Wikipedia talk: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'This RfC was withdrawn on February 1, 2006 (UTC) by the requestor following approximately thirty hours of discussion.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 Requests for comment/Quadell. If you believe Quadell has done something warranting comment, please begin the process from the beginning.' joturner 05:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the revert warring really be a part of this? Does anyone really contend that I abused my admin powers by making three reversions (while not using any admin abilities)? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO admin reverting and manual reverting is still reverting. How it was done is immaterial. That is was done is relevant. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Disendorsements removed from main page
RfC has a process. If you disagree with a statement, you make one of your own or sign someone else's. The current trend for explicitly "not endorsing" a comment is ridiculous. That is apart from its logical madness: you have the users endorsing, the users not endorsing, and all the other users. How do you tag them? They obviously haven't endorsed it. Add to this that they bulk out the page and make it even more fractious.

Thus I am removing all "Users who do not endorse this summary" sections and placing them here for perusal.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Curps's statement
Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) -- I think all of us can sympathize with Quadell's anxieties here. It was out of respect for his concerns that we all agreed to attempt to find a replacement picture of the folio, one that did not include his wife (an effort that has now been thwarted by Quadell's out-of-process deletion). Regardless, here's another thing to keep in mind: it's true that there were editors of the Muslim faith who found the juxtaposition of the Quran and a female arm to be upsetting. But it's also true that Wikipedia will/has angered numerous female and/or feminist editors by allowing itself to be bullied into complying with (what they view) as misogynistic demands. Respect the pieties of one of those groups, and we will trample on the pieties of the other. That's just the way it is, and neither course of action is more "respectful". Babajobu 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Who actually wants the image (including the person) on the site or in the article, and why? -- ElectricRay 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ElectricRay, see pages and pages of talk page discussion for the answer to this question. A majority of editors wanted it included, because it was a informative picture of an exceptional printing of the Quran. Babajobu 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * and there is no other usable image of this printing anywhere? ElectricRay 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) -- It would have been respectful to honor Quadell's wishes as the photographer, but the fact of the matter is, once the picture is released without stipulations, it can be used in any manner. His personal feelings give him no right to abuse adminship powers and to halt a three-month discussion. If he is going to let personal feelings get in the way of his duty as an admin, it is questionable whether he should still be one. joturner 11:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) -- To add to my last comment, I would like to point out that I was in fact in favor of deleting the image from the article (as you can see from the Qur'an talk page). I am a Muslim as well, although the juxtoposition of the Qur'an and the woman wearing un-Islamic clothing was not the deciding factor for me. My point is those personal opinions can not get in the way of upholding the rules of Wikipedia. My happiness with seeing the picture gone is outweighed by my disgust in the manner in which it was removed. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it's not a dictatorship either. joturner 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me just point out that in the case of images showing non-celebrities, other than as part of a mass of humans, it is not true that "once the picture is released without stipulations, it can be used in any manner". Outside of copyright, the person depicted has personality rights. See also "Privacy and Publicity Rights". So, for all those who think that due process should have been followed, here's the "red tape" answer: I think Quadell was completely within his rights to revoke Wikipedia the right to show an image of his wife in this context. Period. As to "halting a three-month discussion": have you ever heard of the Gordian knot? Lupo 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How are the "personality rights" relevant in this case? Quadell himself uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons. If he has a complaint to make, then Quadell-who-feels-violated should take it up with Quadell-who-uploaded-the-image. What does that have to do with us? Babajobu 15:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a problem with it being uploaded, obviously. I had a problem with it being used in the Qur'an article. That's why Lupo said "in this context". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, the Wikimedia Commons license (GFDL) does not allow uploaders to pick-and-choose for which Wikipedia articles they are willing to have their picture used, and for which they are not. I don't know what sort of article you imagined the picture would be used in, Quadell (Anime? Brooklyn Dodgers?), but the appropriate course of action, if you never intended it to be used in articles pertaining to the subject matter, would to have never freely licensed the picture in the first place. Babajobu 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I could not possibly disagree with you more. Even if Quadell had originally intended it to be used in the article, and then later changed his mind, for reasons that I think we can all agree are perfectly fine, there is absolutely zero reason for your hostile attitude that we have to shove it down his throat.  Because we legally 'may' do something is absolutely no argument that we morally 'ought' to do it.  Wikipedia is not "all about process" and such an attitude is absolutely contrary to our longstanding community spirit.  Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals.  The rules lawyers of Wikipedia are a sickness upon us.--Jimbo Wales 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a "rules lawyer", Jimbo, and I resent your saying so. And you are strawmanning me in invoking "all about process," or the notion that because we can do something, we ought to do something. This was a longstanding debate about how to handle this particular picture, we were moving toward a resolution, and Quadell shortcircuited what would have been a reasonable and amicable resolution to a difficult question. Had he waited literally 24 hours before deleting the picture there would have been no problem at all. Some users, while appreciating Quadell's concerns, nevertheless resent having been denied the opportunity to arrive at a happy ending to a protracted problem, and your labeling us with all sorts of pejoratives doesn't help. Babajobu 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's quite a harsh rebuke, Jimbo. The discussion on the Qur'an Picture Controversy talk page did take into account Quadell's opinion. Although many people (me not being one of them) ignored Quadell's request, many people did. What Quadell did was essentially ignore the concerns of the rest of the community and take matters into his own hands by deleting the photograph and engaging in revert warring. As I have said before, I was all for getting the picture removed from the article because it didn't look like something that belonged in an encyclopedia. I am not, however, for letting one person ignore the rules (which may have worked in his favor anyway if done properly). If deleting this picture was clearly the right thing to do, as so many on this request for comment have expressed, why didn't they say that on the Qur'an Picture Controversy talk page? Or why didn't Quadell just make a legitimate request for deletion? I'm not sure why lambasting me, Babajobu, and others who agree with us is necessary when our concerns are reasonable. joturner 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How on earth was this picture (or the positions people had staked out concerning its inclusion or otherwise) worth (a) causing upset to an entirely uninvolved party and to the person who had contributed the picture in good faith and (b) all this brouhaha after the latter cut the issue short? Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. I see a lot of names of editors I respect on the "plaintiff' side here, but I can't help thinking that they are losing their sense of proportion. If the only argument against what Quadell did was "the rules", well, I think his sense of proportion is better-adjusted. Palmiro | Talk 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Kaldari's statement
Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. --Deathphoenix 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Human right is more important than any rules.Waleeed 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Without rules there are no rights. Rights are rules.  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also mystified as to which human rights were violated. The right to retract images submitted to wikimedia commons under GFDL has not yet made it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so far as I am aware (though it is a reasonable request, just not a reasonable demand or a "right"). Babajobu 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Waleeed, what human rights were violated? joturner 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Dragonflight's statement
Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. I do agree that perhaps he should have asked someone else to do it (Jimbo probably would be a good person to do so, and in retrospect, he certainly seems like he would have been open to it), but I don't think it was really all that inappropriate for him to delete it. --Deathphoenix 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) "The GFDL is irrevocable" ... only in law; not in fact. you can only use an image you have. ElectricRay 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We (I) have the image still. I suspected something like this would happen and saved it localy.  Jwissick  (t)  (c)  19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then for you the issue becomes one for your own conscience, doesn't it. ElectricRay 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) All what he want is to respect his wife, this is very simple and human request.Waleeed 17:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The request is not unreasonable, the way he accomplished it is. Dragons flight 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Waleeed, you were the one disrespecting his wife, by claiming that she was inadequately clothed, and revert warring and using sock puppets to get your way. Zora 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zora, for the million time i say this, I'm not against the picture , I'm not against his wife , I'm not agains any body , THIS PICTURE IN THAT CONTEXT IS NOT SUITABLE , OK , study this statement again , and other thing , don't speak again about disrespecting , it really makes me laugh , if there is somebody behaved like this surely it will be you , you insist on this picture to "disrespect" Our holy book , You keep saying Saudi , Wahhabi , bla bla , to give the people impression to disrespect my opinion , You started this war , and you are now speaking about disrespecting !!!! , if there is some one responsible of this , this one will be you , look the quality of the article it is miserable ? why ? because YOU keep busy guarding poor quality and un related picture !!!! Waleeed 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Waleeed: Make sure you don't deviate too far from the topic at hand. This is not really about the picture or Saudis, etc.; it's about whether Quadell's actions surrounding the picture were appropriate. joturner 23:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * joturner, OK, but i didn't start that side discussion , look what Zora did.any how i said my statement about what Quadell done.Waleeed 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Waleeed does not represent all Muslims
We had several Muslim editors, who have made substantial contributions to the Islam-related articles, saying that they did not find the image of the woman offensive. She was dressed appropriately for a museum in Washington DC in the summer. The museum guards let her enter without demur -- whereas they probably would have stopped her had she been wearing a bikini. We had one Muslim, someone who says he is a Saudi, objecting, on the grounds that she wasn't sufficiently covered. He has made no other contributions to Wikipedia.

Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi Muslims are an anomaly in the Muslim world. They are a MINORITY. A noisy minority, but a minority nonetheless. I am distressed that so many Wikipedians are willing to accept one Saudi's bee-in-the-bonnet obsession with a bare arm next to a page from the Qur'an as representative of all Muslims, and to demand that the picture be censored as offensive to Muslims. It is not offensive to Muslims. It is offensive to Waleeed, and possibly to other Salafis/Wahhabis.

It is not fair to Western Muslims, who understand Western sartorial standards and what is and what isn't intended as a sign of sartorial disrespect, to dismiss their views in favor of the views of someone from a country where women are beaten for not wearing abayas in public.

Waleeed is now posting various messages of support for Quadell. This upsets me considerably, as Waleeed was the one who initially targeted Quadell's wife and embarrassed Quadell into trying to retract the picture. Waleeed should be apologizing to Quadell. Zora 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure I don't represent all muslims, this is simple fact and simple logic.Waleeed 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW i'm not from saudia arabia!. Waleeed 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * read my appology to Quadell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qur%27an/Picture_Controversy#A_Message_to_the_photographer_and_the_model.

Waleeed 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Waleeed: Make sure you don't deviate too far from the topic at hand. Basically the only revelant statement in your post Zora is in your last paragraph. Remember: this is about whether Quadell's actions surrounding the picture were appropriate. joturner 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)