The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

This RFC eventually evolved into an Arbitration Case. The final statement by the Clerks can be fount at:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

More image tagging issues... I've held off this for as long as possible but my patience is wearing thin. I've never done one of these before so bear with me...

In my work on articles relating to beauty queens I uploaded a large number of fair use images. A few months ago, they were all tagged as replacable. I disputed this at first, but when the policy was explained to me I quickly accepted that they would have to be deleted (see User:PageantUpdater/Use of Images).

A small number of the images were retained because they were deemed by User:Quadell to be acceptable (see Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg and the discussion at Image_talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg). Abu Badali apparently disagrees with this and attempted to trick me in such a way as to claim I agreed with his position (see User_talk:PageantUpdater#Vanessa_Marie_Semrow). I misunderstood his question in the first instance and generally consider this sneakiness to be against the spirit of the project.

Further to this I have just noticed that Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg was deleted although it was clear that I was still disputing the claim that the image was replaceable (see the copied text of the talk page at Image_talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg).

I fully accept that changes to policy etc and understand the reasons why the majority of the images had to be deleted, and my position seems to be similar to that of Quadell, but Abu Badali has seem fixated on his quest to delete all images and refuse to accept or listen to any disputes. I have also noticed him deleting dispute tags from images where people have not left a message on the talk page... I accept that the template he started leaving on user talk pages (only after prodding and a decent way into his campaign) says that a message must be left at the talk page, but I am still unhappy at him removing these templates. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should make it clear that my dispute is not with the deletion of the image in particular, but the way in which he has gone about enforcing the replaceable fair use policy and his apparent refusal to listen to the viewpoints of myself and other editors. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further problems with the editor in question re-adding RFU tags where multiple editors have agreed image is OK. See here, and here. See also the talk page where 4 editors agree image should be kept. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My blood pressure is rising daily due to Abu badali's obstinance on Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg and his continuing refusal to join in the discussion here, despite the fact he has been alerted to the RFC and the fact that he is a) happy to debate the issue elsewhere and b) has been busy editing other pages. Apparently... "In the general case, we should be careful not to let our affection for some particular unfree image influence our judgment on what's "relevant information" for a given article" according to AB on the Farrell talk page. Just to let you know that I have no "affection" for any image in particular, but when I can clearly see that an image is not replaceable and it is clearly relevant to an article, I believe it should stay. Meh. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  2. Irpen in addition to the author certifies the basis of the dispute this does not mean an automatic endorsement of everything said by the RfC original author. I will present my view separately. --Irpen 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tvccs in addition to the author certifies the basis of the dispute, although my experiences, as described below, appear to be even larger. Tvccs 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. I have been under wholesale attack this week by this user on dozens of images, many of which he has failed to inform me he has marked for deletion. He espouses a singular belief that no viewpoint but his is correct, and that any Fair Use image of a living person or thing that could somehow hypothetically be created under a GFDL must be deleted. He has also just sabotaged a link to an image I had posted a link to for descriptive purposes on a discussion page discussing image quality issues at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok. This user engages in an all out pattern of attack against any other user that dares challenge his absolutist POV on the issue of GFDL images. He was able to mark literally dozens of images for deletion in only a few minutes earlier this week, and appears to have little or no interest in finding free images to replace those he claims should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has literally thousands of images that are promotional in nature provided by press agencies and others, and this user and others like him apparently want to remove every one of them, starting with those posted by the people that disagree with their absolute POV on the issue of using fair use images for living persons at all. This user is interested in destruction, and uses scripts and pseudo-politeness to mask a pattern of destruction, then claims he is nothing but respectful in doing so. Tvccs 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Sebbeng 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This is almost exactly the same case as the one here [1] and I support review and consensus that these actions are improper.[reply]
  3. I have unpleasant memories about Abu Badali. He has also caused at least one user to leave Wikipedia: [2]. Dionyseus 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. All the sneakiness must stop; I've seen several editors working in tandem to: One list for RFU and One to delete, it always seems to be the same bunch of people. I do not particularly like Ali's attitude and rudeness and therefore offer my full support to the above statement. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User targets particular editors' contributions, rigidly enforces his personal opinions about fair use images without allowing or participate in meaningful discussion regarding his proposed deletions, and through his almost consistently strongly rude and harsh mode of communication creates a general feeling of negativity. Activities have caused at least one formerly productive and positive editor to leave the project entirely. Badagnani 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Just a couple of days ago, I posted on the talk page of one of the disputed images, and it was deleted instead of debated. This kind of behaviour is very discouraging to Wikipedia users- and I can see why many would be frustrated over it. I do understand what they're doing is a huge job, and it is hard to follow everything, but they also have to understand how detremental their actions are to the project as a whole. Anyways, that's just my two cents. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There's only so much one can do to ebb the flow of this, and all the policy in the world is not going to take away from the fact that what's going on right now is disrespectful to the feelings of others and insensitive to the concerns that others have espoused. I got into this debate on the wings of another editor who was doing the same thing, and I'm not going to stand by and watch Wikipedia gutted without a respect for the hard work of others. This particular editor is symbolic of a more far-reaching problem. - Stick Fig 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DHowell 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The current rush to delete thousands of images, by Abu badali and others, because they may be in technical violation of controversial policies, and when many are arguably not in violation, is, in my opinion, disrupting Wikipedia. There are much less disruptive methods of achieving the desired goals.[reply]
  9. Zanimum 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hackajar Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
    It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page.
    Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it. But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked. Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Now I have had my images mass tagged by this hooligan and I know its simply for Revenge against User:Chowbok, this guy is a hit man for Chowbok carrying out his orders I urge you to ban both of these Users immediately, they are disrupting people from creative output.--Jack Cox 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I have seen first hand this users overbroad interpretation of our image rules.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have also seen this user abusing the image deletion policy. Within minutes of my disagreeing with his position on a talk page (not even with him personally I should add) he has scouring my contributions looking for images that may be deletable. This is wikistalking and a clear violation of WP:POINT. Johntex\talk 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In reviewing some of the history, I have noted where contributors have updated copyright/fair use info (example) and this user has gone back and re-tagged the images without further discussion. The user also seems to be proud to have his own RfC page, so there is some ego involved. I concur that this user is reinterpreting the fair use guidelines to justify his personal crusade and hurting Wikipedia greatly in the process. -- jsa 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I've had similar problems with Abu and his quest to singlehandedly rid WIkipedia of fair use images. Today he nominated my template Template:User_no_GFDL for deletion, accusing me of "promoting disregard for Wikipedia policy". The template in question merely stated that "This user would prefer not to use GFDL images if there are better fair use ones available."--CyberGhostface 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Definitely time to indef. block him.--Certified.Gangsta 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sys Hax 22:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I uploaded an *unquestionably* fair-use biological drawing of the (conjoined) hensel twins from from a 1995 Life magazine. No other such drawing exists, as the hensels are a private family. Abu badali left me a message saying, get this, that while he wasn't challenging it's fair-use status, wikipedia *prefers* public domain pictures, and since there were none of this subject, HE SAID I HAD TO GO FIND A MEDICAL ARTIST TO REDRAW THE PICTURE FOR FREE. I ignored what I thought was a stupid joke.. but a week later, the image was deleted! Now I find he's been doing that to a lot of people because he thinks it's funny. WHY HAS WIKIPEDIA NOT BANNED THIS HOODLUM? That's far more important to me than the existence of the hoodlum himself. THAT'S what I'm mad about. If this happened in a company I worked for I would go to the board of directors, resign over it, and bring down a couple of managers with me.[reply]
  18. Endorse summary. Clear overbroad interpretation of the rules, as noted, and if the accusations of wikistalking are true (I've found this type of behaviour to unfortunately be actually fairly common in "delete freaks"), it's fairly serious. Lexicon (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse summary. --DrBat 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse summary. Driller thriller 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strongly endorse. Taz Manchester 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse as per summary. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Endorse summary. For goodness' sake let's put a stop to this. jamesgibbon 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Grue  21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Copyright paranoiac with a bad attitude. Trevor GH5 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Endorse summary. I have been a good faith contributor to wikipedia. Recently I uploaded an image and claimed fair use. [3] Abu badali in turn took down my image from the page it was used on. I tried to talk to him about it but he/she seems to think that there is absolutely NO situation in which fair use EVER applies to a living persion. He/she seems to object to any fair use of copyrighted materials. He put another image I had of a famous person who was badly beaten up by police on a deletion list. I tried to explain fair use, that this was an example of a photo illustrating a human rights page where the situation was unique but to no avail. [4]. I have also found an interesting court case that I believe buttresses my position.[5]Custodiet ipsos custodes 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Endorse summary - he does seem reather demonic in his approach and many sensible pictures have been targetted unnecessarily. I have undone quite a few of his tags and deletion requests. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Quadell's view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have interacted with both Abu and Pageant, and have several observations.

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

  1. —Angr 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC). I still actually haven't seen convincing evidence of Abu acting sneakily or rudely, but it seems several people have felt that he was. As for Vanessa Marie Semrow, I could be persuaded to undelete the image if the article discussed "the newly designed Mikimoto crown" in more detail, since the image shows her wearing it. At the moment the link to Mikimoto tells us nothing about the crown. If someone can find out more info about the crown and its significance and add it to the article, then the image will become unreplaceable.[reply]
  2. Abu does a lot of important, thankless work in the area, and from what I've seen, usually does a decent job explaining the issues to other editors. There is certainly room for improvement, though, and the deceptive scenario that he presented Pageant was a mistake. I endorse all of the other points as well, and agree that both Quadell and Angr acted reasonably on the back end of these disputes. ×Meegs 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Level-headed, well-balanced account of the situation. I don't think Ali did anything wrong, though he could be a little more careful with other editor's feelings. I don't see anything particularly nefarious about the 'deception' either, and I think the reaction concerning that act is overblown. Borisblue 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Abu needs to be more diligent in warning uploaders when tagging, and have more consideration when dealing with new users. What I meant was that the isolated 'deception' act is less important than the fact that he doesn't take to account what uploaders feel when tagging their images.
  4. Chowbok ☠ 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oden 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The image tagging appears to have been correct, but the personal interaction leaves much to be desired room for improvement. Deceiving other editors or being unnecessarily curt to newbies who have made apparent good-faith contributions is inexcusable and should not be tolerated not good. Alienating other contributors, especially those who are making rookie mistakes, is also not in the long-term interests of Wikipedia. However, I do understand that being friendly and helpful can be difficult after having tagged almost 200 replaceable fair use images uploaded by the same user. --Oden 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have no knowledge of Abu acting rudely or not, but I endorse all other points. If this is just a conduct issue, I would suggest, as above, that people try extra hard in areas as contentious as this to be nice to people that may not understand the sometimes very complex policies as well as you might. - cohesion 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes. --RobthTalk 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. Megapixie 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jkelly 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mangojuicetalk 18:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebbeng's summary[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

In spite of what others may have you believe, the fair use policy is not so cut and dry. Regardless, it raises the greater question of what I like to call "cowboy" editors, who hear Jimbo express an opinion on something, or read a policy in a certain way, or see a discussion, and then rush off to "save" Wikipedia without considering the greater ramifications of their actions. In fact, many times (and in Abu badali's case in particular) they are outright rude and sometimes even hostile, use cheap, underhanded tactics to trick inexperienced editors, and in general run roughshod over everyone who puts up any kind of resistance. The result is a great deal of upset people, and in many cases editors will outright LEAVE Wikipedia. Many of those who leave are novices who just found a really cool online encyclopedia that they can make a contribution to and they can't understand why someone is not only trying to get their hard work deleted, but using trickery and sneaky tactics to get it done (and acting like a jerk in the process). Others are long-standing and experienced editors who know they've just been screwed over and instead of a review of their case or answers to their questions, they get silence or rude, flippant, condescending comments. This kind of behavior is absolutely NOT in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia and what it is supposed to stand for. Machiavellian tactics are unacceptable. If images are going to be tagged and deleted as a matter of policy, the interested parties MUST be treated with respect, their questions and concerns MUST be answered politely and professionally, and each case MUST receive the individual attention it deserves. Anyone who sees the image tagged MUST be assisted by the tagger to understand WHY it was tagged, what they have to do to ensure it isn't deleted, and if they provide a proper case for keeping it, then the image must be untagged and left alone. Going through a backlog of tagged images and hitting the delete button en-masse is not acceptable. Deleting an image uploaded in good faith without providing an acceptable explanation to the interested partie(s) and without allowing them to understand what is going on and without allowing them to provide debate is not acceptable. Treating editors with contempt and rudeness, and using trickery to acheive your ends is not acceptable.

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

  1. User:Sebbeng 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ADDENDUM: For the record, I do not support deleting fair use images UNTIL a free replacement has, indeed, been found, but I didn't mention that above because I'm trying to respond to the specifics of this case in particular.[reply]
  2. Badagnani Badagnani 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a well written summary, I agree with it completely. Dionyseus 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Couldn't have said it better myself. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Encapsulates my concerns with this recent edit policy. - Stick Fig 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ta-ni-ni 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jbuzza 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DHowell 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alex Bakharev 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Irpen 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Except for the "cowboy" sentence, I agree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Absolutely. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hoping this editor will show a little more respct for WP:CON...Jenolen speak it! 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Tbkflav 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Zanimum 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tvccs 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --OneCyclone 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm late to this, but this is exactly my issue with the way this policy was implemented. Daniel Case 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Crumbsucker 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Johntex\talk 02:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- jsa 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sys Hax 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Agree. Furthermore, Bidali should be banned from wikipedia permanantly. instead of driving around at night smashing car antennas off with a baseball bat, he found a socially-acceptable way of doing it[reply]
  24. Agree 100%.--CyberGhostface 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Lexicon (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Aye. (I know I'm kinda late on this RfC, but I saw something on a talk page that just now pointed me to it).[reply]
  26. Endorse summary. --DrBat 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strongly endorse. Taz Manchester 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I agree completely. jamesgibbon 13:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Grue  21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Trevor GH5 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking Is Never Acceptable[edit]

This springs from a discussion on the talk page, and I wanted to post it here, because I do believe it is an important component of the editor's behavior which must be addressed.

Higher up on this page, an editor wrote: "I still actually haven't seen convincing evidence of Abu acting sneakily or rudely..." Those lines were crossed out, after reading the following.

At File:Mikko eloranta.jpg (now deleted; talk page still at Image talk:Mikko eloranta.jpg, Abu badali added a RFU tag, without notifying me, the uploader of the image, that he had done so. A quick check revealed he had visited many of the images I had uploaded, adding this tag, and failed to notify me in every instance. I considered this "sneaky." (And you know I think that kid User:Chowbok is crazy-wrong, but at least he notifies.)

Abu then tracked my contributions to Wikipedia, found an article I had started (completely unrelated to the current fair use policy dispute} and defaced the article with markup so badly that an administrator had to revert the majority of his changes. He also proposed for speedy deletion a separate article I started, for no reason other than Wiki-harassment. This, too, was undone by an admin, after easily verifying the article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. These edits by Abu, which have to be reverted by admins, seem to be a violation of WP:EQ, and borders on WP:POINT.

In short, I have felt Wiki-stalked and repeatedly harassed by this editor. I have been a good faith contributor, and I see things much differently than User:Abu badali, especially when it comes to matter of fair use. But User:Abu badali needs to know that chasing other editors across the pages of Wikipedia, while "fun" for him, is no fun at all for the other editor. It's also a violation of WP:Stalk#Wikistalking. I believe Abu badali must stop Wikistalking immediately, and instead, indicate some kind of willingness to work with other editors to develop consensus on these difficult fair use issues.

Users Who Endorse This Summary[edit]

  1. Jenolen speak it! 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Badagnani - should not only aim to develop consensus, but also contribute in a productive, constructive way to our project.
  3. User:Sebbeng 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. The editor should refrain from wikistalking immediately and begin contributing in a healthy, constructive manner.[reply]
  4. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Irpen. Obvious point. Stalking is trolling. --04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dionyseus 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tvccs 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --OneCyclone 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. based on diffs i'll have to support this.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Geo. 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Crumbsucker 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have also seen this user abusing the image deletion policy. Within minutes of my disagreeing with his position on a talk page (not even with him personally I should add) he has scouring my contributions looking for images that may be deletable. This is wikistalking and a clear violation of WP:POINT. Johntex\talk 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. User is more or less revert waring with certain individuals. See Image:FT9708.jpg for an example. -- jsa 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I have read the entire Rfc, and looked at the diffs. I endorse this summary.Jeffpw 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I endorse this summary.--CyberGhostface 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. TechnoFaye 02:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC) After I complained to WP about him months ago, Bidali tagged more of my images for deletion. Then immediately after I signed this complaint, he looked me up and tagged every single one of my images, including ones in Little_Darlings, Kristy McNichol and Time Tunnel. The latest is Image:Tt3.jpg, which is a studio publicity photo for a 40-year-old TV show. He insisted I give the source. I provided it, then he demanded more info. I gave that too, but he still insists on deleting the image. In Image talk:Tt3.jpg, user:Matthew tried to tell him that his position was ridiculous, but he never stops, no matter how much verification you give. He always deletes the images, *always*. I did not defend any of the other images he targeted since no amount of information or reason will prevent him from deleting all my images in retaliation for my signing this complaint. Because of Bidali and the fact that he continues to get away with it, I have become completely disgusted and have stopped editing wikipedia (see my edits list). Bidali is a vandal and a stalker and must be banned permanently.[reply]
  18. Endorse summary. --DrBat 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I endorse this summary. This person clearly has some issues and needs to be prevented from causing further damage to Wikipedia, in my view jamesgibbon 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse summary. Abu badali is a well known and serial Wiki-Stalker and his actions go against everything the Wikipedia project stands for, he must be banned. He has been blocked twice already block history and yet has still not stopped Wiki-stalking Wikipedians . Taz Manchester 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse summary. QuasyBoy 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Endorse Alex Bakharev 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Grue  21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Big time. Trevor GH5 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse summary. I have been a good faith contributor to wikipedia. Recently I uploaded an image and claimed fair use. [6] Abu badali in turn took down my image from the page it was used on. I tried to talk to him about it but he/she seems to think that there is absolutely NO situation in which fair use EVER applies to a living persion. Later I went to the talk page another user for advice where he had also uploaded an image of a living person where no free person was available. Here is were it gets creepy. He followed my talk comment to this new user and took down their image as well (presumably taking revenge). Talk about stalking. He/she is watching whatever I do. I find the whole stalking to be really creepy.Custodiet ipsos custodes 08:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Tbkflav 06:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ADDENDUM TO ABOVE: Badali's user page has a picture of a grinning devil with the text: "Abu is targeting you! Call me a stalker. Expect me to read through your logs. Have a rant? Now I have my own RFC! [referring to this RfC]. I am a Nihilist", The word "Nihilist" on his user page points to the definition: the desire to destroy meaning, knowledge, and value . TechnoFaye Kane 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This man is a nihilist, there's nothing to be afraid of. —Chowbok ☠ 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not AFRAID of him Chowbok. We just want him banned, to end his tearing down of Wikipedia. TechnoFaye Kane 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral Summaries[edit]

For the summaries I have not give a "Strong Endorsement" certification, it is because they are non-neutral and thus are not credible.

This issue is really not about these two users, but rather a differing in opinions about "fair use" and related. The two characters simply symbolise two different opinions, and the RFC is to witness that clash. The non-neutral summaries are were attacks and unproductive. Please stop that. Goodlief 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if the same thief steals your lawn furniture night after night and you complain to the police that they are looking the other way, then you're "non-neutral" and the police should use that as a reason to continue to ignore the thefts. It is THAT smug attitude which led me to stop editing Wikipedia several months ago, far more than Badali himself. TechnoFaye Kane 06:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

  1. Goodlief

Disrespect for the community[edit]

This RfC has been open for more than two months, and Abu had not seen fit to respond to it. During this time period, Abu has found sufficient time to continue the very sort of behavior which promted the RfC. In fact, Abu seems proud of the fact that he has an RfC and has mentioned it prominently on his user page.[7] On his user page, he characterizes posts here as "rant"s, which is worrisome given that RfCs form an important part of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I urge Abu to show that he respects the Wikipedia community and the ideals of discussion and concensus by making a long-overdue reply to this RfC. Johntex\talk 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

  1. Johntex\talk 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Badagnani Badagnani 06:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abu is setting his user page up to indicate that he has intention to stalk people. -- jsa 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I find it troubling that Abu is aware of this Rfc (looking at his userpage shows he even links to it), yet has not responded to any of the comments posted here. I have never interacted with this user before, so have no personal axe to grind. This, to me, shows a lack of respect for Wikipedia and the protocols of the community. Jeffpw 09:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TheQuandry 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. see below.Sys Hax 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dionyseus 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse summary. --DrBat 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongly endorse. Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs) This type of behavior - harassment, blatantly posting intentions of harassment, and finally not addressing the complaint of harassments in a community forum. Not good. A ban may be a right decision.
  11. Strongly endorse. Taz Manchester 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse. jamesgibbon 13:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Grue  21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Trevor GH5 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse - This editor is basically using Wikipedia policies as instruments in an ego trip, twisting the spirit of these policies to harass and bully good faith editors. His confrontational and obnoxious user page is evident of that. --Eqdoktor 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strongly Endorse - I have had no end of trouble with Abu badali. He keeps making new arguments for why fair use images should not be allowed. What strikes me is his/her intellectual dishonesty. He wants all fair use of copyrighted material eliminated. When Abu's old arguments don't apply to a new case he/she makes up new ones. I have also experienced harassment by Abu badali which I consider compeletely unacceptable. Custodiet ipsos custodes 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Tbkflav 06:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yet another strong endorsement I have and am undergoing similar difficulties with this person at the present time. - Cjmarsicano 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of my vote in the above section[edit]

Disrespect for the community. That summarizes Abu Badali. He deleted my image and, following WP official stated procedure, I had another admin put it in "images being considered for deletion" instead so others can judge for themselves. When he found out (within about 5 hours), he deleted it from the consideration page(!).


This is like a judge making a bad conviction, then barging into the appeals court during the appeal, yelling "guilty! guilty!" and telling the guards to take the defendant back to jail. I very politely requested that he restore it to the consideration page so others could judge the pic, but he ignored my request.

Comments like the ones on this page stack up and are ignored. The only real question at this point is why such an abusive user hasn't been banned. Obviously he knows somebody somewhere, who winks at him. He even laughs about all the complaints on his user page, and no one at Wikipedia cares.

After a lot of effort by his stalking victims, he was temporarily banned, but had one of his admin friends reverse the ban in 43 minutes.

Because of the ukgirl incident and Badali, I have totally lost respect for wikipedia as an organization with integrity, and have discontinued daily editing, not as a protest, but out of disgust. I now edit only in extreme cases in articles I happen to read during my own research. The system may as well be run by John Hinkley or the KKK as far as I'm concerned.

In the unlikely case that Wikipedia wants to return to a standard of internal integrity, it needs not only to ban Abu Badali permanently, but find and fire whoever in the organization is protecting him.

I'm not holding my breath.
Sys Hax
22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this... I too am surprised that considering the weight of wiki editors against his behaviour, nothing concrete has come out of this. I am particularly disappointed that Badali is now basically laughing into our faces. I started this AFD because of disruption to my editing that is long since out of the picture, but I continue to read and follow his talk page and the messages here and am continuingly amazed at how he seems to get away with continuously ignoring... and even mocking... the valid opinions put forward here. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abu Badalai is not an admin Alex Bakharev 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton-like tagging of images vs. constructive editing[edit]

Since it seems to be a theme I've seen throughout Abu badali's talk page and feelings expressed here, I have chosen to include this section. Basically I wish he would look at the Wiki project as a whole, and not focus so narrowly on his image-tagging campaign. This doesn't need to take much...

An example: weeks after my run-in with him I discover he's found a fair-use image I uploaded and included in the Melissa Lingafelt article (what he was doing still looking through my logs is moot point, it appears he enjoys this). He obviously went to check the reference and found it was a 404 so he commented out the image and accompanying text. What really riled me is that it was a simple copyedit mistake I had made by forgetting to include a pipe in the reference, thus the url looked like: chttp://www.missteenusa.com/press/08.15.06.htmlpublisher=Miss. I honestly think a four year old taking care with their editing rather than one on a narrow minded campaign against fair use images could have spotted the error in the url. Someone interested in constructive edits would have fixed the mistake, rather than commenting the whole section out.

My basic point: Abu badali is generally a destructive, rather than constructive editor. I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate a bit more care taken and less of his single-minded focus on a campaign to rid Wikipedia of fair use images. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems odd he would also delete the text, since it has a reference accompanying it. Did you question him about that? Jeffpw 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the whole point was that the reference was a 404, and that was, as I said above, beause I'd made a small error. My point is that the error was extremely easy to pick up and fix, rather than commenting the whole thing out. I did query him about this but got no reply. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread. I thought you meant the url of the image came back to a 404. And yes, I see what your mistake was, and it is clear to see if one goes into the edit function to comment it out. It does seem to me to go back to the Wikistalking thing, too. Jeffpw 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said "Abu badali is generally a destructive, rather than constructive editor." I assert that he is not really an 'editor" at al, but a vandal who gleefully destroys wikipedia and figured a way to make it look like "editing". He is clearly being protected by someone in the office. TechnoFaye 02:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary[edit]

Fooling new editors (smoking gun)[edit]

Bidali tagged NASA public release images for deletion with the following message:

Unfortunatelly we can't use these images. Following the "Image Use" at the bottom of the page, we see their politics on image use: "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes". Non-commercial is not free enough for Wikipedia.

What is interesting is that he did this to user User:Scheibenzahl in his first week of being an editor. Scheibenzahl was fooled and apologized profusely to Bidali for adding NASA images to Wikipedia. An experienced editor would never have fallen for this. 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Abu badali is right this time. The images in question are from Chandra, which is operated for NASA, not by NASA. If these images were public domain, there wouldn't be a page to request permission to use the images. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No, Badili was NOT right, he was WRONG. NASA images can be used by anyone, anytime for any reason, period. And someone who makes it his business to delete images should know that, as should his apologists. The reason the permission request form is on that site is NOT for Chandra images such as the one in question, but for other, non-NASA images on that site (and yes, Chandra IS run by NASA). How do I know all this? Because I asked the person who put the permission form on that site, Kathy Lestition <kathy@head.cfa.harvard.edu>, and I would be extremely happy to forward her email saying so to anyone who gives a damn about keeping images in wikipedia -- if there are any such editors who have not quit in disgust yet. That leaves ME out, since I quit because of Badali, as have the ex-editors who emailed me. Badali and the rest of you bowdlerizing luddites can wallow in this increasingly-useless playpen by yourselves. TechnoFaye 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean now. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely that the form means to suggest that requests are only required for particular non-Chandra images that might be on the site (what non-Chandra images would be on the site?). The image use policy page clearly states "To request permission to use Chandra images, video or other media, please use our Permission Request Form. If you have further questions, or a special condition, please contact:"... Lexicon (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to imply? NASA pictures are not public domain? You may be in for a surprise. A NASA image wherever and however used, taken from whoever, remains public domain. Chandra doesn't own NASA images, you do. Period. Aditya Kabir 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I *LOVE* it when someone calls me a liar! That's when I get to grab them by their hair and shove their face in it! (below,emphasis added)

Dear Faye Kane,

Our ability to grant permissions extends only to images taken with telescopes or satellites funded by NASA, or images, illustrations or animations funded by a NASA program. Unfortunately, it is not always clear to requesters which images are considered in this public domain. We also have been granted permission by non-NASA organizations to use their material for comparative purposes. We do not have authority to grant permission for re-use of these images. Even with the clearest of credits, people are often confused. A composite image of an object may consist of a Chandra image (public domain) overlayed with an image from ESA or a ground-based telescope (not public domain).

So, we have come up with a request form. It seemed simpler that way, rather than trading several e-mails trying to explain. Our instructions could be worded more clearly.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Lestition
Education & Outreach Coordinator
Chandra X-Ray Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
kathy@head.cfa.harvard.edu

Do you understand NOW, bowdlerizing luddite? Or can you come up with yet another objection to using images in Wikipedia? You know what? I don't care; I have ceased editing. I am only here to witness the soon-to-happen Badali sham trial, whitewash, and acquittal. TechnoFaye 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness f'in' gracious! Bowdlerizing Luddite, eh? You might have, if you had calmed yourself down for just a second, come to the realization that I am, in fact, attempting to help you, and in fact have a pretty lax view towards image use (although that doesn't mean I'm copyright-ignorant). Without the information provided by Kathy, reading the image request information on the site does indicate copyright is held for all images, and so, those of us with brains have attempted, logically, to argue from the information given. A curse, I know. That said, there is still the very real possibility (judging by what Kathy told me herself), that a good deal of images from the Chandra website do require a request for and grant of permission (and the proper terms of use will need to be stated in that request), as a good deal of images are composite images which include non-NASA information. It's certainly nowhere near as simple as your claim, prior to the posting of Kathy's email, stated it to be. Oh, BTW, you might want to try wikimarkup in your messages: we use two quotes ('') around text to italicise it, and three (''') to bold it. <i> and <b> tags are generally not desirable. Lexicon (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion about Dutch image[edit]

I'm not convinced Abu knows image use policy. He tagged an image that came from commons and was used for over half a year on the Dutch Wikipedia main page and said its license appeared bogus even though it had both original Dutch license text and a translation. He didn't even bother to contact the established editor who uploaded it. See the copied WP:ANI post below. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping somebody can help with a problem I am having. User: Abu badali seems to be checking my contributions and removing images from articles that I have uploaded. My feeling is that he is doing this in retribution for my support of the Rfc against him. He has stalked me in the past (Theresa Knott challenged him about this), so I am not surprised. His latest episode has been to remove this image from the article about Princess Maxima of the Netherlands. If one looks at the licensing, it states clearly that the photo is available for use by the public, so long as the RFD (Dutch Information Service) is given credit for it. Its use on Wikipedia fulfills this criterion. The notice from the RFD says Deze foto mag worden gedownload, gebruikt en gereproduceerd zonder schriftelijke toestemming....Voorwaarde hierbij is wel het vermelden van het auteursrecht van de RVD.: This photo may be downloaded, used and reproduced without written permission...on the condition that it is stated the rights are from the RVD"

Abu Badil removed the photo with the edit summary "rm problematic commons image (source seems bogus)". I do not know if the source is "bogus" or not, as I did not upload it. I note, however, that it is the image used on the Dutch Princess Maxima article, and has been used for over 6 months (even on the Dutch Main Page) without being deleted. Given that she is as important a person to Dutch society as Prince William would be to the British or Laura Bush would be to Americans, if there was a copyright problem with the image, I think the Dutch Wikipedia would have removed it long ago. I'd appreciate it if an admin could look at the image and reach his or her own decision about it. If you don't see any problems with the image, please stop Abu Badil from deleting it again. Thank you. Jeffpw 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Closing comments[edit]

As noted at the top of this page, this dispute was taken to arbitration; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. --Muchness (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More