Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Opened on 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by Jord[edit]

User:Abu badali repeatedly tags non-free images for deletion even when a fair use justification exists and has been confirmed as being in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines by all interested parties who have discussed as such on the page. In at least one case, he deleted all of the source justification on a page and listed it for speedy deletion, as a minor edit, and the image later had to be undeleted by an administrator (Jord's request for undeletion, response). [This particular image was retagged again for speedy deletion by Abu badali shortly before this arbitration request was made and deleted after the request was posted - Jord 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)]

When other Wikipedians question these activities, User:Abu badali has undertaken wikistalking and harrassment of the complaintants (see here for an example of him doing it to on admins talk page) and mass-tagged all of those users images for deletion.

As a result of these activities, an RfC was started re: User:Abu badali approximately six months ago. User:Abu badali has refused to respond to this RfC despite being aware of it since at least 19 December 2006 when he edited his user page to mock it.

We request that User:Abu badali be banned from editing for a period of time and his activities monitored after that period to ensure he does not continue his unacceptable activity.

Statement by Abu badali[edit]

I will briefly comment on the topics in Jord's statement.

  1. About my "repeatedly taggings", diffs would be welcome. There are more than one reason a image may be deleted. Probably those taggings were for different reasons.
  2. About deleting "all of the source justification", a diff is welcome. I can't think of a reason to do that (unless for bogus source info).
  3. About speedy deletions, I tagged with {{db-i7}} images that were tagged as replaceable for weeks but were never reviewed by admins. I stand to my actions.
  4. The "wikistalking and harrassment" link is actually a link for a discussion where admin Theresa knott accuses me of stalking and I rebut the accusation. I stand to my actions and words in that case and I have nothing to add.
  5. "As a result of these activities, an RfC was started..." - Not quite. The RFC is anterior to all these activities. It was started for reasons that are unclear to discover per the confusion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali#Statement of the dispute.
  6. About "mocking the rfc" in my user page... The statements on my user page shouldn't be taken seriously unless you're prepared to accept the fact that I am a Tenebrist character in my real life. For the record, I have "mocked" my failed RFA as well. But if this is really a problem, I can remove theses statements, or add a "this is no serious" warning.

I believe that, if accepted, this ARB case is a greate opportunity to clean up the mess at my RFC. Unfortunately, there isn't enough room here for citing 10% of it's problems.

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)


Free-use and fair-use content[edit]

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a free content license as defined by the parts of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that pertain to licenses. Media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria (also known as "fair use criteria").

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-compliant non-free content[edit]

2) Media that do not meet the requirements described by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Role of editors who specialize in image review[edit]

3) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged.

Passed 7 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

4) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


5.1) Wikipedia's consensus editing model depends upon discussion among editors. Editors are generally expected to respond to good-faith requests to explain their actions.

Passed 7 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content policy[edit]

6) The policy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria makes clear that a non-free image can only be used in a Wikipedia article under strict circumstances. It must contribute significantly to the article it is in, not serving a merely decorative purpose. Additionally, it must not be replaceable by an alternative free image, if one exists or could be created. If the image is primarily used to depict a living person, existing object, or recurring event, then the fair use rationale must explain why a new, free, and equivalent image of the person, object, or event could not be created.

Passed 9 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Response of users whose images are questioned[edit]

7) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance of notifying contributors of image tagging[edit]

9) Where the validity of non-free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this.

Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between policy and consensus[edit]

10) Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus. However, the question of whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decisions reached. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions which are believed to violate policy can be appealed.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


11) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous and to assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Feelings matter[edit]

13) The feelings of other users matter. Repeated incivility reduces morale and thus damages the project.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Abu badali[edit]

1) Abu badali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has edited Wikipedia for more than three years. He is not an administrator. In addition to his content contributions, he formerly described himself on his userpage as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor" and has added maintenance tags to thousand of images having wrong, incomplete or missing source and/or licensing info, as well as challenged the fair-use status of thousands of uploaded images.

Passed 10 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

3) On November 29, 2006, a request for comment concerning Abu badali was opened, raising concerns about Abu badali's approach to fair-use image challenges. More than 40 users endorsed one or more statements raising concerns about Abu badali's approach to fair-use issues and the way he interacts with other editors.

Passed 8 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC ignored[edit]

4) Abu badali has ignored and completely failed to respond to the RfC against him, although he has known of its pendency for more than five months.

Passed 7 to 1, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Abu badali counselled[edit]

1.2) Abu badali is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way.

Passed 7 to 0, 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)