Inactive/away:
The find of fact Concerns raised says "Rather than make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner, Abu badali has often disregarded and at times even mocked the concerns expressed". I believe this completely opposed to what was proposed (with dozen of diffs) in Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged, in the Workshop.
Saying that I didn't acted "in a civil manner" is something that needs to be backed up with diffs. -- Abu badali ( talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a point I really wouldn't like to be ignored. This "concern raised" says that I didn't acted "in a civil manner". I see this as a grave and baseless accusation. It should be reworded. -- Abu badali ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Rather obviously, I endorse Jkelly's request for further deliberation. ElinorD (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Mango juice talk 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
ElinorD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
I, too, believe that FoF #5 and #6 are factually incorrect. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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,
FoF #9 in Betacommand states,
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)
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)
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.
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)
Speaking as a recent victim of wikistalking in the name of "ïmage tagging" by Mr. Badali, Quadell, and others, I can testify to their deep disdain for rationality, civility and common decency. In fact, I am now being treated above as an example of those deserving harassment and threat. Here, as elsewhere, so-called enforcement is random, irrational, and has no workable due process. This is not proper Wikipedia procedure.
Image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation, which reasonable people can disagree about. Unfortunately, in many of these instances, one user cites one's own unsupported opinion as consensus. Often a “disputed” fair image is not actually disputed.
No matter what an editor says in a rationale, virtually all “disputed” images are generally deleted anyway. (Often this occurs well before the “seven days” is up.) Typically, images get deleted for ideological reasons without any consideration of the discussion. These practices and the ongoing lack of accountability drives numerous editors away from our project.
In many cases, the contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
Deletion “workers” generally do not deserve barnstars for their work. They are constantly warned about ongoing incivility, which they deliberately ignore. Rather than consider repeated constructive criticism, they simply become more authoritarian and caustic. Abu Badali even taunts his targets.
In fact, Mr. Badali is just one of an entire breed of wikilawyers. His deliberate incivility acts to provoke others into actions that will enable him to present them to the community as trouble makers. I am tired of this fellow after just one incident and would prefer to stay away from him and not feed a troll. Trouble is, he interjected himself by joining an inquisition to erase many hours of my labor and donated contribution, so I feel the need to speak out against injustice,
We're really at the point where we need to either fix a broken system or stop including images entirely. “Enforcement” of the prevalent interpretation hurts Wikipedia. I am deeply concerned that the harassment tactics of Abu Badali and his comrades will continue – and even get worse – in the name of policy. Mosquera 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. WjB scribe 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that what WJBscribe and Mangojuice are describing as "heated discussion" I would more or less describe as "discussions where the other party was "heated" towards me". -- Abu badali ( talk) 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How is As I interacted with to you, I read through your logs. supposed to mean anything other than interacting with Abu means he will look at all of your contributions because they are YOUR contribution? Shouldn't he be focused on the MATERIAL, not the individual editors who contribute it? If he simply started at images which begin with the letter "A" and worked his way down, he'd have a much better claim to "I am only being a random enforcer of policy," as opposed to the NUMEROUS editors he has had personal conflict with over his admitted "targeting" policy. Secondly, all of the about a dozen or so images I've every uploaded to Wikipedia were WITHIN POLICY when they were uploaded; if policy changes (and fair use has morphed in to a much different beast now called "non free content"), how is it possible that Abu has probable cause to continue his "targetting"? Every image I've ever uploaded has been within policy, when it was uploaded. And because policy changed, and I think it changed too far, that puts MY contributions, specifically, to the top of the "Delete everything this guy has done" list? (And yes, my contribution to the evidence section backs this up.) If all he really cares about is the material, then Abu should never target individual editors. If, as you claim, there's plenty of fair use clean up to be done, Abu could have quite the career deleting just that material, and never making it personal. But here, he admits to making it personal. And that's wrong. Jenolen speak it! 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The question is, do you persist in the same behavior? - And what about those of us whose "behavior" was to work with admins to make sure all of our limited number of images were tagged and sourced properly? Then watched as the whole foundation under which those good faith and policy compliant contributions were annihiliated? Then watched as all of our OTHER contributions were targetted by the same people doing the image deleting? Because, you know, we were now breaking a rule that didn't previously exist, so obviously, we had to be "checked up on" repeatedly. I NEVER BROKE AN IMAGE RULE. Ever. And yet, I was wiki-stalked by Abu, because I dared to speak up, and the evidence speaks for itself. And it continues to this day. Abu dug through my logs, found another image that he could nominate, and went throught the whole IFD/DRV process, on a completely harmless image, of a deceased actor, whose copyright status was NOT in question, and could have easily been WP:SOFIXIT'd, if he had any concern about eliminating encyclopedic content. He doesn't. It's a game of "gotcha," that's all it is. And Abu is among the best there is. But he DOES target users, inappropriately, and he should be reprimended for that. Just stick to random images - not sifting through user logs. Make it about the work, not the contributor... Jenolen speak it! 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sincere question for Jenolen: What if all the images you uploaded in good faith had been deleted because of the new replaceability concerns, but it wasn't done by one person and your logs weren't used? .... I'm just curious how you feel about it.
This misses a key component of the evidence that Abu's behavior has been vindictive - Abu went far beyond nominating all of my IMAGE contributions for deletion, and started editing disruptively on articles I had contributed to which had NO CONNECTION to images, fair use, etc. The evidence clearly shows admins had to revert his edits. Abu doesn't believe in this interpretation of the facts, and that's fine. But since he's admitted to tracking user contributions BEYOND image space, and has had to repeatedly have his edits reverted, I'm curious as to why he still believes "targeting" users - not content, users - is at all approriate. It's not. It's Wikistalking, and it's what he does. It should stop. Jenolen speak it! 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh hell, sorry guys. I just realised the funny links were from me using the uni's free internet service. Meh. PageantUpdater 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request a checkuser for these acccounts: Mosquera ( talk · contribs) is most probably a sock/reincarnation of Yakuman ( talk · contribs). Yakuman made an accusatory statement against Abu badali on the case talk page on 10 July ( [41]), and only a day later, Mosquera made another statement calling for sanctions against Abu badali on this page above ( [42]). If these are the same editor, it would constitute a rather serious case of abusive sockpuppetry in the sense of "creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists" ( WP:SOCK).
I don't believe the two accounts have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry apart from this incident, since Yakuman stopped editing regularly at the time Mosquera appeared, in early June. Both have edited the same set of articles (mostly related to Spanish-language television programmes ( Madre Luna, Idolos de Juventud, Telemundo etc.). Both share the same confrontational and easily-offended style and the same aggressive lobbying behaviour against a strict interpretation of image policies and in favour of liberally using non-free promotional images.
Note that Mosquera is currently blocked for a week because of a separate sockpuppetry case, for creating Tarmikos ( talk · contribs) to evade an earlier block, and for general disruption and personal attacks in the context of non-free image abuse. A recent ANI thread is here: [43]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Has a checkuser noticed this request? Requests filed at WP:RFCU are currently being processed quite quickly, but I believe that in an ArbCom case, the correct way to make a request is at one of the ArbCom pages, rather than at RFCU. ElinorD (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't both been calling for sanctions against you. I updated the sockpuppet template at User:Tarmikos, to show that it was confirmed by checkuser. That account is blocked indefinitely anyway. Since the other two have been posting in this case, in support of the same position, one of them should be indefinitely blocked, and the other would normally be blocked for a week. I'm not sure though, which account that user would wish to keep as the "real" account, and which one should be blocked as the sock account. And Mosquera was blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and disruption with Tarmikos, and hasn't edited since, from any known account, even though the block has expired. Actually, I suspect that the user will not be back under any username that we associate with them. If they do come back, I'd suggest finding out which account they intend to keep as the real one. I don't see any need to add to the original weeklong block, though I wouldn't oppose an admin who disagreed. And yes, the contributions to this RfA should be marked. It probably looks better if you don't do it, so I'll take a look. ElinorD (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the proposed decision, findings of fact section 7 and its accompanying remedy #1 is very problematic for me. I deal with a lot of images and have for a while, and am familiar with other people who do and their styles. Images have multiple requirements. For example a newly uploaded image may have no text at all. Usually people will tag this as "no source" since that is the most pressing problem. Maybe it gets a source and a non-free tag next because the uploader read the policy more. Well, now it needs a use rationale and to be used in an article. There is a progression. You can't tag the original image as needing a rationale because you didn't know that it was going to be claimed as fair use. Watching problem images and making sure they are eventually corrected is not a bad thing, we shouldn't punish people for it! (just a general comment, as someone else who deals with images a lot and is peripherally familiar with Abu badali I have never considered his interpretation of our policies to be fringe.) - cohesion 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, as I stated on the workshop page. In recent days I've come across a fair number of images where I wasn't sure how to tag them, but knew they needed to be tagged. I could well imagine that if the uploader adds a fair use tag after being notified that it needs a licence tag, it might be necessary to go back to that image and tag it as missing a fair use rationale. And then it might be necessary to tag it as fair use disputed. And the uploader might — indeed, probably would — feel targeted. Reading through the proposed decision, I get the impression that the ArbCom don't fully realise how big a problem it is with individual editors uploading dozens of improperly sourced, improperly licensed images, adding galleries to articles about their favourite pop groups, reverting removals and re-uploading replaceable fair use images even when notified of the policy, and becoming upset and angry when "their" articles are made less decorative in compliance with the policy. I'm fairly new to this, and I've seen a huge amount of it already. ElinorD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Hidey Ho is a (now banned) single purpose account created to attack me. Is it possible to ask for a check user against the parts involved in this case to determine if it's something from some of them? -- Abu badali ( talk) 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
FoF number 1 says that Abu badali "describes himself on his userpage" as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor". Abu did a major overhaul of his userpage on 28 June, [44] two days before the voting began, and removed all the objectionable stuff. I can understand that if he made a change when eight of the Arbitrators had voted, they wouldn't want to go back and change anything, but this was actually untrue when Fred first proposed and supported it, [45] and has remained untrue ever since. A simple change from "describes" to "described" would fix it. ElinorD (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's all this is... a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket. Shame on Wikipedia... I have lost all respect for this place and it's processes. Doesn't mean I will stop editing but when someone can get away with blatant harassment and have others ignore or condone it... well it's no longer worth being polite. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Inactive/away:
The find of fact Concerns raised says "Rather than make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner, Abu badali has often disregarded and at times even mocked the concerns expressed". I believe this completely opposed to what was proposed (with dozen of diffs) in Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged, in the Workshop.
Saying that I didn't acted "in a civil manner" is something that needs to be backed up with diffs. -- Abu badali ( talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a point I really wouldn't like to be ignored. This "concern raised" says that I didn't acted "in a civil manner". I see this as a grave and baseless accusation. It should be reworded. -- Abu badali ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Rather obviously, I endorse Jkelly's request for further deliberation. ElinorD (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Mango juice talk 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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:
ElinorD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
I, too, believe that FoF #5 and #6 are factually incorrect. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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,
FoF #9 in Betacommand states,
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)
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)
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.
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)
Speaking as a recent victim of wikistalking in the name of "ïmage tagging" by Mr. Badali, Quadell, and others, I can testify to their deep disdain for rationality, civility and common decency. In fact, I am now being treated above as an example of those deserving harassment and threat. Here, as elsewhere, so-called enforcement is random, irrational, and has no workable due process. This is not proper Wikipedia procedure.
Image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation, which reasonable people can disagree about. Unfortunately, in many of these instances, one user cites one's own unsupported opinion as consensus. Often a “disputed” fair image is not actually disputed.
No matter what an editor says in a rationale, virtually all “disputed” images are generally deleted anyway. (Often this occurs well before the “seven days” is up.) Typically, images get deleted for ideological reasons without any consideration of the discussion. These practices and the ongoing lack of accountability drives numerous editors away from our project.
In many cases, the contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
Deletion “workers” generally do not deserve barnstars for their work. They are constantly warned about ongoing incivility, which they deliberately ignore. Rather than consider repeated constructive criticism, they simply become more authoritarian and caustic. Abu Badali even taunts his targets.
In fact, Mr. Badali is just one of an entire breed of wikilawyers. His deliberate incivility acts to provoke others into actions that will enable him to present them to the community as trouble makers. I am tired of this fellow after just one incident and would prefer to stay away from him and not feed a troll. Trouble is, he interjected himself by joining an inquisition to erase many hours of my labor and donated contribution, so I feel the need to speak out against injustice,
We're really at the point where we need to either fix a broken system or stop including images entirely. “Enforcement” of the prevalent interpretation hurts Wikipedia. I am deeply concerned that the harassment tactics of Abu Badali and his comrades will continue – and even get worse – in the name of policy. Mosquera 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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. WjB scribe 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that what WJBscribe and Mangojuice are describing as "heated discussion" I would more or less describe as "discussions where the other party was "heated" towards me". -- Abu badali ( talk) 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
How is As I interacted with to you, I read through your logs. supposed to mean anything other than interacting with Abu means he will look at all of your contributions because they are YOUR contribution? Shouldn't he be focused on the MATERIAL, not the individual editors who contribute it? If he simply started at images which begin with the letter "A" and worked his way down, he'd have a much better claim to "I am only being a random enforcer of policy," as opposed to the NUMEROUS editors he has had personal conflict with over his admitted "targeting" policy. Secondly, all of the about a dozen or so images I've every uploaded to Wikipedia were WITHIN POLICY when they were uploaded; if policy changes (and fair use has morphed in to a much different beast now called "non free content"), how is it possible that Abu has probable cause to continue his "targetting"? Every image I've ever uploaded has been within policy, when it was uploaded. And because policy changed, and I think it changed too far, that puts MY contributions, specifically, to the top of the "Delete everything this guy has done" list? (And yes, my contribution to the evidence section backs this up.) If all he really cares about is the material, then Abu should never target individual editors. If, as you claim, there's plenty of fair use clean up to be done, Abu could have quite the career deleting just that material, and never making it personal. But here, he admits to making it personal. And that's wrong. Jenolen speak it! 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The question is, do you persist in the same behavior? - And what about those of us whose "behavior" was to work with admins to make sure all of our limited number of images were tagged and sourced properly? Then watched as the whole foundation under which those good faith and policy compliant contributions were annihiliated? Then watched as all of our OTHER contributions were targetted by the same people doing the image deleting? Because, you know, we were now breaking a rule that didn't previously exist, so obviously, we had to be "checked up on" repeatedly. I NEVER BROKE AN IMAGE RULE. Ever. And yet, I was wiki-stalked by Abu, because I dared to speak up, and the evidence speaks for itself. And it continues to this day. Abu dug through my logs, found another image that he could nominate, and went throught the whole IFD/DRV process, on a completely harmless image, of a deceased actor, whose copyright status was NOT in question, and could have easily been WP:SOFIXIT'd, if he had any concern about eliminating encyclopedic content. He doesn't. It's a game of "gotcha," that's all it is. And Abu is among the best there is. But he DOES target users, inappropriately, and he should be reprimended for that. Just stick to random images - not sifting through user logs. Make it about the work, not the contributor... Jenolen speak it! 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sincere question for Jenolen: What if all the images you uploaded in good faith had been deleted because of the new replaceability concerns, but it wasn't done by one person and your logs weren't used? .... I'm just curious how you feel about it.
This misses a key component of the evidence that Abu's behavior has been vindictive - Abu went far beyond nominating all of my IMAGE contributions for deletion, and started editing disruptively on articles I had contributed to which had NO CONNECTION to images, fair use, etc. The evidence clearly shows admins had to revert his edits. Abu doesn't believe in this interpretation of the facts, and that's fine. But since he's admitted to tracking user contributions BEYOND image space, and has had to repeatedly have his edits reverted, I'm curious as to why he still believes "targeting" users - not content, users - is at all approriate. It's not. It's Wikistalking, and it's what he does. It should stop. Jenolen speak it! 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh hell, sorry guys. I just realised the funny links were from me using the uni's free internet service. Meh. PageantUpdater 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request a checkuser for these acccounts: Mosquera ( talk · contribs) is most probably a sock/reincarnation of Yakuman ( talk · contribs). Yakuman made an accusatory statement against Abu badali on the case talk page on 10 July ( [41]), and only a day later, Mosquera made another statement calling for sanctions against Abu badali on this page above ( [42]). If these are the same editor, it would constitute a rather serious case of abusive sockpuppetry in the sense of "creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists" ( WP:SOCK).
I don't believe the two accounts have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry apart from this incident, since Yakuman stopped editing regularly at the time Mosquera appeared, in early June. Both have edited the same set of articles (mostly related to Spanish-language television programmes ( Madre Luna, Idolos de Juventud, Telemundo etc.). Both share the same confrontational and easily-offended style and the same aggressive lobbying behaviour against a strict interpretation of image policies and in favour of liberally using non-free promotional images.
Note that Mosquera is currently blocked for a week because of a separate sockpuppetry case, for creating Tarmikos ( talk · contribs) to evade an earlier block, and for general disruption and personal attacks in the context of non-free image abuse. A recent ANI thread is here: [43]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Has a checkuser noticed this request? Requests filed at WP:RFCU are currently being processed quite quickly, but I believe that in an ArbCom case, the correct way to make a request is at one of the ArbCom pages, rather than at RFCU. ElinorD (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't both been calling for sanctions against you. I updated the sockpuppet template at User:Tarmikos, to show that it was confirmed by checkuser. That account is blocked indefinitely anyway. Since the other two have been posting in this case, in support of the same position, one of them should be indefinitely blocked, and the other would normally be blocked for a week. I'm not sure though, which account that user would wish to keep as the "real" account, and which one should be blocked as the sock account. And Mosquera was blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and disruption with Tarmikos, and hasn't edited since, from any known account, even though the block has expired. Actually, I suspect that the user will not be back under any username that we associate with them. If they do come back, I'd suggest finding out which account they intend to keep as the real one. I don't see any need to add to the original weeklong block, though I wouldn't oppose an admin who disagreed. And yes, the contributions to this RfA should be marked. It probably looks better if you don't do it, so I'll take a look. ElinorD (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the proposed decision, findings of fact section 7 and its accompanying remedy #1 is very problematic for me. I deal with a lot of images and have for a while, and am familiar with other people who do and their styles. Images have multiple requirements. For example a newly uploaded image may have no text at all. Usually people will tag this as "no source" since that is the most pressing problem. Maybe it gets a source and a non-free tag next because the uploader read the policy more. Well, now it needs a use rationale and to be used in an article. There is a progression. You can't tag the original image as needing a rationale because you didn't know that it was going to be claimed as fair use. Watching problem images and making sure they are eventually corrected is not a bad thing, we shouldn't punish people for it! (just a general comment, as someone else who deals with images a lot and is peripherally familiar with Abu badali I have never considered his interpretation of our policies to be fringe.) - cohesion 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that, as I stated on the workshop page. In recent days I've come across a fair number of images where I wasn't sure how to tag them, but knew they needed to be tagged. I could well imagine that if the uploader adds a fair use tag after being notified that it needs a licence tag, it might be necessary to go back to that image and tag it as missing a fair use rationale. And then it might be necessary to tag it as fair use disputed. And the uploader might — indeed, probably would — feel targeted. Reading through the proposed decision, I get the impression that the ArbCom don't fully realise how big a problem it is with individual editors uploading dozens of improperly sourced, improperly licensed images, adding galleries to articles about their favourite pop groups, reverting removals and re-uploading replaceable fair use images even when notified of the policy, and becoming upset and angry when "their" articles are made less decorative in compliance with the policy. I'm fairly new to this, and I've seen a huge amount of it already. ElinorD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Hidey Ho is a (now banned) single purpose account created to attack me. Is it possible to ask for a check user against the parts involved in this case to determine if it's something from some of them? -- Abu badali ( talk) 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
FoF number 1 says that Abu badali "describes himself on his userpage" as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor". Abu did a major overhaul of his userpage on 28 June, [44] two days before the voting began, and removed all the objectionable stuff. I can understand that if he made a change when eight of the Arbitrators had voted, they wouldn't want to go back and change anything, but this was actually untrue when Fred first proposed and supported it, [45] and has remained untrue ever since. A simple change from "describes" to "described" would fix it. ElinorD (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That's all this is... a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket. Shame on Wikipedia... I have lost all respect for this place and it's processes. Doesn't mean I will stop editing but when someone can get away with blatant harassment and have others ignore or condone it... well it's no longer worth being polite. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)