Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

• Blnguyen
• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away:

• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality
• Raul654

About Concerns raised

The find of fact Concerns raised says "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". I believe this completely opposed to what was proposed (with dozen of diffs) in Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged, in the Workshop.

Saying that I didn't acted "in a civil manner" is something that needs to be backed up with diffs. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a point I really wouldn't like to be ignored. This "concern raised" says that I didn't acted "in a civil manner". I see this as a grave and baseless accusation. It should be reworded. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

About Disruption broadly defined

This definition of disruption by Abu badali seems to imply that I engaged in Stalking, but that wasn't concluded in the finding of facts.

It also implies that multiple deletion nominations of the same image are disruptive. It should be contrasted with In image cleaning, it's common that the same image gets repeatedly nominated for deletion for multiple reasons, from the Workshop, that was based on an opinion by admin User:Carnildo.

And it also says that nominating multiple images from the same user is disruptive, but in the workshop discussion of Abu badali frequently nominates for deletion multiple images by the same user, it was agreed that this behavior was not only acceptable but also necessary. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposed "remedy" (what an abominable euphemism, by the way) is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Pardon my French, everybody. So now we have arrived at punishing editors for helping enforce foundation policy? Dear Arbcom members, if making "multiple nominations for deletion of images uploaded by any one user" is disruptive, then please de-sysop me right away, because I don't know how to fulfil my admin duties if this is disallowed. If I find a user with serial copyright problems, am I to look the other way? Or is it only disruptive when Abu deals with such users, not when other people deal with them? If this decision passes, enforcing image policy becomes downright impossible. Abu, you have my full solidarity on this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you disrupt Wikipedia by your actions. Fred Bauder 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. And to make this even clearer: I have done the exact same thing that Abu is being threatened with bans for, and I plan on continuing to do it and on supporting anybody else who does it: using other editors' contribution logs to identify serial image copyright issues. Because these issues do come in series, and it would be inefficient use of our time if we didn't go through dealing with such a series once we've found one.

• Comment - I can confirm that the editor just above is engaged in such behavior; s/he has just tagged several dozen of my images, mainly album and book covers. S/he admits on my talk page that sh/e looked carefully through my image contributions. It leaves one feeling uneasy, especially considering the above rhetoric. I think a number of you can understand where I am coming from. If this manner of "contribution" to Wikipedia is to be supported, perhaps I should contribute to some other website instead. Maybe that is what s/he wants? Badagnani 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred, the problem with your current draft decision is that you're dodging the issue. You have lots of "findings of fact" there that state that some people think Abu's behaviour is problematic. But do you, the arbitrators, think it has been problematic? Do you believe it is bad to follow an editor's contribution log to identify series of copyright issues? Do you believe if an image is problematic according to several criteria at once, it is bad to first tag it only according to that mechanism that allows for the quickest and most painless deletion process, and then fall back on another process in the unlikely case that the first fails? Have you seen a specific case in which Abu did this in a way that was not driven by good reason? (I haven't, and neither the evidence nor the workshop nor the proposed decision page gives diffs to that effect.) Your "principles" section looks more or less reasonable, but the "enforcement" clause is effectively banning activities that are not only not disruptive, but highly necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not any one factor in isolation, however; the sum total of Abu's behavior—particularly his unnecessarily confrontational manner—is such that his actions are of questionable net benefit. There's no shortage of editors who have worked to enforce the image policies without resulting in arbitration cases. Kirill 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"There's no shortage of editors who have worked to enforce the image policies without resulting in arbitration cases" - What you're saying amounts to "The suspect is surely guilty. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a suspect, would he?". --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This has nothing to do with whether you're "guilty"; it's merely a question of whether your actions are a net benefit to the project. Behavior that produces angry mobs should be avoided where possible, even if it happents to be permitted by policy; I've seen no evidence that you understand this point, or that you've made any effort to follow it. Kirill 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of angry mobs. I'm more and more convinced that mobbing is in fact one of the more serious problems people can face on Wikipedia, and probably the one where dispute resolution mechanisms - including Arbcom - have most dramatically failed. I've seen the scenario several times and I think I'm seeing it here too. A constructive, intelligent (though perhaps somewhat stubborn) individual gets into the way of some group wanting to push an agenda. They gang up on him, insult him, misuse dispute resolution processes against him. Everybody in the mob is subjectively convinced they are in fact doing nothing but legitimately acting against a disruptive element; and usually there are in fact some good-faith editors among them who have this or that legitimate concern about the victim's behaviour. Nevertheless, the net result is the social dynamics of a witch hunt. Whenever such a case has come to Arbcom, it's been an abject failure. Arbcom will turn against the victim, because unwittingly they measure people's alleged "disruptiveness" not by what they've actually done, but by the loudness of the baying of the lynch mob outside. Kirill's statement above is the closest I've seen so far to admitting that this is even what they intend. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A statistical aside: I wonder if the trend you notice would continue to hold if one included rejected requests. Accepted arbitration cases are already a pre-selected set, in that a case doesn't get accepted unless we see something that needs to be remedied; cases with no substance tend to wind up being rejected to begin with.

More to the point, though: as far as I'm concerned, at least, causing large-scale community discontent is problematic in and of itself. There may be isolated cases where it's justified by other issues; but, for the most part, editors are expected to go with non-mob-forming alternatives where they exist. (This is basically the point of WP:DICK; if enough people are complaining, it's a good sign that you're not doing things as well as you could.) And, at the very least, if you do provoke mobs when doing something, you're expected to respond to them such as to defuse the situation, not to provoke it further. My view here is not so much that Abu needs to be sanctioned merely for over-agressive policy enforcement; that could have been tolerated, had he not made so much of an effort to wave the proverbial red cloth before the proverbial bull here. Kirill 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, why do the current "Proposed remedies" deals with "stalking", "multiple nominations", "refusal to discuss proposed deletions" and "inappropriate role playing" if it seems that the problem is only "failure to participate in dispute resolutions procedures"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The "refusal to discuss proposed deletions" and "inappropriate role playing" parts of it both fall under inaproppriate responses, as I see them. (Although, strictly speaking, they're both subsumed under your last point. People seem to forget that dispute resolution doesn't start with the RFC stage; that's actually fairly late in the process. The first step of resolving a dispute is simply talking to the other party.) Kirill 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"The first step of resolving a dispute is simply talking to the other party" - I'm glad you acknowledges that, and I hope you have searched my talk page for entries from those posting complaints (and attacks) about me on my RFC (tip: You're not going to find many).

As a side note, where does this ""refusal to discuss proposed deletions"" comes from anyway? People usually complain that I'm overly active in deletion discussions! And indeed, I usually reply to a lot of comments in deletion discussions [1]. This is really odd. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To Kirill: "causing large-scale community discontent is problematic in and of itself" - this, I believe, is fundamentally misguided. There are many ways a good contributor can cause "large-scale discontent" by doing all the right things. People cause large-scale discontent by stubbornly upholding NPOV against groups of POV pushers. And people cause large-scale discontent by upholding image policy against the pop-culture crowd. It happens all the time. The crucial condition is that you have a independent, strong-willed individual going into a domain that is "owned" by a determined "local majority" of like-minded editors who will defend their turf and will conceive of the other as an attacker. Then that person will have the choice of simply giving up, or face the wrath of the mob. I've experienced the same when I tried image policing myself. It was ugly. I'd now be in the same position as Abu if I hadn't been in the advantageous position of being an admin, and if I hadn't at some point just withdrawn. (Yes, I failed, the copyvio images I wanted to remove are still there. The mob wins.) Abu has opted not to withdraw, and that's basically his only fault. The tragic thing is, mobbing victims will at some point be provoked into doing something or other that actually can be construed as disruptive, and typically it's only after that point that Arbcom will get to the case. Still, placing the blame on the victim is the wrongest thing we can do. People on Wikipedia need solidarity and protection, and that means: swift and harsh measures against the right people, against the attackers, at an early stage. I find the smug "he-had-it-coming,-it's-all-his-own-fault" attitude displayed by Fred extremely worrying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, with all due respect, if there's one thing Wikipedia is in dreadful shortage of it is editors who are willing to work to enforce the image policies. We can't afford to lose any, and this is surely going to frighten off yet a few more from this terribly thankless job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred and Krill- the reason why Abu Badali has attracted this much furor while other editors who enforce the same rules haven't is because Abu Badali spends so much more time and effort on this problem. I'm sure if Fut or I put forth the same level of commitment to enforcing this policy as Abu has we would attract the same level as abuse too. The argument that "Abu must be doing something wrong because other editors don't get in trouble" is plainly fallacious, unless there is a comparable 'work-rate'-so to speak. The only thing Abu Badali has done to "incite mobbing" is to enforce our image policy. In agreement with Fut, it does seem to me that Abu is a victim of the "he's being accused by people-hence he is guilty!" argument. Borisblue 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: are there any editors who are very active in copyright cleanup and who have not caused annoyance? I haven't found any. ElinorD (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

About Incivility

The proposed find of fact Incivility says that many users see my behavior as incivil and even vindictive. It should be noticed that no user was able to dispute the proposed find of fact Abu badali has never been rude to fellow editors, that has suggested since May 17. No diffs showing uncivil behavior on my part was ever produced.

The fact is that we have WP:CIVIL to define what's considered civil behavior, and we have no evidence (diffs) that I acted in an uncivil manner. We have users that "see my behavior as uncivil" and others that don't consider. Why should this arb case only mention the opinion of those who see it as uncivil, even more when these opinions are not supported by evidence? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

About the RfC

I also strongly oppose the findings regarding Abu's lack of response to the RfC. That RfC was a witch hunt. Yes, editors are requested to respond constructively to criticism and participate in dispute resolution processes, but that expectation doesn't extend to going out to talk to a lynch mob. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Facing down the lynch mob is part of playing sheriff... Fred Bauder 14:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting cynicism. Revolting. I'm sickened by your attitude, Fred. At least get your chronology right. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Fut.Perf. ☼

Please take a cup of tea. Throwing emotional snowballs is not going to buttress your arguments. I consider Fred's draft very thoughtful and to the point. We need to encourage enforcement of policies without driving away contributors or disrupting a large segment of the project, as is often the case. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Fred rightly said in another of his proposals, "Feelings matter". Abu's feelings matter. My feelings matter. Here we have a guy who has been bombarded with insults ("deletion nazi", "vandal", "destroying wikipedia", etc.) for over half a year. For no other reason than his insistence on following policy. And Fred finds nothing better to say to him than: it's all your own fault, you had it coming. I've been receiving some of the same insults, for the same reasons. Well, I am disgusted, and I'm going to say so publicly. "Encourage enforcement of policies without driving away contributors"? Well, what about allowing enforcement of policies without driving away the people who enforce them? The point is, it is currently impossible to enforce copyright policies without upsetting large segments of the project, for the simple reason that large segments of the project are determined to defend their right to dodge the policies. So, whose fault is that? -- But whatever, I'm off for now, need to get my Spiderman costume ironed up and book my ticket to Berlin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)\

Why do you take it so personally? Abu's conduct seems to have been disruptive, while yours has not. There is really no valid ground for comparison. We don't talk about abstract principles here, but about a particular and very tangible problem of user conduct. Your remark about some people "determined to defend their right to dodge the policies" is not very helpful, either. We should assume good faith on the part of our opponents. I hope that you will reflect about it and return to Wikipedia as soon as possible. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say I was taking a break from Wikipedia because of this issue! :-) (However, it is true that I temporarily came back from a break because of it, and I might soon be away again.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer to the substance: No, it's not the case that Abu was disruptive while I was not. Because, as I keep saying, he does precisely the same things I do. He's only done them a bit more persistently, over a longer time. All these reproaches against his alleged disruptiveness mean spitting in the face of myself and every other admin who has been doing image cleanup. I always knew it was a thankless job and unlikely to make us popular, but the fact that even Arbcom members are prepared to turn against him is immensely saddening.

Yes, there is a very "tangible problem of user conduct". The problem of user conduct is that Abu stubbornly does what is right, and some others stubbornly do what is wrong and don't want to be told about it. It's really as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with image cleanup or the principles that underlie this activity but with the problematic way these principles were implemented in this particular case. Doing the right thing in implementing one policy does not give you a free pass to violate other guidelines and policies. I hope you agree with that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would put it a little bit differently. Although some of the user conduct in that RfC was itself improper, there were enough concerns raised by good-faith users that it would have been far more prudent, and far more productive toward a healthy editing environment, for Abu badali to have written even a short response to the RfC rather than just ignored it. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It might have been better, but from looking at the RFC I can understand why he ignored it. Except when asked about on his talk page. Garion96 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it would have been better to respond, but I've looked at the RfC, and I can see some rather nasty attacks, and I can see that some of the people endorsing it had engaged in rather nasty attacks elsewhere, so I can see that he might not have felt like responding. I can't see how not responding merits a sanction, especially as he did respond courteously to people who courteously asked him about it on his talk page. I am profoundly uncomfortable with a remedy that would allow an administrator to apply sanctions against someone who doesn't reply to an RfC, as there is no obligation to reply, and as that particular RfC was quite unpleasant. I don't think the jokes about the RfC on his userpage were a good idea, but again, I can't see that they merit any ArbCom sanction, as such sanctions are normally reserved for rather serious misconduct, and especially since all the abuse directed against him has not (so far) led to any proposed remedies against those responsible. ElinorD (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for further deliberation on this case

For what it is worth, I was quite surprised when the direction that this case is currently taking was pointed out to me. I'd like to invite members of the Committee to reconsider it. Forty people signing an RfC complaining about non-free content cleanup needs to be seen in perspective; it would be trivial to find ten times that number of editors who would like to vote Wikipedia:Non-free content away. If Abu Badali's unfree image cleanup work is worthy of sanction because editors complain about it, the Arbitration Committe is then making the statement that licensing policy can indeed be over-ruled by persistant whining and that editors who are enforcing unpopular policy should expect censure rather than support from the project leadership. If there are civility issues, and it is not clear to me that there are any worth mentioning, I hope that the Committee will address those appropriately in a way that does not have a chilling effect on one of the least pleasant jobs to volunteer for on en:. Jkelly 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been emphasized by everyone involved that the case has nothing to with people "complaining about non-free content cleanup". The persistance of this attitude looks like deliberate trivialization of the issue in order to cover up incivility. Could you refer me to the page where "the direction that this case is currently taking was pointed out" to you? I do hope that it was on-wiki rather than behind the scenes and I look forward to adding my comments there. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the Proposed Decision in the Abu Badali arbitration case, which I used to comment upon the decision as it is currently being formulated by the Committee, to whom my concern was addressed. My point was that civility issues, if there are any, need to be separated out from the image cleanup work, which I argue that the current proposed decision does not do. My understanding is that most ArbCom deliberation happens off-wiki, but I'm not sure why that is interesting enough to comment upon. Jkelly 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were approached on IRC or by e-mail, that would look like canvassing with a view to pressuring the ArbCom to produce a desired outcome. That's not something I would encourage. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll be relieved to hear that I have given up all forms of telecommunication and now only respond to smoke signals. Seriously, however, I cannot imagine why you think my correspondence is any of your business, or why I might have any influence with the Commmittee beyond my ability to make a clear, persuasive argument. Jkelly 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This rudeness may be appropriate on IRC but certainly not in Wikipedia. You can't resonably expect me to reply to a "it's none of your business" message. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then don't reply. Because really it is none of your business. (BTW, just so as not to give the wrong impression: I haven't been in contact with Jkelly.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, would you mind to provide some diffs to your accusations that I have "incivility" problems [14], and that I used image cleaning to "violate other guidelines and policies"? [15]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 5, 2007

Abu, please mind that I have not been of of your accusers. It does not appear reasonable to demand evidence on the "proposed decision" page, let along on its talk page, let alone from a non-party to the dispute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, please mind that you have just made an accusation. It does not appear reasonable to make accusations if you are not prepared to back them up, no matter on what page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is not the right place to demand evidence, this is also not the right place to imply I violated any policies. Please, consider rewording your comments. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather obviously, I endorse Jkelly's request for further deliberation. ElinorD (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What the?

I'm frankly quite surprised at the direction this is going. This totally needs to be reexamined. First of all, the proposed decision seems to me to be getting the facts wrong. Particularly, FoF #2 takes a very cynical take on Abu's removal of barnstars that were explicitly given to insult him. It is also wrong to say that Abu has completely ignored the RfC: FoF #2 mentions Abu's note on his own User page about the RfC: that is not ignoring it, and it is responding to it. It is correct to say he didn't take part, but when I asked him about it, he explained why in a completely calm and rational way (I mentioned this on the Evidence page). This may not have been the best decision but the proposed decision makes it seem like he took no notice of the RfC, but that's not the case. And right now the decision reflects nothing about how questionable the RfC was in the first place. FoF #9 and FoF #8 are complete cop-outs if there are actually going to be any sanctions. If you sanction him, you have got to say that he has wikistalked and he has been incivil, not merely that some users regard his actions that way. And it's just as bad to be missing what should be there: a FoF that Abu badali responds to inquiries patiently and accurately, and routinely attempts to educate new users about Wikipedia's image policies. What Abu does wrong, if anything, is (1) in trying to get images deleted, is perhaps overly argumentative and persistent, despite cases where his interpretation of image policy is not mainstream, and (2) that he tends to not respond well to inquiries about his behavior. But the worst part has got to be the remedies: why should Abu be forced to refrain from going through a user's contributions looking for more violations? Users who violate copyright or break the image use policy often do it in large quantity, and this kind of work is needed and should not be discouraged. If he's going to be placed on probation, "disruption" should not be defined so broadly. In particular, nominating multiple images from a single user should not be considered disruptive if it's not stalking, so those should not be listed as separate types of disruption. And I don't know where this whole "roleplaying" thing comes from, it's just demeaning to Abu, because it implies that he is merely pretending his sincerity in image deletion, and I don't see any convincing evidence of that at all. Mangojuice^talk 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say, what the hell? I legitimately appalud Abu badali's work in fair use images, doing stuff that few people would want to muck around with. I wimp out and only pursue the obvious non-free images of living people. Abu badali actually looks into whether that image has real fair use commentary or not. Me, I'd rather go on a nomination spree on orphaned Category:GFDL images (which gets pretty much no heat compared to non-free images that many users will die fighting for). hbdragon88 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above ElinorD (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

What I feel is intolerable is the way that he will go through you contributions deleting images... then disappear for a few weeks... then come back to target more of your edits... then disappear... then reappear targeting you again. In my opinion the way he has hounded me is truly unaccepable... regardless of whether his opinions on the images I uploaded were correct or not, he should not be allowed to continuously hunt people down like this. I feel like I'm on some sort of Abu badali watchlist and it makes me extremely angry. Not to mention the stupidity of edits like those I described on the Melissa Lingafelt page. My wikilife would be greatly improve should this scourge be removed. PageantUpdater 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is too self-centric. I don't "disappear" and "come back to target more of your edits". I'm all the time tagging images. If you seem me a lot, that's because you've uploaded (in good faith) a lot of images that needed to be deleted.

I didn't do the edits you referred in the Melissa Lingafelt page. If you believe I did, then ask for a checkuser and post the results here. But do not make such baseless accusations anymore. We have enough of them in the (so called) RFC, and quite a few on the ARB Case talk page. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments stand. The way you target my images is unacceptable. The edit I refer to at Melissa Lingafelt is this, which shows an unwaivering desire to follow policy above common sense and taking time to address each situation individually. See my comments here for why this made me so angry. As for the other issue on your page... quite likely it wasn't you who removed it... but the way you stepped in within minutes to suggest the the image be speedy deleted was simply ridiculous, and strongly backs my claim that you are unfairly targeting me and articles I edit. PageantUpdater 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for believing you were accusing me of using an anonymous IP in bad faith. But I still think you're being self-centric in stating that I target you. Indeed, the fact that many editors (like you) believe that I'm targeting them is the best evidence that I'm targeting anyone specific. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the fact that you have targeted hundreds of my edits, despite the fact that none of the articles I have contributed images to appear to fall within any interest of yours is a strong suggestion that you are targetting me personally. This is particularly because you return to targeting my images weeks and even months after you attacked other images, suggesting that you have a "hot list" or something of that nature that you check out when you are bored. Otherwise, I cannot see how conciously you would have have "happened across" the images that I have uploaded that you have nominated for deletion. If we often edited similar articles I would be less cynical, but under the present circumstances I cannot possibly explain your actions other than that you are harassing me. And, judging from comments left for me on my talk page and on the RFC and RFA, I am not the only one you are doing this too. Your desire to clean up non-free images on the site may be noble and you may be following policy in your deletion requests, but the way you deal with other editors is sorely lacking. No editor should be allowed to get away with driving other editor's off this site, or make them want to leave the site, and I strongly believe you have acheived both those ends. To the ArbCom, I would request that you please take that last bit of this message into strong consideration, and separate out the two things. PageantUpdater 05:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you want people not to "target" your images? Sorry, not going to happen. As long as a substantial part of your net contribution to Wikipedia has consisted of a series of uploads of non-free images, they will be subjected to scrutiny, possibly repeated scrutiny. In fact, it seems people haven't "targeted" these nearly enough yet. After all the fuss over Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg, for instance, I notice you still hadn't done your homework and at least got the copyright information right (the site quoted as the source is not the copyright holder.) Don't worry, I fixed that bit. But may I suggest that if you just let people do their work and worked with them instead of going into a fit each time somebody touches these images, we'd all be better off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand my message. I don't mind people tagging my images if they seriously believe they violate policy, but is the manner of Abu Badali's actions that I take serious issue with. It is clear that you are Abu badali's crony but I do ask please read what I say before you get up on your high horse. PageantUpdater 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I understood your message very well. As for "crony", I've never had any dealings with Abu that I can remember. I just irks me when I see people becoming the victims of lynchmobs. And I dislike hearing personal attacks coming out of lynchmobs too, be they directed against me or against others. I know you feel frustrated and you are angry, but please pull yourself together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored this section. I don't think this discussion really has anything to do with my comments above. Mangojuice^talk 12:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No editor should be allowed to get away with driving other editor's off this site, or make them want to leave the site- I'm in HUGE trouble then. I've blocked several editors for vandalism, thus forcing them off the site. It's perfectly OK to be firm with editors who are intent on violating policy and damaging the project, even if that causes them to be upset. Borisblue 07:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user expresses dismay

I would like to add my own respectful request for further deliberation, and am doing so in my own section, as I have my own points to make.

I am not an expert in Wikipedia image copyright policy, but am totally committed to upholding it. I have long felt that it was unfortunate that on Wikipedia some of the people whose dedication to our image copyright policy I admire tend to be abrasive when dealing with violations. I have also noticed some who are among the most patient and courteous of all our editors.

I first became aware of Abu badali after seeing a (perfectly civil) message he had left for someone whose page was on my watchlist. I looked at his own page, which at the time looked like this. I found it inappropriate. Even when image cleanup is being done by the most tactful and sensitive editors, the situation can become inflamed because, frankly, some people do resent having Wikipedia policy taking precedent over their wishes to have a well-decorated article (or user page!) and I thought that such phrases as "Abu is targeting you", "Call me a stalker", and especially "Expect me to read through your logs" were unlikely to to help in such situations. I believe it is important to give the impression that you are not tagging someone's images just for the fun of annoying that person, and that you'd like to keep people as happy as possible, while still ensuring that unfree images are not misused.

HOWEVER, my reservations over Abu's user page are the worst thing I have to say about him. If I had known him directly, rather than through having seen his message to someone that I know, I would have suggested that he change it, as that would make his work more effective, especially when dealing with a new, potentially-productive editor who is irked at not being allowed to improve the appearance of a page with a non-free image, when that image is already being used on Wikipedia. As I did not know him, I stayed out of it, but noticed recently that he voluntarily changed his user page — before the voting on this case began. (No account has been taken of that?) I also see that on 22 May, he said that he would change his page if it was considered inappropriate.[16] Given that nobody asked him to change his page, given that he indicated that he would be prepared to change it, given that some users have had much more inappropriate user page content without being subjected to ArbCom sanctions, and given that Abu badali voluntarily changed his user page before voting on this case began,[17] I cannot see that there is any cause for sanctions. In my experience, ArbCom does not waste time on cases that revolve round having "Abu is targeting you" on someone's user page. Role playing? One could agree that it doesn't help to calm down an inflamed situation, and one could argue that since people are genuinely peeved at having their images challenged, making a special effort not to add provocation would be wise and kind, but is an ArbCom sanction required here? Surely not. While it would have been better to respond to the RfC, it's not a requirement, and I cannot see that not responding is a reason even to accept an ArbCom case, let alone ruling against the "defendant".

If we leave out the now-modified (and never highly objectionable) content of his user page, what are we left with? A user who is very persistent in bringing Wikipedia pages into line with our policy on non-free content. In other words, someone who is doing The Right Thing. Is he doing it in The Wrong Way? Where is the evidence? We have evidence that a lot of people are annoyed with him. But as Jkelly pointed out, it would be easy to find 400 people who would like to get rid of our policy on non-free content altogether.

Some things which I think the current position of the ArbCom fails to take into account include:

1. Abu has given very patient and helpful answers to questions about image copyright.
2. A distinction should be made between the behaviour of someone who has shown no previous interest in image copyright and who gets into an edit conflict with a previously-unencountered editor (say, over whether or not Gillian McKeith should be called a nutritionist) and immediately begins to nominate that user's images for deletion, and that of someone who specialises in copyright issues and gets into dispute with someone over that user's copyright violations (and reaction to being told of copyright violations) and continues to look for more copyright violations. The former case is stalking; the latter is not. (In the latter case, it may be prudent to back off and ask another person to look into the copyright violations if the "target" is getting very upset and taking it personally, but there is no obligation to leave copyright violations uncorrected simply because action is upsetting people.)
3. Nobody asked Abu to change his user page, and he eventually changed it voluntarily anyway.
4. There is no evidence that Abu's "particularly strict" interpretation of image policy is stricter than the interpretation intended by the Foundation and probably favoured by people such as Jimbo Wales and Mindspillage. One of the images that he is criticised for tagging was subsequently deleted as a copyright violation by Wikipedia and Commons administrator Jkelly.
5. Abu has been subjected to a lot of abuse from people who object to having their images removed or deleted. Such abuse has included extremely vile personal attacks, threats of physical harm, and userspace vandalism. He has not engaged in such behaviour himself. Yet only one proposed principle (No. 7) clearly refers to those who attacked him. (It's not clear whether Principles 11 and 13 refer to Abu nominating images for deletion or to those who wrote about "fucking Badali" and threatened to go after him with a baseball bat; given the the context of the whole Proposed decision, I can't help fearing that the two Arbitrators were thinking of Abu.) Nine FoFs refer to Abu, and none to his attackers! And the only proposed remedy refers to Abu. This is extremely worrying.
6. While responding to an RfC is desirable, not doing so is not a violation of any policy. And when an RfC fails to give appropriate evidence of the certifiers trying and failing to resolve the dispute, and is taken over by people who have engaged in egregious personal attacks, there can be some justification for ignoring it. Reasonably courteous questions on Abu's talk page have always been responded to, as far as I know.
7. The proposals present a rather one-sided view of the conflict. For example, the statement that he "ignored and completely failed to respond" to his RfC does not mention the fact that some of the people on that page had engaged in vicious attacks, or that he responded civilly to any questions asked courteously on his talk page. The statement that many users see his actions an "incivil and even vindictive" does not mention that others disagree. The statement that he is sometimes the only person in a discussion who thinks that an image should be deleted implies that he's wrong. If he is, surely the ArbCom should give an example.
8. Remedy 1 combined with Enforcement 1 suggest that an administrator could block Abu for not responding to an RfC, even if the RfC has been taken over by people engaging in attacks. Is that really what the Committee intends? Blocking him for role playing? Since he voluntarily changed his user page, before voting began (when nobody could have imagined that the case would take the turn it has taken), what makes the ArbCom members think that there is any need for a humiliating sanction (which will further strengthen the position of aggressive, potty-mouthed, baseball-bat-wielding policy violators) rather than a gentle chat with an administrator who might suggest that it's not the best way to go about it?
9. The current proposed decisions are bad news for anyone who is active in (or, like me, intending to become active in) the often thankless task of enforcing copyright policy. I have often admired people like Jkelly and Durin who patiently carried out boring and abuse-inviting tasks of image cleanup while I was having fun creating articles and socialising. While I don't argue that Abu's behaviour has been perfect, I do not believe that it is worthy of sanction (especially considering the abusive behaviour of his detractors has not even been mentioned). While the committee certainly should not condone clearly abusive behaviour on the part of those engaging in image cleanup, I do not see any evidence that there has been such behaviour. And I think it is most important not to make things more difficult for those who engage in such thankless work.

ElinorD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Elinor for your thoughtful comments, which I of course fully endorse, just like those of Jkelly and Mangojuice above. And thank you guys for saying these things a bit more calmly than I managed to say them. I would guess that the fact that we've seen several days of complete silence on the part of the arbitrators since this debate started is actually a sign that some pretty thorough further deliberation is already underway. Maybe we can now just leave them to it for the moment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse Elinor's, Mangojuice's and Jkelly's remarks. They have said what I would like to say in a much more calm and convincing manner than I could. I ask that the Arbitration Committee please consider their remarks. --Iamunknown 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I am another user expressing dismay with the way this arbitration seems to be heading. Per all the other posters above (Jkelly, Future Perfect and Elinor). Garion96 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement here with Elinor, Mangojuice and Jkelly. As an administrator who is familiar with the nonfree image problem here in Wikipedia, I also assert that the direction this Rfarb is going is misguided. Borisblue 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how much effect this will have, but add me to the list those thoroughly endorsing Elinor, Mangojuice, Jkelly, and Fut.Perf. howcheng {chat} 23:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, FWIW there have many times when I come across a trove of improperly used non-free images, sometimes in a single article and sometimes in a number of related articles, and when confronted with that, it's awfully tempting to just NOT want to step into that nest of vipers (and yes, I've avoided those in the past just because I don't want to/don't have time to deal with them), but it seems to be that Abu always willingly and tirelessly wades into those messes in order to help clean them up, even on articles that have staunch defenders, like Yom Kippur War, for which his reward is to suffer personal attacks from respected users like User:El C and even arbitrators (User:Raul654 -- see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 27#Yom Kippur War images for examples). howcheng {chat} 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be less calm in my reaction. The Signpost summary of the proposed decision was a real shocker for me. I was made aware of this case through a group of users demanding Abu badali's immediate banning on the Pump, after this case had started, apparently for no other reason that to encourage more people to light torches and bring out the pitchforks. Unusually, I read through the case up that point, probably since I deal with similarly annoyed people during my occasional CSD bouts. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Abu badali would be cautioned to avoid aggravating the wounded feelings of uploaders and that the arbitrators would take the opportunity to make clear that the GFDL is not subject to consensus, no matter how many pissed off people think it is. I also thought there would remedies against the users who uploaded numerous poorly explained non free images and then went into a whine-fest when someone called them on it, including up to blocks. I never even considered that the arbitrators would take a stance weakening efforts to keep the "freedom" of the wiki above reproach, nevertheless that they would do so in such a hostile manner. I'll repeat someone above and repeat "what the?" - BanyanTree 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that I realize that arbitrators do a difficult job, and no intent to disparage them is meant. - BanyanTree 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FoF 5 and 6

Kirill has just confirmed his criticism of Abu ([18]) with reference to Fred's "Finding of fact 5": "Abu badali consistently interprets our non-free image use policy in the strictest way of anyone involved in the issue. Frequently in deletion discussion he deems the use of an image to be against policy when all other parties believe that our policy permits its use."

This FoF, especially the parts I highlighted, is factually wrong, or else I'd like to see concrete evidence of it. Yes, it is true of course that he represents a point near the stricter end of the continuum of opinions, but he is by no means alone there, and in all those occasions that I've seen where his intervention led to some amount of debate, he ended up with support from at least some well-respected administrators and image experts. I think the situation on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 6 is fairly representative. It's also worth noting that most of the images cited on the evidence page as examples of his bad judgment or exaggerated deletion claims were in fact subsequently deleted. Admins found he was right. Of course, given the sheer numbers, there will be occasions where he made some error of judgment, that's natural.

Just as wrong is the following "Finding of Fact 6": "...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."

The two conditional clauses here imply that the reaction of average uploaders/users to deletion challenges is typically rational, reliably distinguishing between deletion proposals that are backed by policy and those that are not. I can confirm that this is not the case. The amount of displeasure sparked by deletions is not a function of how "mainstream" the interpretation of policy is, but a function of how attached uploaders are to their images. In fact, you can easily spark a huge uproar and find yourself called "a bunch of maroons" ([19]) be called for desysoping ([20]) or summarily "banned" ([21]) for doing something as mainstream as suggesting that screenshots in movie articles should be used to illustrate specific points of analysis, or that lists of TV episodes should not be overloaded with decorative images from each of a hundred episodes. Reactions in such cases are often not very "tempered" at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially interesting since those two proposals were added by Quadell in the workshop, who discovered that Abu's interpretation of policy is not as unusually strict as he had previously thought. See his comment here. Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I too would be interested in any evidence the Arbitration Committee has to support those generalisations. Regarding FoF #6, in my experience, it is simply false. Displeasure is not "often tempered", even when the image should clearly be deleted. For one example, see Special:Undelete/Image:Rhodesia_dak3.jpg. The image description page stated,

"The website states that "Please contact me before using [the images] at [email removed], permission will be freely given on condition that the pictures are credited to me."

"Email was sent requesting permission and stating that the image will be available freely but acknowledgment will be given both in caption and on the image description page.

"Reply was "Thanks for asking [name removed, accessible in deleted revision], some of mine are already on Wikipedia without me being asked, but its not the end of the World, please go ahead, credits will be great to the website and me.""

and was marked with {{cc-by-2.5}}. That permission, however, in nowise suggests that the copyright holder licensed the work under CC-BY-2.5, and it should have clearly been deleted, barring clarification from the copyright holder. It was deleted, but not after a very insulting (towards me) and ill-tempered conversation at WP:PUI ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26]), where I was deemed a "photonazi", among other things. The image should clearly have been deleted. Did the uploader respond in good temper? No. Nor do many uploaders, as would be suggested in the statement, "When this nomination is due to a clear application of policy, backed by community consensus, this displeasure is often tempered." This generalisation is, at least in my experience, false; if it is to be deemed true, and my experience to be deemed out of the ordinary, where is the evidence? --Iamunknown 20:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For another characteristic example of what image cleaners have to put up with on a daily basis, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Image:Trevglaad.jpg. It would tax the patience of a saint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not even that bad. Look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 27#Image:Aman Yom Kippur 1973 Analyses Summery.jpg, where I am accused of all sorts of things by a fellow administrator. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to see User:OrphanBot/honors, particularly the section "Get rid of this damn thing NOW!!!" --Carnildo 02:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I, too, believe that FoF #5 and #6 are factually incorrect. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how incorrect FoF#5 is, as I haven't read all the discussions, but I do think it is unwise, as it seems to support a view that if many users show up to argue in favour of using a copyrighted image, the one person who objects must be wrong. I've seen examples of the majority being wrong in discussions of fair use. I recall for example a case where Wikipedia and Commons administrator Jkelly deleted an Associated Press image, stating that the image was image from Associated Press, a commercial information provider, and was not used in an article about AP. Another administrator undeleted, and reprimanded Jkelly for not respecting consensus. The image was quickly redeleted by Jimbo Wales, who put in the deletion log that it was a copyright violation.[27] I read the discussion on the talk pages of both administrators, and even without Jimbo's intervention, I was convinced that Jkelly was absolutely correct, as he made the point (overlooked by the other administrator) that Wikipedia Fair Use policy is not identical to American Fair Use law.

Regarding FoF#6, I think perhaps the Committee members are not fully aware of how peeved even some of our best users can be when an image which improves the appearance of an article they care about is nominated for deletion or removed from an article they are working on. I have seen several cases of administrators or outstanding FA writers responding to deletion of an unsourced image, to removal of a non-free image from userspace, or to a message about copyright problems with such edit summaries or remarks as "dumping more shit", "fuck off", "it was in my fucking sandbox", and "the fool who deleted it . . . should be de-sysoped and banned for life". In all those cases, the image cleanup person was courteous and non-aggressive, but the other person reacted with something approaching fury. And these furious editors are not disruptive trolls; they are highly-valued users who would be a great loss to Wikipedia, but in these cases, they were wrong. I would really urge the Committee to please listen to the small number of respected users who are active in the unpopular task of image cleanup, and to accept their statements that even good users react with unreasonable anger to deletion or removal of images, and that the anger of such users in these cases is not an indication that the copyright policy enforcer is being obnoxious or engaging in any wrongdoing. ElinorD (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FoF #8 and #9

I'm confused about finding of fact #8 and #9. I briefly examined previously concluded requests for arbitration (in particular, Tobias Conradi and Betacommand), and in the finding of facts in those four cases, the Arbitration Committee clearly came to a conclusion based upon the evidence presented. For example, FoF #6 in Tobias Conradi states,

"Tobias Conradi is sometimes quite rude. Called on his behavior, he habitually responds with a rejoinder of some sort, see Talk:Jambi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence#Incivility, a particularly egregious example.";

FoF #9 in Betacommand states,

"After concerns were raised about his automated reporting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ([71]), on 28 February 2007 and continuing through 2 March, Betacommand began to report large numbers of obvious username violations at WP:AIV ( [72], [73], [74], [75])."

Neither of these finding of facts say anything similar to, "Many users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive"; we know that some users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive, as we know that some users see Tobias Conradi as rude and some users see Betacommand as disruptive.

The difference is that, in the previous finding of facts, the Arbitration Committee clearly stated relevant information which could be decided upon examining the evidence. FoF #8 and #9 of this case, however, merely state what can be decided upon examining the evidence—that some users think Abu badali is incivil, or engages in wikistalking—but fail to attach any relevance. We know that some editors think Abu badali is incivil or engages in wikistalking; but what does the Arbitration Committe, upon examining the evidence and sifting through it all, think? If they think that Abu badali has been incivil, they should state something to the effect, "Abu badali is often incivil [list relevant diffs here]"; if they think he has engaged in wikistalking, they should state something to the effect, "Abu badali has a history of engaging in wikistalking. Events include [list events here]" (straight from Betacommand FoF #14).

So, which is it? Has Abu badali often been incivil? (And please list relevant diffs, and realize that even a brief list of diffs does not support the accusation of "often [being] incivil".) Has he engaged in wikistalking? (Probably by linking to the evidence page and throwing support behind one of the relevant presentations.) It is not clear right now, because the finding of facts depend upon the conditionals "sometimes" and "Many users", respectively. --Iamunknown 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. WP:WEASEL should apply here as well as to articles. howcheng {chat} 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. And in the section above this (concerning FoFs 5 and 6), I have pointed out that the image copyright policy is one policy which does annoy a lot of good and bad users — administrators, FA writers, and disruptive trolls. So the fact that "many users" object to what Abu is doing is not really something which merits a mention, in my opinion, unless the ArbCom backs up the mention with its own opinion. "Many users find Abu uncivil, and their opinions seem justified for X, Y, and Z reasons" OR "Many users find Abu uncivil, but little evidence has been submitted of egregious civility violations on his part, and the image copyright policy is so unpopular that even good users tend to take offence at those who enforce it."

I stress again that unreasonably furious reactions to image copyright cleanup are not at all uncommon, even from respected (and sometimes extremely nice) users, and are in no way an indication of improper behaviour from the policy enforcer. I'd like also to make the point that when someone is as active in image copyright issues as Abu badali, it is inevitable that some of the copyright violations he discovers will be from people he has had less than pleasant interactions with in the past. As I mentioned in a section above ("Another user expresses dismay"), there is a difference between on the one hand someone who does little image work, squabbles with someone over other issues, and begins to nominate their images for deletion and on the other hand someone who nominates dozens of unsourced or copyrighted images for deletion every day and inevitably comes in conflict with the same users again.

I'd like to state also that while I know little of Abu badali, I know other editors who are definitely courteous and patient, and who get subjected to abuse because they are active in the very unpopular image policy. I uploaded copyrighted images to Commons shortly after registering, and Jkelly dealt with it very tactfully and sensitively, answering all my copyright questions promptly and patiently. Yet I know for a fact that some users who strongly dislike our image policy have been extremely annoyed by his attempts to enforce that policy. I have also seen examples of people reacting very badly to removal of images carried out by Durin, who is a Commons administrator, and have seen people accusing him of targetting them personally, when in fact he was simply going through fair use images, one by one, and removing them from userspace, and keeping the userspace on his watchlist so that he could see if the users reverted him (which they often did). Like Jkelly, Durin is an editor who I know has given patient and helpful answers to people who did not understand our image policies. ElinorD (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell's grave concerns

Greetings. I'm very active in Wikipedia's image policy, I wrote the {{Replaceable fair use}} template, and I wrote several of the workshop's "proposed principles" and "findings of fact" that made it (in revised form) onto this page. I have some grave concerns about the proposed decision. I'll try to be succinct.

In a nutshell: Please do not pass a decision that will make it much harder to enforce Wikipedia's non-free content policy.

Wikipedia has a policy on non-free content, but it is routinely ignored. Category:Publicity photographs, for instance, has umpteen bajillion images, and a random sampling shows that well over half of the images there are blatant violations of our policies -- they are used only to illustrate a living person (e.g.) or available item (e.g.), they have no rationale (e.g.), or they directly compete with the copyright holder (e.g.), for instance. These are just the obvious cases -- many more would be deleted if put on WP:IFD. Hundreds (literally) of new out-of-policy images are uploaded every day. There's a huge backlog, and very few users willing to work on it. I think there are around a dozen of us who consistently delete images or tag them for deletion, and only four or five who do most of the work. We're really at the point where we need to either encourage more admins to get involved in image deletion, or else give up and accept that our image use policy is not going to be enforced.

Why is this such a neglected area of Wikipedia policy? Because it's thankless. Deletion workers generally do not get barnstars for their work; instead, we get constant accusations and incivility.[28] Personally I delete hundreds of out-of-policy images every day[29], and I am very careful to only delete images that are clearly against policy. (I'm on the liberal end of the spectrum; my fellow non-free-image-policy-wonks often think I err too often on the side of keeping images.) I have users threatening me and insulting me on my talk page regularly[30], and I'll even get the occasional snide comment from a fellow administrator.[31] This is despite the fact that I work extremely hard to be unwaveringly polite and helpful, no matter how I am spoken to. The fact is, many users who care about (for example) a movie star, and spend the time finding and uploading attractive images of her, react very negatively when such images are deleted. (This is not a reason to keep such images.) As a consequence, the only people willing to do image deletion are those with the temperament that can take constant anger and abuse. And many cannot take the stress and quit doing imagework due to the threats and vitriol.[32][33]

You shouldn't be required to be perfect to tag an image with {{rfu}} or list an image at WP:IFD. Yes, it's a delicate area and sensitivity is called for, and you might choose to correct Abu badali for sarcasm on his userpage, for instance. But any honest weighing of the incivility given by Abu and the incivility received by Abu would not lead to an overly harsh decision.

The proposed remedy #1 would effectively prevent Abu from doing image work at all. Anyone who objected to him listing an image for deletion (and many do) could argue that his listing was disruptive. I am confident that uninvolved but unsympathetic admins would be asked weekly to block Abu badali, even if his actions were strictly in line with policy. Further, this would have a chilling effect on the rest of us, making it much harder for us to deal with inappropriate images. I have no doubt that an RfAr against Chowbok would follow quickly, along with ones against Howcheng and myself. Already, we are routinely threatened with arbitration for enforcing policy[34][35], and such a decision would undoubtably be used as a weapon against all of us (see especially [36]). Unless it is clear that the arbcom "has our back", I don't see how we can continue to deal with non-free images.

I emphatically implore you, in the strongest terms, to come to a ruling that (a) explicitly thanks Abu badali for his hard work in enforcing policy by tagging so many images for deletion, (b) recognizes his many, many instances of civility in the face of personal attacks, in a way commensurate with the recognition of his few cases of borderline or subtle incivility, (c) deplores the frequent incivility against Abu, (d) corrects Abu's incivility as appropriate, with links to instances, and (e) does not in any way discourage admins from getting involved in clearing out the non-free image backlog.

Most sincerely, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally endorse Quadell's statement here, as well as (as previously stated) the comments before his. Garion96 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I too wholeheartedly endorse Quadell's statement. howcheng {chat} 15:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not heavily involved in image policy on Wikipedia, but I have followed enough discussions and seen enough incivility on talk pages to agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. I have been working with Quadell on something unrelated to image policies, and it is rather disconcerting to see the regular tide of vitriol poured on this user and others who do similar work, usually from people who fail to understand Wikipedia's image policy. Sometimes, and this is encouraging, some people do seem to understand what they are being told, and they change their behaviour and add rationales and understand why an image needs to be deleted. Changing image culture on something like Wikipedia will be a long, hard battle, and it is one that the ArbCom needs to support. Carcharoth 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another endorsement. Seriously, one only need look at the series of events at User talk:Quadell#Destructive deletion, User talk:Mosquera and WP:ANI#Replaceable non-free images to get a feel for what image taggers deal with. An image, that was clearly replaceable and clearly should have been deleted instead went through a two- to three-hour very heated argument where Quadell was accused of, among other things, admin abuse, wikistalking and canvassing. (All such accusations were refuted by a majority of editors.) Image tagging is incredibly taxing; please don't make it more so. --Iamunknown 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. Image tagging is a thankless job. Those who do it deserve our thanks and support. Bad behaviour should not be condoned just because people are helping in that task, but having a userpage which makes fun of those who object to image tagging (though not by name, and not in a way that targets any particular user) and not responding to a very abusive RfC do not, in my view, fall into the category of misbehaviour that merits ArbCom sanctions; and continuing to tag images for deletion when those images violate our policy, despite the anger of and abuse from people who disagree with that policy, is not misbehaviour at all. ElinorD (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. I have taken some shots marking blatant copyvios for deletion, so I know how frustrating it can be. It should also be noted that reviewing a particular editor's contributions is specifically permitted by our behavior guidelines. If nobody did this work, WP would quickly find itself on the business end of infringement lawsuits. Please don't make it harder. Support his efforts and work with him on remaining civil in the face of abuse. -- But|seriously|folks  23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A Plea for Civility

In a nutshell: Please do not pass a decision that will make it much easier to enable harassment, vandalism, and incivility in the name of Wikipedia's non-free content policy.

Speaking as a recent victim of wikistalking in the name of "ïmage tagging" by Mr. Badali, Quadell, and others, I can testify to their deep disdain for rationality, civility and common decency. In fact, I am now being treated above as an example of those deserving harassment and threat. Here, as elsewhere, so-called enforcement is random, irrational, and has no workable due process. This is not proper Wikipedia procedure.

Image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation, which reasonable people can disagree about. Unfortunately, in many of these instances, one user cites one's own unsupported opinion as consensus. Often a “disputed” fair image is not actually disputed.

No matter what an editor says in a rationale, virtually all “disputed” images are generally deleted anyway. (Often this occurs well before the “seven days” is up.) Typically, images get deleted for ideological reasons without any consideration of the discussion. These practices and the ongoing lack of accountability drives numerous editors away from our project.

In many cases, the contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.

Deletion “workers” generally do not deserve barnstars for their work. They are constantly warned about ongoing incivility, which they deliberately ignore. Rather than consider repeated constructive criticism, they simply become more authoritarian and caustic. Abu Badali even taunts his targets.

In fact, Mr. Badali is just one of an entire breed of wikilawyers. His deliberate incivility acts to provoke others into actions that will enable him to present them to the community as trouble makers. I am tired of this fellow after just one incident and would prefer to stay away from him and not feed a troll. Trouble is, he interjected himself by joining an inquisition to erase many hours of my labor and donated contribution, so I feel the need to speak out against injustice,

We're really at the point where we need to either fix a broken system or stop including images entirely. “Enforcement” of the prevalent interpretation hurts Wikipedia. I am deeply concerned that the harassment tactics of Abu Badali and his comrades will continue – and even get worse – in the name of policy. Mosquera 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! That is exactly how I feel. I appreciate the need for the non-free image policy and I feel that the essence of Abu badali's work is good, but on the whole his treatment of other editors is in many cases appaling. Harassment (particularly over a long period of time) of users who upload non-free content in good faith should be prevented and not condoned by this RFA. PageantUpdater 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please? In the evidence page, Abu has diffs of people calling him a "vandal", "hooligan", and a "punk", another user encouraging a vandal who defaced his user page to participate in his RFC- while all the diff'd evidence against him so far are diffs of him tagging bad images without rationale- (and a large number of those images did end up getting deleted by consensus). Sure, it is clear that he has gone through the contribs of the most persistent and callous offenders, but when I come across a vandal, I always do a thorough check of his contribs. What's the difference? Abu has not hurled personal abuse, Abu has responded to queries when asked nicely. There is nothing in the evidence page that even remotely suggests otherwise. Borisblue 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Increasingly I feel like my statements have been ignored despite the fact that it was I that instituted the RFC. Please read my comments about the treatment of the Melissa Lingafelt argument here and here. I cannot believe that this is anything other than harassment (given the long period of time that he has been targetting my images, the spaces between his targetting my images, and the fact that he hit on the Melissa Lingefelt image hardly more than an hour after a vandal removed the image fromt he article. It is the last thing that I find hardest to fathom. PageantUpdater 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in many of these instances, one user cites one's own unsupported opinion as consensus. Often a “disputed” fair image is not actually disputed. You say this with one breath and then virtually all “disputed” images are generally deleted anyway in another. Have you considered that you are the one citing "unsupported opinion as consensus?" If Abu is the one misrepresenting his personal opinion as consensus, how on earth is he winning all those IFD debates? It is clear that if he is successfully getting his disputed images deleted, then his conception of consensus is closer to truth than yours. Borisblue 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Badali deserves complaints when he commits bad acts. Mosquera 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of bad acts. He has been less that civil at times, but upholding Wikipedia's image policy is not a bad act, no matter how many people object to it. I'm sure we could forge consensus here that posting complete mp3's of songs is acceptable, but that would not make it so. -- But|seriously|folks  23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of those bad acts please? Has he threatened a user with physical harm for instance? All I see in the evidence page is that Abu tags image with flimsy fair use claims for deletion. (edit conflict) Borisblue 23:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not instances of "bad acts" that are the problem, but his low-key and subtle harassment over a long period of time that are the problem. Read my comments above. I am tearing my hair out at the way this is going and am practically in tears... this guy has made my time on Wikipedia hellish and people are either totally missing the point or pretending it's not happening. No user should be allowed to make another feel this belittled and harassed. I have never been made to feel this way by any person on any internet forum and what makes me feel sick is that you guys are letting him getting away with it. I just cannot get across how upset and angry I am. PageantUpdater 01:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, please let me respectfully ask you something that will require you some deep though: Have you considered that the real source for all your frustration feelings regarding Wikipedia may be the fact that you misunderstood what Wikipedia was really about from the beginning? You have made a lot of contributions, written dozens of articles and uploaded hundred of carefully selected images. You clearly enjoy sharing your knowledge about the topic you love, pageants. But it turned out that not everything you had to contribute (and indeed contributed) was inline with Wikipedia's goals. Some few of your articles were considered unfit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, a lot of the images you carefully selected and uploaded were also not acceptable for the project. Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" slogan may be misguiding sometimes: Everyone is welcome to contribute, but not all contributions are welcome. It's a wonderful thing that the vast majority of your contributions were completely inline with the project goals, and a lot of good articles we have today would probably not even exist if it weren't for you.

Please, do not take offense when some of your contributions are considered unsuitable. It's not that you did a bad job. But more that your goals and those of the project didn't intersected at that specific point.

It's up to you to avoid your frustration feelings. Cultivating a fantasy of persecution doesn't do you any good. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My growing collection of barnstars suggests that your views are not shared by others. And I repeat, I take no offense at the fact that you tag my images for deletion if you strongly believe they do not meet criteria. It is the manner in which you target my images that I take strong issue with. Is that ever going to get through to you and the others on here that are obviously blind to what I'm trying to get across. PageantUpdater 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So your barnstars legtimize your point of view? All right then, it's not like Abu has ever received any. PageantUpdater, I am one of those users who are regretfully blind to what you are trying to get across. Would you be so kind as to provide me with some diffs? I've noticed, that despite your vehement condemnations on this page, you don't even have an entry on the evidence page. Borisblue 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They do not "legitimize" anything, I was just making the point that others don't necessarily share Abu badali's point of view. As for diffs... well where do I start? The problem is that many have disappeared with deleted image and, sad to say, I don't have the hours needed to sort the mess out. Early November 2006: Abu tags a whole lot of my images for deletion without notifying me, once the policy is explained I accept the images must be deleted, Nov 2006: Abu badali tries to trick me, January 2007: Badali comments out an image based on a simple mistake with a link, but is so preoccupied with the image that he doesn't see the clear-as-day problem with the link, months after dealing with him Badali nominates another one of my images for deletion, Late Nov: Badali disputes] Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg (which had already been the topic of much conversation), against consensus to keep. 2 May - months after my last dealing with him, Badali proposes the deletion of Image:KatieBlair.jpg, 14 May Less than two hours after an anon editor removes an image from an article, Badali tags the image as "orphaned", 19 May - Badali reappears on the scene, tagging another image for deletion, 30 May he strikes again, taunting me as well this time, 13 June strikes again, 18 June steps in for the kill. Now answer me this... considering the article these images were posted have never been edited by Abu badali outside him tagging the images, how on earth could all this happen if he wasn't "stalking" my contributions. And why such big gaps between some of this stuff? This is harassment plain and simple and I refuse to consider it as anything else - and if you don't think it's harassment well you're just plain dumb. Try having that happen to you and see how it feels. And let me repeat for the umpteenth time... I don't care that these images are being nominated for deletion. That's the way Wikipedia works. But what I certainly don't care for is the way that Abu badali tracks what I do and pages I edit when they have nothing to do with him at all. If they were pages he was editing regularly I can imagine him noticing the images, but as I say, this is nothing but harassment. And what you guys think doesn't reallly matters... what should matter is the fact that I have felt persecuted. Even if you don't think he has done it... he has made me feel that way and that is what should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. PageantUpdater 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the diffs emerge. Of course, almost all of these diffs involve image tagging in accordance with policy, rather than any evidence of abuse. And you've cleverly misconstrued Abu's effort to patiently and courteously explain his actions as "taunting". Please find better diffs for the evidence page. Anyway, firstly, note that your image of Katie Blair was in fact deleted; ergo, consensus agreed with Abu that that Image's use was not legitimate on Wikipedia. You admit that a lot of your interactions with Abu occur in the talk page of deleted images. This cannot have happened unless you had uploaded these illegitimate images (failed IFD= illegitimate by consensus). I look at the contribs of a persistent spammer because odds are good that most of his "contributions' are spam that I need to remove. Answer me this: is it not reasonable to assume that a user who has persistently uploaded illegitimate images has done so in the past, and will likely do so in the future? WP:HARASS explicitly says harassment 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;Borisblue 04:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent, ec, then removed by another user (accidentally I'm sure)) I'm not sure, but I suspect the gaps in time might be due to the large quantities of images that violated policies. A quick look at the log shows well over a hundred. I know when I'm tagging things, I try to avoid posting a large number of tags for one person at one time, for fear they will just get angry. Please note also that reviewing a particular editor's contributions for violations is specifically permitted by our behavior guidelines and is not considered Wikistalking. Some projects actively encourage it. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens when editors upload large numbers of questionable images. -- But|seriously|folks  04:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few of those images were supported by other users (including Image:ChelsiMissUSA.jpg intially deleted by an inattentive admin and then replaced. You seem to intimate that I am a spammer which I find insulting, particularly since all the images I have uploaded were in good faith. You might also notice that most of the images that were eventually deleted wre the result of an extremely tenuous IFD decision which a number of editors believed was decided against consensus. If you look at what I am alleging, there were issues concerning more than image tagging... noone has yet acknowledged the issues with the Melissa Lingafelt article. PageantUpdater 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pageant, most of your diffs simply show images being nominated for deletion according to policy. You misrepresent them with descriptions like "strikes again" and "steps in for the kill", but the links simply point to images being nominated for deletion (and all of them were indeed deleted!).

About the "Badali comments out an image based on a simple mistake with a link" - Are you accusing me of.... committing a mistake? How dare you? :) . There was a reference link that when clicked turned out to be a "404 - Page not found". I commented out the referenced text with a clear Edit Summary so that others could fix it. No, I haven't noticed that the problem was with wiki-syntax. Was that an offense?

Also, I had the impression that you see something strange on the event where I tagged a orphan non-free image "less than tow hours" after an Anon orphaned it. Let me ask this straightly this time: Do you believe I had some involvement with the removal of the image from the article? If so, please state the accusation clearly and start collecting evidence. If you don't think I'm involved, just stop retelling this story. In the case it makes some difference, I state that I have no involvement with the image removal from the article. Everyone is free to believe I'm a liar, but I ask those to do that openly or simply stop this disguised accusation.

About your "barnstars" reply above, are you sure you read my comment correctly? I praised your contributions to the project in the comment. Do you have barnstars disagreeing with that? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are issues concerning more than image tagging, please submit diffs concerning more than image tagging. And I never accused you of being a spammer, please don't put words in my mouth.Borisblue 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that Mosquera makes this plea for civility, then replicates a boiler plate accusation of stalking to three talk pages [37][38][39]. User:Mosquera ostensibly left this message to me because I properly removed a number of fair use images of living people from articles today. These images were uploaded by him. I attempted to clarify this issue to him here, let him know I'd removed 12 such images here and pointed him here to relevant discussion that outlined the policy here. He's obviously rather agitated that people are exercising the Foundation mandated policy of eliminating fair use imagery of living people. --Durin 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that reviewing a particular editor's contributions for violations is specifically permitted by our behavior guidelines and is not Wikistalking. -- But|seriously|folks  00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand: Mr. Badali and the rest have a long history of hiding behind political hobby horses, then refusing to take responsibility for their disruptive actions. They prooftext policy to support attacking those who disagree with them. Mr. Badali even makes a joke of it. Unless the anti-fair use hysteria ends, Wikipedia will be torn asunder. Mosquera 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the so-called "anti-fair use hysteria" will ever end because it's entirely out of in line with the Foundation's non-free licensing goals. howcheng {chat} 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now. howcheng {chat} 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Mosquera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who posted the above "plea for civility" has been confirmed by checkuser to be the same as Yakuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who, the day before making the above post, posted on another page related to this case, making further complaints against Abu badali's image tagging.[40] The same checkuser also found another sockpuppet Tarmikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created to evade a block issued to Mosquera. ElinorD (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The balance here

It seems to me this decision places the Arbs in the need of finding a difficult balance. There is a need to separate Abu's positive contributions to the project from those that are harmful. He continues to admit to closely following the contributions of editors he is dispute with. In a number of cases this attention has been felt so aggressive that valuable contributors of content have left the project for some time. Some of our best writers won't understand copyright - its important that they be worked with in a collegiate manner rather than simply have images they upload tagged for deletion without proper explanation of the problem. I think Abu needs to be sanctioned to stop following the contribs of those he has been in dispute with - there are plenty of other people who will spot problem uploads without the matter seeming quite so personal.

ArbCom need to take a strong stand on the over-aggressive use of image tagging when involved in dispute with the uploader, which comes across as overly hostile and may lead to us losing valuable contributors. On the other hand, Abu does a lot of work in an understaffed area - his dedication should be commended. I don't think these results should be incompatible but I'm worried that Abu shows no signs of moving away from the problem behaviour. WjBscribe 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you consider, in this regard, an editor with whom you are in dispute? If I delete a copyvio from Wikipedia:Copyright problems I for sure will check out the editor's contribution log. If I delete/tag an image from one editor and another editor comes complaining about that on my talk page, I most likely will check his contribution history. If an editor comes complaining about copyright nazi's on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content I will probably be inclined to check his contribution history too. Garion96 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a difficult line. But if you say had a disagreement with someone several month ago that was heated - would you still now be checking their contribs to see if you could find problem uploads when you know that'll be inflammatory. Or might you let someone else handle it to avoid drama? It is the fact that Abu seems unable to let go old grudges that concerns me most. WjBscribe 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he has any "old grudges" to let go of. What you seemed to be in fact talking about, and what may be more the real issue, is that he acts regardless of any "old grudges" others have against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evidence page does mention some instances where Abu followed a user to non-image related areas and started scrutinizing their work. If he's going to describe himself as an image patroller, he should expect that people will take his attention to non-image-related areas as a special degree of attention, and that crosses the line to stalking. Also, in his interaction with me, he dug through my history to find actions he disagreed with. It's hard to say what his motives were in doing that: on the one hand, if he was just trying to correct incorrect decisions, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the way it came up during a moderately heated discussion implies to me that he was doing it to get the upper hand in an argument, or to try to discredit me by making me go on the defensive. That's the kind of use of logs I don't think is the best idea. (See my comment on the evidence page for a link to the conversation.) Mangojuice^talk 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what WJBscribe and Mangojuice are describing as "heated discussion" I would more or less describe as "discussions where the other party was "heated" towards me". --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never described our interaction as heated. I remember getting annoyed but only at the end, when you had made several unrelated complaints from things pulled out of my logs. Actually looking back on it, I think it was quite civil on both sides. But nonetheless, I think the way you used the logs there could be reasonably described as "aggressive." Mangojuice^talk 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for putting words on your mouth. I extrapolated that from "moderately heated discussion". --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I did say that.  :) Anyway, I don't think the exchange was heated until after the logs got used. Though there was obviously still a disagreement. Mangojuice^talk 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I interacted with to you, I read through your logs. I do that to everyone, indiscriminately. It wasn't intended to weight in parallel discussions. It never is. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I interacted with to you, I read through your logs. I do that to everyone, indiscriminately. - But you've said several times to me, quoting WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Here, you explicitly state you DON'T focus on the content, but on the contributors! I would say that's probably a large part of the problems you have with other editors here. If your entire style is, "Delete some images, see who responds, then target the rest of their contributions," you're doing it wrong. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenolen, I think that you have it backwards. Abu badali is strictly saying that he focuses on the content, and does not discrimnate by contributor. --Iamunknown 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Focusing your spotlight on a certain contributor is not the same as commenting on the contributor. The quote you cite means don't engage in name calling, ad hominem attacks, or baseless accusations. It does not mean "ignore other policy violations by the same contributor that you might not be able to determine without reading their logs". howcheng {chat} 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this most recent response from Abu sums up the problem. You really shouldn't think that just because you do it to everyone, no one will be offended. Rather, by doing it to everyone you should expect that many people will be offended. In my case, I was somewhat annoyed, because I don't think you had a good reason to suspect I had made mistakes on a large scale. And it's one thing to go through logs a little, and look at someone's user and talk page, to get a sense of who they are, and it's quite another to comb their contributions looking for images to tag, and confronting them with mistakes you think you've found. In a sense, doing what you did to me can escalate a disagreement into a conflict, and that kind of action should be avoided, because while conflict is worth it in the right circumstances, it should not be sought after. Mangojuice^talk 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How is As I interacted with to you, I read through your logs. supposed to mean anything other than interacting with Abu means he will look at all of your contributions because they are YOUR contribution? Shouldn't he be focused on the MATERIAL, not the individual editors who contribute it? If he simply started at images which begin with the letter "A" and worked his way down, he'd have a much better claim to "I am only being a random enforcer of policy," as opposed to the NUMEROUS editors he has had personal conflict with over his admitted "targeting" policy. Secondly, all of the about a dozen or so images I've every uploaded to Wikipedia were WITHIN POLICY when they were uploaded; if policy changes (and fair use has morphed in to a much different beast now called "non free content"), how is it possible that Abu has probable cause to continue his "targetting"? Every image I've ever uploaded has been within policy, when it was uploaded. And because policy changed, and I think it changed too far, that puts MY contributions, specifically, to the top of the "Delete everything this guy has done" list? (And yes, my contribution to the evidence section backs this up.) If all he really cares about is the material, then Abu should never target individual editors. If, as you claim, there's plenty of fair use clean up to be done, Abu could have quite the career deleting just that material, and never making it personal. But here, he admits to making it personal. And that's wrong. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, reviewing a particular editor's contributions for violations is specifically permitted by our behavior guidelines and is not Wikistalking. In fact, it is encouraged by the New Page Patrol, Project WikiSpam and others. I can tell you from personal experience that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Shouldn't the contributions of an editor who has uploaded images that do not comply with current policy receive greater scrutiny than a random editor? -- But|seriously|folks  02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that looking at another users contributions when you first discover they have uploaded a suspect image is okay, but what I think is totally unacceptable is coming back to look at that users contributions months after that first issue occurred... then coming back months later again. That is what has happened to me and I think that is nothing but harassment. I cannot see that this would have happened apart from Abu badali keeping some sort of "hot list" to check back on, and again, I feel that that is harassment. Images I have uploaded have only ever been in good faith and in all but one instance been deleted only because of an extremely tenuous discussion that could have gone either way. Your cabal is blind if you believe what he is doing is acceptable, and shame on all of you for thinking that it is okay for us Wikipedians to be treated that way. PageantUpdater 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is a problem. The question is, do you persist in the same behavior? Think about it from the other perspective. If I'm the one "monitoring" other users, the first time is as you describe above, the "where there's smoke there's fire" idea (as BSF put it). Then a month or two later, I run across this person again randomly. I might check up on their contributions to see if they've learned from their past mistakes. If yes, then I probably won't check them again. If not, then I'm going to target their errors again. Lather, rinse, repeat. howcheng {chat} 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For some users, like PageantUpdater, Earl Andrew or User:Jack Cox for instance, there are so many images to be deleted that it's hard to go through the whole log at once. I don't see what's the problem with not nominating all of the 200-or-more images at once.

PageantUpdater, since you're so uncomfortable with such "encounters", have you considered going yourself through your logs and tagging with {{db-author}} all images you now understand are against the policy? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is, do you persist in the same behavior? - And what about those of us whose "behavior" was to work with admins to make sure all of our limited number of images were tagged and sourced properly? Then watched as the whole foundation under which those good faith and policy compliant contributions were annihiliated? Then watched as all of our OTHER contributions were targetted by the same people doing the image deleting? Because, you know, we were now breaking a rule that didn't previously exist, so obviously, we had to be "checked up on" repeatedly. I NEVER BROKE AN IMAGE RULE. Ever. And yet, I was wiki-stalked by Abu, because I dared to speak up, and the evidence speaks for itself. And it continues to this day. Abu dug through my logs, found another image that he could nominate, and went throught the whole IFD/DRV process, on a completely harmless image, of a deceased actor, whose copyright status was NOT in question, and could have easily been WP:SOFIXIT'd, if he had any concern about eliminating encyclopedic content. He doesn't. It's a game of "gotcha," that's all it is. And Abu is among the best there is. But he DOES target users, inappropriately, and he should be reprimended for that. Just stick to random images - not sifting through user logs. Make it about the work, not the contributor... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sincere question for Jenolen: What if all the images you uploaded in good faith had been deleted because of the new replaceability concerns, but it wasn't done by one person and your logs weren't used? I mean, imagine if you will that ten different users nominated all of your images for deletion, but did so in alphabetical order, going through everyone's A's and then everyone's B's, etc. The result would be the same: your properly tagged and sourced images would have all been deleted for the same reasons. But no one would have targeted you or looked through your logs, and there wouldn't have been a single person who did it all. Would you still have been upset? Would this have been a better situation, in your opinion?

For many people, I know it wouldn't matter. They would be mad to see their work "annihilated", no matter how it was done. Abu just wouldn't be the focus of their anger. But for some, maybe it does matter. I'm just curious how you feel about it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question: How do you know that he dug through your logs to find this last image? Did he admit that somewhere (I didn't see it in your evidence)? If not, isn't equally possible that he came to that image randomly, clicked on it, looked at the uploader and thought, "Ah crap, it's Jenolen. I'm going to get all sorts of flak for nominating this for deletion, but it's gotta be done anyway"? howcheng {chat} 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In Abu's response on the Evidence page, he mentions that the other articles were featured prominently on Jenolen's user page at the time. I think it's fair to say given that response, and his saying that he goes through everyone's logs, that Abu came to those pages via Jenolen's logs or user page. (Which one probably doesn't matter that much in the end.) Mangojuice^talk 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This edit, from about 1 week ago, shows that the pattern of behavior is still being exhibited. Every image is promotional in nature and thus acceptable according to the licenses I selected (in other words, the images are on the Internet for the express purpose of promoting the individual or product being depicted, and thus the use of the photos in our educational forum doesn't pose any concern for the individuals depicted therein or the websites from which they were taken), or I would not have uploaded the images in the first place. The former scathing, vitriolic rhetoric has mellowed to a fake cordiality, but the fact that this was retaliatory wiki-stalking is clear as day. I will say this in as strong terms as possible: the penalties should be as harsh as possible against this user, who has apparently learned nothing from his/her previous talkings-to about how to treat other editors. A difference in interpretation of policy (i.e. between his/her extreme position and another editor's more moderate position) does not entitle him/her to wiki-stalk another editor in this manner. Badagnani 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Those images were, I think, all of living persons so per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria they have correctly been deleted. Note, not by Abu Badali. That non-free images of living persons are, in general, not allowed is pretty much established by now so I don't see the problem here. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who deleted all those images, and I did so in accordance with policy. (If you disagree, you're free to list them at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I'll tell you, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting overturned.) Abu's tagging of them was appropriate and helpful. Every single image you mention clearly violated our first non-free content criterion, and the text of the {{promotional}} tag helpfully specifies that it's not to be used for living people where it would be possible to photograph the person. You didn't seem to disagree, since you didn't contest any of the rfu tags. I see that you're upset, but I don't see how it's Abu's fault. It would really save us all a lot of work -- me especially -- if you would stop uploading images against our NFCC policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's starting to look like this RfAr is largely a response by editors who have been caught persistently violating WP image policies which they do not understand and/or who are trying to divert attention from their own conduct. -- But|seriously|folks  02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The "motivation" for me, as you put it: I am just your average wikipedian doing my best to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and every single non-free image I have ever uploaded was in good faith... I have never uploaded an image that I believed violated the policy at the time. Despite this, I have been hounded and harassed by another Wikipedian targeting my images. I wouldn't mind if someone had a go at a lot of images at once, but the fact that Abu badali has continually returned to my contributions list months apart makes me feel like I am being harassed. I don't care whether that falls within Wikipedia's definition of harassment: plain and simple I feel like I am being unfairly targeted by this editor and I believe I am not the only one to feel that way. I strongly believe that Abu badali should be sanctioned for this, hence my involvement in this Arbitration. I used to have respect for Wikipedia and it's processes but that is fading fast. Every day as this progresses I have felt increasing shock and anger at the way the Image Cabal are letting him get away with this unacceptable behaviour. PageantUpdater 04:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position that the images were uploaded in good faith and in compliance with the policies in place at the time they were uploaded. Nevertheless, images and other types of content have to be compared to current policy (unless the policy specifically states that a particular change is limited in application to future uploads only).

Do you acknowledge that the policies have evolved over time and that many of these images no longer complied with the policies? If not, why were they deleted? And if so, why are you complaining that the images are being targeted? If all your images were tagged and admins removed all the tags while only deleting an image here and there, I could see your point. But the fact that well over 100 of your images were deleted demonstrates that they were properly tagged.

Incidentally, in a bizarre coincidence, these three women were in the row in front of me at a sporting event yesterday. I deeply regret not snapping a picture for use here, but they were only there for about 10 minutes and I was kinda intimidated. The Teen is a true stunner — her photos don't do her justice! -- But|seriously|folks  06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sincere question for Jenolen: What if all the images you uploaded in good faith had been deleted because of the new replaceability concerns, but it wasn't done by one person and your logs weren't used? .... I'm just curious how you feel about it.

This misses a key component of the evidence that Abu's behavior has been vindictive - Abu went far beyond nominating all of my IMAGE contributions for deletion, and started editing disruptively on articles I had contributed to which had NO CONNECTION to images, fair use, etc. The evidence clearly shows admins had to revert his edits. Abu doesn't believe in this interpretation of the facts, and that's fine. But since he's admitted to tracking user contributions BEYOND image space, and has had to repeatedly have his edits reverted, I'm curious as to why he still believes "targeting" users - not content, users - is at all approriate. It's not. It's Wikistalking, and it's what he does. It should stop. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's important information, but it doesn't answer my question. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In as nice a way as possible, that's because your question has nothing to do with the actions of and/or arbitration decision regarding User:Abu badali, about whom this arbitration matter primarily concerns. I'm not sure that answering hypothetical questions about possible behavior makes much sense, when this matter is primarily concerned with real questions, and actual behavior. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Oh hell, sorry guys. I just realised the funny links were from me using the uni's free internet service. Meh. PageantUpdater 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'Sarite. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request: Mosquera/Yakuman

• Mosquera (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yakuman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tarmikos (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I would like to request a checkuser for these acccounts: Mosquera (talk · contribs) is most probably a sock/reincarnation of Yakuman (talk · contribs). Yakuman made an accusatory statement against Abu badali on the case talk page on 10 July ([41]), and only a day later, Mosquera made another statement calling for sanctions against Abu badali on this page above ([42]). If these are the same editor, it would constitute a rather serious case of abusive sockpuppetry in the sense of "creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists" (WP:SOCK).

I don't believe the two accounts have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry apart from this incident, since Yakuman stopped editing regularly at the time Mosquera appeared, in early June. Both have edited the same set of articles (mostly related to Spanish-language television programmes (Madre Luna, Idolos de Juventud, Telemundo etc.). Both share the same confrontational and easily-offended style and the same aggressive lobbying behaviour against a strict interpretation of image policies and in favour of liberally using non-free promotional images.

Note that Mosquera is currently blocked for a week because of a separate sockpuppetry case, for creating Tarmikos (talk · contribs) to evade an earlier block, and for general disruption and personal attacks in the context of non-free image abuse. A recent ANI thread is here: [43]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties? I'm not sure.

In a related notice, User:PageantUpdater has repeatedly posted complaints about me tagging an image as orphan some hours after an Anonymous IP orphaning it. I believe she should ask for a check user or completely stop mentioning that. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, on the workshop page? Well, anyway, I'm pretty confident the arbitrators are reading this page, so they'll probably see the request anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt they'll check without a formal request, seeing the recent flap about controversial checkuser actions. And our current policy wouldn't allow Abu to ask for a checkuser on himself. In fact, I doubt the checkusers would consider it sufficient evidence to warrant a check, even if someone requested it. Which I guess means we all have to assume Abu is unrelated to the anon IP, unless evidence turns up to the contrary. In my experience, if someone wants to use such methods, he will use these methods over and over. If anyone finds a pattern of such "orfud" nominations hours after an anon anonymizes the images, then that's something. It looks like nothing at the moment, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But again, I would highly appreciate if User:PageantUpdater could stop listing this event as one of her complaints against me, unless she's prepared to openly state the she believes I'm involved. I, for one, had notice the Mosquera-Yakuman similarities before this request, but I didn't mention that for lack of a final proof. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, sometimes I wished you would READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN!!!!!!!!!!!! closely, until you understand it. I KNOW YOU WEREN'T THE ANONYMOUS EDITOR! Yes, I accept that. But what I would like to you is how the hell you were watching this image and article closely enough to tag the image as orphaned LESS THAN TWO HOURS AFTER the anon removed it. I don't care who removed it... but I do care that you had your sticky fingers on the image in a lightening flash. And I do care because you knew full well that that image belonged on that article, and any responsible editor would have REVERTED THE VANDALISM AND PLACED THE IMAGE BACK IN THE ARTICLE, rather than tagging the image as orphaned. Just like your prior edito to Melissa Lingafelt, your fixation about non-free images overrode your brain function when it came to the articles. PageantUpdater 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Has a checkuser noticed this request? Requests filed at WP:RFCU are currently being processed quite quickly, but I believe that in an ArbCom case, the correct way to make a request is at one of the ArbCom pages, rather than at RFCU. ElinorD (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, this was not noticed. Yes, all three accounts are the same person.  Confirmed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Should Mosquera and Tarmikos be blocked indefinitely? Should their/his contribution to this RFA be marked somehow? --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't both been calling for sanctions against you. I updated the sockpuppet template at User:Tarmikos, to show that it was confirmed by checkuser. That account is blocked indefinitely anyway. Since the other two have been posting in this case, in support of the same position, one of them should be indefinitely blocked, and the other would normally be blocked for a week. I'm not sure though, which account that user would wish to keep as the "real" account, and which one should be blocked as the sock account. And Mosquera was blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and disruption with Tarmikos, and hasn't edited since, from any known account, even though the block has expired. Actually, I suspect that the user will not be back under any username that we associate with them. If they do come back, I'd suggest finding out which account they intend to keep as the real one. I don't see any need to add to the original weeklong block, though I wouldn't oppose an admin who disagreed. And yes, the contributions to this RfA should be marked. It probably looks better if you don't do it, so I'll take a look. ElinorD (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment FoF #7

I just read through the proposed decision, findings of fact section 7 and its accompanying remedy #1 is very problematic for me. I deal with a lot of images and have for a while, and am familiar with other people who do and their styles. Images have multiple requirements. For example a newly uploaded image may have no text at all. Usually people will tag this as "no source" since that is the most pressing problem. Maybe it gets a source and a non-free tag next because the uploader read the policy more. Well, now it needs a use rationale and to be used in an article. There is a progression. You can't tag the original image as needing a rationale because you didn't know that it was going to be claimed as fair use. Watching problem images and making sure they are eventually corrected is not a bad thing, we shouldn't punish people for it! (just a general comment, as someone else who deals with images a lot and is peripherally familiar with Abu badali I have never considered his interpretation of our policies to be fringe.) - cohesion 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. -- But|seriously|folks  18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a proposed Find of Fact dealing with that, but the arbitrator that started drafting the decision preferred the FoF#7. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, as I stated on the workshop page. In recent days I've come across a fair number of images where I wasn't sure how to tag them, but knew they needed to be tagged. I could well imagine that if the uploader adds a fair use tag after being notified that it needs a licence tag, it might be necessary to go back to that image and tag it as missing a fair use rationale. And then it might be necessary to tag it as fair use disputed. And the uploader might — indeed, probably would — feel targeted. Reading through the proposed decision, I get the impression that the ArbCom don't fully realise how big a problem it is with individual editors uploading dozens of improperly sourced, improperly licensed images, adding galleries to articles about their favourite pop groups, reverting removals and re-uploading replaceable fair use images even when notified of the policy, and becoming upset and angry when "their" articles are made less decorative in compliance with the policy. I'm fairly new to this, and I've seen a huge amount of it already. ElinorD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Account created to attack me

User:Hidey Ho is a (now banned) single purpose account created to attack me. Is it possible to ask for a check user against the parts involved in this case to determine if it's something from some of them? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FoF number 1 factually incorrect

FoF number 1 says that Abu badali "describes himself on his userpage" as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor". Abu did a major overhaul of his userpage on 28 June,[44] two days before the voting began, and removed all the objectionable stuff. I can understand that if he made a change when eight of the Arbitrators had voted, they wouldn't want to go back and change anything, but this was actually untrue when Fred first proposed and supported it,[45] and has remained untrue ever since. A simple change from "describes" to "described" would fix it. ElinorD (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD appears to be correct that this became outdated between the workshop and the final decision, and should be updated. The tenses in FoF 4 should also be updated from past progressive to simple past. Newyorkbrad 10:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Picaroon (t) 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded Picaroon's rewording slightly, and added a link, to Finding 1, and changed the tenses in FoF 4, as suggested by Brad Paul August ☎ 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The case seems to have closed already. ElinorD (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've reverted my changes to the Proposed decision page, since it is not appropriate to make changes there post closing. Paul August ☎ 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I updated the wording per Brad's suggestion, it didn't occur to me that I should wait for an arbitrator to verify it. I think since the case closed so recently it would be perfectly okay for you to update the final decision to fix my clerical mistake. Picaroon (t) 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's probably fine the way it is. I don't see my changes as being particularly material. If someone disagrees, and wants to petition us for an amendment they can — I would be supportive. I'm sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. I think it is easy for such things to fall through the cracks. Perhaps we need to consider modifying our procedures somewhat? Paul August ☎ 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I call attention to this sort of thing through the mailing list, but I fear that if I send too many e-mails, the priority given to each will become less. The best check would probably for arbitrators at the "motion to close" stage to look over this talkpage before voting to close the case, which would mean there would be at least four opportunities for last-minute catches like this. Alternatively, I can become even more pestiferous to the arbs than I am already. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When I added my vote to close, this section didn't exist. Paul August ☎ 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another solution to this sort of thing could be the rules being updated to allow minor edits to the final decision by clerks and arbitrators. How about something along the lines of "within one week of the close of the case, arbitrators and clerks may make cosmetic and factual fixes and adjustments to the final decision"? Picaroon (t) 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. House of Representatives, the formulation is "I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of the bill." Maybe something like that. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket

That's all this is... a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket. Shame on Wikipedia... I have lost all respect for this place and it's processes. Doesn't mean I will stop editing but when someone can get away with blatant harassment and have others ignore or condone it... well it's no longer worth being polite. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to think that as Abu badali focuses on the fact that he's been counselled by the Arbitration Committee, and the fact that several arbitrators were prepared to make serious fact findings against him and impose a harsher remedy (even though others disagreed), he will take this as a serious indication that he should modify his style. I suggest waiting and seeing how things evolve over the next few weeks before forming a conclusion as to whether this decision will be effective or not. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Have you stopped to consider that maybe you're the one who's out of step with everybody else here? That maybe you're harrassing him for doing something he's allowed and even encouraged to do that helps protect Wikipedia? I would never defend Abu's occasional incivility, but the powers that be have declined to declared that his tagging actions are appropriate and that therefore your complaints in that regard are unjustified. You would be wise to take that declaration decision on board. -- But|seriously|folks  20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC), modified 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of these guys (or at least their mind-set) is one and the same as far as I'm concerned and I don't care what the hell they say... the majority were never going to do anything more as was clear from the outset. I don't care what Wikipedia's flawed policies are... no editor should be able to harrass me and mess up articles because of his fixation on image tagging and get away with it. I certainly wasn't the only one who got this treatment and this decision is a disgrace. Like "counselling" is going to do anything. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your characterization of our decision is a bit over-broad. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have revised my comment. -- But|seriously|folks  21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If there continue to be problems with Abu badali's behavior, this case can be reopened for review, or a new case can be brought. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)