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)

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 (UTC)

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)

Kommentar

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)

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)

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 ws "heated" towards me". --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)