Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abu badali

Initial thoughts

 * 1) It seems hardly fair to blame Abu badali for a premature deletion when Angr deleted it.
 * 2) The dispute instructions seem pretty simple to me. I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect people to understand them and follow them. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not blaming Abu badali for deleting the picture, I'm simply frustrated at the attitude he's taken towards the issue. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for beginning this RfC, I have unpleaseant memories of Abu Badali. Dionyseus 03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Angr is also a problem. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Civility mentioned in the Applicable policies and guidelines section. As far as I can tell that's the only policy Abu badali has actualy been acused of breaking here... --Sherool (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also guilty of edit warring and possibly 3RR. User:Sebbeng 14:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Guilty" makes it sound like a criminal indictment. Also the block log for User:Abu badali shows no blocks: block log for User:Abu badali. Here are a few who actually have been blocked:
 * User:Irpen (block log)
 * User:Earl Andrew (block log)
 * User:Ned Scott (block log)
 * User:Quadell (block log)
 * User:Badagnani (block log)
 * User:MatthewFenton (block log)
 * User:Dionyseus (block log)


 * All of them contributors to this project page or talk page. If we're going to talk about one specific user, we might as well also look at the behaviour of those commenting on the user. Someone once said: let he (or she) without sin cast the first stone... --Oden 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Struck part of my comment. --Oden 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good research. Maybe a good offense really is the best defense!  Badagnani 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, I disagree with that, Oden. Abu badali is the subject of this RfC, not the people listed above. I've revised my statement to make it more neutral. ADDENDUM: Abu also seems to be showing contempt for the community in general by not responding to this RfC. He obviously has time to do it, given his activity level on Wikipedia. User:Sebbeng 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --Oden 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:DFTT. --Irpen 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --Oden 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. For evidence see Special:Contributions/Oden.

From What is a troll: Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. also Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. see also other sections, especially: subsection of WP:DFTT. --Irpen 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Requests for comment/Irpen. --Oden 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * :) Everyone, please do. And Oden, go dig more! --Irpen 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden, are you here to discuss the RfC at hand, or to make personal attacks and instigate flame wars with other editors? You're venturing into the realm of disruption. Please feel free to comment on Abu badali's behavior. The RfC is not a free for all for users to attack each other randomly over perceived injustices. User:Sebbeng 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I welcome any scrutiny of myself. Including that "RfC". But yes, Oden's approach is telling. --Irpen 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) "Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see it with both eyes." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C
 * 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 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to.. start..
I don't think I have any major beef with Abu badali, but when I saw a RfC with his name I couldn't help but think that I had a similar dispute. Sure enough (thanks google!) I had,. It's good to be strict with our fair use policy, but not every image of a living person is being used in the same way. I want to read up a bit more about this dispute before I comment more so. To Abu badali, please don't take offense to this RfC, as you are likely doing a good job, but you need to put some of these issues into a better perspective. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abu caused that uploader, User:Mademoiselle Sabina to quit Wikipedia.   Dionyseus 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: Sabina caused Sabina to quit. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. User:Sebbeng 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If she wasn't banned, then she quit of her own accord. No one can force someone to quit. We should be willing to take responsibility for our own actions. I left Wikipedia for 6 months over a dispute with another editor -- but that was my choice. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you hadn't had that dispute with the other editor, would you have left? It's easy for me to see how mistreatment could cause someone to leave. Yes, she decided to leave on her own, but she'd probably still be here if Abu had behaved differently. People are affected by outside influences. User:Sebbeng 19:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's that kind of arrogance, Quadell that is causing these problems. Try and realize what is going on. Sure, it was her decision to leave, but the problems caused by you and others has the tendancy to push people to leave. Some people are the type that will leave under these circumstances, and some aren't so much, but that is something we have to take into consideration. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to solve the dispute?
The link in that section shows the dispute itself, rather than steps taken to resolve it. I think it would be more useful and relevant, for instance to see the diff's where pageantupdater asked Ali to start putting notices in the talk when images are up for deletion. Borisblue 10:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The hijacking of this RFC (AKA Quadell's rant)
This RFC is supposed to be about Abu's actions regarding his treatment of Pageant. Pageant has specifically said that her dispute is not with the fact that the image was deleted, and that she agrees that non-free, replaceable images should be deleted. Nonetheless, certain editors seem to have hijacked this RFC to turn it into yet another tirade against the enforcement of our fair use policy. TheQuandry characterized it as "'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." This is terrible mischaracterization of what our policy is and why we are enforcing it.

The deletion of, for instance, non-free images of living people, is not "reading a policy a certain way"; it is the plain text of counter-example #8. And this isn't based on some off-hand comment by Jimbo. See Requests for comment/Chowbok, if you haven't already, and note that FUC#1 has existed for over a year. The bottom line is that the deletion of replaceable, non-free images is our unambiguous policy, and some people just don't like it. Now if you want to discuss Abu's particular actions in this particular case, then great! This is the place for it. But if you want to simply complain about the hard-working editors who enforce unambiguous Wikipedia policy, calling them "cowboy editors" and mischaracterizing what the policy is and how it came about, then you're just wasting people's time.

Having said that, TheQuandry is absolutely right that the issue is not always cut and dry, and said as much is my outside view. There is gray area. And the comments about Abu's rudeness were warranted. I'm just tired of being insulted for the work I do on Wikipedia. I've been called a Nazi, accused of stalking, and I've seen an editor obliquely physically threatened over this sort of thing. I don't think I've treated anyone uncivilly or disrespectfully, and I've worked hard to not delete images where there is any serious question of whether the image is replaceable or not. But what I get is more insults and strikingly unflattering summaries of my supposed motives. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was very careful to not criticise the "policy" directly. Please note the addendum to my endorsement. The "policy" is no excuse for the behavior of Abu and the behavior of Abu is what I am referring to. My comment on "cowboy" editors was a comment on BEHAVIOR, had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with how it is being enforced. Why is it so unreasonable to want each uploaded image to receive individual attention based on its merits and those of the person disputing the RfU tag? Some admins seem to be deleting images whether they meet criterion #1 or not, simply because they were tagged, and some editors seem to be tagging images even though they don't warrant it. You are the one who is here quoting policy. Who is hijacking whom? User:Sebbeng 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Abu has never deleted a single image. I don't understand your last 2 sentences. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess if you can't respond to the statement, you can at least nit pick minor details. I revised it. User:Sebbeng 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't be insulting. I'd like to respond, but I still don't understand your last two sentences. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What Quadell is saying is that this statement doesn't say anything about Abu Badali; you say that "Some admins seem to be deleting images whether they meet criterion #1 or not, simply because they were tagged, and some editors seem to be tagging images on the same premise"; what does it mean to be "tagging images on the same premise"? "Tagging images simply because they were tagged" is obviously not what you mean, but I don't know what you were trying to say.  Abu is tagging images that he believes are replaceable; if people disagree, individual, case-by-case discussions should take place on the image talk pages, as you request, should take place.  I assume that the reason you are concened that this is not happening is the recent incident in which an administrator did mechanically delete a number of disputed images. A number of administrators, myself included, have undeleted or reexamined images inappropriately deleted during this incident; if you know of any other cases that be examined, please let me know. --RobthTalk 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Yeah, it isn't very clear now that I look at it. The point I was tying to make is that Abu badali (and other editors) are tagging images as replacable, but then not responding to the concerns of the interested parties appropriately. I covered this on the main page (or I'm pretty sure I did). My concern as it relates to this case is with the methods being employed. More about that in the original filer's summary. The point of my comment above was to deny that I (I can't speak for anyone but myself) am hijacking this RfC to "turn it into another tirade against the enforcement of fair use policy". I alluded to that topic in my summary on the main page (because I think this and the other case are related, along with the fair use debate), but didn't take anyone to task for it here because I'm trying to stick to the RfC at hand as filed by PageantUpdater. It's hard but I'm really really trying. Okay? User:Sebbeng 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I was feeling sensitive because of other interactions I've had recently with other users. Except for that "cowboy" sentence (which I took personally, and shouldn't have), I think I agree with your summary. You're very right that individual attention needs to be paid, and that we (both taggers and deciding admins) need to be very sensitive about the issue, and help new users understand the policy, rather than insulting them. It's just hard when we -- and I mean pretty much everyone who tags image with rfu or deletes tagged images -- gets called "Nazis" by people who just want their favorite fanpage decorated with pretty images, no matter what policy says. But I'll try to have thicker skin, and I will definitely try to treat all users with respect. Peace. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No response and the user's attitude
Is it normal for the editor in question not to give a response? I am new to these but thought there would have been a response from Abu badali by now? -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is unusual but it is the user's choice that relfect only upon the user himself. It is up to the participants to judge from the info they have whether such reaction is explained by shame, poor manners, simply being busy in real life or other reasons. --Irpen 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Busy, as in engaging in edit wars and vandalism by re-adding RfU templates when muptiple editors have agreed that the image is perfectly acceptable. User:Sebbeng 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, while addressing the user's behavior is important, even more important is that editors (I mean article writers) should take part in policies and discussions that take place in Wikipedia space or they are left to a group in which the Wikipedians who come here to sociolize are disproportionately represented. This may be less fun than writing articles but this affects you as a contributor. If you disagree with the policy, take steps to have it changed. Depending on your proposal it may or may not work but get interested in policies even if this is a necessary evil, take it as a price you have to pay for fun of editing Wikipedia. Don't spend endless time ranting about the user's abusive behavior. Abusive users are dealt with sooner or later. Addressing the core issues are more important. (That of course does not mean a total refraining from reacting to specific behavioral patterns of individual isers.) --Irpen 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that editor's should familiarize themselves more with policy. Remember though that Wikipedia is not a democracy (although it isn't a bureaucracy either).


 * PageantUpdater: have you seen your upload log: Upload log User:PageantUpdater. Having to tag all of those nearly 200 images as policy violations is no small effort. Of course, I understand that you uploaded them in good faith and not maliciously. A general statement would be: it would be better if users took the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedias image policy before uploading any images.--Oden 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was told by an editor when I started that tagging photos with that summary and tag was okay... it appears the policy later changed but I was unaware of this. When I was alerted I briefly disputed this but quickly accepted that the vast majority would have to go. However, a small number of images of Miss Teen USA winners were deemed acceptable by Quadell. However, Abu badali apparently refuses to listen to him, me or other editors (see the recent history and talk page of Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg. I am not contesting anything do do with the vast majority of the images I have uploaded, but I am very upset and frustrated with Abu badali's attitude towards the remaining few and his inability to accept others opinions on the matter. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy was clarified in September of 2006, and a large part of your images were uploaded before that and the rest were uploaded in good faith. Perhaps the best solution in the future is to inform users of the policy and give them a chance to tag their own images with the appropriate tag, instead of this more bureaucratic approach. If the uploader acted in good faith and understands the policy then there shouldn't be a problem. --Oden 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with the policy as it stands is that it's very poorly codified. That sentence that says "or can be reasonably created" is always going to be a huge point of contention. If I want to keep an image (and I do, as you can see) my idea of "reasonable" will be very different from that of the person who wants to see it deleted. User:Sebbeng 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

comment on quadell's view
Quadell said: ''If a non-free image is replaceable, it has to be deleted. This is our unambiguous policy which has been in effect for over a year (though only intermittently enforced until recently). It has been voiced many times by Jimbo, endorsed by the Wikimedia Board, and hashed out repeatedly. There are users who disagree with this policy, but it is still our policy, and we're all expected to abide by it. ...'' but I couldn't find any mention of endorsement in Wikimedia meetings (although I only looked briefly this morning). Anyone got the details please?--luke 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I'd rather have an image from a wikipedian that's not quite as good, than a professional image which we can only use under the very narrow doctrine of fair use. We're not fundamentally about having a really pretty encyclopedia, we're fundamentally about having a free encyclopedia, and in the end that's far more pretty, if you ask me." -Jimbo


 * That's what I have, more information would be appreciated. --Oden 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue is what is meant by "replaceable". How difficult would be to obtain such image? How adequately such image would illustrate the specific article illustrated by the fairuse one. No all-universal statements may be possibly made. This is addressed by the rationale that such images should be supplied with. The decision should be by the community, based on policy applied to each spefic case depending on its merit. --Irpen 09:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you find any statement by Jimbo or the Wikipedia board, or is it you opinion? --Oden 09:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not my opinion. This is actually the Wikipedia policy. --Irpen 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Something Irpen said in the post 2 above totally encapsulates what I was trying to make clear with this RFC... but couldn't find the words. The community should make the decision... but Abu badali seems to insist on following his own point of view regarding each image rather than accepting the community decision.  I again point you to Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg for evidence of this.  Thanks Irpen for helping me work that one out! --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  09:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy is that : "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." (criterion #1).
 * Policy in this situation does not include the word "replaceable".
 * The detailed fair use rationale does not influence criterion #1. Criterion #1 is assessed independently of the fair use rationale.
 * The decision is made by administrators implementing policy. An editor is entitled to an opinion, but the bottom line is that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Consensus regarding each image is interesting, but the opinions of a few editors concerning a few images is in that regard dwarfed by the policy which affects every fair use image on Wikipedia. Policy has to be implemented uniformly.
 * Policies (such as WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FUC) are applied universally, not on a case by case basis. If all the editors in one article agreed on it they still would not be allowed to add original research, POV-statements, unverified statements or fair use images in violation of Wikipedia policy. --Oden 10:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden has been pointed out before and he chooses to ignore that the wording of the policy: "would adequately give the same information" (That is of course within the article's context.) as Fairuse claim is article specific. His choice to pretend this has not been explained and repeated questioning amounts to WP:DFTT a "continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers".


 * Further, policies are written by editors. And on a separate account, lack of interest of many content creating wikipedians in policy discussions and improvement allows policy pages (and Wikipedia) be hijacked by a narrow group of editors with a significant relative representation of users who come here to sociolize, fulfill unfulfilled in real life ambitions of being anle to tell others what to do, or exersize their eloquence. --Irpen 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiStalking
I saw at this page an editor wrote: "I still actually haven't seen convincing evidence of Abu acting sneakily or rudely..."

Hmm, well, at (now deleted; talk page still at Image talk:Mikko eloranta.jpg, Abu 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 serious reason other than harassment.  This, too, was undone by an admin, after easily verifying the article did not meet the criteria.

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. 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. Jenolen 10:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The behavior described here does look like wikistalking to me. —Angr 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your image uploads, reviewing the logs to see if other images violate policy is not stalking (for instance if a newbie or vandal makes many mistakes or bad edits another editor or sysop might review the contributions in order to fix or revert).
 * Regarding the other edits they appear excessive to the point of disrupting Wikipedia. I am not sure how many edits need to be made before WikiStalking becomes an issue, but they sure don't look like good-faith edits. You might want to leave a message on the RFC page about this. --Oden 11:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And if I'd ever put something on Wikipedia that needed to be removed, I'd understand that. But as a working member of the mass media, I wanted to follow the rules.  And that meant interacting with admins who were nice, helpful, and pointed out how things got done around here.  I still try to live up to those ideals.  So, anyway, I guess my point is, User:Abu badali did not have what might be considered "probable cause" before imbarking on his anti-Jenolenasty editing campagin.  I mean, why me?  I had been doing everything right, and indicating a willingness to work WITHIN the Wiki-stystem to get any questions or concerns I had addressed.  My experience with Abu is that he will do WHAT he wants to wikipedia content under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  He is not interested in what you think, at all.  He is not open to modifying his behavior, becaue he really doesn't think he has a problem.  And that, right there, is a bit scary.   Jenolen 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to bring up old drama, but you did something similar to me, Oden, after I commented on your talk page a couple days ago. I think if you're doing editing that may have the effect of angering other users, you need to be careful. I mean, you can argue to death that your policies are proper, but ultimately, if you feel this is the right route to go (I don't think it is, but that's another subject) you need to respect other editors instead of doing things that may unnecessarily anger them. It's good to be bold, yes, but to be bold blindly will only have the effect of creating enemies. And honestly, I'm still a little mad about the way you treated me as well as the way you chose to validate your actions with policy rather than figuring out why I was mad.


 * But in a way, I need to thank you. Because of your interactions with me, I'm going to be watching this fair use debate very closely from now on, because now I'm interested and concerned. - Stick Fig 07:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Make sure you also take part in this debate, making good suggestions, refuting the bad ones and exposing the harful ones. --Irpen 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm already on it and have made many constructive comments in Wikipedia talk:fair use as well. I feel that with this case, some issues regarding the hotly-contested fair use policy have brought themselves to light. If editors choose to make these sorts of changes, they need to respect other users and look at their edits on a qualitative and not merely binary perspective.


 * And as many users have disagreed with the policy, the solution is to be diplomatic, not vindictive. There are many editors here who have made questionable choices in the past, myself included, but I don't feel we will grow as an encyclopedia without being understanding and compassionate towards others. And as this particular case shows, if it doesn't happen, the fight becomes more difficult.


 * As it is, a lot of editors here seem to be drawn to this specific debate both out of the frustration with the policy and the conduct of those directly involved. Nothing's simple here, but it's easier with evenhanded discussion.


 * And just to clarify my above post, my last comment was not meant to be vindictive or take the tone of a personal attack so much as to point out my interest in a policy debate that may have the effect of changing the face of Wikipedia. No more criticism. Just debate. - Stick Fig 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is good that more users are to take part in policy improvement but please, let's stick to the topic of the RfC which is to address the behavior of a certain user. Extensive policy debates belong elsewhere. Abu's fault is not that he followed the flawed policies (or that the policies is flawed) but that he followed the flawed policy in the flawed way. The user RfC is about behavior, no more no less. Abu was harassing editors en masse. Harassment is unacceptable no matter what pretence one uses. The consensus is forming that the user have indeed showed a poor attitude. If he chooses to show up here and add to the discussion, good for him. If he won't, no big deal. This RfC is in any case important to have registered the community perception of this editor. --Irpen 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So where did I not talk about this case in the specific sense along with the general in my last post? - Stick Fig 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A caveat: I will often browse through groups of images that may be problematic, looking for rfus. This may mean looking through a category (like promotionals), or pics on certain pages (like models of car), or pics uploaded by a certain user. If I've come across 3 or 4 images uploaded (in good faith) by a user that are rfus, I might look through all that user's uploads. I don't think that's stalking. But I'd never look through the user's other contributions, looking for a fight. And I'd be sure to inform the user. This isn't what you're talking about -- you're talking about a situation where Abu looks for any problems he can find with your work, even when there isn't a problem there. I just wanted to point out the difference. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no doubt taht Abu badali and Chowbok engage in Wilistalking. They pick editors and analyzie all their uploads for many months. ArbCom has ruled that stalking constitutes harassment. Lack of response shows disinterest in good faith dispute resolution which makes further steps against the abusive user almost assured. --Irpen 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden and Quadell are correct: it is necessary part of effective image cleanup — as it is in vandal fighting — to sometimes look through an editor's contributions to search for related problems. It certainly looks like AB went far beyond this with Jenolen, though, and I do get the impression that he was merely seeking-out conflict. It's very hard for me to assume good faith here, but even if AB thinks that each of these edits helped the encyclopedia, he needs at least to consider that sequences of edits like this one, as a whole, will inevitably be interpreted as hostile.  AB has not commented on this RfC or its talk page, but I feel safe in assuming that he is reading them. AB, you should never go after an editor's contributions as a whole in this way. You do a ton of good work, but this needs to stop. ×Meegs 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is reading them all right. Don't worry about that. --Irpen 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am being Wikistalked as indicated above, and there is no doubt about it. I will not load images of any kind here until this lunacy is stopped.  Tvccs 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy debate etc.
Somehow this RfC has turned into a policy debate, which it is not. Other irrelevant issues and misunderstandings are also being presented.
 * User:PageantUpdater has stated: "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."
 * This is a policy debate. User:PageantUpdater and User:Irpen both removed the RFU tag, which User:Abu badali reverted (apparently User:PageantUpdater removed the tag once by mistake, while User:Irpen removed the tag twice in apparent bad faith). The discussion on Image talk:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg is also a policy debate,.
 * User:Tvccs: "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."
 * Policy debate.
 * User:MatthewFenton: "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."
 * Referring perhaps to that one editor tags the image and another who is an administrator deletes the image?
 * Sock puppets. It's really just one user pushing people around. It's another slimy scam of the kind that made me stop editing (except in egregious case sof something wrong in an article I care a lot about) Sys Hax 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Earl Andrew: "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."
 * Talk pages are deleted with the image, also User:Abu badali is not an admin and cannot delete any pages.
 * User:Stick Fig: "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."
 * He's referring to me! On my talk page he was more frank though: "I don't care what the rules say [...] It's a case of Wiki-overboard that you did this to so many different promotional shots." . Policy debate.
 * User:DHowell "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."
 * Policy debate.
 * User:Sebbeng: "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."
 * The image talk page is not a debate forum. "Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted." (WP:FUC).
 * User:Sebbeng: "In spite of what others may have you believe, the fair use policy is not so cut and dry."
 * In the guideline it also says: "To these Wikipedia adds that if the image could be repeated by an editor then 'fair use' will not apply and asks that editors take steps to obtain a free image that could be used instead, even though strict application of the fair use legal factors may actually apply." (WP:FU). Read it together with WP:FU Criterion #1 and WP:FU #8.

--Oden 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my interpretation of the reasons behind our fair use policy and guideline. --Oden 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy rant
 * The primary goal on Wikipedia is to create a free content ("free" as in "free speech") encyclopedia which can be used by downstream users.
 * The reason free images are preferable is because such images can be distributed without restrictions.
 * Keeping a fair use image in Wikipedia when a free one could be created inhibits the creation of free images.
 * Wikipedia is not fundamentally about having a encyclopedia full of pretty pictures, it's about having a free encyclopedia.


 * * The primary goal on Wikipedia is to create a free content ("free" as in "free speech") encyclopedia which can be used by downstream users.


 * Wikipedia is, according to Jimbo Wales, "an effort to create and distribute a multi-lingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". I see nothing in here about "downstream users," who, frankly, I could give a flying fig about.  I am concerned with Wikipedia users first, downstream users second.  That's why they're... you know... downstream.  I don't care about them as much as I care about the actual users.  Harsh, but true.  All users are NOT created equal.  If there is no Wikipedia, downstream users won't have anything to downstreamily use.  (And yes, I know this is treading dangerously close to a "But Jimbo Says" argument, which I have elsewhere indicated a disinclination toward supporting.  If I'm going to use it here, I figure I better call a spade a spade...)  :)


 * * The reason free images are preferable is because such images can be distributed without restrictions.
 * Another method of using images is called "fair use," and it's not some scary, evil monster that must be destroyed. It's the system under which the whole U.S. publicity and promotion machine has run, successfully so, for decades.


 * * Keeping a fair use image in Wikipedia when a free one could be created inhibits the creation of free images.
 * A common misconception. All users are welcome to create free images.  Very, very few editors, I would suppose, check articles for images before deciding whether or not to contribute a photo of their own.  Nothing in the existence of a promotional image can or should prevent you from going and taking pictures of all your favorite celebrites, and then, without their permission or consent, uploading them to Wikipedia.  Sadly, there is a pretty good chance this is illegal due to the pesky patchwork of personality rights laws in the U.S., but it is free.  Legally dicey... but free.


 * * Wikipedia is not fundamentally about having a encyclopedia full of pretty pictures, it's about having a free encyclopedia.
 * Oddly self-contradictory. An encyclopedia, by its very nature, illustrates its subjects.  Pictures are the best technology we have for transmitting visual information.  A text-only encyclopedia, while mind-numbingly boring to many, is, however, possible, thanks to the hard work of the vaunted downstream users, who, via technology, may choose to only include GFDL material from Wikipedia in their downstream use.  Nobody is making downstream users take fair use material and reuse it.  It is their choice.


 * And my choice is to have articles illustrated with the best possible, freest possible images. Promotional photos, from a practical standpoint, are free  -- by this, I mean there has never, to my knowledge, been an instance of someone releasing a promotional photo, and then taking legal action against a non-commercial user of such an image.  My guess is, a judge would laugh that case right out of court.  (Judge: "You mean to tell me you released this image to the media, for use by the media, and it was used in a non-commercial manner, under this set of fair use criteria, and now, you want damages? Get out... now.")


 * Jenolen 10:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am concerned with Wikipedia users first, downstream users second." What about Wikipedia users who don't want to have to look at copyrighted pictures when they're trying to read a free content encyclopedia? I guess you don't give a flying fig about us either.
 * "Another method of using images is called 'fair use,'..." But fair use is strongly restricted. Reuse of freely licensed pictures aren't. I often want to use images from Wikipedia for teaching purposes, precisely because they're free. I have no idea if "fair use" images are allowed in my teaching material or not, so I avoid them. Having to doublecheck the status of an image I find here wastes time.
 * "All users are welcome to create free images." Of course they're theoretically welcome to, but if there's already a pretty "fair use" image, why bother? And if you do create a free image and replace the fair-use image with it, then the fair-use image's protectors will just revert you, saying their image is of higher quality.
 * "An encyclopedia, by its very nature, illustrates its subjects. Pictures are the best technology we have for transmitting visual information." A red herring; no one is arguing for an image-free encyclopedia.
 * "There has never, to my knowledge, been an instance of someone releasing a promotional photo, and then taking legal action against a non-commercial user of such an image." Another red herring. Wikipedia's fair-use policy is intentionally far more restrictive than U.S. "fair use" law, and is not just about not getting sued. —Angr 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Wikipedia users who don't want to have to look at copyrighted pictures when they're trying to read a free content encyclopedia? I do have to be honest here - never once in my life have I ever gone to a website hoping I didn't have look at copyrighted pictures.  Perhaps a text browser is the best solution for those users?


 * I am sorry for the extra step involved in your image research. I think, though, it's an acceptable price to pay.  Most Wikipedia users are here to use Wikipedia; not re-use it in some other way.  A thought - Can WikiMedia Commons searches be limited only to free images?


 * As to if there's already a fair use image, why bother, why not?? You know ahead of time that, by policy, your image will be instantly preferred to a non-free image, regardless of quality.  So snap away, would-be Wikipedian photographer!  Your images have prefered status here!  (Uh, except for that whole legal jeopardy thing that no one talks about in the creation of these not-truly-"free" images.)  And are you arguing that there's a difference between being "theoretically welcome" to create new images and being actually welcome to?  I think not -- people are welcome to create images - period.


 * You were right that no one is arguing for an image-free encyclopedia. I'm sorry if my argument made it sound otherwise.  What I was trying to convey was the idea that I consider it an acceptable trade off to have professional free-use photographs to illustrate our encyclopedia articles versus blurry Flikr specials.  ("...highest possibly quality" and all...)


 * A final note. My fig was not intended to be profane, but rather, merely alliterative.  My apologies if it came off otherwise.
 * Jenolen 11:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A text browser would presumably eliminate all pictures, not just the unfree ones. Commons already only accepts free images, not fair-use ones. If I find an image on Commons, it's no problem, but Commons is difficult to navigate and find the picture you're looking for. At the moment, yes, policy prefers free images to nonfree ones, but this entire uproar is being caused by people who want to reinterpret policy in a way to be even more tolerant of "fair use" images than it already is. If copyrighted promotional photos of celebrities are to be preferred to free amateur photos, as so many people in this multi-page discussion seem to want, then where does it stop? I worked pretty hard on making Commons:Image:BerlinDistricts.png, and I'd be pretty upset if the fair-use restrictions at WP were relaxed to the point where someone could just upload a professionally made, copyrighted map instead, on the argument that it was better quality than my map and that no one has ever been sued for using maps like that. —Angr 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden, there is nothing in the policy stating that useful discussion/debate can't take place on image talk pages regarding the deletion of RfU tagged images. In fact, the RfU Disputed template specifically states to see the talk page for details. So I don't understand what you're talking about. If an editor wants to contribute to a good community atmosphere, he/she will be willing to discuss the image based on its merits and remove the RfU tag if the other party has good points. It sounds a lot like common courtesy to me. Furthermore, no matter how many times you keep quoting the same policies, they are NOT cut and dry, and the acceptable fair use policy is especially not cut and dry. They're VERY MUCH subject to interpretation and if they weren't none of us would be having these problems. Furthermore, I don't understand why you complain about people "turning this into a policy debate" but then go on to the longest post on policy I've seen here yet. User:Sebbeng 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Angr, those who argue for the acceptance of fair use images are not the ones reinterpreting policy, it is those who want to delete them willy-nilly when no replacement exists or can be reasonably created. User:Sebbeng 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have yet to hear one person argue to delete fair-use images where no replacement can be reasonably created. Every single image that's been deleted as part of this discussion has been one where a replacement could reasonably be created. —Angr 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You whaaat???? That is the whole point of this RFC! Abu badali (getting back to the point) has been tagging and re-re-tagging images such as Image:FarrellMTUSA03.jpg and Image:SemrowMTUSA02 even though it is clear that no replacement could be created because they are images of a specific event in the past (where no cameras were allowed). --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This RfC is on a behavior of the user who showed rudeness, harassment, and many other policy violation. Oden's endless repetitions of answered in the past issues or attemntps to hijack the discussion are unimpressibe and other users should be aware enough to not allow being deflected from the main issues by the user's trolling. --Irpen 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia
This is not policy or a guideline, but makes alot of sense:


 * "As the aim of this process is to improve Wikipedia, reviewers should, where possible, attempt to elevate the standard of the Fair Use of the image, by making any edits they consider appropriate, where possible. For example rewording an inadequately written Fair Use rationale, or deleting unnecessary information, is a far more constructive action than simply deeming that a criterion has not been met." (WP:FU)

When it comes to missing fair use rationales, missing source attributions and incorrect licenses giving someone the benefit of the doubt can go along way, and working together can be a win-win solution. However, replaceable fair use images generally have to be deleted with few exceptions, so there is no easy way to be gentle. The image is tagged and the uploader notified, there's nothing more that can be done (case in point: Image:Werbowy.jpg).

My experience is that trying to explain policy often ends in a debate, which is hardly constructive (case in point: Image talk:Werbowy.jpg). It also seems like other editors and admins with much experience have learned that trying to be helpful sometimes ends in a sort of prolonged and pointless discussion that just keeps repeating itself over and over (and every time it's the same story: the policy in question is unclear). Better then just to say as little as possible which in turn is viewed as impolite and even hostile. --Oden 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoiding the issue by making unilateral moves is hardly the answer, which is one of the behaviors Abu badabi is accuded of. Any policy issues mentioned here are connected to his behavior. User:Sebbeng 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note: I am not defending his behaviour, merely offering an alternative explanation.


 * Regarding policy, it is not relevant since this RFC concerns user conduct and not policy interpretation (this is a 'Request comment on users'). Users who are discussing policy here are in the wrong place altogether (myself included, but it's hard to resist when I see all the other lemmings marching towards the sea). --Oden 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your policy views on the RfC about the user's behavior are beside the point and make an impression of the desire to deflect the discussion from the issues on hand. --Irpen 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've stated the following on the RFC:


 * "The image tagging appears to have been correct, but the personal interaction leaves room for improvement. Deceiving other editors or being unnecessarily curt to newbies who have made apparent good-faith contributions is 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."


 * You're confusing the RFC with the RFC talk page. You're also making subjective statements about another user's intent, that does not sound like assuming good faith (see WP:AGF) and might even constitute a personal attack (see WP:NPA). The issue at hand is this user's conduct, but seven editors have attempted to turn it into a policy debate.


 * I do not approve of User:Abu badalis conduct, but when it comes to policy he is spot on (I would also really like to know why User:Irpen otherwise has removed a tag that says "Do not remove this tag" on 10 occasions. See also Requests for comment/Irpen. --Oden 21:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If the uploader believes in good faith that the image is usable under the FU clause and the uploader provided a gf rationale for such use and gave a source, the image may still be questionalbe, true enough, as the uploader may have made a judgement error. However, the courtesy and common sense demands that if you find this to be the case and you question the image's rationale, you provide the uploader and the rest of the interested users with the explanation at image talk on why you think his/her rationale is faulty. Such explanation belongs to an image talk similar to the dispute points raised by the user who tags the article as uncompliant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. No such tag can be added without explanation and there is no single case when I removed the tag when such explanation was provided by you or whoever.

I did not remove a tag in a single case where you or anyone gave an explanation on what exactly you dispute at the image talk in the rationale. I did remove the tag in cases where no such explanation was given. If you want your tags kept, provide an image specific explanation at talk on why the FU claim is invalid.

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) is placed at the tag arbitrary, is not dictated by any policy and was not achieved by consensus. The tag being protected impedes the possibility of clearing this up. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag placed on the article. Both are subject to 3RR. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims otherwise, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. There are very narrow cases where 3RR does not apply outside of simple vandalism. Such are removal of good faith AfD tags, true.

RFU tag is not similar to AfD. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed or added by sterile edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image. This is exactly the case why tags where removed. Taking no position on the issue of the good faith of their placement, such objections are unexplained and cannot possibly be addressed, unless the image lacks source, rationale or rationale/source are frivolous. --Irpen 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even after all that verbiage, there is no requirement to add reasons on the talk page when adding rfu, and there is a requirement to not remove the tag unilaterally. You've given a lot of reasons why you don't think you should have to follow the clear instructions, but they are still there, plain as day. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Verbiage, huh? Anyway, there is no Policy that states that the tag cannot be removed if it is reasonably believed to be placed not in good faith or such that its placement is meaningless. The instructions provided on the tag were not achieved through any concensus or supported by any policy. They are arbitrary written which was followed by protection of the tag to prevent its improvement. This is why they are "still there". Commons sense, good fauth and courtesy requires from a tagger to explain the reasons of his dispute, provided the image is supplied with an explanation on what makes it compliant. --Irpen 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit) You know what? This RFC isn't about you. I think such criticisms (and their defense) belong elsewhere. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is addressed to me. Note that one of the things Abu is doing is tag images without providing an explanation. It is not only about stalking, harassment and incicility by this editor. --Irpen 22:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement to add an explanation when adding a rfu tag. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And maybe that is something that needs to be addressed. We've made adding rfu tags a literally thoughtless act.  Perhaps we should require a bit more out of editors who wish to apply it... say, like, a rationale?  I mean, the uploader has, theoretically, provided reasons why the image is appropriate to use.  All the tag-uploader has done is prove that he/she has a basic command of bots and a lack of respect for WP:POINT.  Why not balance the responsibilities between the person who uploads the image, and the person who uploads the tag?   Jenolen    speak it!  20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one (so far as I know) uses bots to apply rfu tags. POINT does not apply, since it's an application of written policy, praised by Jimbo.
 * Since you have repeatedly stated that you disagree with our "replaceable fair use" policy, I suspect that this change would be meant to slow down the policy's implementation, not to make sure the policy is implemented correctly. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"no requirement to add an explanation when adding", huh? And do you know why? because the tag was written and discussed by a narrow group of users and became protected to prevent any change. Content contributing editors, unfortunately, take little part in the policy debates and only after this image assault that raised the awareness several users started to opine in relevant pages in Wikipedia space, interrupting their contributions to mainspace.

"it's an application of written policy, praised by Jimbo.". First, please do not invoke Jimbo. He made it clear that he does not like that either. Let's invoke policies, OK? There is a deliberate misrepresentation here of what is and what is not the policy. The policy is WP:FU. The recently invented tag which several users now are on the spree to throw left and right in the bot-like fashion is not a policy. It was not approved by consensus. It's being protected prevents it from adjusting to any other interpretation of a policy except that of its creators. Nothing in the policy states anything about this tag and nothing but the tag itself makes an illegal claim that the user cannot remove the tag if s/he reasonably believes the tagger acted in bad faith or application of the tag was not obvious and the tagger did not bother to explain at the image talk, similar to how NPOV tag may be removed.

What needs "slowed down" (and stopped) is not an "implementation of the policy" but an abusive implementation of the incorrect interpretation of the policy. The policy needs to be modified to allow less ambiguity but that debate belongs elsewhere. --Irpen 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So much for this
We had a good chance to address some concerns with Abu badali, but most of the users complaining are.. hurting their own argument. Abu badali seems to sometimes shoot first and ask questions later (or not at all) with images, which is something that I take issue with. However, He seems to be right more often than not in how he applies the policy. When you upload something you are greeted by tons of links that are practically begging you to read them before uploading images. If you don't read that stuff before you upload, then you don't have a right to argue that you didn't know it would be deleted. And images can be a huge problem, requiring that swift action is taken or we'll never be able to take care of things. Abu badali needs to identify what is "friendly fire" when making these assaults, but he should not stop the assaults themselves. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And what if the policy (or application of the policy) changes months after you upload the image and you are not aware of that? --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read every comment in the discussion, so forgive me if I've missed something. I believe people are given a week "grace period" to comply to changes in policy when they've uploaded an image before that change took place. If Abu badali isn't giving proper notice about this, then he needs to. If images cannot be corrected in one week, or at all, then they will be deleted. Save local copies to your hard drive, and when you have time, re-upload the image properly. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That being said, I do disagree with some of his views on the policy. I have seen images that I have felt qualify under our policy that have been deleted due to Abu badali's deletion nomination. It would be great if this RfC could address this specifically, instead of being about the policy over-all. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments.
I agree with those claiming we need to focus on Abu badali's behaviour (not my favourite topic right now, am feeling very dark about this)... however I accept that policy is part of the discussion. I agree with those who say that there should be requirement for those who put RFU tags on images to disclose their reason for doing so on the talk page at the time of doing so, and I also agree with those who say that the talk page of deleted images should be retained and the deleting admin should detail his/her reasons for deletion. Back to Abu... still waiting for his response...? -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why worry? He certainly reads this. Lack of response is a response too. Aside from addressing the problematic user, don't forget to take part in the policy and tl talk pages. --Irpen 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't have the energy or the will to look at the policy and tl pages. I started this simply because I have found Abu relentlessly difficult to deal with, sneaky and obstinate, and because he apparently believes no few but his own should be adopted.  Yes, I am somewhat interested in the policy, but dealing with this is draining enough in itself.  I just want to go back to the humble user I was busily updating and creating beauty queen articles, and wish the whole mess (including the loss of all the photos etc) had never happened.  Unfortunately it did, and I am trying to pick up the pieces and deal with the consequence.  Quite frankly I'm tired... of the whole mess and of Abu badali's cavalier attitude. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think many of us would rather get back to making mainspace contributions (as we were doing before we were forced onto these pages), but it is important that we make our voices heard. Badagnani 01:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bottom Line
I am a relatively new Wikipedia user and I can say it takes quite a while to learn and retain ALL of the use criteria for the site. One of these was the FUC (hmm...maybe we should change the acronym, new users may get the wrong idea ;-)) guideline and it ended up getting me into an incident with Abu badali. Let me be on the record as saying that I FULLY AGREE WITH THESE CRITERIA GUIDELINES AND AM NOT ADVOCATING POLICY CHANGES.  Below is a detailing of the actual incident.  If you just want to get my take on this, skip to Conclusion.

My incident with Abu badali occurred because of an image placed on my personal user page of all places. Now my user pageis not exactly exciting nor is it often visited...so I kind of thought of it as my little corner where I could express myself a bit. I mean afterall, if we are not free to express ourselves in a reasonable manner why bother to host these user pages right? Anyway I had linked an image of Keira Knightley in order to define a "hottie" (placed the image in one of those cool little template snippets that go on user pages). I had found the image on Wikipedia itself, and figured that since it was already on Wikipedia that the image had passed muster and was fair game to use on my talk page.
 * Incident

After a couple of days, I noticed that the image of cute little Keira was gonzo...deleted. I checked the talk page for a notification, but there was none. I checked the history page and I saw Abu badali's name listed as the last editor, having removed my image. Now, I'm not going to go into the discussion of "who deleted it"...but needless to say the image would have remained (at least a bit longer) if he did not mark it for deletion. The altering of my personal user page without so much as a peep out of him completely and utterly p!ssed me off beyond any bounds. It was one thing if he altered one of the articles I contributed to without leaving notice...I mean after all thats what we are here for, is to collaborate and improve articles. BUT TO MESS WITH MY FREAKIN USER PAGE and not even leave a note was at the very least rude, and the very most an intentional vandalism of my user page.

I admittedly vented, and added a very strongly worded question on his user page asking him why, Additionally I added what amounted to be some very strong vitriol against Abu badali on my user page. Funny, he took offense to my user page attack and narked on me to a wikiadmin. The admin, Shadow1, corrected me in a polite and professional manner and I removed the personal attack I had lobbed at Abu badali's from my page. Shadow1 then chided Abu badali for not notifying me of the change...something which seemed to be a trend after looking at his talk page.

Finally, after I removed my attack and after the admin chided him, Abu badali finally posted a note on my page. Nowhere in the note did it state why he deleted my picture, but rather corrected my interpretation of the Non-compliance section of the FUC. To his credit, he was very polite, positive, and constructive in this note. However, it took a personal attack and getting an admin involved to even get to this point.

This discussion is about Abu badali's behavior, not about what he chooses to edit. Abu badali is by all accounts a very hard working editor that has an extremely thankless job. After all nobody cheers the referees, right? Many editors who spend their time enforcing these policies are not bad people (not saying this is anyone's opinion either...) and I really do not think they do this to annoy people. These policies are there for a reason...because they are in the best interest of Wikipedia. Abu badali, in fact, surprised me because he did post (albeit too late) a very nice note that while it didn't explain the why, it did help me feel better.
 * Conclusion

That being said...

It is unacceptable that ANY EDITOR would delete, or take an action that ends up deleting, an image, paragraph, source, or any other work in the article WITHOUT notifying the other authors/users as to WHY. It's even more unacceptable to have this happen multiple times, even after being told otherwise. This may not be actual Wiki policy, but dammit it's only common sense and common courtesy to do so. Actions like that are rude, trashy, arrogant, and pathetic. I nearly quit over this crap because I felt like anything I added WOULD eventually be deleted, and I would never know why so I'd just continue making the same mistakes. Now one could make the argument that these editors are overburdened with these fixes and therefore don't have the time to add comments. However, that is just plain BS and it masks the true problem: Laziness. Articles take a tremendous amount of work to write, and to have someone come in (even though they might be well intentioned) and alter that without checking first or notifying first is a slap in the face. If you do not have the time to post a notification on a discussion page, then you do not have enough time or the work ethic to undertake editing of this fashion; you're doing a half-assed job. Again, edits like these are very important as they protect the quality and the sanctity of Wikipedia. However, that does not grant a licence to ignore common decency. In my opinion, this user should be sanctioned/chided/whatever accordingly since he was in fact warned by an adnmn and continued to partake in this rude behavior. Enforcing Wikipolicy is a very hard, unrewarding job. PLEASE don't make it worse by ignoring basic courtesy. --Tbkflav 08:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * AB brought your user page into line with policy. He did inform you of the reason, though only in an edit summary   that may have been too brief and cryptic for you to understand. This is far from ideal, but please see Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals to get an idea of some of the issues involved. Your response to the edit  was vicious and needlessly escalated the conflict.  What I find most disconcerting, though, is that even after conciliatory messages from both of you , you've continued to display your anger in this lengthy recount. Let's move on from this minor incident. ×Meegs 10:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whaaaaaaaaaaat? Meegs, frankly I am confused why you chose to comment on the "incident" itself rather than his behavior.  If you think his behavior vis a vis the image deletion was acceptible, fine.  If not, even better.  However, the topic here is AB's behavior, not my "anger level".  Please don't commenton something you really don't know much about...frankly, I am not the least angry at AB or anyone else, YET :-)  Even if I was, what's the point?  Furthermore, my intention was to document it as a case for people to look at to draw their own conclusions on AB's behavior.  I have never said I was "right" in how I handled it, did I?  If I cared about that, I certainly wouldn't have posted THIS example.  If you can find an example ANYWHERE on Wiki that I justified my bad behavior, I'll eat my hat.  I'll even add that he was RIGHT to report it do and even SHOULD HAVE.  The difference is, that I admit and sincerely regret my wrongdoing.  That's more than some would say would be the case for AB...if this page is any indication.  Many people have commented on his behavior and have many different opinions.  Outside of "AB brought your user page into line with policy", I don't see anything in your retort that addresses the subject at hand:  AB's behavior.  You seem more concerned about mine.  If so, go ahead and tear me a new one on my user page.  Finally, I do take issue with the fact that you seemingly didn't read my commentary on where I think "AB is a hard working editor with a thankless job".  I even complimented him on how polite he was during our "incident".  I don't think someone that is hell bent on tearing this guy down would be bothering to compliment him.  Don't mistake my being critical for a personal vendetta.  I can think of much better ways to indulge a personal vendetta than a commentary on what appears to be rude behavior.  If you have a problem with me having the right to comment on it, then thats another story.  If that's the case, then Ill shut down now and quit editing to save you the time.  --Tbkflav 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I commented very briefly on the incident as a whole; my first two sentences were about AB's behavior, the next two about yours. You're right, we do not need to talk about yours any further here. ×Meegs 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Another user with issues with Abu badali
According to this (now deleted as a personal attack), User:Stukov isn't too happy about Abu badali's editing either. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate
Thought many of you may find this interesting-  User:Sebbeng 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents
We need to teach a lesson to zealot editors, such as Abu badali, on how completely wrong their actions are. Actions such as the ones Abu badali is accused of doing can easily make a Wikipedian leave. Wikipedia is, afterall, a collaborative effort, and not a dictatorship. Abu badali needs to learn the following:

A. Learn how to accept majority voting B. Learn to accept defeat C. Commit actions fairly and in an above-board manner D. Learn to comply with the legal regulations of many countries, in regards to stalking and defacing the works of others.

In this sense, I will completely and whole-heartedly support any blocks or bans introduced. I hereby suggest that the admins of Wikipedia ban Abu badali from editing for a certain time, and institute a medium to long term ban on editing images. If this continues, I will push hard for a perpetual ban. Arbiteroftruth 08:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SIGN ME UP. Where is the petition to ban Badali from Wikipedia?

He's only one editor and it turns out he's not even an admin! If he makes ONE person leave editing in disgust, then he breaks even. If he makes TWO people leave, WP is the worse for his having been here. By this time it should be obvious that he is a danger to THE COMMUNITY... not just to Irpn's user page or PagentGirl's snapshots or my medical article, but THE WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY.

Who bans awful people like Badali anyway? Does anyone with the power to ban him even care? Will this bullying hoodlum not be stopped unless a group of wikicitizens march with flaming torches to Jimbo's house at night like in a Frankenstein movie?

And does it even matter? If we work hard to ban him, it will be temporary, then he will wreak his vengeance with enthusiasm. He was banned once for doing just that--banned for only three hours ...and he got his buddy to reverse the ban after 43 minutes!

Are we all just talking to ourselves here?

Is there anyone reading this who can do something and who now sees why editors (including me) are leaving in disillusionment, and that that's bad ==>FOR THE COMMUNITY?

Sys Hax 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points: WP:NOT- Abu Badali has no obligation to accept "majority voting". Wikipedia isn't an MMORPG either; COMMUNITY is of secondary importance to wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia. The focus of the discussion should be whether or not Abu's actions are detrimental to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, rather than to the COMMUNITY. Borisblue 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His actions ARE detrimental to the community in general. He is also a proven Wikistalker. the Stalking charges alone can get him banned for a long time. People lose their lives IRL from being stalked by others (A person I know was killed recently by a stalker). We can't let these stalkers go unpunished! Arbiteroftruth 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest escalating matter to Arbitration
I believe this RfC has already served its purpose and that it may now be time to escalate the matter to Arbitration. Dionyseus 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Jeffpw 10:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- Arbiteroftruth 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's make the next step toward making Wikipedia a better concern james gibbon  00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to go about filing an arbitration case, but will certainly help if anybody wants to get the ball rolling. Just tell me what to do. This editor is a great part of the reason I am no longer active on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ball already rolling at User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu_badali, for those so inclined.
 * Just wondering when the ball is likely to roll toward some sort of conclusion? james gibbon  18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My two cents... I know I was the creator of this RFC but I just want to make it clear that I don't think I have the time or the experience to take this to Arbitration. I am pleased someone else appears to have taken initiative on this matter, as I am unfamiliar with the format of arbitration requests.  I agree that taking this to Arbitration is a good idea. PageantUpdater  User Talk   Review me!  12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?
It appears Abu badali is back to his WikiStalking, disruptive ways. I have fortunately been able to stay clear of him for a while, but he has just nominated Image:KatieBlair.jpg for deletion, an image whose use has been reviewed and cleared by an administrator, and which was discussed at the time. I am disgusted. PageantUpdater User Talk   Review me!  16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * what happened to the ArbCom case? nadav 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This user needs to be banned
This user Abu badali is personally targeting me and pages on which I have edited. He is absolutely refusing to respond to any of my comments. He is catching a number of users off guard purposely without warning. In addition, he is neglecting SERIOUS comments I have made in regard to why an image should stay. Some images I uploaded dealt with people who have died, or images that explicitly reflect a historical contents of the article with an already existing FAIRUSE rationale. This user needs to be banned immediately as he has a history of power trips and user harrassment. Benjwong 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)