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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Free-use and fair-use content

1) Wikipedia's primary goal is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and images that are either in the public domain or are licensed under the GFDL or equivalent. Non-free image content may be utilized to a limited extent only in accordance with the non-free content criteria (also known as "fair use criteria").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Identifying inappropriate non-free content

2) All images uploaded for use on Wikipedia must be tagged either with free-licensing information or with an appropriate fair-use claim in accordance with the applicable guidelines. When an image is not appropriately tagged, the uploader must be notified as soon as possible and given an opportunity to add the needed information. If compliant information is not provided within a reasonable period of time, the image must be deleted, so as to comply with Wikipedia policies and sometimes to avoid potential legal liability.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Role of editors who specialize in image review

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Requests for comment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Responding to requests for comment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-free content policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

RfC process

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Response of users whose images are questioned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Reading a user's contribution log

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging

10) Where the validity of non free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this. This is not only a necessary basic courtesy to other Wikipedians, but an express requirement of CSD I6 and CSD I7.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Consensus is the source of policies and guidelines

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Wikipedia and foundation policy overrides consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

"Exceptions" to consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

No consensus for Wikipedia editors to act in an official capacity

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

21) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

22) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

23) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

24) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Abu badali

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Concerns raised

2) Over a period of months, numerous editors have raised concerns about the validity of some of Abu badali's challenges to their images as well as the way in which he has communicated and discussed such challenges. Rather than make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner, Abu badali has often disregarded and at times even mocked the concerns expressed. For example, his userpage contains statements such as "I have a sense of humor and a confrontational style.... Have a rant? Now I have my own RFC. Don't miss the chance!.... Call me a stalker. It's fashionable now." Though these statements were intended humorously, it could reasonably have been anticipated that they would hamper Abu badali's ability to engage in productive discussion with users whose images he was challenging. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Request for comment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

RfC ignored

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Free-use and fair-use content

Identifying inappropriate non-free content

Role of editors who specialize in image review

Requests for comment

Responding to requests for comment

Non-free content policy

RfC process

Response of users whose images are questioned

Reading a user's contribution log

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging

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

Consensus is the source of policies and guidelines

Wikipedia and foundation policy overrides consensus

"Exceptions" to consensus

No consensus for Wikipedia editors to act in an official capacity

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

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Abu badali

Concerns raised

Request for comment

RfC ignored

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

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion