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

Arbitrators active on this case

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

Inactive/away:

Blnguyen
Flcelloguy
Neutrality
Paul August
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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