Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quadell

'This RfC was withdrawn on February 1, 2006 (UTC) by the requestor following approximately thirty hours of discussion. For the rationale on the withdrawal, see. If you believe Quadell has done something warranting comment, please begin the process from the beginning.' joturner 05:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Quadell | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
On January 30, 2006, Quadell engaged in a revert war regarding a photo in the Qur'an. He subsequently "resolved" the three-month dispute over the issue by deleting the controversial picture from Wikimedia Commons without discussion.

Description
There was a dispute over a picture of a page from the Qur'an that measured about five feet tall. In it was a woman wearing shorts above the knees and a tank top. From early November 2005 until late January 2006, a long discussion (see Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy) occurred surrounding the quality of the photo and the appropriateness of the particular woman dressed the way she was in front of Islam's holiest book.

On January 10, 2006, Quadell stepped forward to acknowledge that he was the photographer and that the subject in the picture was his wife. He then requested that the photo be removed from the article because he did not want to be the subject of such a great debate.

On January 30, 2006, Quadell took matters into his own hands by engaging in a revert war, repeatedly removing the photograph from the article. When it seemed that his removals would always be met with replacements, he, without any discussion or consensus, decided to delete the picture permanently from Wikimedia Commons.

Powers misused

 * Deletion (log)
 * Image:Big Quran page.jpg - Deleted on January 30, 2006 without discussion
 * The image currently uploaded is NOT the image in question. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're too quick for me, I was coming here to leave a note. I have reuploaded a version of the image that crops out Quadell's wife.  Dragons flight 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Oversized Koran folio-draft.jpg - Deleted on January 30, 2006 without discussion


 * Revert Warring
 * Qur'an: 2251 UTC 29-Jan-2006 - First revert within 24-hour period
 * Qur'an: 1623 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - Second revert within 24-hour period
 * Qur'an: 1821 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - Third revert within 24-hour period

Applicable policies

 * Deletion policy
 * Quadell deleted two pictures without putting up a request for deletion or discussing deleting the picture from Wikimedia Commons; the pictures in question were in the middle of a debate within the Qur'an talk page


 * Three-revert rule policy
 * Quadell prolonged a revert war, making the second and fourth reverts in a thirteen-hour period before "ending" the war, imposing his own version by deleting the controversial picture.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy/Archive - The discussion surrounding the controversial picture originally began in early November 2005
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy - The continuation of the archived discussion above.
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy - Many users responded to Quadell's request to remove the picture from the Qur'an article
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 1634 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Babajobu trys to find out the rationale for Quadell's deletions
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 1656 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Babajobu expresses his sentiments about edit warring
 * Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 2119 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Joturner attempts to convince him to refrain from continuing reverting
 * I'm close to implementing the concensus decision, this admin's abuse of power has halted my attempt to solve the problem. (Link is to the text of an e-mail showing one attempt to resolve he dispute, which is still in progress.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with :# ~ )
 * joturner 23:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zora 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kode 06:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Babajobu 07:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, do not feel that Quadell has been uncivil, either in his "I don't speak sarcasm" comment, or at any other point in this affair. Babajobu 13:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the incivility charges from the request. joturner 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I once again stand behind the RfC without caveat. Babajobu 15:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with :# ~ )


 * Jwissick (t)  (c)  06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Greetings.

I perceived the use of the image of my wife, to which I own the copyright, to be a visual slur against her. Her likeness was used to, in the view of many Muslims, defame Islam on the Qur'an article. Many disagree, of course, and I respect that opinion, but I personally take great umbrage to the photograph being used in this way. I made several heartfelt requests for my image not to be used in the Qur'an article, to no effect.

Regarding edit-warring: yes, I did edit-war, and for that I apologize. It's rather embarrassing - look through my contribution history and you'll see that I almost never do this. I was very emotionally involved in the issue, and I, as described, reverted three times in a 24-hour period. It's worth noting, however, that my reverts were not an abuse of my admin powers. I didn't use the revert button, but instead reverted manually, leaving an edit summary. I did not mark these edits as minor, and I did not violate the 3RR. Yes, I was rash and emotional in reverting three times, and I will strive not to engage in revert wars in the future, but I don't see how this is construed as a violation.

Regarding the removal of the image: Yes, I removed an image, to which I owned the copyright, from Wikipedia servers after I saw it repeatedly abused (in my opinion) by including it in the Qur'an article. After my requests were ignored, it is true that I removed the image out of process, but I think this is a clear case when ignoring all rules is appropriate. I don't want my own photographs of my family used to offend people's religious beliefs, and that is more important to me than following the letter of the deletion procedures.

Regarding incivility, I think the above summary is dishonest to not show the comment to which I was responding. I didn't find Babajobu's sarcasm useful, and I indicated that, but I think any honest reveiw of my statements in this matter would show that I have been more than civil.

In conclusion, if my accusers had had the decency to respect the photographer's and model's wishes, this issue would not have come up at all. People in good faith could disagree about whether my actions were ideal or not, but in the context of the situation this is not a case that merits censure.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Quadell's "I don't understand sarcasm" comment is not a very good example of incivility on his part, given that he was responding to a (mildly) sarcastic comment on my part. For that matter, I don't really recall him being uncivil at any point throughout all this. Another issue: if it's really true that he still owned the copyright to that image, then it was his prerogative to revoke our permission to use it and this is much ado about nothing. My understanding, though, was that by submitting the image to the Wikimedia Commons he was licensing it to us and no longer owned the copyright to the image he deleted. Babajobu 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. If you don't think I was being uncivil, you might not want to endorse the view that says I was. About copyright, when someone licenses an image under the GFDL or a creative commons license, they still own the copyright; they simply grant permission to use it under the terms of the GFDL. In short, it wasn't a violation of the GFDL to use the image in a way I disapproved of. I still don't think it was appropriate, but it wasn't a copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) -- I appreciate your bold decision to delete. The whole discussion was really not doing any good for Wikipedia. This debate was unnecessarily draged on regarding a folio, which was not directly related to Quran.  Soft coder   Talk 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) He uploaded it and he can delete it. About its importance, I think that it should should be treated as any other picture and I don't know why it is so necessary to keep it. Quadell was civil and also respectful that some people were offended by the image. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. --Deathphoenix 16:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Although this issue has nothing to do with me, I would just like express that I think dragging Quadell through all this is totally unnecessary. It's very rare in today's society that you see someone trying to be sensitive to other people's religious and cultural beliefs, should Wikipedia really be penalizing someone for trying to do the right thing? --Howrealisreal 17:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I support your right, neglect this un human rules.Waleeed 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree, especially with your first paragraph. --Duk 22:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Totally agree with what you did. Your wishes could and should have been respected. Since when was the first rule of Wikipedia "shit on each other"? Grace Note 04:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Quadell is a kind, sensitive, civil editor and admin, and I agree that his wishes should have been respected. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by JesseW
''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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

This is foolish. If someone wants to remove a photo they've uploaded, we ought to let them do it. It's basic courtesy. It may have been inappropriate to delete it in the manner it was done, but the basic courtesy part is far more important. We can get other pictures. This should be dropped with a applogy to Quadell for his having this trouble with a contribution he made to the project.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (I hardly ever comment on RfC's but this was too much.)
 * 2) --Doc ask?  11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, so are we actually supposed to apologize to Quadell for using his freely licensed picture in a Wikipedia article? Babajobu 12:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, for this absurd RfC against a good user making a reasonable request--Jimbo Wales 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, we did honor his request in agreeing to find a replacement for the picture. And we've also sympathized with his desire not to have users saying his wife was defiling the Quran with her presence. But while we were in the process of doing this, he deleted the image out of process and left us with a Smithsonian librarian telling us, "sure, I'd be happy to provide another picture of the folio, but the link you provided is dead and I need to see it in order to provide the pic." Is it so much to ask that he could have allowed us to find the replacement picture before deleting the image? Our Quran article is now the poorer for it. Babajobu 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jimbo. Quadell was very respectful towards what some people found offensive and he acted correctly considering it was originally his image (and his wife in the picture!). -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimbo - although I respect your opinion, I can hardly say this request is absurd; no apology is necessary. The manner in which he chose to resolve the situation surrounding the picture was a personal, unilateral decision. I believe we should just let this play out and let the Wikipedia community decide what is right. joturner 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Kjkolb 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- ElectricRay 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Duk 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (agree with this within judgment - if there is a reasonable rationale to remove an image).
 * 4) Jimbo Wales 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. --Deathphoenix 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely.  I appreciate IAR more and more.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) I don't understand why this is an RfC.  If our processes are such that they prevent us from treating contributors with respect, then our processes should be disregarded.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Human right is more important than any rules.Waleeed 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Palmiro | Talk 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Agreed with what others have said: I'm not sure if I particularly like (or approve of the fact) that Quadell removed a GFDL'ed image out-of-process, but, ultimately, it should never have come to that to begin with: if he asked for it to be deleted, courtesy dictates that it should have been deleted without debate. – Seancdaug 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Mark1 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) RicDod 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Jkelly 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) I agree, with a strong reminder that we don't extend special rights/privileges to editors just because they have a good past. BrokenSegue 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) --bbatsell  |  &laquo; give me a ring &raquo;  01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Ral315 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Ashibaka tock 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Tony Sidaway 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) If the woman in question had been a complete stranger and had recognised herself in the photograph and asked for the image to be removed, we would, I hope, have complied without hesitation. If I saw an email on this subject on OTRS, I'd just delete it with a note that a private person, who was in the photograph, but was not its subject, objected to it.  I want to add my apology to Quadell to that of Wikipedia.  We should not be dicks.
 * 22) —Guanaco 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Agree with this and agree with Tony Sidaway. And agree with Jimbo. You could have noted on Quadell's talkpage that you disagreed with what he did and moved on. Nothing is accomplished by this RfC that you could not have accomplished by doing that. Grace Note 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Agree with all of the above. An inappropriate RfC against a good editor and a good person. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Curps
''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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Quadell did right by his wife, and he probably felt that was more important than sticking to the letter of the rules or perhaps even his adminship. And he might not have been wrong.

Wikipedia is all about "process", but human feelings count for something too. It would have been the decent thing to do to respect his wishes earlier. Although this was released under GFDL like all other contributions, his wishes should still count for something. Better to lose the image than a valued colleague and contributor (or, indeed, other valued colleagues and contributors of Muslim faith some of whom found the context and juxtaposition of the image upsetting).


 * Fuck process. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) -- Curps 08:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Kjkolb 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Lupo 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Canderson7 15:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Duk 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) This has ties with the rule that must not be named. --cesarb 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy.  --Deathphoenix 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) (Except for the "all about process" bit, because it isn't, but otherwise, yes.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Antandrus  (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Ignore rules for the sake of humanity.Waleeed 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By ignoring rules, you ignore humanity.  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  19:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * is this humanity to hurt person like this with keeping this picture and enforce him to take this action !!!!!!!! Waleeed 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Waleed, you're the one who offended Quadell, by campaigning to have the picture removed on the grounds that his wife was insufficiently clothed. You, in effect, criticized his wife for standing next to the Qur'an in tank top and shorts. The other Muslim editors realized that she was decently clothed, by Western standards, and said that the picture was OK. You're the one trying to enforce Saudi standards on Wikipedia. Now you're saying that you're one of Quadell's defenders? Zora 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment is totally meaning less to me, review Quran discussion page for more info, i'm not going to repeat my self if you can't understand plain statements!!!!! Waleeed 23:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --Pepsidrinka 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) With the same caveat as User:Mindspillage. Jkelly 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) As per Mindspillage and JKelly. Palmiro | Talk 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Ral315 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Ashibaka tock 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More comments moved to talk page

Outside view by Kaldari
''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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

While I certainly respect Quadell as an editor, I cannot deny that his deletion of the images was inappropriate. I sympathize with his feelings and hope that his previous history as an upstanding editor is well-considered during the RFC. However, Quadell's deletion of the images was at best a conflict of interest, at worst an abuse of power. I imagine he knew this going into it, and chose to bite the bullet regardless. I respect that, but my respect cannot be used to exonerate him. These types of actions cannot be simply ignored and justified with WP:IAR. As Kelly Martin well demonstrated, admins must adhere to some threshold of accountability (especially when the use of admin powers are at issue). Kaldari 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): More comments moved to talk page
 * 1) -- joturner 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Babajobu 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Dragons flight
''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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

I feel that deleting the images was profoundly inappropriate and an abuse of admin authority. Quadell was intimately involved in a conflict over this image and hence should not have taken unilateral action to enforce his point of view, period. I can understand it being distressing that something you created was a source of such tension. I can also understand not wishing your wife to be displayed in such a context (though to be fair, she wasn't recognizable). However, these are arguments for removing the image, but they do not give you the moral or legal authority to do it yourself.

I also strongly disagree with JesseW's view that anyone should be allowed to remove images simply because they change their mind. The GFDL is irrevocable, and allowing people to ignore that will only encourage others to try and take back their contributions when they are upset. This is not to say that I would be bothered if the image were deleted after discussion decided it was inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I am upset that it was deleted merely because the contributor decided it was inappropriate. Contributors should not have nor expect to have control over their work once it is submitted.

Lastly, in contrast to other views, I do not see Quadell's comments as uncivil nor does his handful of edits constitute an edit war.

Dragons flight 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): More comments moved to talk page
 * 1) Babajobu, What can I say, you're right. He went about it the wrong way. We showed consideration and a willingness to explore other options, and he basically said "piss off, I'm deleting it." To be frustrated by that is not "rules lawyering", or "a sickness on Wikipedia", whatever Jimbo may think.
 * 2)  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Joturner; The incivility charges were removed at 14:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC). Quadell admitted to revert warring in his response. joturner 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Demi
Quadell was justified in removing the photograph. Essentially the argument is that retaining the photograph despite his wishes would have been technically correct--however, the technicalities are far from clear. In non-public photographs with a subject, it's very likely that one needs the permission of the subject to publish the photograph. Quadell might not technically have had the legal right to publish the photograph in any case. Those who think that retaining the photograph is a slam-dunk decision are mistaken.

But that's barking up the wrong tree. The broader issue is that it's not fair to demand that someone else stand up as the center of a free speech controversy. It's unseemly to insist on it, whether we technically can or not (which isn't clear here anyway).

That said, I think the accusation that those disputing Quadell's action are rules lawyers, or that they're favoring process over product, are misplaced and unfair. It seems to stem from an oversensitivity on this subject, where "process" has become some kind of magical bugaboo (or holy of holies) with seemingly few people holding the ground in between. As far as I can tell, the motivation here is to have a better article, which is a laudable thing in itself, even if I don't agree with hanging onto the photograph.

Demi T/C 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Summary judgement by Babajobu
Every contributor to Wikipedia has the right to ask that their GFDL submissions to the project be removed. However, the community has a right to say, sorry, but no. In this case the community didn't avail itself of that right. The consensus was, sure, Quadell, you can have your GFDL submission back, but let us first find a replacement picture. Quadell was not satisfied with this solution so he essentially said, "tough s**t, I'm an admin, and I'm deleting my submission." We can all sympathize with his motivation for doing so, for using his admin privileges to damage an article, but some of us think he should have shown a little more respect for the encyclopedia, for community consensus, and for the integrity of the GFDL license.

Now Jimbo and a score of admins are shouting hosannas to Quadell, writing admiringly of his WP:IAR, denouncing the "rules lawyering" of those of us who dislike seeing articles made poorer, those of us who wish Quadell had worked with us a bit more to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. It's strange to see this culture develop among some admins, a culture in which violation of the rules (so long as it's done by admins) is seen as having an almost intrinsic merit, even when it's to the detriment of the quality of the encylopedia. It shows tough-minded resolve, I gather. But if it's true, as Jimbo says, that "Wikipedia is all about people, about mutual respect", then we should remember that respect is a two-way street. One way we can show respect for non-admins is by generally obeying the rules we require them to abide by. When we break the rules, which we must sometimes do, we should do it with an explanation, and with some humility. And when they request an explanation for a patent violation of, say, the GFDL license, it's best that we don't follow Jimbo's lead and call them "rules lawyers" and "a sickness on Wikipedia".

My two cents. Babajobu 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Users who endorse this summary sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Babajobu 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC), 100% agreement, I mean, oh my god, everything hu said is so totally true
 * 2) joturner 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC); Really ladies and gentlemen... is it really a surprise that I'm endorsing Babajobu's statement? Good summary, Babajobu.
 * 3)  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Zora 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal
This request for comment was withdrawn at 05:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC) by the requestor, User:Joturner for the following reasons:
 * Support for Quadell's adminship was overwhelming
 * The RfC had become a mode for cardstacking comments denouncing those agreeing with the request
 * The RfC began to simply prolong the three-month discussion that began earlier on the Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy page.

Although I hold no regrets for initiating the request for comment as it allowed the community to decide how Quadell's actions should be dealt with, I do apologize for continuing the debate that began on the Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy page. I was very happy to see the at-times heated debate come to a conclusion when Quadell deleted the controversial photographs, although I adamently disagreed with the manner in which it was done. It was not my intention to let that conservation spill out into this request for comment. But since it did, I felt the only solution was to withdraw what has now become an unnecessary war of words.

May Quadell and everyone else continue to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith as we put this chapter behind us. And may Allah bless you all in this life and the Hereafter. joturner 05:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)