Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

[edit] Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I have been under wholesale attack this week by this user on dozens of images, many of which he has failed to inform me he has marked for deletion. He espouses a singular belief that no viewpoint but his is correct, and that any Fair Use image of a living person or thing that could somehow hypothetically be created under a GFDL must be deleted. He has also just sabotaged a link to an image I had posted a link to for descriptive purposes on a discussion page discussing image quality issues at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok. This user engages in an all out pattern of attack against any other user that dares challenge his absolutist POV on the issue of GFDL images. He was able to mark literally dozens of images for deletion in only a few minutes earlier this week, and appears to have little or no interest in finding free images to replace those he claims should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has literally thousands of images that are promotional in nature provided by press agencies and others, and this user and others like him apparently want to remove every one of them, starting with those posted by the people that disagree with their absolute POV on the issue of using fair use images for living persons at all. This user is interested in destruction, and uses scripts and pseudo-politeness to mask a pattern of destruction, then claims he is nothing but respectful in doing so. Tvccs 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. TheQuandry 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This is almost exactly the same case as the one here [1] and I support review and consensus that these actions are improper.
  3. I have unpleasant memories about Abu Badali. He has also caused at least one user to leave Wikipedia: [2]. Dionyseus 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. All the sneakiness must stop; I've seen several editors working in tandem to: One list for RFU and One to delete, it always seems to be the same bunch of people. I do not particularly like Ali's attitude and rudeness and therefore offer my full support to the above statement. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. User targets particular editors' contributions, rigidly enforces his personal opinions about fair use images without allowing or participate in meaningful discussion regarding his proposed deletions, and through his almost consistently strongly rude and harsh mode of communication creates a general feeling of negativity. Activities have caused at least one formerly productive and positive editor to leave the project entirely. Badagnani 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Just a couple of days ago, I posted on the talk page of one of the disputed images, and it was deleted instead of debated. This kind of behaviour is very discouraging to Wikipedia users- and I can see why many would be frustrated over it. I do understand what they're doing is a huge job, and it is hard to follow everything, but they also have to understand how detremental their actions are to the project as a whole. Anyways, that's just my two cents. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. There's only so much one can do to ebb the flow of this, and all the policy in the world is not going to take away from the fact that what's going on right now is disrespectful to the feelings of others and insensitive to the concerns that others have espoused. I got into this debate on the wings of another editor who was doing the same thing, and I'm not going to stand by and watch Wikipedia gutted without a respect for the hard work of others. This particular editor is symbolic of a more far-reaching problem. - Stick Fig 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. DHowell 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The current rush to delete thousands of images, by Abu badali and others, because they may be in technical violation of controversial policies, and when many are arguably not in violation, is, in my opinion, disrupting Wikipedia. There are much less disruptive methods of achieving the desired goals.
  9. Zanimum 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Hackajar Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page.
Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it. But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked. Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Quadell's view

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

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

  • 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.
  • That said, there are many borderline cases where users in good faith may disagree about whether a certain image is replaceable or not. The deciding admin is expected to read the dispute and make an informed judgment in these cases.
  • I want to say that Pageant has been a model of decorum about the whole thing. She was disappointed (of course) to find the many images she uploaded could not be kept, but when the policy was explained to her she accepted it gracefully and tried to upload only non-replaceable images or free images. I wish all users were as reasonable.
  • Abu has been doing some much-needed work in cleaning up "fair-use" images which were (inadvertently) uploaded against policy. I appreciate his work. However, he often comes across as abrasive and occasionally even rude. He has even reverted me when I, as the deciding admin, decided (after a week) that an image was irreplaceable. I would be most appreciative if he would do this hard work without being as attached to the outcome for individual images. It appears Abu used deception to make a point to Pageant about whether the image was replaceable or not. In my personal view, this was out of line. (But it was not out-of-line, of course, to tag images as rfu and argue as such on their talk pages.)
  • The image in question showed a beauty pageant receiving her crown. On the one hand, I would argue that this shows a one-time, historic event which is significant in the article, and that the image is non-replaceable. On the other hand, some users feel that this image was only being used to identify the person, and that a new, free image would serve the purpose just as well. This is a borderline case.
  • When I've been the deciding admin on this sort of image in the past, I've usually opted to keep the image. If there is any plausible argument that the image is non-replaceable, I try to err on the side of keeping the image. Other admins decide differently.
  • In this case, Abu tagged the image with {{replaceable fair use}} and argued that the image was replaceable. Pageant and I argued that it was not replaceable.
  • Abu did not delete this image. He is not an admin, and does not have the ability to delete images. User:Angr was the processing admin in this case, and he chose to delete it. I told him I disagreed, and asked him about his reasoning, and he responded here. I still disagree with his reasoning, but he was the deciding admin, not me. He did the hard work of processing those many images, so he gets to make the decision.
  • I would encourage admins to err on the side of caution in these cases. But so long as they are acting in good faith, I will stand by their decisions.

[edit] Users who endorse this summary:

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

[edit] TheQuandry's summary

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

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

[edit] Users who endorse this summary:

  1. TheQuandry 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ADDENDUM: For the record, I do not support deleting fair use images UNTIL a free replacement has, indeed, been found, but I didn't mention that above because I'm trying to respond to the specifics of this case in particular.
  2. Badagnani Badagnani 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. This is a well written summary, I agree with it completely. Dionyseus 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Couldn't have said it better myself. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Encapsulates my concerns with this recent edit policy. - Stick Fig 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Ta-ni-ni 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jbuzza 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. DHowell 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Alex Bakharev 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Irpen 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Except for the "cowboy" sentence, I agree. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Hoping this editor will show a little more respct for WP:CON...Jenolen speak it! 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Tbkflav 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Zanimum 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Tvccs 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. --OneCyclone 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking Is Never Acceptable

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Users Who Endorse This Summary

  1. Jenolen speak it! 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Badagnani - should not only aim to develop consensus, but also contribute in a productive, constructive way to our project.
  3. TheQuandry 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. The editor should refrain from wikistalking immediately and begin contributing in a healthy, constructive manner.
  4. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Irpen. Obvious point. Stalking is trolling. --04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dionyseus 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Tvccs 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. --OneCyclone 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutral Summaries

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

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

[edit] Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Goodlief

[edit] Discussion

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Abu_badali_b366.html"