Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 31 January 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:19, 27 December 2024 (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)

1. - Deleted on January 30, 2006 without discussion
2. File:Oversized Koran folio-draft.jpg - Deleted on January 30, 2006 without discussion

• Revert Warring

1. Qur'an: 2251 UTC 29-Jan-2006 - First revert within 24-hour period
2. Qur'an: 1623 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - Second revert within 24-hour period
3. 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)

1. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy/Archive - The discussion surrounding the controversial picture originally began in early November 2005
2. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy - The continuation of the archived discussion above.
3. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy#A statement from the photographer and the model - Many users responded to Quadell's request to remove the picture from the Qur'an article
4. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 1634 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Babajobu trys to find out the rationale for Quadell's deletions
5. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 1656 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Babajobu expresses his sentiments about edit warring
6. Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy 2119 UTC 30-Jan-2006 - User:Joturner attempts to convince him to refrain from continuing reverting
7. 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 :#~~~~)

1. joturner 23:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Zora 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Kode 06:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. 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 :#~~~~)

1. Jwissick 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2. -- I appreciate your bold decision to delete. The whole discussion was really not doing any good for Misplaced Pages. This debate was unnecessarily draged on regarding a folio, which was not directly related to Quran. Soft coder 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

3. 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 16:09, 31 January 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 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   Wait, so are we actually supposed to apologize to Quadell for using his freely licensed picture in a Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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.

Misplaced Pages 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).

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. My happiness with seeing the picture gone is outweighed by my disgust in the manner in which it was removed. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Kaldari

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 ~~~~):

1. -- joturner 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. -- Babajobu 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.