Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:25, 8 July 2007

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page; non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Free-use and fair-use content

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license as defined by the parts of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that pertain to licenses. Media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria (also known as "fair use criteria").

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Non-compliant non-free content

2) Media that do not meet the requirements described by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Our users are humans not robots. Nobody is going to "remain civil at all times". Nobody is going to always be patient and answer every question accurately. This is not a standard that Arbitration Committee members are able to meet at all times and we should not hold users to higher standards than we can meet. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dialog

5) The working of Wikipedia depends on active communication between its users. When a request for comment or other attempt at communication is made, it is important for the editor who is being addressed to engage in dialog with other users.

Support:

Oppose:

Usually, yes. But not always. Sometimes the best approach is for an user to take a break if they are stressed or ignore other users that are being overly aggressive or trolling them. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Non-free content policy

6) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria makes clear that a non-free image can only be used in a Wikipedia article under strict circumstances. It must contribute significantly to the article it is in, not serving a merely decorative purpose. Additionally, it must not be replaceable by an alternative free image, if one exists or could be created. If the image is primarily used to depict a living person, existing object, or recurring event, then the fair use rationale must explain why a new, free, and equivalent image of the person, object, or event could not be created.

Support:

Oppose:

Other options exist for obtaining free images and I think they need to be included if we are making a list. One is getting the license changed to make it a free image. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Response of users whose images are questioned

7) 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of contribution logs

8) If an editor has made errors, it is often useful to check their contributions to see whether they have made similar errors in other articles, or with respect to other images. However, aggressively checking the logs of editors you are in a dispute with may constitute harassment.

Support:

Oppose:

I think that we are going in the wrong direction with this principle. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging

9) 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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule but there are likely allowable exception. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The relationship between policy and consensus

10) Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus. However, the question of whether a policy applies to particular content may be freely discussed and decisions reached. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures. Which is to say, you can appeal a decision which you believe violates policy.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But note that the particular criteria in use have been left by the Foundation to the decision of each individual project. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

11) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and to assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role playing

12) A user who engages in roleplaying is responsible for the consequences of all actions of any persona adopted including the reactions of others.

Support:

Oppose:

Not entirely comfortable with this line of thinking about this user. FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Feelings matter

13) The feelings of other users matter. Repeated incivility reduces morale.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

When you are wrong, quit

14) When a user's pattern of behavior results in wholesale disruption, it is the responsibility of the user to change that behavior.

Support:

Oppose:

Uncomfortable with how this is worded; while it's true in the general case, enforcement of certain critical policies must be continued despite any disruption caused by doing so. Kirill 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

15) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Abu badali

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 has, in the past, contained 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. This edit removing barnstars, with the comment, "bad guys don't deserv barnstars", is an example of his maintenance of a persona as a "bad guy". Essentially, he was engaged in role playing, as one might in an on-line role playing game, essentially taking on the role of "Sheriff of Images".

Support:

Oppose:

I think that this is an overly negative interpretation of this user's contributions to the maintenance of Wikipedia images. FloNight 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Request for comment

3) On November 29, 2006, a 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

I do not think that he ignored it. He read it. His reason for not participating in the discussion on the actual RFC is acceptable to me. I'm not at all sure that users should be forced to make a formal response to a RFC any more than they are forced to enter mediation if they do not think that it will be beneficial. FloNight 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

6) Many users react unfavorably when an image that they has uploaded is recommended for deletion. When this nomination is due to a clear application of policy, backed by community consensus, this displeasure is often tempered. However when a single user such as Abu badali nominates an image and advocates for its deletion, in a way inconsistent with mainstream interpretation of policy, many users take offense, whether offense was ever intended or not.

Support:

Oppose:

I do not think this accurately reflects what is happening in this case. Looking at the talk page of this case, Abu badali seems to have support from experienced and respected members of the community that deal with image licencing. From my reading of their comments, the bulk of his action are not so far out of the norm. FloNight 22:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

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

7) Frequently, when an image nominated for deletion by Abu badali is not deleted, he will renominate the image for a different reason. For instance, he may advocate an image's deletion based on its alleged replaceability; when that fails, he may renominate it for being used for a merely decorative purpose; and when that fails, he may renominate it for detracting to the value of the copyright holder.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

8) Because Abu badali uses user logs to find uploads by a user he has interacted with in the past, his nominations are sometimes viewed as "wikistalking" or an attempt at getting revenge when an image is not deleted.

Support:

Oppose:

Not wise to limit the use of contribution logs when we are attempting to eliminate improperly uploaded images or other content issues such as copyright violations. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Incivility

9) Many users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive.

Support:

Oppose:

Not comfortable with validating the idea that he was being vindictive. We need to encourage both sides of the free-image content dispute to assume good faith. FloNight 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Abu badali placed on probation

1) Abu badali is placed on probation for one year. Any uninvolved administrator may apply appropriate sanctions should Abu badali engage in disruptive behavior with respect to image patrolling.

Support:

Oppose:

Can not support this remedy because I disagree with the list of actionable items under the proposed enforcement. FloNight 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abu badali counseled

1.1) Abu badali is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way.

Support:

This is enough. Abu badali conduct during this case has been calm and collaborative in the face of some misguided statements from other users. (Look at the talk pages of this case.) Also, he changed his user page based on feedback during this case. I think he now understands that he could have been more collegial and will do well with the support of other users. Otherwise, I have no problem with his work and think that the charges of stalking and harassment are completely misplaced. Some of the users complaining had ten or hundreds of images that were improperly uploaded. I do not see his continued actions as a problem. Rather he is attempting to enforce an unpopular and widely misunderstood policy. FloNight 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that he's not one of those who misunderstands it; see FoF #5. Kirill 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Disruption broadly defined

1) For the purposes of enforcement, disruption by Abu badali includes, but is not limited to, stalking of other users, multiple nominations for deletion of images uploaded by any one user, multiple nominations of the same image, refusal to discuss proposed deletions, failure to participate in dispute resolution procedures such as requests for comment, and inappropriate role playing.

Support:

Oppose:

Too broadly defined for me. I want this user to be able to continue to work with images. I think that this broad list will make it impossible. FloNight 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

@@ Line 461: / Line 461: @@
 :Support:
 :# This is enough. Abu badali conduct during this case has been calm and collaborative in the face of some misguided statements from other users. (Look at the talk pages of this case.) Also, he changed his user page based on feedback during this case. I think he now understands that he could have been more collegial and will do well with the support of other users. Otherwise, I have no problem with his work and think that the charges of stalking and harassment are completely misplaced. Some of the users complaining had ten or hundreds of images that were improperly uploaded. I do not see his continued actions as a problem. Rather he is attempting to enforce an unpopular and widely misunderstood policy. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
+:#: I'm unconvinced that he's not one of those who misunderstands it; see FoF #5. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
+:# Second choice. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 :Oppose: