Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision

message: The find of fact Concerns raised says "Rather than make an especial effort to respond to such concerns in a civil manner, Abu badali has often disregarded and at times even mocked the concerns expressed". I believe this completely opposed to what was proposed (with dozen of diffs) in Abu badali consistently responds patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images he has challenged, in the Workshop.
Saying that I didn't acted "in a civil manner" is something that needs to be backed up with diffs. --Abu badali (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About ''Concerns raised''

message: The proposed find of fact Incivility says that many users see my behavior as incivil and even vindictive. It should be noticed that no user was able to dispute the proposed find of fact Abu badali has never been rude to fellow editors, that has suggested since May 17. No diffs showing uncivil behavior on my part was ever produced.
The fact is that we have WP:CIVIL to define what's considered civil behavior, and we have no evidence (diffs) that I acted in an uncivil manner. We have users that "see my behavior as uncivil" and others that don't consider. Why should this arb case only mention the opinion of those who see it as uncivil, even more when these opinions are not supported by evidence? --Abu badali (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About ''Incivility''

message: For what it is worth, I was quite surprised when the direction that this case is currently taking was pointed out to me.  I'd like to invite members of the Committee to reconsider it.  Forty people signing an RfC complaining about non-free content cleanup needs to be seen in perspective; it would be trivial to find ten times that number of editors who would like to vote Wikipedia:Non-free content away.  If Abu Badali's unfree image cleanup work is worthy of sanction because editors complain about it, the Arbitration Committe is then making the statement that licensing policy can indeed be over-ruled by persistant whining and that editors who are enforcing unpopular policy should expect censure rather than support from the project leadership.  If there are civility issues, and it is not clear to me that there are any worth mentioning, I hope that the Committee will address those appropriately in a way that does not have a chilling effect on one of the least pleasant jobs to volunteer for on en:.  Jkelly 20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been emphasized by everyone involved that the case has nothing to with people "complaining about non-free content cleanup". The persistance of this attitude looks like deliberate trivialization of the issue in order to cover up incivility. Could you refer me to the page where "the direction that this case is currently taking was pointed out" to you? I do hope that it was on-wiki rather than behind the scenes and I look forward to adding my comments there. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for the Proposed Decision in the Abu Badali arbitration case, which I used to comment upon the decision as it is currently being formulated by the Committee, to whom my concern was addressed.  My point was that civility issues, if there are any, need to be separated out from the image cleanup work, which I argue that the current proposed decision does not do.  My understanding is that most ArbCom deliberation happens off-wiki, but I'm not sure why that is interesting enough to comment upon.  Jkelly 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you were approached on IRC or by e-mail, that would look like canvassing with a view to pressuring the ArbCom to produce a desired outcome. That's not something I would encourage. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be relieved to hear that I have given up all forms of telecommunication and now only respond to smoke signals.  Seriously, however, I cannot imagine why you think my correspondence is any of your business, or why I might have any influence with the Commmittee beyond my ability to make a clear, persuasive argument. Jkelly 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This rudeness may be appropriate on IRC but certainly not in Wikipedia. You can't resonably expect me to reply to a "it's none of your business" message. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, then don't reply. Because really it is none of your business. (BTW, just so as not to give the wrong impression: I haven't been in contact with Jkelly.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Abu, please mind that I have not been of of your accusers. It does not appear reasonable to demand evidence on the "proposed decision" page, let along on its talk page, let alone from a non-party to the dispute. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ghirla, please mind that you have just made an accusation. It does not appear reasonable to make accusations if you are not prepared to back them up, no matter on what page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is not the right place to demand evidence, this is also not the right place to imply I violated any policies. Please, consider rewording your comments. --Abu badali (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for further deliberation on this case 

message: I'm frankly quite surprised at the direction this is going.  This totally needs to be reexamined.  First of all, the proposed decision seems to me to be getting the facts wrong.  Particularly, FoF #2 takes a very cynical take on Abu's removal of barnstars that were explicitly given to insult him.  It is also wrong to say that Abu has completely ignored the RfC: FoF #2 mentions Abu's note on his own User page about the RfC: that is not ignoring it, and it is responding to it.  It is correct to say he didn't take part, but when I asked him about it, he explained why in a completely calm and rational way (I mentioned this on the Evidence page).  This may not have been the best decision but the proposed decision makes it seem like he took no notice of the RfC, but that's not the case.  And right now the decision reflects nothing about how questionable the RfC was in the first place.  FoF #9 and FoF #8 are complete cop-outs if there are actually going to be any sanctions.  If you sanction him, you have got to say that he has wikistalked and he has been incivil, not merely that some users regard his actions that way.  And it's just as bad to be missing what should be there: a FoF that Abu badali responds to inquiries patiently and accurately, and routinely attempts to educate new users about Wikipedia's image policies.  What Abu does wrong, if anything, is (1) in trying to get images deleted, is perhaps overly argumentative and persistent, despite cases where his interpretation of image policy is not mainstream, and (2) that he tends to not respond well to inquiries about his behavior.  But the worst part has got to be the remedies: why should Abu be forced to refrain from going through a user's contributions looking for more violations?  Users who violate copyright or break the image use policy often do it in large quantity, and this kind of work is needed and should not be discouraged.  If he's going to be placed on probation, "disruption" should not be defined so broadly.  In particular, nominating multiple images from a single user should not be considered disruptive if it's not stalking, so those should not be listed as separate types of disruption.  And I don't know where this whole "roleplaying" thing comes from, it's just demeaning to Abu, because it implies that he is merely pretending his sincerity in image deletion, and I don't see any convincing evidence of that at all.  Mangojuicetalk 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, what the hell?  I legitimately appalud Abu badali's work in fair use images, doing stuff that few people would want to muck around with.  I wimp out and only pursue the obvious non-free images of living people.  Abu badali actually looks into whether that image has real fair use commentary or not.  Me, I'd rather go on a nomination spree on orphaned :Category:GFDL images (which gets pretty much no heat compared to non-free images that many users will die fighting for). hbdragon88 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above ElinorD (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the? 

message: I would like to add my own respectful request for further deliberation, and am doing so in my own section, as I have my own points to make.
 
I am not an expert in Wikipedia image copyright policy, but am totally committed to upholding it. I have long felt that it was unfortunate that on Wikipedia some of the people whose dedication to our image copyright policy I admire tend to be abrasive when dealing with violations. I have also noticed some who are among the most patient and courteous of all our editors.
I first became aware of Abu badali after seeing a (perfectly civil) message he had left for someone whose page was on my watchlist. I looked at his own page, which at the time looked like this. I found it inappropriate. Even when image cleanup is being done by the most tactful and sensitive editors, the situation can become inflamed because, frankly, some people do resent having Wikipedia policy taking precedent over their wishes to have a well-decorated article (or user page!) and I thought that such phrases as "Abu is targeting you", "Call me a stalker", and especially "Expect me to read through your logs" were unlikely to to help in such situations. I believe it is important to give the impression that you are not tagging someone's images just for the fun of annoying that person, and that you'd like to keep people as happy as possible, while still ensuring that unfree images are not misused.
HOWEVER, my reservations over Abu's user page are the worst thing I have to say about him. If I had known him directly, rather than through having seen his message to someone that I know, I would have suggested that he change it, as that would make his work more effective, especially when dealing with a new, potentially-productive editor who is irked at not being allowed to improve the appearance of a page with a non-free image, when that image is already being used on Wikipedia. As I did not know him, I stayed out of it, but noticed recently that he voluntarily changed his user page — before the voting on this case began. (No account has been taken of that?) I also see that on 22 May, he said that he would change his page if it was considered inappropriate.  Given that nobody asked him to change his page, given that he indicated that he would be prepared to change it, given that some users have had much more inappropriate user page content without being subjected to ArbCom sanctions, and given that Abu badali voluntarily changed his user page before voting on this case began, I cannot see that there is any cause for sanctions. In my experience, ArbCom does not waste time on cases that revolve round having "Abu is targeting you" on someone's user page. Role playing? One could agree that it doesn't help to calm down an inflamed situation, and one could argue that since people are genuinely peeved at having their images challenged, making a special effort not to add provocation would be wise and kind, but is an ArbCom sanction required here? Surely not. While it would have been better to respond to the RfC, it's not a requirement, and I cannot see that not responding is a reason even to accept an ArbCom case, let alone ruling against the "defendant". 
If we leave out the now-modified (and never highly objectionable) content of his user page, what are we left with? A user who is very persistent in bringing Wikipedia pages into line with our policy on non-free content. In other words, someone who is doing The Right Thing. Is he doing it in The Wrong Way? Where is the evidence? We have evidence that a lot of people are annoyed with him. But as Jkelly pointed out, it would be easy to find 400 people who would like to get rid of our policy on non-free content altogether. 
Some things which I think the current position of the ArbCom fails to take into account include:
#Abu has given very patient and helpful answers to questions about image copyright.
#A distinction should be made between the behaviour of someone who has shown no previous interest in image copyright and who gets into an edit conflict with a previously-unencountered editor (say, over whether or not Gillian McKeith should be called a nutritionist) and immediately begins to nominate that user's images for deletion, and that of someone who specialises in copyright issues and gets into dispute with someone over that user's copyright violations (and reaction to being told of copyright violations) and continues to look for more copyright violations. The former case is stalking; the latter is not. (In the latter case, it may be prudent to back off and ask another person to look into the copyright violations if the "target" is getting very upset and taking it personally, but there is no obligation to leave copyright violations uncorrected simply because action is upsetting people.)
#Nobody asked Abu to change his user page, and he eventually changed it voluntarily anyway.
#There is no evidence that Abu's "particularly strict" interpretation of image policy is stricter than the interpretation intended by the Foundation and probably favoured by people such as Jimbo Wales and Mindspillage. One of the images that he is criticised for tagging was subsequently deleted as a copyright violation by Wikipedia and Commons administrator Jkelly.
#Abu has been subjected to a lot of abuse from people who object to having their images removed or deleted. Such abuse has included extremely vile personal attacks, threats of physical harm, and userspace vandalism. He has not engaged in such behaviour himself. Yet only one proposed principle (No. 7) clearly refers to those who attacked him. (It's not clear whether Principles 11 and 13 refer to Abu nominating images for deletion or to those who wrote about "fucking Badali" and threatened to go after him with a baseball bat; given the the context of the whole Proposed decision, I can't help fearing that the two Arbitrators were thinking of Abu.) Nine FoFs refer to Abu, and none to his attackers! And the only proposed remedy refers to Abu. This is extremely worrying.
#While responding to an RfC is desirable, not doing so is not a violation of any policy. And when an RfC fails to give appropriate evidence of the certifiers trying and failing to resolve the dispute, and is taken over by people who have engaged in egregious personal attacks, there can be some justification for ignoring it. Reasonably courteous questions on Abu's talk page have always been responded to, as far as I know.
#The proposals present a rather one-sided view of the conflict. For example, the statement that he "ignored and completely failed to respond" to his RfC does not mention the fact that some of the people on that page had engaged in vicious attacks, or that he responded civilly to any questions asked courteously on his talk page. The statement that many users see his actions an "incivil and even vindictive" does not mention that others disagree. The statement that he is sometimes the only person in a discussion who thinks that an image should be deleted implies that he's wrong. If he is, surely the ArbCom should give an example.
#Remedy 1 combined with Enforcement 1 suggest that an administrator could block Abu for not responding to an RfC, even if the RfC has been taken over by people engaging in attacks. Is that really what the Committee intends? Blocking him for role playing? Since he voluntarily changed his user page, before voting began (when nobody could have imagined that the case would take the turn it has taken), what makes the ArbCom members think that there is any need for a humiliating sanction (which will further strengthen the position of aggressive, potty-mouthed, baseball-bat-wielding policy violators) rather than a gentle chat with an administrator who might suggest that it's not the best way to go about it?
#The current proposed decisions are bad news for anyone who is active in (or, like me, intending to become active in) the often thankless task of enforcing copyright policy. I have often admired people like Jkelly and Durin who patiently carried out boring and abuse-inviting tasks of image cleanup while I was having fun creating articles and socialising. While I don't argue that Abu's behaviour has been perfect, I do not believe that it is worthy of sanction (especially considering the abusive behaviour of his detractors has not even been mentioned). While the committee certainly should not condone clearly abusive behaviour on the part of those engaging in image cleanup, I do not see any evidence that there has been such behaviour. And I think it is most important not to make things more difficult for those who engage in such thankless work.
ElinorD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Elinor for your thoughtful comments, which I of course fully endorse, just like those of Jkelly and Mangojuice above. And thank you guys for saying these things a bit more calmly than I managed to say them. I would guess that the fact that we've seen several days of complete silence on the part of the arbitrators since this debate started is actually a sign that some pretty thorough further deliberation is already underway. Maybe we can now just leave them to it for the moment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also endorse Elinor's, Mangojuice's and Jkelly's remarks.  They have said what I would like to say in a much more calm and convincing manner than I could.  I ask that the Arbitration Committee please consider their remarks.  --Iamunknown 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I am another user expressing dismay with the way this arbitration seems to be heading. Per all the other posters above (Jkelly, Future Perfect and Elinor). Garion96 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in total agreement here with Elinor, Mangojuice and Jkelly. As an administrator who is familiar with the nonfree image problem here in Wikipedia, I also assert that the direction this Rfarb is going is misguided.   Borisblue 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know how much effect this will have, but add me to the list those thoroughly endorsing Elinor, Mangojuice, Jkelly, and Fut.Perf. howcheng  {chat} 23:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing, FWIW there have many times when I come across a trove of improperly used non-free images, sometimes in a single article and sometimes in a number of related articles, and when confronted with that, it's awfully tempting to just NOT want to step into that nest of vipers (and yes, I've avoided those in the past just because I don't want to/don't have time to deal with them), but it seems to be that Abu always willingly and tirelessly wades into those messes in order to help clean them up, even on articles that have staunch defenders, like Yom Kippur War, for which his reward is to suffer personal attacks from respected users like User:El C and even arbitrators (User:Raul654 -- see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 27#Yom Kippur War images for examples). howcheng  {chat} 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to be less calm in my reaction.  The Signpost summary of the proposed decision was a real shocker for me.  I was made aware of this case through a group of users demanding Abu badali's immediate banning on the Pump, after this case had started, apparently for no other reason that to encourage more people to light torches and bring out the pitchforks. Unusually, I read through the case up that point, probably since I deal with similarly annoyed people during my occasional CSD bouts.  It seemed pretty obvious to me that Abu badali would be cautioned to avoid aggravating the wounded feelings of uploaders and that the arbitrators would take the opportunity to make clear that the GFDL is not subject to consensus, no matter how many pissed off people think it is.  I also thought there would remedies against the users who uploaded numerous poorly explained non free images and then went into a whine-fest when someone called them on it, including up to blocks. I never even considered that the arbitrators would take a stance weakening efforts to keep the "freedom" of the wiki above reproach, nevertheless that they would do so in such a hostile manner.  I'll repeat someone above and repeat "what the?" - BanyanTree 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also say that I realize that arbitrators do a difficult job, and no intent to disparage them is meant. - BanyanTree 03:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another user expresses dismay 

message: I'm confused about finding of fact #8 and #9.  I briefly examined previously concluded requests for arbitration (in particular, Tobias Conradi and Betacommand), and in the finding of facts in those four cases, the Arbitration Committee clearly came to a conclusion based upon the evidence presented.  For example, FoF #6 in Tobias Conradi states, 
: "Tobias Conradi is sometimes quite rude. Called on his behavior, he habitually responds with a rejoinder of some sort, see Talk:Jambi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence#Incivility, a particularly egregious example.";
FoF #9 in Betacommand states, 
: "After concerns were raised about his automated reporting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ([71]), on 28 February 2007 and continuing through 2 March, Betacommand began to report large numbers of obvious username violations at WP:AIV ( [72], [73], [74], [75])."  
Neither of these finding of facts say anything similar to, "Many users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive"; we know that some users see Abu badali's actions as incivil and even vindictive, as we know that some users see Tobias Conradi as rude and some users see Betacommand as disruptive.
The difference is that, in the previous finding of facts, the Arbitration Committee clearly stated relevant information which could be decided upon examining the evidence.  FoF #8 and #9 of this case, however, merely state what can be decided upon examining the evidence—that some users think Abu badali is incivil, or engages in wikistalking—but fail to attach any relevance.  We know that some editors think Abu badali is incivil or engages in wikistalking; but what does the Arbitration Committe, upon examining the evidence and sifting through it all, think?  If they think that Abu badali has been incivil, they should state something to the effect, "Abu badali is often incivil [list relevant diffs here]"; if they think he has engaged in wikistalking, they should state something to the effect, "Abu badali has a history of engaging in wikistalking.  Events include [list events here]" (straight from Betacommand FoF #14).
So, which is it?  Has Abu badali often been incivil?  (And please list relevant diffs, and realize that even a brief list of diffs does not support the accusation of "often [being] incivil".)  Has he engaged in wikistalking?  (Probably by linking to the evidence page and throwing support behind one of the relevant presentations.)  It is not clear right now, because the finding of facts depend upon the conditionals "sometimes" and "Many users", respectively.  --Iamunknown 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. WP:WEASEL should apply here as well as to articles. howcheng  {chat} 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FoF #8 and #9 

message: Oh hell, sorry guys.  I just realised the funny links were from me using the uni's free internet service.  Meh. PageantUpdater 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Sarite. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I just read through the proposed decision, findings of fact section 7 and its accompanying remedy #1 is very problematic for me. I deal with a lot of images and have for a while, and am familiar with other people who do and their styles. Images have multiple requirements. For example a newly uploaded image may have no text at all. Usually people will tag this as "no source" since that is the most pressing problem. Maybe it gets a source and a non-free tag next because the uploader read the policy more. Well, now it needs a use rationale and to be used in an article. There is a progression. You can't tag the original image as needing a rationale because you didn't know that it was going to be claimed as fair use. Watching problem images and making sure they are eventually corrected is not a bad thing, we shouldn't punish people for it! (just a general comment, as someone else who deals with images a lot and is peripherally familiar with Abu badali I have never considered his interpretation of our policies to be fringe.) - cohesion 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 100%. -- But|seriously|folks  18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a proposed Find of Fact dealing with that, but the arbitrator that started drafting the decision preferred the FoF#7. --Abu badali (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment FoF #7 

message: User:Hidey Ho is a (now banned) single purpose account created to attack me. Is it possible to ask for a check user against the parts involved in this case to determine if it's something from some of them? --Abu badali (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account created to attack me 

message: FoF number 1 says that Abu badali "describes himself on his userpage" as a "self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor". Abu did a major overhaul of his userpage on 28 June, two days before the voting began, and removed all the objectionable stuff. I can understand that if he made a change when eight of the Arbitrators had voted, they wouldn't want to go back and change anything, but this was actually untrue when Fred first proposed and supported it, and has remained untrue ever since. A simple change from "describes" to "described" would fix it. ElinorD (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ElinorD appears to be correct that this became outdated between the workshop and the final decision, and should be updated. The tenses in FoF 4 should also be updated from past progressive to simple past. Newyorkbrad 10:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Picaroon (t) 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded Picaroon's rewording slightly, and added a link, to Finding 1, and changed the tenses in FoF 4, as suggested by Brad Paul August ☎ 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case seems to have closed already. ElinorD (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I've reverted my changes to the Proposed decision page, since it is not appropriate to make changes there post closing. Paul August ☎ 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the wording per Brad's suggestion, it didn't occur to me that I should wait for an arbitrator to verify it. I think since the case closed so recently it would be perfectly okay for you to update the final decision to fix my clerical mistake. Picaroon (t) 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. It's probably fine the way it is. I don't see my changes as being particularly material. If someone disagrees, and wants to petition us for an amendment they can — I would be supportive. I'm sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. I think it is easy for such things to fall through the cracks. Perhaps we need to consider modifying our procedures somewhat? Paul August ☎ 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I call attention to this sort of thing through the mailing list, but I fear that if I send too many e-mails, the priority given to each will become less. The best check would probably for arbitrators at the "motion to close" stage to look over this talkpage before voting to close the case, which would mean there would be at least four opportunities for last-minute catches like this. Alternatively, I can become even more pestiferous to the arbs than I am already. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I added my vote to close, this section didn't exist. Paul August ☎ 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution to this sort of thing could be the rules being updated to allow minor edits to the final decision by clerks and arbitrators. How about something along the lines of "within one week of the close of the case, arbitrators and clerks may make cosmetic and factual fixes and adjustments to the final decision"? Picaroon (t) 20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the U.S. House of Representatives, the formulation is "I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of the bill." Maybe something like that. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FoF number 1 factually incorrect 

message: That's all this is... a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket.  Shame on Wikipedia... I have lost all respect for this place and it's processes.  Doesn't mean I will stop editing but when someone can get away with blatant harassment and have others ignore or condone it... well it's no longer worth being polite. PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to think that as Abu badali focuses on the fact that he's been counselled by the Arbitration Committee, and the fact that several arbitrators were prepared to make serious fact findings against him and impose a harsher remedy (even though others disagreed), he will take this as a serious indication that he should modify his style. I suggest waiting and seeing how things evolve over the next few weeks before forming a conclusion as to whether this decision will be effective or not. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Have you stopped to consider that maybe you're the one who's out of step with everybody else here? That maybe you're harrassing him for doing something he's allowed and even encouraged to do that helps protect Wikipedia?  I would never defend Abu's occasional incivility, but the powers that be have declined to declared that his tagging actions are appropriate and that therefore your complaints in that regard are unjustified.  You would be wise to take that declaration decision on board. -- But|seriously|folks  20:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these guys (or at least their mind-set) is one and the same as far as I'm concerned and I don't care what the hell they say... the majority were never going to do anything more as was clear from the outset.  I don't care what Wikipedia's flawed policies are... no editor should be able to harrass me and mess up articles because of his fixation on image tagging and get away with it. I certainly wasn't the only one who got this treatment and this decision is a disgrace.  Like "counselling" is going to do anything.  PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your characterization of our decision is a bit over-broad. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I have revised my comment. -- But|seriously|folks  21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If there continue to be problems with Abu badali's behavior, this case can be reopened for review, or a new case can be brought. Paul August ☎ 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket