Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Abu Badali Engages in Wikistalking
At (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 certainly against the spirit of the template, which asks editors to notify other editors that their contributions are being considered for deletion.

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. 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.

Abu badali does not allow for a fair hearing in his pursuit of image deletions
Unfortunately, it is difficult to present a lot of the evidence in terms of diffs as much of Abu badali's actions have been on image pages that has since been deleted. In numerous cases, to images I have uploaded, Abu badali has tagged images for deletion with an edit marked as minor and having no summary. He has removed templates that dispute the image has been deleted. He has re-added deletion templates after a consensus has been reached that the image qualifies as fair use and an admin has marked the image as "result: keep". In some of these cases, images have ended up being deleted by a careless adminstrator due to a second or third tagging by Abu badali after all other parties have agreed the image should be kept. One image that has survived Abu badali's deletion attempts is Image:Bobrae-premier.jpg. He tagged it for deletion on January 19, readded the tag deleting a keep tag on January 24 and again on March 7. This is not an uncommon activity for Abu badali, unfortunately in most cases, however, he succeeds in getting the image deleted. - Jord 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali refuses to conform with community consensus
Again, using the example of Image:Bobrae-premier.jpg, to his credit, Abu badali did participate on the discussion as to whether or not the image was fair use, however whenever the overwhleming consensus came around to keeping the image, he would simply tag it for deletion without comment. - Jord 16:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali exercises poor judgement and undertakes actions which logic suggests would evoke a negative reaction
I cannot imagine that anyone would think that Abu badali, when in the midst of an arbitration which claims he harrasses users by going through their edits and mass-tagging their images, is exercising very good judgment when he goes through all of the images related to a topic of considerable interest to the proponent of the arbitration and questions their (admittably questionable) sources. - Jord 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

PageantUpdater knowingly invited a user to the RFC based on his recent vandalism
User:PageantUpdater, the RFC creator, knowingly invited a user to take part on the RFC just because this user had recently vandalized my user page.

The RFC was an unwelcoming place where attacks were tolerated
Although some good editors took their time to add some good points to that page, the overall mood was of attacking.

In the second edit ever to the RFC page, User:Tvccs accused me (with no diffs) of "sabotaged", of engaging in an "all out pattern of attack against any other user that dares challenge his absolutist POV" and that I am "''interested in destruction'".

I have been called a "hooligan" by User:Jack Cox, that said I tagged his images for "revenge".

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

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

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

TechnoFaye demonstrated intentions of infringing physical harm to Abu badali
In a recent conversation with user User:PageantUpdater, User:TechnoFaye said "If I knew where he lived, I'd take a baseball bat to him without saying anything".

Response to Jord's evidence above
Contest: I didn't "re-added deletion templates after a consensus has been reached". In January 24, I reverted an edit by admin Zanimum, that as "keep" just 1 day (and not the minimum of 7) after my tagging, without providing any explanation or edit summary. In March 7 I reverted the edit by Arctic.gnome, that (by the way, he is currently a candidate to be one).
 * About "Abu badali does not allow for a fair hearing..."

Just for the record, the image in question currently lacks source information and a fair use rationale. --Abu badali (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, just for the record, the image in question was just by Wikipedia and Commons administrator Jkelly. --Abu badali (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what this is an evidence of. I was browsing Wikipedia and stumbled in List of New Brunswick premiers (probably following a link in some image in some debate) and went on to check the status of the images used to decorate this list. I noticed a some them missed source info, or were replaceable unfree images. I tagged some, but, when I noticed some were uploaded by Jord, I preferred to contact him personally to talk about the images (to avoid any further stress or accusations). Saying that I went "through all of the images related to a topic of interest..." is a far fetched, unhelpful speculation. --Abu badali (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * About "Abu badali exercises poor judgement ..."

Response to Jenolen's evidence above
It's possible that I didn't notify Jenolen about the image tagging, but not for "sneakery", as he concluded. The Replaceable fair use tag, in it's original version, didn't asked for the uploader to be notified, and I believe that was so because bots (specifically OrphanBot) was doing this automated job (as it does for unsourced and unlicensed images ). It wasn't until October 19, 2006 that the template started asking for the uploader to be warned. I probably didn't noticed the change (my fault) and continued tagging replaceable unfree images without warnings.
 * About being "sneaky"...

If some admin deleted some of these images without the uploader having the chance to make his point, undeletion should be considered.

Luckly enough, Jenolen was able to make his point in the case of. The image, an unfree picture showing a ice-hockey player's face, was ultimately 10 days after Jenolen's first comment about the image deletion (8 days more than what's requested by policy).

I may be faulty of not warning about the images taggings at the time. But I ask User:Jenolen to try to conciliate his conclusion that I acted "sneaky" with the principles of assuming good faith.

Even though "reading a user's contribution log does not constitutes Harassment", in this case, I probably didn't even read Jenolen's logs, as the articles he mentioned, The Crazy 8's and Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, were prominently advertised on Jenolen's user page at that time (November 20, 2006), together with other articles of Jenolen's creation.
 * About "tracked my contributions.."

"Defaced" is a terrible choice of a word. At the time I first read "The Crazy's", Jenolen was it's sole contributor, and the article (IMHO) suffered from lack of sources and of having an unnencyclopedic fan-like tone. My first edit was to add pov and weasel warning on specific sections and ask for a source for a given sentence. Following that edit, I immediately started a discussion on the image's talk page explaining my concerns.
 * About "defaced the article with markup so badly..."

What followed was a funny comment by Jenolen on the article's talk page, and the addition of even more unsourced information to the article.

I then asked for specific sources and removed weasel words, original research  and  an unfree image missing a rationale.

That was the set of edits that Jenolen characterizes as a "defacement". Indeed, looking at it now, the article seemed specially ugly with all that "citation need" messages in the text. But it takes a lot of bad faith assumption to conclude that this was my original intent when performing those edits.

After an editor reverted my edits, I tried a different approach, adding my detailed concerns of sources, pov and weasel language at the articles talk page.

While I have seen success in the technic of heavily editing and article for problems in Linda Ronstadt and in the technic of listing the page's problems in a comprehensive list at the article's talk page in Vogue (magazine), the article on The Crazy 8's, unfortunately, seems to still carry today the same problems that it used to have when I first read it.

How do we conciliate this speculation about my reasons with WP:AGF? It's usually a bad idea to infer motivations to people's actions.
 * About "...proposed for speedy deletion a separate article I started, for no reason other than Wiki-harassment"

I nominated Pearl Harbor Survivors Association for deletion because it failed to "assert the importance or significance of the subject" at the time. No more no less. Disagreeing with my judgment is one thing. Implying that I was acting "for no reason other than Wiki-harassment" is another.

For an example of a similar case, I recently nominated Jack Ackroyd for deletion also because it failed to assert the importance of the subject. After that, User:Abebenjoe did an amazing job of improving the article (with sourced info) in a timeframe of just 4 days, and then I withdrawn the nomination. Easy, with no need for attacks or bad faith assumptions, the article was improved from an bad-stub to an above-average bio. It's all about how editors react to criticism.

Jenolen implies that I targeted his contributions because of a discussion with him on Image_talk:Mikko eloranta.jpg about the replaceability of this image. Around the time of this discussion (between November 17, 2006 and December 13 of 2003), I was involved in dozen of others discussions about replaceable unfree images. That was the time we started targeting replaceable unfree images, and even the most obviously replaceable images were being disputed by their uploaders (the Image talk:Mikko eloranta.jpg image, for instance, was just a picture of an athlete's face). There's no reason to believe that I would give special importance for this discussion (let alone to believe that I would act in revenge over those disagreeing with me and with the policy).
 * About Jenolen's general feeling of being targeted

I believe Jenolen's statements that he had been "Wiki-stalked and repeatedly harassed" by me, and that I chase "other editors across the pages of Wikipedia" for "fun" are unjustified. I ask him to consider communicating through my talk page whenever he found himself incapable of avoiding implying bad motivations to any of my actions. Good communication always brings the better outcome in Wikipedia.

The vast majority of images I nominate for deletion end up being deleted
See ifd discussion I took part in:

--Abu badali (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Badali responds to communication
I realize this may be a bit circumstantial. However, I had a moderately heated exchange with Abu Badali back on March 1, 2007; the exchange can be viewed (his talk page) and  (mine). By the end of it, I was starting to feel wikistalked, but I noticed from Abu Badali's user page the warning "Expect me to go through your logs" (which I hadn't noticed until partway through the exchange). Eventually, I told him to lay off and he did. I've had a couple of further interactions with him; although he argues his case vigorously, he does communicate about them.

Recently, he asked for help communicating with a user on ANI over our replacable FU image policy. The user in quesiton was pretty hard to reason with but in the end, did manage to obtain free images to replace the FU ones. Both Abu and I congratulated him on the accomplishment. So, his style of interaction can be beneficial at times.

I bring this up because although Abu does go through peoples' contributions and scrutinize them, which can get him off to a bad start with people, things can work out if you talk to him about it, and that's what you're supposed to do anyway. Mango juice talk 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, although he never responded in his RFC, he did respond to me when I asked him about that:. Mango juice talk 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sebbeng
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Abu badali engages in trickery
Clear evidence of Abu badali engaging in trickery in order to confuse a new editor and get an image deleted. 

Abu badali needs to banned indefinitely for the following reasons
Recently he has been following my edits and purposely deleting images and ignoring any fairuse rationale I have written down. He generally flags a page to "rm unnecessary unfree images". An example is the Image:ZhouXuanCDrelease.jpg removed from the Music of China page, which clearly have a rationale and a historical use. He is also deceptively following my edit logs to pages I have edited to delete other user's images such as Image:Photo dannychan.jpg.

He is purposely avoiding any conversation. This user should be banned by Username as well as IP for
 * 1) Abusing any power, especially when he has no administrative rights to begin with.
 * 2) Abusing the fair use policy by improperly making deletions with no regard.
 * 3) wikistalking
 * 4) He already has a lengthy history of negatively enforcing rules among a number of users.
 * 5) On his user page statements such as "Call me a stalker. It's fashionable now." and "Abu is targeting you" clearly demonstrate he has negative intentions and enjoy the harrassment for fun.
 * 6) He has shown no ability to differentiate between "decorations" and "historical context" for ANY article.
 * 7) I also believe he has already been banned once. Following his return he made no effort to improve on this behavior.
 * 8) This user is a serious baggage that needs to be dealt with weekly by different users. He is a hassle on behalf of the wikipedia community.

Benjwong 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This user continues to explicitly target articles I have worked on. He removed all the images from the Chinese rock page, yet there are pictures of Elvis on the US Rock and roll page. Benjwong 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, Image:Elvis presley.jpg is a public domain image.  howcheng  {chat} 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali has shown clear judgement on Chinese rock
This is somewhat meant to be a rebuttal to Benjwong's statements.
 * The images on Chinese rock in the version advocated by Benjwong are nonfree and can be replaced with free images. The first image is of Cui Jian, who is still living and still performs. The second is a promotional picture of a gothic band. Both do not comply with WP:NFCC, although the later case may be considered borderline, so far as I understand it.
 * The picture of Elvis that is pointed to (Image:Elvis presley.jpg) is in the public domain.
 * The RFAR that is pointed to in the previous section happens to be this one. Abu badali has not been banned before, but he has not fully been out of trouble, having been blocked twice for about the same allegations. In both instances, he was unblocked.
 * Abu badali's userpage statements are obviously a form of sarcasm referring to the numerous fair-use related debacles he's entered.
 * Forgive me for going into generalizations now, but a lot of people who choose to wade into the hell of free-use often find themselves in sticky situations. Abu badali has certainly not been without fault, but he is still a valuable contributor in the area of deletions and images.
 * Absolutely not. The user Abu badali is explicity flagging every page I work on as (rm unnecessary unfree image).  Everything I put up is "unnecessary" as he practically watches my logs.  You are jumping in the middle of the debacle.  So you may not understand.


 * If you cannot use an album image to portray "the father" of a particular art form, then at least challenge the rationale. Do you really want to know how many articles are currently using fair use images that have far more visits?  Why don't I use the same one from Image:Nirvana mtv unplugged in new york.png?  You are allowing straight out harassment.  He does not even respond until there is a complaint filed against him.   Benjwong 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also this is seriously not making any sense. As the fair use policies are requesting that EVERY unfree image have a fair rationale for it to be used.  Tons of users are wasting their time posting up rationales that are completely being ignored.  Anyone can go on a pages and deem images "unnecessary" and start deleting. It takes no effort.  Is the lazy way out.  While all the contributors have to pay the price. Benjwong 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Abu badali engages in wikistalking and harassment
Abu badali has tagged numerous fair use images of mine also, but that does not mean he is wikistalking me? No. In the end each image had a legitimate fair use issue that needed to be discussed in light of current Wikipedia policy on non-free images. He is a dogged debater and when the debating is through, he was right most of the time or least made better points than I could. I believe his tanacity is being viewed as harassment.

When tagging images for deletion, if you find an uploader who is consistantly making the same mistake, you need to tag all those images for deletion, which is what Abu badali does. I do it also. This is not harassment or wikistalking, it is being thourough. I applaud him for doing this. -Nv8200p talk 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Abu badali exercises poor judgement or can avoid actions which would evoke a negative reaction
Getting an image you uploaded nominated for deletion burns your ego a bit and Abu badali has burned mine many times. This is a negative reaction, but what Abu badali does is necessary. Wikipedia now has a very narrow usage policy for fair use images (WP:NFCC). What good is having the policy if it is not enforced. The same goes with policies on referencing facts (WP:ATT), weasel words(WP:WEASEL), etc. Abu badali is our right-wing enforcer of Wikipedia policy and it just evokes a negative reaction in some people to be "called to the carpet" on policy issues.

shows Abu badali is willing to compromise and show good judgement. He nominated Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg for deletion for being overly used as a fair use image and being used in an illustrative manner (legitimate reasons to nominate non-free images). The discussion came to an agreement to limit the image to use in one article where the image had the most significance (Munich massacre) and to add commentary about the image. It seems like a good compromise. -Nv8200p talk 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali is overly fixated on non-free images
Abu badali is overly fixated on non-free images to the detriment of articles. This leads to some very strange reactions which I believe are well outside what a normal editor would do in the situations below. I have no proof but I also believe this is partly vindictive editing against myself, considering our "history".
 * Melissa Lingafelt instance 1
 * 11 January 2007 I accidentally made an error in the cite web template in a reference on Melissa Lingafelt, forgetting to type a pipe which made the url look like this:  http://www.missteenusa.com/press/08.15.06.htmlpublisher=Miss 
 * 17 January 2007 Abu badali chooses to "commenting out section whose reference is a 404", as well as commenting out the non-free image I had added based on the fact that the url wasn't working.
 * I contend that any editor paying full attention to the article rather than on the image would have noticed the clear problem with the url and had the sense to see that the "publisher=Miss" was an error. I also contend that most editors would in this instance simply fix the url, rather than going to the effort of commenting out the two sections.
 * Melissa Lingafelt instance 2
 * 01:07, 14 May 2007 an anonymous editor removes the non-free image
 * 02:25, 14 May 2007 Abu badali tags the image as orphaned
 * In this instance I contend most people would treat the vandalism as what it was and simply revert it, rather than tagging the image as orphaned when he should know full well (from the above instance) that the image was being used.

Abu badali has engaged in stalking

 * Whilst I appreciate that he is making efforts to be nice, Abu badali is still stalking me and my contributions.
 * On 25 July, Abu badali approached me about an image to enquire whether the fair use claim was based on OR or not. Whilst I initially attempted a flimsy attempt to sure up the image, I later decided that it was best to request speedy deletion of it.
 * My issue is with the fact of how Abu badali came across this at all. He has not edited the image, nor has he ever edited the page it was on. Unless he has an interest in beauty pageants, which it appears he does not, there is no way he could have come across the issue if he was not stalking my contributions or pages which I have contributed to. I don't give a fig that he made the right call about the image... that's not my problem.  My problem is him targeting images that he would be highly unlikely to come across if he wasn't engaged in harassment.  I would welcome being proved wrong, but I have been making such comments for months now with no adequate explanation of this behaviour. PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.