - devil image and the taunting message , Abu is targeting you (its the caption that I find disturbing). Sarcastic humor and confrontational behavior is really not necessary in implementing Wikipedia policies. I believe it breeds incivility (that is why I believe we are all in this forum) and avoidable bad feelings. I found this very relevant in this discussion - meta:Don't be a dick: Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are.

On the matter at hand I support this finding, inasmuch as that I also propose that you don't have to be a dick when you go about helping to implement Wikipedia policies --Eqdoktor 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're being a little bit biased when you take some much offense from my Userpage saying ""Abu is targeting you" at the same time you just feel "saddened" by Jeffpw's stating on his userpage[1] "If, out of concerns for copyright status, the well meaning Wikipedians delete publicity stills of dead Hollywood actors from the 1930s, the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum." (caution: graphic link).

As a side note, I wonder if there is some special reason for meta:Don't be a dick (just like meta:Avoid copyright paranoia) to be in Meta, but not on en.wiki? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the anatomical image - my apologies. I take back my remark on that. Of course, in some cultures; devil images are as equally offensive. Just a note. (:P) --Eqdoktor 12:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a devil. It was an smiling ugly drunk man. But I got your point. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the content of Abu's user page, while not necessarily offensive in itself, was likely to aggravate the bad feeling caused by his (rightful) removal of copyright violations. I am glad that he changed it, and I notice that he did so, voluntarily, before the voting started. ElinorD (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The second to last sentence applies to just about every thing on this wiki (all of the policies are complex, subjects to varying interpertations, and confusing to new editors) and the last sentence does not follow as there is nothing special about these policies. Everyone should always be civil, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently blah blah no matter what policy you are enforcing. This is apparently a radical view on my part though. Kotepho 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this as well. ElinorD (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, I would think. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Responding to requests for comment

5) An editor who is the subject of a certified request for comment is expected to respond in good faith to the concerns raised. Failure to do so is generally understood as reflecting a lack of concern for the editor's relations with other Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A brief history of my RFC (and why I never took part on it).

My RFC was started in November 28 by User:PageantUpdater, that warned me about it right away. The initial complaint seemed to be about some images that were deleted. I am not an admin and had never deleted any image. I have nominated hundreds of them for deletion for many different reasons. But unless some admin agrees with my argument, no image gets deleted just because I think it should be. User:PageantUpdater seemed confused about this at first.

I decided that it would be better for me to wait this draft RFC to consolidate before replying anything there.

The next edits to the RFC already inserted some unproductive language (to say the least). User:Tvccs accused me (with no diffs) of "sabotaged", of engaging in an "all out pattern of attack against any other user that dares challenge his absolutist POV" and that I am "interested in destruction'".

I noticed this draft RFC was very unlikely to evolve in an fruitful discussion forum when User:PageantUpdater, the RFC creator, knowingly invited a user to take part on it just because this user had recently vandalized my user page (calling me "The Cancer of Wikipedia" with a barnstar).

The RFC was really never certified. The section intended for "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" contained only a link to a dispute itself. The users "certifying" the basis of the dispute (User:Irpen and User:Tvccs) didn't tried "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" before starting the RFC. User:Irpen was the one to move the RFC to the "certified" group, right after "certifying" the dispute while still not endorsing "everything said by the RfC original author". He said he would "present (his) view separately", but as of May 14th (5 months later), he hasn't.

User:Radiant! archived the RFC in February 15th, but User:Kim Bruning relisted it 8 hours later.

The "unproductive" comments then flourished. The RFC evolved into a all open forum where any attack on me seemed welcome. I have been called a "hooligan" by User:Jack Cox, that said tagged his images for "revenge".

User:Sebbeng accused me (also without diffs) of being "outright rude", "hostile" and to use "Machiavellian tactics". He said (but also didn't cared to provide evidence) that I "use cheap, underhanded tactics to trick inexperienced editors". That I act "like a jerk" while "using trickery and sneaky tactics" toget other's "hard work deleted".

It will take a lot of argumentation for someone to convince me that I should have felt welcomed in this forum.

It's interesting to notice that User:Sebbeng at that time believed me to be an admin, and even accused me of deleting images "simply because they were tagged". I am not (and had never been) an admin. I never deleted one image. By saying "Some editors (Abu in particular) seem to be deleting images...", User:Sebbeng shows how much he (and the users certifying his "outside view") had studied about the topic he was commenting about.

User:TechnoFaye called me to "a punk who would prefer to drive around at night and break off car antennas with a baseball bat". Less than 24 hours after that attack User:Johntex called my lack of response a "Disrespect for the community". What am I supposed to respond in such a forum? Why would I play Josef K in his first hearing?

User:TechnoFaye went on to accuse me (also without diffs) of deleting images (something that is technically impossible for me, as I am not an admin). He also said I'm a "vandal who gleefully destroys wikipedia".

In a recent conversation with user User:PageantUpdater, User:TechnoFaye said "If I knew where he lived, I'd take a baseball bat to him without saying anything".

No, I don't have anything to add to Forum that evolved from a collection of baseless accusations into a collection of personal attacks against me. I don't want to talk with people that intend to infringe physical harm to me.

That said, I want to add that I understand that some good editors added good points to that page. I'm not saying everything there is disrespectful. I'm just says far too much disrespectful comments are added and tolerated there, so that I never could feel compelled to take part on that.

--Abu badali ^(talk) 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, much of the user conduct you describe was unacceptable. But it still would have been far better if you had responded to the good-faith concerns raised in the RfC, even ones you thought lacked substance, rather than simply pretend it wasn't there or make fun of it. The desired outcome here, at least in my mind, is for you to continue your image work in accordance with the guidelines while minimizing unnecessary friction with the users whose uploads you are challenging. Your approach to the RfC has not helped to accomplish that. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I avoided that RFC exactly to minimize "unnecessary friction". I avoid to reply to personal attacks and to inaccurate accusations. I feel sorry for those who took their time to add well-hearted comments to the RFC, but it isn't easy to step in a forum where so many attacks have been tolerated. Also, those well-hearted comments were so that I didn't have much to add to them, other than a possibly "I Agree". --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu says But unless some admin agrees with my argument, no image gets deleted just because I think it should be. Unfortunately, that's not true. In fact, Abu tagged several images which were deleted by an admin who did NOT review the fair use criteria.. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Automated_image_deletion has the details. The end result of Abu's indiscriminate tagging was to make it easier for an indiscriminate admin to inappropriately delete thousands of images. Those images may have been deleted anyway, but Abu's "I was just tagging, not deleting" defense rings hollow to me. If he was tagging, he should have ONLY been tagging images that he thought should be deleted. And that requires a little more thought and effort than Abu has shown through his edits. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your categorization of my tagging as "indiscriminate" is incorrect. You said: "he should have ONLY been tagging images that he thought should be deleted" - What makes you believe I wasn't doing that? --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only the evidence to go on. (See my section of evidence.) I believe it shows your marking up of other articles I started was both indiscriminate and inappropriate. So you're asking me to believe that your tagging actions were completely proper? It just doesn't follow. I'm reminded of the old comedy bit about the Marine Oliver North, who appeared before a Congressional committee in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal. It goes something like this: "Mr. North, you lied about arms shipments to the Contras, correct?" "That's correct." "And Mr. North, you lied about your role in those shipments, correct." "That's right." "Are you telling the truth now?" "Yes... this Marine doesn't lie!" At some point, the totality of your actions will have to be accounted for. If you deface articles for no good reason, and list articles for deletion for no good reason, I'm supposed to believe that all of your image tagging was for good reason? No. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming back at Abu badali's claim that his attitude towards personal attacks is merely ignoring them and that's the main reason why he ignored RfC. ignoring the PA is indeed advised (but not mandated) by WP:NPA but Abu badali has no record of doing so. The archives of WP:ANI are full of Abu badali's complaints about being subject to personal attacks. Just check the list of pages that link to his user page and run a page-wide search to WP:ANI archives. I am not saying that he must ignore the personal attacks. Few best Wikipedians do and, admittedly, for some it is more difficult that for others. I am simply adding this to dismiss a false excuse of not responding to RfC. Also, it is obvious that valid concerns were raised at both RfC and its talk. Responding to them, while ignoring trolling was never attempted. --Irpen 10:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. When I say I ignore personal attacks, I intend to say that I try not to reply to the attacker. I do that because I believe someone making attacks is not sincerely interested in discussion. In most of the cases, the attacker will just go away. But in the cases where the attacker insists, I usually report the attack on WP:ANI, like I did here, here, here, here, here, here and here to name a few. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content policy

6) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria makes clear that non-free images used in articles must contribute significantly to an article. An image of a person used in a biographical article, which is not being commented on critically does not meet this criteria, even if the image shows an event discussed in the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the criteria appear to consider an image that "identifies the subject of an article" to be acceptable, no? Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any unfree image must fulfill all 10 criterion (and not just one of them). An image of a living person when used in a biographical article is being used to "identify the subject of an article" and thus, fulfills item #8. But if fails item #1 in that a free replacement could be created. (Sorry if I'm not supposed to reply here. Feel free to move (or remove) my comment if it's inappropriate.) --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, other issues may be involved making the images impossible to reproduce, such as identifying the subject in specific functions. Circeus 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the definition or role of critical comment in this context. Fred Bauder 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Megapixie 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Notwithstanding the non-free content criteria, I strongly disagree with the premise that an image of a person in a biographical article does not contribute significantly to an article unless the image is "commented on critically". DHowell 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not my understanding of our non-free use policy (and I've been deeply involved in it through its development for years). A non-free photograph that depicts a unique historic event (such as a horse winning a Kentucky Derby) -- which could therefore not be replaced by a new, free image -- can be used in an article that discusses that event so long as the image contributes significantly to the article (is not merely decorative) and fulfills our other criteria (is not larger than necessary, etc.). There is no requirement that the image itself be commented on critically; only that the event be discussed. But, like much of our non-free use policy, this is less than crystal-clear and is open to debate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. I believe Abu's response to Krill, above, to be completely correct.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I've written an alternative proposal, 6a, below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content policy

6a) 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 person, then it must be impossible to create new, free images of the person; if it is used primarily to depict an event, then it must be impossible to create new, free images of that event, etc.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by Quadell. I think it would be very helpful to have this endorsed by the arbcom. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A handy question: Do you believe that an image of the moment a pageant is declared a winner contributes significantly to the article about the pageant herself? Specifically, what noteworthy information would this unfree image add that isn't already conveyed with text? --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(I think this question is off-topic here, and could be better addressed elsewhere with regard to specific image uses.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it is relevant to the issue at hand as the case is centered not on the interpretation of the policy the user claims to be enforcing but whether he does so in a disruptive and unproductive way or (even worse) uses a policy as a weapon to harass other users. However, even if decided to be relevant the clause needs to be rephrased. "Impossible" needs to be changed by "unreasonable to expect" or something along these lines. Obtaining a free shot from space or moon is not impossible since Roskosmos now takes tourists to space for a hefty fee. Some commons sense is necessary here. --Irpen 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I too would replace the word "impossible" with "improbable" or "unlikely" or something else of that nature. Quadell's wording would prohibit the fair use of an image of even the most extreme recluse, as it is always "possible" that such a person could come out of reclusion some day. DHowell 10:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Impossible" may be too strong, but "unlikely" is too weak, and therein lies the problem of differing interpretations of policy. Jimbo has stated that (I'm paraphrasing) even if it unlikely for a replacement picture to be created any time soon, and even if it should take ten years for a replacement to be found, it's still better to have no picture for those ten years than to have a non-free one. (I know, this isn't an official dictate or anything, this is just Jimbo's understanding of our policy. I bring this up to show that such an interpretation is held at the highest levels.) Many knowledgeable admins use this rule of thumb: Could any member of the general public, if sufficiently motivated, using only resources available to the general public, create a replacement? If so, it's deemed "replaceable". So, for instance, a close-up image of Mars is not replaceable, since no member of the general public has access to a spaceflight to Mars allowing close-up photographs. A photo of Thomas Pynchon would not be replaceable, since the GP doesn't have access to this extremely reclusive figure. But a photo of an average living celebrity would obviously be replaceable. In practice, this debate is complex and subject to much reasonable disagreement. The debate is most often hampered by, on the one hand, people who just don't want their pretty pictures of their favorite celebrities deleted, and, on the other hand, deleters who bait and are rude to good-faith (though mistaken) uploaders. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Jimbo's view, which he admitted is "at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case" and even then the example he was talking about eliminating was "an ordinary photo of a random celebrity". I don't think he ever used the words "ten years" (though I could be wrong, I just haven't seen that statement), and I think even he would agree there are non-oridnary photos of non-random celebrities that could be used even if it could be replaced with a free image in "ten years" (could anyone state for certain that people like Thomas Pynchon will not come out of reclusion in the next 10 years?). Regardless, after nearly a year's worth of discussion, there is still no consensus that Jimmy's view should be policy; thus it is not policy. Yes, I do think there is a consensus that most photos of celebrities who make regular public appearances where amateur photography is allowed, are replaceable. It is the other cases where reasonable people can disagree, and policy should be set by continued reasonable discussion which results in a reasonable consensus, and not by people who unwaveringly push through a certain agenda until they get what they want (and yes, that goes for both sides). DHowell 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He said clearly (in the thread you linked to): "In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license.", so, when he repeated "ordinary photo", I believe he was referring to the "publicity photos" his whole comment was all about. Anyway, that's just Jimbo's opinion. The Foundation Resolution is more of a binding document, and it explicitly lists as replaceable "almost all portraits of living notable individuals". But let's not turn this arb-case into a policy discussion.

Oh, and the actual quote is not ten, but twenty years. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the "twenty year" comment is in a completely different context, and what Jimbo was actually saying appears to be quite the opposite of what Quadell implied above. Jimbo was saying that fair use images of "common objects" should be deleted, but that for images which "we are very unlikely to get a free replacement in the next 20 years, even though it is somehow in theory possible," it is appropriate to use a template saying that the image should be deleted after a replacement is found. DHowell 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content policy

6b) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by DHowell 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC); leaves open for interpretation the dual meaning of the word "could" as denoting either impossibility or improbability, as there is no consensus about how "improbable" or "impossible" a replacement must be. The last sentence replaces Quadell's "impossible" parenthetical with a mere logical extension of what I believe is long-standing consensus policy. DHowell 02:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like this wording better than the one I proposed. Well done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC process

7) RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Megapixie 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly accurate as a statement of principle, but I don't know that the RfC in this case was brought solely for the malicious purpose indicated. Prefer 7a. Newyorkbrad 08:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely true but of no apparent relevance to this case. Agree that 7a is better. WjBscribe 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

7a) Editors filing, certifying, or commenting in an RfC should respect the purpose and seriousness of the RfC process. All comments should be accurate, civil, and free of inflammatory rhetoric or personal attacks, bearing in mind that the goal is to identify and resolve issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed if the arbitrators are critical of user conduct during the RfC. Newyorkbrad 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Of course I've never seen an RFC where "all comments" were "accurate, civil, and free of inflammatory rhetoric". It's a goal to be striven for, but not a benchmark. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Quadell and Newyorkbrad. Most RfC's are joined by trolls. Also, most also contain legitimate issues. The first principle seems a strawman. The second needs to be expanded to disallow an outright dismissal of an RfC if some of its participants are less than helpful. RfC in question included legitimate concerns and statements by good-faithed editors. --Irpen 04:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Point is that the RFC contained attacks at least since the second edit and maintained the tone, getting worse in the last months. Attacks and baseless (diffless) accusations were not simply tolerated, but also "endorsed". (See this evidence entry) I did made the decision not to step in such a forum. It was a repository of accusations that had never been directly addressed to me. Anyone wanting a response could have used my talk page, but the involved parties didn't did that (See this comment). That wasn't a discussion forum, it was a Trial. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Inadvertently or not, the editor contributed to the atmosphere of the forum by directing disgruntled editors to his own RFC via confrontational user page.[2]. Its no surprise that the RFC has turned up the way it is. Can a self confessed 'confrontationist' really complain about the traffic he directed into his own RFC with the following statement: Have a rant? Now I have my own RFC. Don't miss the chance! --Eqdoktor 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it was not the smartest thing to do, but by the time he added that to his userpage [3] the RFC was already a mess [4]. Plus, yes, even when people read sentences like like "have a rant", it does not justify the comments which were in the RFC. Garion96 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Response of users whose images are questioned

8) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know if I should add it here or as a finding of fact...

In my first contact with User:TechnoFaye, I was specially civil and respectful. I tagged one of his uploads as replaceable unfree image, and contacted him to explain what it was all about.

In his first reply, User:TechnoFaye's already called me a "jerk" and a "self-appointed bowdlerizing luddite". (He had already called me a "punk" somewhere else and (in the same edit) explained that I "...would rather be driving around at night smashing off car antennas with a baseball bat").

He later fixed his comment on my talk page to call me a "vandalizing punk who should be banned", then "asswhole" and "the "catcher" homosexual boyfriend of a real admin". He also suggest I would nearly be back to "slashing tires hitting girls, and stomping on little animals" up to the point where my "drunken, neglecting daddy" would infringe me the "crippling beating you so richly deserve".

I ignored those message, as I do with any personal attacks.

But some days later, when User:TechnoFaye showed himself capable of writing a whole message without any personal attacks, I replied him still with civility, but of course, with less enthusiasm for collaboration than in my first message to him.

When I later found myself tagging a different image User:TechnoFaye uploaded as unsourced, I cared to explain him again what the matter was about (knowing I was dealing with a specially sensitive user).

The point is, we can't use the fact that a lot of editors complained against me as an evidence that I am/was uncivil. There will always be editos like User:TechnoFaye that will throw all kind of attacks no matter how civilly you treat them.

I affirm that I had never ever been uncivil nor attacked any other editor since I am an Wikipedian, and I ask to any such claim to be based with links of my behavior, and not links to other user's complains. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; the converse of (2) and (3). Newyorkbrad 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To Abu badali: The detailed information you are providing here probably belongs best on the Evidence page. Newyorkbrad 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be moving them shortly. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the statement but how is this relevant? The case is centered on whether the pattern of Abu badali's behavior was appropriate. If the arbitrators agree with the allegations made against the user in questions are justified, the fact that on some occasions Abu badali encountered the uncivil or otherwise unhelpful response does not excuse his behavior in the rest of the cases. On a side note, Abi badali claims that his attitude towards personal attacks is merely ignoring them. That would be commendable and sensible and would have gone by beyond the policy requirements but, unfortunately, far from truth, see the RfC section below. --Irpen 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be relevant because an arb case may bring sanctions to anyone involved. Also, I believe that the fact that I had never been rude despite the amount of rudeness I collect on my talk page count as an evidence on my favor. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "never been rude". I don't think Abu has engaged in personal attacks, but to claim to have not been rude is surprising to me. I suspect Abu is incapable of understanding why his behavior is widely seen as rude. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see his behavior as rude enough to deserve arbcom sanction (especially since there have been no violations of WP:NPA. And I do believe that the amount of abuse that Abu is subjected to should count as a mitigating circumstance.Borisblue 07:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that his behaviour has been provocative rather than rude. Certainly, I've seen no evidence of personal attacks, but some evidence that he doesn't always make an effort to ensure that image violators are not annoyed or irritated any more than is absolutely necessary by virtue of the fact that he's cleaning up. I do agree, having looked at the diffs given above, that Abu was perfectly civil in his first approach to TechnoFaye, and that TechnoFaye's attacks were disgraceful. I'm actually stunned that the proposed decision focuses so much on Abu and not on those who engaged in such vile attacks. (Umm, did the arbitrators read those diffs?) I also believe that his behaviour has not been rude enough to deserve arbcom sanction, and that the amount of abuse he is subjected to (combined with the fact that he is in many cases cleaning up copyright violations) should could as a mitigating factor. ElinorD (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading a user's contribution log

9) Checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or reading a user's contribution log does not constitutes Harassment. Those logs are public for good reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Too broad. WP:DUCK. As Irpen stated, using the benefit of the logs to find images uploaded by trolls, vandals, obvious copyvio uploading troublemakers, etc. there would be no issue. Digging through the logs of either newbies or standing editors not only can make legitimate contributors feel threatened but is very likely to drive people away. TheQuandry 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolls, vandals and troublemakers are not the only users that upload problematic images. Indeed, most images I tag were upload by good faith editors trying to help Wikipedia, but who don't know the policies. Just because these uploaders aren't "trolls, vandals and troublemakers", it doens't mean the images don't have to be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Abu badali. (Note: All participants should please sign their proposals with the usual four tildes. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

While I might agree with this in theory, a sustained pattern of fishing for dirt in other contribs logs every time someone gets into a dispute is not acceptable. There's a thin line between being checking for similar suspected errors and deliberately targeting another's contributions as a form of intimidation. WjBscribe 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"fishing for dirt in other contribs logs every time someone gets into a disput" - This are strong words. Make sure you can back the up. My experience in tagging improperly used images showed me that users that upload one obliviously mistaken image, usually also uploaded dozen of them (in good faith). A user that argues that a facebook picture is irreplaceable needs to have his uploads checked.

This are strong words. Make sure you can back the up. - Please see this evidence entry for a simple "backing up" of this accusation. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 00:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have intended to say: "Please see this evidence entry for more accusations like this, and this for a second view". --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, usually read the logs of anyone that interacts with me. I have found problems in uploads from admins I highly respect (and tagged them). But some users simply take that personally.

It doesn't matter if I tag 200 images in a day. If just 5 of them were from the same sensible user, he will feel harassed. And why try to communicate with me if you can just add you accusations to my RFC? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You see an accusation where there was none. I was seeking to delimit what seemed to me too broad a statement by giving an example of behaviour it covered that was clearly unacceptable - this is a general principle, not a finding of fact. As to the rest of your comment, "I, for one, usually read the logs of anyone that interacts with me" - that I find concerning. WjBscribe 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interpreting you claim as an accusation. About reading logs, I'm interested in your concerns. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this statement is too broadly worded. When a user is found to have violated policy, it is certainly reasonable to go through that user's logs to find other similar violations. However, when a user (a) is showing a good-faith effort to comply with policy; or (b) has a good-faith disagreement with the interpretation of policy and is making a reasonable attempt at dispute resolution, such actions could certainly be seen as intimidating and harassing. Please note that I also do not mean this as an accusation against Abu badali in particular. DHowell 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"...this statement is too broadly worded" - This statement was copied verbatim from Wikipedia:Harassment. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is our stated policy, and I would like to see it endorsed as well. I frequently try to find image use violations, and one of the best ways to find a lot of violations to fix is to look through the contributions of a user who has been known to have uploaded violating images before. This is nothing personal, and is not wiki-stalking. (I believe Abu should be censured, but not for this reason, and this is a common reason given by his complainants.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, from my respect for your opinion, what do you believe I should be censured for. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely too broad and ArbCom acknowledged that in the past decisions through banning users for stalking. Following other editors with the intent to cause them distress is not allowed. Arbcom ruled in the past that the motivation is the key here. The motivation can only be deduced indirectly from the careful analysis of the activity pattern of the accused but running such analysis is what should be done rather than a total carte-blanch claiming that the policies give users an opportunity to harass other editors. The emphasis needs to be put not on what Abu badali is doing but how he is doing it. The claim that the user is just enforcing an unpopular policy has been and will be unquestionably made again and this claim looks very strong at the surface. One side of the dispute claims that the aim of Abu badali's activity is not the policy itself but the aggravation and the policy is used merely as a tool to harass the opponents.

By pouncing at the editors who happen to disagree with him on any issue and attacking that editor's images, by refusing to make a single edit to his RfC to respond to the public concerns, by publicly mocking the RfC itself at his page, finally by making this inflammatory edit to his own user page, the user clearly shows that it gives him pleasure to aggravate other users and the image policy is merely a tool.

The best way to help clean up Wikipedia from the counterpolicy images is anything but what Abu badali is doing since he is extremely uncooperative and goes neither by tag, nor by alphabet, but by users who merely disagreed with him on any issue (it would have been quite understandable if he went after flagrant copyvio uploaders and trolls but this is not the case.)

Last but not least, if one has a conflict with someone, digging through their contributions to find an assailable image (and defacing that users articles when it is not even related to images) harms rather than helps a stated goal of a free content. Responding to any sort of a disagreement by digging through the other party's contributions for images to retag (aside from being the least productive way to enforce the policy as this raises nothing but anger) is inappropriate and harms, rather than helps, the legitimate enforcement of the free-content policy. --Irpen 07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the text you are discussing is Wikipedia policy, copied verbatim from Wikipedia:Harassment. The only question is whether this should be cited by ArbCom as related to this specific case. If you disagree with our policy, that's not relevant to this case. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that, first of all, this is a guideline rather than a policy, the difference matters. Most importantly, WP has a combination of several policy and guideline pages and only through their interaction they form the rules the community of editors abide. For instance WP:NPOV and WP:V closely interact and this interaction defines what is and what is not allowed. Cherry-picked quotation from a single guideline page, when the wanton application of that quotation is curtailed elsewhere (particularly, elsewhere within the same guidleine) as was acknowledged by past ArbCom decisions is meaningless at best and harmful at worst.

Checking contributions is allowed. A crux here is the intent of such actions. If the intent is correcting other people's mistakes or cleaning up after bad-faithed users, this is of course allowed. If the intent is (even occasionally) causing your opponents a greater distress, disrupt their ability to edit, or enjoy a position of "winning" with the other side "loosing", it is Harassment.

WP:HARASSMENT says clearly on its top that its applicability is a judgment call because its application requires deriving the intent of the editor in question by "a reasonable and objective observer". The allegations made by several editors is not that Abu badali merely "checked contributions" but, at least on many occasions, did so with a frivolous intent to aggrieve and disrupt, while invoking WP:FU to be able to do so with impunity. Effectively this amounts to using the guidelines and policies as a weapon or otherwise disruptively for a different purpose rather than seeing the compliance as the goal in itself.

The committee members are asked to rule based on the evidence whether such allegations hold water. It would require a close analysis of his editing pattern presented at the evidence page as well as of his other actions, like placing an inflammatory statement at his own user page that without doubt can only add an insult to the injury for the affected users likely to be perplexed from their unexpected encounter with Abu badali. --Irpen 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say here, except for the affirmation that my user page "can only add an insult to the injury for the affected users...". I have a humorous user page exactly to make a break on anyone arriving there with a bad sentiment (likely caused by the normal affection editor's get for their uploads).

I call your attention for when you say that valid reasons for following someones's log would include "correcting other people's mistakes or cleaning up after bad-faithed users". We may not underestimate the amount of "other people's mistakes" we found in image cleaning. And my experience tells me that one user that committed one mistake once, has probably committed the same mistake dozen of times. User:PageantUpdater (the RFC creator), for instance, has uploaded more than 200 unfree images of living people. Is she a vandal? Surely not. She did that in a good faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Was it a bad idea to follow her logs? Not at all! As a second example, Admin User:Earl Andrew has upload an equally huge number of unfree images of living people[5], and not all of them had been tagged. Reading his logs don't make him a vandal, just like it doesn't makes me a stalker.

I share your desire that the arbcom members check the evidences presented against the accusations being made. I believe it's ingenuous to believe that I target editors that discuss with me. I read the logs of most editors that I interact with. See my logs and you'll notice that while I'm always involved in dozens of deletions discussions, I'm also always tagging problematic images from dozen of users. I don't selectively target anyone.

As a last minor side-point, it's interesting noone ever cared to point me that Wikipedia:Harassment was a guideline (and not a policy) when using it to accuse me of Harassment. Only now that it's used in my defense is that it comes to light this way. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"By pouncing at the editors who happen to disagree with him" - Do you have any evidence that I did that? If so, make sure to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. If not, please, please, please avoid such accusations. We have enough of them. The RFC was ruined because it didn't have a clear dispute and was turned in to a collection of diffless attack. Let's not this happen to this Arb case.

"he is extremely uncooperative" - Again, add diffs. I have lot of diffs to demonstrate I do communicate and cooperate with users. Those who bashed me at the RFC are the ones incapable of communicating and cooperating.

"...by users who merely disagreed with him on any issue" - You just repeated the accusation. I tagged hundreds of images. It's ingenuous to believe that I'm targeting anyone. I have tagged images from users that disagree with me, that agree with me, that I've never interacted with, that I have barely interacted with... You characterization of my edits as simply targeting those who disagreed with me is baseless.

"...it would have been quite understandable if he went after flagrant copyvio uploaders and trolls but this is not the case" - Yes, I do that. Just read my logs before saying what I do and what I don't. I to read "flagrant copyvio uploader's" logs just as much as I read yours, or any other editor's logs.

"defacing that users articles when it is not even related to images..." - enough of baseless accusations. It's too easy to step in and throw random attacks. This bears disrespect to me.

"Responding to any sort of a disagreement by digging through the other party's contributions..." - Do you sincerely believe that this is how I respond to any sort of disagreement? Have you read my responses to messages left on my talk page? What makes you say something like that?

Irpen, would you consider re-writing your comment above without the attacks you can't base? I believe it would be helpful for our discussion, Or would you prefer to leave it the way it is? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many links at the evidence page as well as at your RfC, ANI and other pages linked elsewhere. Arbcom members will sure be able to figure out whether the statement above has sufficient basis which I believe it does. --Irpen 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply want to make sure that it is made clear that using policy enforcement as a means to harass or intimidate should not be tolerated. There is a fine line between checking edit logs in order to improve the encyclopedia, and doing it in order to cause distress to others. Whether Abu badali crossed this line is up to ArbCom to decide based on the evidence. DHowell 10:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading a user's contribution log

9a) Checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or reading a user's contribution log does not normally constitute harassment. Those logs are public for good reason. However, doing so in a way that is disruptive, incivil, or antagonizing is not acceptable. Disputes about content or policy should be handled through dispute resolution before taking further action against a user which may be perceived as harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternate proposal by DHowell 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC); if this wording is accepted it should be added to WP:HARASS.

I don't see the point of your additions to 9). You added "...doing so in a way that is disruptive, incivil, or antagonzing is not acceptable.", but actually, doing anything "in a way that is disruptive, incivil, or antagonzing" is not acceptable. Adding that to the proposal just seems to imply that it refers to my behavior.

And the bit that says "Disputes about content or policy should be handled through dispute resolution before taking further action against a user..." is more related to #An RFC must be correctly formed, that explains how the editors starting the RFC didn't tried to resolve the dispute before. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed principle. It of course only makes sense if the committee agrees that Abu badali's behavior was often "disruptive, incivil, or antagonizing" in which case it should be coupled with the proper finding of fact. I believe that such characterization of Abu badali's behavior would be warranted and I would support such finding of fact coupled with this principle. --Irpen 03:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that these are supposed to be general principles to help resolve the case, not accusations against any individual. Objections were raised to the original statement, because it could imply that disruptive or incivil behavior is OK if it is done in the name of "fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." The additional wording is meant to address those objections. And yes, the principle could possibly be applied to some of those who acted against you, which of course doesn't make it any less valid as a principle. DHowell 01:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the principle. It's rather unpleasant when, once you enter a dispute with another editor, that editor starts rummaging in your log and flooding your talk page with loud templates. Such behaviour is not going to resolve any issues, it only engenders acrimony. This is not what civilized discussion is all about. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading a user's contribution log

9b) Checking up on an editor to fix occasional errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or reading a user's contribution log is not a problematic behavior. Those logs are public for good reason. Checking up logs specifically looking for errors or violation without a compelling reason, however, is troublesome and a violation of good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Third attempt, tentatively avoid Harassment label and more specific about what can be troublesome with the behavior. Circeus 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to define what are valid "compelling reasons" for looking for errors or violation in a user's log. And even if we come to agree with an definition, how does ones determines what reasons did some user used to read some log? --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging

10) 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. This is not only a necessary basic courtesy to other Wikipedians, but an express requirement of CSD I6 and CSD I7.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Partially inaccurate. CSD I6 and CSD I7 says that the uploader must be notified in order for the image to be deleted, but not that the tagger himself must notify the uploader. Most unsourced and unlicensed images, for instance, are automatically notified by OrphanBot.

The template Template:Replaceable fair use, for instance, didn't asked for notification at first. It was only added later. I, for one, have failed to notify quite a few number of uploaders from images I tagged as replaceable, in the illusion that orphabot was doing this task. Fortunately, I'm aware of no cases where the uploaded didn't have the time to make his point.

That said, I agree that warning the uploader is courtesy that should be followed. But bots and scripts are welcome in helping with this task. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. WjBscribe 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This may on reflection be redundant to (2). But I think the importance of notification needs emphasising. WjBscribe 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The two speedy criteria I mentioned above are those that concern fair use images, not that for completely unsourced or unlincensed images (CSD I4). In any event, Orphanbot (and other Bots) only notify the uploader when they tag images themselves. (Which is a good thing - Bots should notify when they tag images themselves - if a person does it they should do the notifying so they can answers questions, which is a common courtesy). If the tagger doesn't notify the uploader of a dispute over fair use, the reviewing administrator has to provide the notification and then re-tag the images, which is a waste of everyone's time. Hence why those who tag images as replaceable or disputed fair use need to notify the uploader (not just because the uploader should have a chance to make their case, but because an admin cannot under present policy deleted the image unless they have been so notified). I am concerned that Abu badali doesn't appreciate this as a self-designated unfree content patroller... WjBscribe 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Innacurate. I'm almost sure orphanbot warns uploaders from images tagged by others.

As a side-note, every Wikipedian is a "self-designated-something", as this is a volunteer project. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask Carnildo to clarify as he is the Bot's owner. I agree that Wikipedians may self-designate as anything, I merely expect those who hold themselves out in a particularly area to be knowledgable in those areas. WjBscribe 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot will give notifications about any no-source or no-license image it comes across, subject to certain limitations to prevent people from getting flooded with notices. --Carnildo 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Heretic voice: I know this is currently demanded by the relevant process norms, but I'd actually argue these notifications are unnecessary and counterproductive, and I would object to the Arbcom giving any special endorsement to this. To the extent the notifications are already automatised by Orphanbot, this just serves to flood people's pages with templates they hate, and to the extent it is not, it is placing a huge amount of extra paperwork on the people who do image cleanup, and we can't afford this, given the size of the backlogs. A pain in the ass, either way. We must cut back on bureaucracy. People who want to be notified of what happens to their images can damned well be expected to simply keep the description pages on their watchlists, just as they do with articles they have written. We have that technical feature for a reason after all. In the case of experienced editors who have had prior issues with image deletions, I'd certainly expect them to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly object to the "heretic voice" proposing that tagging editors do not need to notify uploaders. In fact, this editor is currently in the process of tagging images for which s/he has not alerted the uploaders. This is very bad practice and certainly not something to be proud of. Badagnani 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that I was doing the notifications while you were writing this. Except in a few cases of absentee uploaders or uploaders who already had notifications about clearly parallel cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Core policies like WP:NFCC or WP:NPOV don't need to reflect consensus

11) Although the text and interpretations of WP:NFCC may be discussed, it's a central part of Wikipedia's mission and is not supposed to be changed in spirit to reflect consensus. Currently, the policy should also reflect the restrictions set on the Foundation's resolution on unfree content usage: foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Abu badali ^(talk) 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:NFCC does not come from the Foundation, but is itself based on an interpretation of Foundation resolutions and policies. While Foundation policy itself cannot be changed by consensus, there should be consensus on how that policy is properly interpreted. If consensus seems to be moving away from the Foundation's intent, it is up to the Foundation to clarify their statements and intent. Also, note that the text of WP:NFCC has been recently changed, and although there is a statement saying that the intent was not to change policy, I believe there is evidence that a change in the spirit of the policy, towards much stricter interpretation, has occurred coincidentally with that textual change. DHowell 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is the source of policies and guidelines

12) Consensus is, or ought to be, the source of most policies and guidelines. When policy and doctrine is quoted like Scripture, and arguments not founded upon this Scripture pre-emptively discounted, the process becomes more rancorous and divisive than necessary. The various policies and guidelines are meant to reflect consensus. They are not given as laws to set boundaries to consensus. To the extent that a policy or guideline fails to reflect consensus, the policy or guideline requires revision; and consensus can change.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this. TheQuandry 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by DHowell 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC); from WP:DOSPAGWYA.

Sounds reasonable enough on its own, but could you please establish the relevance of this proposed principle to the case itself? Picaroon (Talk) 01:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Abu badali above, and Megapixie below, have proposed that certian policies are exempt from consensus. I propose that policies that do not reflect consensus are not policies at all. If this case involves the enforcement of "policies", or interpretations of policy, which are not really policies, then that should be taken into account. DHowell 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal makes no sense to me. I have to assume that all policies in place were reached by consensus. How would I know it wasn't without going through every diff to see if something got slipped in. This said, once the policy is set, it trumps any consensus that breaks those rules until the policy is changed. -Nv8200p talk 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and foundation policy overrides consensus

13) Wikipedia and foundation policy (WP:NFCC, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:BLP for example) overrides consensus. Megapixie 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Basically the inverse of 12 Megapixie 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As WP:CONSENSUS is also policy, this statement (with which I clearly disagree) is essentially saying that policy overrides policy. It also is contrary to the {{policy}} template itself. DHowell 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS#Exceptions Megapixie 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Exceptions" to consensus

14) Certain declarations, decisions, actions, and resolutions by certain parties (such as Jimmy Wales when acting in an official capacity, the Board, the Developers, the Office, or the Foundation) may supersede consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS#Exceptions), but only because there is a wider consensus that these parties have the authority to do so, in order to further the goals of the Wikimedia projects, or to protect the projects from harm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by DHowell 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC); a more accurate version of 13.

to be clear here, they dont get to change it because we have a consensus to trust them, though we do, they get to change it because they own the site. Even if we revoked their trust grant, they could still change these things, or even shut the whole thing down (not withstanding forks and mirrors already out there). -M^ask? 04:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That still constitutes a consensus that they have the authority. If you want to add the words, "and they have legal ownership and control of the Wikimedia servers," to this statement, I have no objection. By the way, if there wasn't a wide consensus to trust them to "do the right thing", I believe this project would probably eventually fall apart on its own even if they didn't shut it down. DHowell 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for Wikipedia editors to act in an official capacity

15) There is no consensus that any individual editor, or group of editors, may override consensus, when they have not been given official authority to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this. TheQuandry 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by DHowell 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Consensus is a rule, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a rule. Therefore, can't consensus (the first rule) be ignored if doing so improves or maintains Wikipedia (in accordance with the second rule)? Or am I being too literal? Picaroon (Talk) 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that begs the question of who decides what "improves or maintains Wikipedia"? Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules has a lot of discussion about the "deep and subtle meaning" of IAR, but the gist is that "ignore all rules" works best when most people wouldn't notice or care that you ignored the rules. But when ignoring consensus, don't expect consensus to ignore you back. In particular, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means says that "'Ignore all rules' does not mean that one can succeed in overruling an action that enjoys consensus support or act unilaterally simply by invoking 'IAR'. (See: Wikipedia:Consensus)" DHowell 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Official policies essentially give admins the authority to override any consensus that goes against those policies. -Nv8200p talk 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors tagging images for deletion as fair use replaceable are acting within both wide consensus and policy

16) Editors tagging images for deletion as replaceable fair use are backed by wikipedia policy WP:NFCC which has both wide consensus and is supported by foundation policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree, there is not and never has been a clear consensus on this issue. TheQuandry 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Megapixie 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is highly disputed that the current WP:NFCC has wide consensus. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Wide acceptance among editors?, and this change, which stuck after a short edit war. Even Abu badali himself acknowledges the lack of consensus for the current WP:NFCC, see this comment and his proposal #11 above. This statement is also unnecessary, as the role of editors tagging images for deletion is already covered by #2 and #3. DHowell 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no wide consensus on the issue, although removing replaceable fair use images seems beneificial in the long term. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strike out wide consensus. Should be Editors tagging images for deletion as fair use replaceable are acting within policyBorisblue 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An RFC must be correctly formed

17) Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Megapixie 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Straight from WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users (emphasis mine) Megapixie 08:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Intimidation and hostility are harmful

18) When taken to extremes, any reasonable concept may become counterproductive. User:Abu badali seems to take pride in his overzealousness: "Abu is targeting you", "Call me a stalker", "inquisitor", "Übermensch". Together with his "editing" behavior, this may harm the project. The RFC has a number of examples of such harm, here's his latest attempt to remove a famous historic photo.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You could always try adding a source and a fair use rationale to the image description page as per Policy #10 Megapixie 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Image cleanup must not be obstructed

19) Wikipedia currently has a huge backlog of probably tens of thousands of images with dubious or abusive copyright status. Under these circumstances, it is crucial that editors willing to address the tedious task of cleaning up are allowed to do so expeditiously and with a minimum of obstruction. Even though it is understandable when editors are unhappy about their image uploads getting deleted, editors are strongly discouraged from putting up a disproportionate amount of resistance against deletions, for instance through wikilawyering, excessive or repetitive demands for explanation, or spurious use of dispute resolution procedures. Hostility or even personal attacks against editors doing image cleanup work is particularly disruptive and must not be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The amount of backlog Wikipedia has - or doesn't have, the "probably" in the first sentence indicating the proposing editor doesn't really know - should have an impact on Wikipedia policy. The expedient course of action should never substitute for the correct course of action. And to read a proposal which actually seems to advocate the position that potentially valuable encyclopedic information should be tossed out without protest or process flies in the face of the primary goal of Wikipedia - to build the encyclopedia. (The mentions of "wikilawyering, excessive or repetitve demands for explanation, or spurious use of dispute resolution procedures" are perhaps included here for comedic effect, as this succinctly summarizes the image deletion playbook as mastered by users such as Chowbok, Abu badali, etc.) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. Stronger version of Newyorkbrad's #Response of users whose images are questioned above. I want the final decision to at least mention what the real root causes of this issue are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for this. howcheng {chat} 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for this from me also. ElinorD (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As an admin active with images, I strongly support this also. -Nv8200p talk 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "tens of thousands" would be an extremely low estimate. As of the last time I checked (last July), there were approximately a hundred thousand problematic images, with over a thousand new problems uploaded every day. Based on Betacommand's numbers for how much work his bot's going to be doing, the backlog has only gotten worse; based on OrphanBot's activity, the upload rate is about the same. --Carnildo 09:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

20) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same pages as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There is no principle precisely about Wikistalking on the Proposed decision page, and there probably should be one. This is basically taken directly from the text of WP:STALK so should be uncontroversial. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Examining a user's contribution logs

21) The examination of a user's contribution logs in good faith to look for errors or violations of Wikipedia policy is not done in order to harass or cause distress to the target. It is not unexpected that the target may nonetheless feel harassed or distressed. Examination of a user's contribution logs, especially repeated examination by a single user, should be performed in a way that is mindful of the feelings of the target.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a somewhat alternative to 9/9b/9c, and as a companion to 20, above. I think there's no other way of defining what is right and wrong in terms of examining (especially, repeatedly) a user's action than this. If someone violates policy in good faith, they may nonetheless deserve scrutiny because they have made errors and those errors need to be fixed. What's important is that the user going through the logs be aware that this can cause them distress, and try to make reasonable decisions about that. So, in some cases, the errors may be serious enough that I would want to go through someone's logs very thoroughly and fix everything, while in other cases, the errors may be less important and merely worthy of bringing to the user's attention once and not necessarily checking back on it. Also, it's important to be mindful in further responses: if I go through someone's contribution logs I should be aware that this may cause them stress and be apologetic about that aspect of it (while remaining firm that there was a need to fix the errors). It's this kind of sensistivity that may be the thing lacking in Abu's actions. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

21) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

22) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

23) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

24) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Abu badali

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 describes himself on his userpage as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor" and has added maintenance tags to thousand of images with wrong, incomplete or missing source and/or licensing info, as well as challenged the fair-use status of thousands of uploaded images.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I also tag for deletion images missing source or licensing, or with wrong/incomplete/incompatible source/licensing info. Maybe this should be added to "has challenged the fair-use status of thousands of uploaded images", to make it clearer that "challenging fair use" isn't the sole image-cleaning activity I do. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection to Abu badali's proposed change. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just implemented it. Make sure you agree with the wording used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns raised

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 contains 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. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe this is far fetched. I dispute that I didn't "make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner". The whole point of not taking part on the RFC was that it was an uncivil forum. Personal attacks and diffless accusations were tolerated. At least one editor was invited to take part on it just because he recently vandalized my page. When civilly asked about my RFC I civilly explained my reasons not to take part on it.

Also, the RCF still doesn't have a clear "statement of dispute" and has no "evidence of trying and resolve the dispute". The users "certifying the basis of the dispute" didn't tried to resolve the dispute. I was waiting for it to consolidate but it never happened. It went from bad to worse. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that virtually all Abu badali seems to do is centered around advocating the deleting of images. It is almost as if he/she is working for some copyright organization and is zealously trying to protect the concept. I also find it interesting that virtually no matter what arguments are advanced he/she never backs down. It seems to me that Abu badli is intellectually dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 May 2007

When I think it's appropriate, I also advocate the non-deletion or the inclusion of images. But indeed, most of my work in English Wikipedia is with the removal of images I found to be improper. I do that to help Wikipedia, and not some "copyright organization".

I completely disagree with you when you say that "no matter what arguments are advanced he/she never backs down". See this ifd dicussion for just one example where a withdrawn the nomination in face of new facts and respectful presentation of arguments. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's observation seems to be accurate. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the implication that Abu Badali is incivil. There's a difference between being firm and being rude. Not backing down from one's position is being firm, not rude, and thus is in no way an offense. Abu has not engaged in personal attacks, not used threatening language. Borisblue 07:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: His new user page has been changed now to the opposite extreme, but for 6 months - it was the most obnoxious thing I have ever seen on a Wikipedia user page short of vandalism. [6][7] There is good humor and there is nasty, obnoxious disrespectful type humor, one needs to keep in mind. I would think a big part of the problem was the taunting user page that set the whole tone to his entire work in Wikipedia (either for good or bad). An image of a laughing devil [8] taunting, "Abu is targeting you" is just about the equivalent of an image of a raised middle finger to any good faith editor going to his user page trying to find an explanation why his/her image was deleted. --Eqdoktor 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

3) On November 29, 2006, a duly certified 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is inaccurate and must be rejected. The request for comment wasn't "duly certified" at all. See this evidence entry. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC ignored

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My reason for never taking part in this RFC were explained at #Requests for comment. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Users didn't try to resolve the dispute before starting the RFC

5) The RFC was never really certified. The section intended for "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" contained only a link to a dispute itself. The users "certifying" the basis of the dispute (User:Irpen and User:Tvccs) didn't tried "tried and failed to resolve the dispute" before starting the RFC. User:Irpen was the one to move the RFC to the "certified" group, right after "certifying" the dispute while still not endorsing "everything said by the RfC original author". He said he would "present (his) view separately", but as of May 14th (5 months later), he hasn't.

There wasn't a well defined dispute being discussed. Each user added a different account, most of them didn't tried to resolve their dispute before.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed (don't know where's the best place to post this) --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a proposed finding of fact, so this section is the right place. Picaroon (Talk) 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali has never been rude to fellow editors

6) Despite being usually attacked on his talk page and on the so called RFC, Abu badali has never attacked or replied with rudeness to any editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Abu badali. This should be obvious, but unfortunately, some comment seem to imply otherwise. Feel free to reject if diffs can be provided. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd second this. There aren't any blatant diffs of incivility,- rather, people are just getting offended because Abu enforces the rules strictly. Maybe you can argue that he needs to give more warnings, or that he should have responded to his RFC, etc. but Abu has not engaged in any incivil or threatening behavior. Borisblue 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I definitely will have to reject this proposal. I will have to put it on record for a period of several months, his user page was actually used as a disrespectful and uncivil message to the Wikipedia community. Diff from when he started using the devil image: [9] to the last iteration [10]. For more than 6 months, this taunting image [11] and message "Abu is targeting you" greeted any user that came to his user page due to his prolific behavior. If this message was used in any talk page discussion, it would have been used as a clear-cut case on uncivil behavior and the user reprimanded. Don't be a dick and there is no need to taunt. The user page cannot be swept under the carpet as humor, as humor can also be of the obnoxious and uncivil variety. --Eqdoktor 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The RFC was an unwelcoming place where attacks were tolerated and vandals were invited

7) The RFC Abu refused to take part on was filled with baseless (diffless) attacks from the beggining. It never matured in a certified RFC. At least one vandal who previously target Abu's Userpage was invited (by the RFC creator) to take part on it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Abu Badali. See Evidence for diffs. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support this. Also see my proposal #Ganging up below, making the same point in somewhat stronger terms and a larger context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support this as well. The finding that he failed to respond to the RfC doesn't take this into account. Though I believe it would still have been better if he had responded, I'm not comfortable with the way this case is focusing on such matters (which don't rise to the level of requiring ArbCom sanctions) while failing to give due focus to mitigating circumstances. ElinorD (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC was not correctly certified and should have been deleted

8) The RFC was never correctly certified. No evidence in the form of diffs was presented that two users attempted to resolve the dispute. According to procedure the resulting RFC should have been deleted after 48 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Megapixie 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a red herring. Even if the RFC wasn't technically certified properly, it is clear from the evidence that there is a long-standing dispute between Abu badali and mutliple users, many of which tried to resolve the dispute. Many people contributed to that RFC believing in good faith that it was the proper forum for raising concerns. If that RFC had been deleted for non-certification, enough people were involved that another would have certainly formed with the proper certification. I think the arbitrators should emphasize product over process, where the result would have been the same whether process was technically followed or not. DHowell 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged

9) Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged, educating them about Wikipedia's policies concerning image use. Some examples of Abu badali replying to such questions are:

• User:Meursault2004 ([12] [13] [14])
• User:Scheibenzahl ([15] [16] [17])
• User:Barefact ([18] [19] [20])
• User:Yakuman ([21] [22])
• User:Febodyed ([23] [24])
• User:Lmcelhiney ([25] [26])
• User:QuasyBoy ([27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32])
• User:Tasoskessaris ([33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44])
• User:Thatcher131 ([45] [46])
• User:Eduemoni ([47] [48])
• User:Michaelsanders ([49] [50])
• User:Judae1 ([51] [52])
• and User:BehnamFarid ([53] [54] [55] [56])

to name a few.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (If necessary, I will be adding more diffs). --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

False. Rather than being helpful, Abu badali communicates with users via templates language, bites the newbies and engages in trickery. See evidence page. --Irpen 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like this really ought to be acknowledged in the finding of fact. I think his responses are frequently informative and courteous, even when his questioners are not. That's commendable, and I don't think it's related to the problems that many users have with him. In my view, the complaints against Abu badali are based on his inflexibility; his strictest and non-mainstream interpretation of policy; and the appearance that he "picks on" users by repeatedly nominating their images for deletion, changing rationales for deletion when one fails to convince the admin who deals with the case. I'll try to supply a related finding of fact below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

10) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by User:Quadell. Note that this is not a criticism of Abu, just a statement of fact. In my opinion, it's a good thing that we have a range of opinion on such gray area on Wikipedia. But I think it needs to be stated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I more or less agree with your description of the principle, I believe the title is not perfect. Is my interpretations that are "particularly strict" or is it that the average Wikipedian's interpretations are overly permissive? Or is it that the "average Wikipedian's" don't even know about our non-free usage policy?

I would suggest changing the title to "Abu badali's interpretation of non-free material usage policy is usually stricter than that of an average editor". --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As in my comment in Finding 10 below, I would characterize your interpretation as "particularly strict" compared to the views of most processing admins, or most people who read and understand our policy and sincerely want to see it applied (as you do). The views of people who don't understand our policy, or who want to keep non-free images regardless of our policy, are not important here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But if my interpretation were "particularly strict compared to the views of most processing admins", wouldn't it be expected that most images I nominate for deletion would not be deleted by the processing admin? I don't believe this expected result to stand. Most processing admins agree with my views and delete my nominations--Abu badali ^(talk) 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the means involved to get your interpretation of the policy applied are exactly what brought the arbitration case to begin with. Circeus 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Many users are unhappy with Abu badali's interpretation of nonfree use policy

11) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by User:Quadell.

Hummm... what exactly is "mainstream interpretation of policy"? If this is the interpretation held by admins processing deletion nominations, than my nominations are 97.4% of times consistent with mainstream interpretation (number is an mental approximation), as the absolute majority of images I nominate for deletion end up being deleted by some admin.

But if "mainstream interpretation of policy" means the interpretation of the average Wikipedian, that's different thing... --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean the views of closing admins, or of people who read and understand our policy and want to see it applied consistently. (I'm not comparing your views to people who would like to host unfree images on Wikipedia just because they're pretty, and try to gloss over or twist policy to achieve that objective.) Yes, your views coincide with the "mainstream" view in the majority of cases, because most cases are non-controversial. I still would characterize your interpretation of policy as "outside the mainstream" in many controversial areas. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Quadell, but I'd argue that it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the text, in Quadell's words that "|Abu Badali's| views coincide with the "mainstream" view in the majority of cases". The way this proposal is written makes it seem like Abu Badali is always or usually wrong in his evaluations, which is simply not true. Borisblue 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali frequently nominates the same image for deletion for multiple reasons

12) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by User:Quadell.

That's true, and I even pointed this out in my statement on this arb-case opening. The average unfree image on Wikipedia will be wrong for more than one reason (lacking source, a weak or no rationale, etc.). Our policy for non-free material usage lists 10 criteria to be met, and failing to fulfill just one of them is enough for nominating an image for deletion. If the image is fixed, or somehow decided to not violate the offending criterion, it doesn't mean it doesn't need to fulfill the others that weren't brought to attention in the first nomination.

But in the absolute majority of cases, the images I nominate are deleted due to concerns raised in the first nomination. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Abu here. I don't see what the problem is with this. Frequently, uploaded images will fail multiple points of the image use policy. Alternatively, a user could change from a free use declaration to a non-free declaration, which creates further possibilities for deletion tagging. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm saying it's a finding of fact. It's relevant because of point #14, below. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough. I think it would be preferable to put several image issues on the record from the start, so it doesn't take on the feel of a back-and-forth battle. This is not always possible however due to changing image tags, ineffective fair use rationales, and the like. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for deletion of an image can change over time, as the information on the image description page changes. For example, recently I serially tagged an image for deletion as "no license" (it was sourced to the Florida Memory Project, but didn't have a license tag), "no source" (it was tagged as "tv-screenshot", but didn't specify what tv show it was from), "replaceable fair use" (no explanation was given as to why it was irreplaceable), and finally "fair use disputed" (an explanation was given as to why it was irreplaceable, but left open the question of why it was essential to the article). At no time could I have applied more than one of these deletion tags to the image in question. --Carnildo 00:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In image cleaning, it's common that the same image gets repeatedly nominated for deletion for multiple reasons

12-B) The reason for deletion of an image can change over time, as the information on the image description page changes. For example, an image may be tagged for deletion as "no license" (if didn't have a license tag), then "no source" (it was tagged as "tv-screenshot", but didn't specify what tv show it was from), then "replaceable fair use" (if no explanation was given as to why the image was irreplaceable), and finally "fair use disputed" (if an explanation was given as to why it was irreplaceable, but left open the question of why it was essential to the article). At no time could more than one of these deletion tags be applied at the same time to the image in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alternative wording, submitted by User:Abu badali.

Based on the discussion so far on the original wording, I believe we could use this more broad (less abu-centric) version of the statement, and still be ok with this being referenced in 14.

The text was shamelessly borrowed from Carnildo's comment on 12 right above. But of course, it's not intended to imply his endorsement of this finding of fact. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. There might be a sentence added about how it is understandable and unfortunate that affected users might get upset about such a process, but the fact remains that it is unavoidable and, ultimately, their fault and not the taggers'. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has only recently started working in earnest on image cleanup, I completely endorse the above. It's completely normal that someone who doesn't know how to (or doesn't bother to) select the correct licence tag will also not fill in the fair use rationale, and may not provide a source. ElinorD (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

13) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by User:Quadell. This does not claim his actions are (or are not) vindictive; only that they are frequently interpreted as such.

When scores of images by the same user are nominated for deletion, the uploader naturally feels that it is his person who is being targeted. I urge Abu badali and others involved in the same activity to review the images by alphabet, rather than by personality, especially when the images were uploaded by productive contributors in good standing. In this way they shall effectively eliminate the community's mistrust to their activities. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good recommendation. Doubtless, some users will feel they are being personally targeted no matter what happens; but an alphabetic would help give the appearance (which should be accurate) that we are trying to consistently apply policy, not "pick on" any particular person. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. My experience tells me that editors who mistakenly upload an unacceptable image, will commit the same mistake many times. And even after the deletion of one of their images, they won't voluntarily nominate their other images with the same problem for speedy deletion ({{db-author}}) and, in many cases, the user will keep uploading images with the same problems as the ones already deleted.

For instance, User:PageantUpdater, the "RFC" creator, uploaded more than 200 unfree images of (living) models. Admin User:Earl Andrew and User:Jack Cox uploaded (each one) a similar number of unfree images of Canadian politicians. Admin User:Ganeshk uploaded hundreds of unfree images of (living) Indian politicians. Admin User:Johntex uploaded a huge number of non-notable magazine covers. All of them did what they did in a good faith attempt to help Wikipedia, and acted in ignorance of our (at the time, not properly enforced) policies. But there's no reason not to nominate theses images for deletion.

When we see an editor disputing a replaceable tagging saying "this image is not replaceable because I couldn't find a free alternative on google" we know we have something to look on this editor's upload log. This logs are public for good reasons, and spotting policy violations, even the violations committed in good faith, are one of these good reasons.

Maybe the problem is with the warning templates. Although our policies ask us to warn the uploaders about each nomination, the usual way of doing that (pasting one template message per nomination on the uploader's talk page) is not well accepted by everyone. Back in October 2006, when discussing the creation of the category-style model for replaceable images deletion, I suggested an approach where just one template message would be used to warn about more than one images problems. The idea was abandoned. Maybe it's time to work on it again. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Abu here. Going through a user's upload log is a sure-fire way to find multiple policy violations. The only recommendation I can make here is to use more personal messages to notify the user. Instead of repeatedly applying the user warning templates, sometimes a simple message like, "By the way, I've also tagged the following images you uploaded for the same reason: Image1.jpg, Image2.jpg..." howcheng {chat} 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the last two comments. Whether due to lack of understanding of WP policies or disregard thereof, I have found in my experience that a user who posts one bad image or copyvio article very likely has posted others. It is generally more efficient to go through user contribs than to work alphabetically, although I sometimes use the latter approach. So I don't see this point as a problem. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree as well. This is my modus operandi when dealing with bad images, subtle vandalism, copyvio articles, etc.- to look at the violator's contributions. I'm sure most admins and editors who work on these chores deal with these kinds of problems the same way. The contribs are made public for a reason. Borisblue 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse that as well. I was clearing a backlog of WP:CSD#I6 last night, and removed an image from History of Liberia, just before deleting it. I found that there were several copyrighted images which lacked a fair use rationale, so I tagged them all. They were all from the same user, and I did find it a bit embarrassing, but didn't think I should leave them untagged just because the uploader might not like it. The night before, I was deleting images from Latin American Idol (again while clearing an admin backlog, not targeting anyone), and found plenty more unfree images, either missing source or missing rationale, or both. I tagged them, and found that they all came from the same user, who, incidentally, reverted my removals, and reuploaded the images I had deleted. (Sigh.) It's entirely possible to find image after image after image missing information all uploaded by the same user, simply by looking at an article, and not targeting an editor. Editors will often upload photos related to their particular interest — a particular cartoon series, the history of a country, etc. ElinorD (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

These factors combine to give the appearance of incivility

14) The factors described above in points 2, 10, 11, 12, and 13, lead many users to see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive, despite point 9.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Submitted by User:Quadell.

The problem is more 2,10, and 11. Points 12 and 13 are perfectly normal when dealing with bad images. I'm sure almost every editor who has worked in the image backlog has checked the contribs of a violator, or posted up an image for deletion with multiple reasons for deletion. These actions are "provocative" in the same sense that reverting vandalism or clearing POV ranting are "provocative" to the violator. The real issues are 2, 10 and 11- this proposal needs to narrow its focus. Borisblue 07:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about #13. For #12, I'm not referring to nominating an image once and listing multiple reasons -- I'm referring to serially nominating an image for reason C after previous deletion nominations had failed when basing their arguments on reasons A and then B. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Problematic image uploads

10) Many Wikipedians, among them valued contributors, have in the past either failed to understand or failed to accept Wikipedia's copyright policies, and have uploaded large numbers of problematic images as a result. Among them are several participants of the present Arbcom case:

• (10a) Jack Cox (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large number of unfree images under spurious fair use rationales (e.g. here), many of which have had to be deleted (Upload log)
• (10b) PageantUpdater (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large number of unfree images under mistaken fair use rationales, many of which have had to be deleted (Upload log)
• (10c) Badagnani (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large number of unfree images, some of them under spurious fair-use rationales (e.g. here), many of which have had to be deleted. (Upload log) Badagnani vigorously and openly opposes the policy to minimise use of non-free media ([57]), and he has been wilfully boycotting application of current fair use policy, for instance by systematically uploading non-free cover art images without explicit fair use rationales (e.g. [58])
• (10d) TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of unfree images under faulty fair-use claims, demonstrating that she failed to understand Wikipedia's copyright policies (e.g. here)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There are two sides to this case, and the current proposed decision mentions only one. Let's address the root causes of the dispute first, and let's name names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

10) When issues of problematic image uploads were addressed by Abu Badali, several users reacted with hostility and aggression, sometimes crossing the line into blatant personal attacks and even user page vandalism. Among them were Fabartus (talk · contribs) ("you need to get a life"), Earl Andrew (talk · contribs) ("Sneaky"), Tvccs (talk · contribs) ("get a life ... harassment") Stukov (talk · contribs) ("anal and annoying", "The Cancer of Wikipedia"). Although some reactions may have been partly understandable, taken together they took on the character of a collective "ganging up" on Abu Badali. The RfC against Abu Badali, and the simultaneous one against Chowbok, came in the context of this gang behaviour, and it contained ([59]) or was directly connected to, simultaneous personal attacks and hate speech ([60]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Let's make it clear where the true problem and the true responsibilities lie. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali's reaction

10) Up to the events in November, Abu badali's style and tone in dealing with controversies had invariably been firm but polite and matter-of-fact. After the events of November, Abu badali occasionally displayed an attitude of sarcasm in defiance of the attacks ([61], [62]). This attitude may have further incensed feelings against him in some quarters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. "Sarcasm", Fred. It's called "sarcasm", in English, not "role playing". And let's get the chain of causes and effects right this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. I'd point out also that even after the events of November, Abu remained calm and civil with anyone who asked him a question in a non-aggressive way. I can't help wondering how many of even our best editors would remain civil when subjected to the extremely nasty personal attacks that were directed at Abu. I must say also that while I was a bit shocked when I first saw his user page, I'm much less shocked now, having seen more of the history of this case. I still don't think it was at all a good idea, but mocking your aggressor could be seen as a better way of coping with abuse than responding in kind. (Does Abu have a baseball bat?) And frankly, the behaviour of some of the people who were upset that their unsourced, unlicensed, invalid fair use images were being nominated for deletion should certainly count as extenuating circumstances. ElinorD (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali interprets non-free usage policy accordingly to Admin's practices

18) Abu badali consistently interprets our non-free image use policy accordingly to the prevailing Admin practices. Almost every image he nominates for deletion ends up being deleted by the admin closing the discussion. See this evidence entry .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suggest this as a substitute for current FOF "Abu badali interprets non-free usage policy in a particularly strict way". 99% of images I nominate for deletion end up being deleted anyway. The few ones that aren't deleted usually had to fix something to address the concerns raised at the nomination. It's unfair to state that my interpretation of the Policy is "particularly strict" when it's so massively supported by the Admins enforcing that Policy. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined every single one, but it certainly seems to be true, and I have no doubt at all that it is true. To make it more accurate, I'd say that he interprets the policy according to the practices of admins who are experienced in image work. "Admins" in general is too broad. There are, unfortunately, administrators who thoroughly disagree with our policy on non-free content. ElinorD (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

19) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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 temporarily banned from editing and tagging

1) ArbCom recognize that Abu badali's behaviour is inappropriate and ban him from editing for a period of one week and from tagging images for one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems a mild penalty but one that is fair considering the positive contributions Abu badali does bring to Wikipedia while recognizing some of his actions are inappropriate - Jord 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. Abu is already planning future rounds of image deletions based not on consensus, but his interpretations of policy. Something similar to this proposed remedy is needed to really get his attention, and get him back on working with the community to develop consensus. As it is, he appears to have no regard for other editors, and no understanding of how his actions, however he views them, are viewed quite differently by others. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. I don't know what the appropriate remedy is in this case, but this isn't it. It would also be good to have input on whether any prior problems have continued during the lengthy period of time in which this case has been pending. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly too harsh, especially considering that Abu Badali does a lot of good work in noncontroversial image chores, helping to clear up the enormous image backlog. Note that Abu Badali has not been abusive or threatening, just that his accusers perceive him to be "rude". I can't see a good reason to evoke the nuclear option when perceived "rudeness" is the offense. Borisblue 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what good this would do. If Abu's actions are harmful, why put them off a month? And if they're not harmful, why stop him from working on the backlog? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jenolen, you do know that a good rationale will not save a non-free image if it isn't backed up by sufficient critical commentary? Fair use's "critical commentary" overrides all supposed "consensus" against it. hbdragon88 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Abu badali's actions are appropriate and help keep the potential copyright violations reduced. He could help reduce the problem further if he did not have to spend so much time defending himself from those who think they should have free reign to upload any image for any use they see fit. He should not be blocked at this point. -Nv8200p talk 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Badali thanked, but with a critical reminder

2) Abu Badali is thanked for his continued efforts to uphold image policies, but reminded of the need to remain patient and uphold a collegial atmosphere while pursuing that goal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Wording could be strengthened appropriately if seen fit. This fits the "principles" and "findings of fact" currently on the voting page better than the absurdly counterproductive "parole" currently proposed. See below for further, more concrete proposals to complement this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Badali instructed to defer to consensus

3) In cases of doubt, Abu Badali is instructed to to defer to community consensus and refrain from pursuing deletions of individual images aggressively by re-nominations when a previous nomination has already been duly considered and declined by administrators. He is, however, free to convince other users to re-nominate images for deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Safety valve. I think this ought not actually to have been necessary, because many re-nominations were actually justified, but since the re-nominations were apparently deemed so aggravating it might be better to have this to keep him out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Added additional sentence about having others re-nominate for him. howcheng {chat} 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse that addition too; as I said I'm not really convinced any substantial restriction is necessary here. Well, then again, people who've been upset at him in the past would probably be equally upset if after a "failed" deletion attempt he were to go round "admin-shopping" and arguing on people's talk pages, so "convince other users" might still sound a bit too aggressive. But if, for instance, he were to just keep a page around in userspace where he'd list images he thinks ought to have been deleted but weren't, I'd be the first to use that list as a valuable resource to see what images might need further scrutiny. His expertise and sound judgment on such issues are just too valuable to miss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, I must stress that this proposal (deliberately) does not address all the actions described in the current "finding of fact" about multiple re-nominations. I can support a prohibition of re-nominations only in those cases where a re-nomination were to be made when an admin, after due consideration of all relevant facts, has declined a first nomination. A prohibition makes no sense at all if it were to cover the routine re-taggings that are simply part of the system these days, for better or worse. This is how it works: find an image with no rationale; tag it; uploader provides rationale but rationale is faulty; tag it again; uploader removes tag and tinkers with rationale; rationale is still faulty; tag it again; uploader manages to demonstrate that criterion 1 is fulfilled after all; remove "rfud" but add "dfu" because some other criterion is still violated... I did some image patrolling myself today, just to get a realistic taste of it again (pointy, pointy, I know), and I'm more convinced than ever that such multiple nominations, though frustrating for all parties, are unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Badali admonished to avoid stalking

4) Abu Badali is admonished not to systematically pursue image deletions against uploaders with whom he has been otherwise in conflict, where his scrutinising of their past upload history might be seen as an act of stalking. This does not apply to scrutiny of series of obviously abusive copyright violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The stalking allegations were basically the only concrete hint at actual misbehaviour that I've seen in the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe that tagging all the images and articles that the editor/uploaders is making the same policy mistake in is being viewed as stalking. -Nv8200p talk 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please explain further? I'm not sure right now whether you are opposing this because you find the measure too strict or because you find it not strict enough? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I also found Nv8200p's wording a little bit here confusing, but based on his others statements, I believe he meant to says that the act of [tagging all images where the same uploader commited the same mistakes] is being (wrongly) viewed as wikistalking (by those supporting this remedy). Am I right, Nv8200p? --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image upload probation

3) PageantUpdater (talk · contribs), Jack Cox (talk · contribs) and Badagnani (talk · contribs) are placed under image upload probation for six months. They are admonished to refrain from uploads of non-free images unless they fully understand and accept Wikipedia's foundation policy on the minimisation of the use of non-free material. Should any of them cause disruption by uploading further questionable images that then have to be deleted, they can be blocked for short periods of time or banned from image uploads for periods of up to a month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If probations and ban warnings have to be given out, then let's first do it where the cause of the problem lies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. PageantUpdater [63] and Badagnani [64] both seem to have fine (though not perfect) upload records since last 2006 based on their image upload logs. They both seem to have learned the rules and are abiding them. Any action at this time would be purely punitive rather than preventative. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. PageantUpdater has mass uploads of commercial news agency images from beauty contests, uploaded under flimsy rationales ("shows a unique moment"). Their "transformative value" in the sense of the fair use law is zero; they are not covered by critical analysis or commentary in the articles, and their use is in direct competition to the commercial use intended by the news agencies and as such potentially detracts from their market value. Her latest batch (uploaded until May 2007) is currently on IfD and likely to be deleted soon; she has been aggressively defending the images there. - Badagnani aggressively promotes the idea that cover art images should be freely usable everywhere independently of whether the article engages in critical analysis of the image itself, and without requiring individual rationales, both in direct contradiction to current rules. He has been systematically refusing to provide rationales for uploads of cover art, and as recently as yesterday he deliberately tried to pass off a non-free cover art image to be used in an article not about the recording in question ([65]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The article linked above is most certainly about this instrument, and a detailed discographical reference for the very recording whose cover was in the photo was already in the Discography section of the article. The deletion of the cover image within hours, allowing for no discussion, was very, very wrong and the kind editor needs to reverse her/himself on this and go through the proper channels. Everyone makes mistakes, I suppose, and in this case the deleting editor doesn't seem to know much about classical music. That's okay; it's never too late to admit an error. Our educational purpose, even when discussing obscure musical instruments, really is an overarching concern, and deleting such an invaluable LP cover image within 6 hours, allowing for no discussion or input from other editors, was just incorrect procedure, undermining the trust and faith we should hold in our admins here. Emulating Abu's behavior, as the editor has done (including Wiki-stalking, as s/he has admitted s/he has done, as well as deleting within hours, allowing for no input from other editors) is not a proper way to behave. Thank you all for your consideration, and thoughtful discussion here. Badagnani 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking discussion to talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what this has to do with User:Abu badali and THIS arbitration case? Focus, people, focus... If and when Pageant and Badagnani get their own RFC's/arbcom cases, then sure, comment/remedy there. But this is getting way, way off track. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Theis questionable uploads and their aggressive defense of them was what directly sparked the controversy with Abu, so obviously it's immediately relevant here. And they already have "their own RFC's/arbcom case", because they are parties here. In an Arbcom case, you always scrutinise the behaviour of all parties involved, and hand out sanctions relevant to the role each of them has played in creating the problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. One of the hazards of opening an ArbCom case is that the flashlight shines on everyone, including those who open the RfAr in the first place. "Glass houses" and whatnot, you know. howcheng {chat} 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - As we've seen before in the Abu badali saga, the concept of "the best defense is a good offense" seems to be at work here. Badagnani 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Indeed, I'm reminded that a person will probably only wikilawyer when they realize they have no actual case. This certainly appears to be going on here. The whole "glass houses" comment, in particular, indicates the level at which this debate is being held.

• One of the big problems here is that the fair use criteria - whoops, I mean, the now "non-free content" criteria - keep changing. If an editor tries to follow policy, then, months later, parts of that policy change (and those changes continue to be disputed), why is the editor who followed policy as it then existed now subject to this kind of harassing scrutiny? This is a request for Arbitration about the actions of Abu badali -- if someone has a problem with the editors who've brought the case, then fine, start an RFC. But to expand this Arbcom case far beyond its original scope is wrong, wrong, wrong. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment this is ridiculous and inflammatory, and shows complete disregard for any understanding of the situation. I wish to make the following clear (for what it's worth, because it seems like nothing I say is read and understood properly by anyone):
  • There are claims on here that I uploaded "over 200 non-free images of models". That is true, however vast majority of those images were uploaded well before the stricter non-free image policy began to be enforced. At the time I was under the impression very single one of those images was acceptable under current policy, and although I will admit that there were a few hiccoughs, when it was pointed out to me that I needed to adjust how images were used I went ahead and acted on that. In fact, I was generally acting on the advice and comments of other editors [66] When it was brought to my attention in November 2006 I was at first aghast, because I did not realise the policy had shifted, but when it was explained to me I accepted that the headshots must go (see User:PageantUpdater/Use of Images).
  • The crowning images were a different story and as User:Quadell believed that they were acceptable and others agreed with that (see the dicussion from a deleted image copy-and-pasted onto Image talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg, and some other diffs [67], [68])
  • Based on the discussion there I continued to upload non-free images, but only those considered non-replaceable, and I was sure to add detailed summaries, copying Quadell's fair-use rationale at Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg (later deleted, the place has been taken by a free image I accidentally uploaded with the same name).
  • Since the deletion of the large batch of non-free images I have never uploaded any such non-free images and added them to articles. To the contrary, I have found a number of free images and uploaded them onto the Commons and then put them here. Whilst these are valuable additions to articles, I have never believed these can accurately replace the value of the crowning photos to the articles.
  • A large number of these non-free crowning photos (and similar) were deleted in June/July 2007 as a result of this afd. However the consensus of this discussion (which was disregarded by the closing admin) suggests that many other editors agreed that these images were appropriate [69], [70], [71], [72], read the afd for more. Of course there were editors who disagreed with this, but what I am saying is that it certainly wasn't a cut-and-dried decision and there were many who agreed with my perspective on this matter. I was also not the only one who either believed the ifd was closed improperly or who believed the images should be kept for other reasons [73], [74], [75], [76]
  • I will admit that my knowledge of the policy isn't as intimate as others, but I wish to reiterate that I have never uploaded an image that I believed was in violation of the policy at the time I uploaded it. It's all well and good to make grand statements after the fact, but my uploads need to be considered in terms of the policy at the time, especially considering how it is continually evolving.
  • I also wish to point out that since I was originally alerted to the new policy direction with the mass deletion, I have actively worked to deal with non-free images used inappropriately when I come across them. [77], [78][79] are just a few examples of this.
  • In conclusion: Future Perf's accusations are exaggerated, unfounded and show just how little of what I have had to say on here is actually considered. What happened to member of the arbcom reading and considering comments from all sides? I would like an apology from Future Perfect at Sunrise forthwith for this attack on myself. PageantUpdater 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You know, I can accept that you've uploaded hundreds of images in good faith, a great number of which have been deleted. But it doesn't really matter: good faith or not, you have uploaded so many non-free images that have had to be deleted, and want to continue to do so with a shaky understanding of the policy. It's causing a problem. People can cause problems in good faith. Arbcom may not currently have this on the proposed decisions page, but you should expect that by bringing this arbitration case that your behavior will be scrutinized, and appropriate remedies applied. Since you have attempted to learn the policies and have acted in good faith, I wouldn't support a ban, but probation seems entirely reasonable. Mangojuice^talk 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you read above, you will see that image uploads I have made have all been based on suggestions and comments by other editors. By your reasoning, you should put Quadell under probation as well, as it was he who suggested and templated the fair use rationale that I used for all the images that have been deleted. Picking on me is unfair and unwarranted. PageantUpdater 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:Oppose strongly. "Theis questionable uploads and their aggressive defense of them was what directly sparked the controversy with Abu, so obviously it's immediately relevant here", Personally, this is a rather shocking and frightening remark coming from a Wikipedia administrator. Contributing images to Wikipedia, questioning and discussing Wikipedia policies for consensus is now considered disruptive and worthy of sanctions??? Your political viewpoints on Wikipedia policies set aside, it is this very aggresive defense of their good faith uploads that they should be commended for. Sound wikipedia policies can and should be held to healthy and transparent debates. Healthy consensus building strengthens these policies and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. This proposal is quite clearly beyond the pale, not to be disingenuous here - but it smacks of a rather odd counterpoint proposal. Unless it can be clearly proven otherwise of these uploaders, this proposal for sanctions of them is without merit. Contributing to Wikipedia and discussing it's policies should NEVER be a punishable offense.--Eqdoktor 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stukov banned

4) For aggressive behaviour, creation of inappropriate articles (The Retard), upload of copyvio images (Image:Frankthomasandson.jpg, Image:Antropov.jpg, Image:Bandphoto3.jpg) and for personal attacks in the context of image deletion debates and elsewhere ([80], [81]), Stukov (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A minor player in the drama, not much above a run-of-the-mill vandal, but one whose nastiness was particularly instrumental in giving that bad taste to the events surrounding the RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: