Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Abu badali

message: 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, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 21#Image:Amanar.jpg. 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)
replies: text: Abu caused that uploader, User:Mademoiselle Sabina to quit Wikipedia.    Dionyseus 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: Sabina caused Sabina to quit.  – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. User:Sebbeng 15:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not sure where to.. start.. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Evidence of trying and failing to solve the dispute?

message: 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok#Outside view by Jimbo Wales, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Abu has never deleted a single image. I don't understand your last 2 sentences. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  The hijacking of this RFC (AKA Quadell's rant) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So much for this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some comments. 

message: 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.
;Incident
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.  
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.
;Conclusion
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.  
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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bottom Line

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another user with issues with Abu badali 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: A few points: WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY- 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My Two Cents 

message: 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)
replies: text: what happened to the ArbCom case? nadav 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding me? 

message: 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)
thread_title: This user needs to be banned