Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yamla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: Justen 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• (Yamla | Yamla | contributions)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Background 1.2 Incidents 1.3 Issues 1.4 Summary 1.5 Desired outcome 2 Evidence 2.1 Powers misused 2.2 Applicable policies 2.3 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 3 Discussion 3.1 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 3.2 Other users who endorse this statement 3.3 Response 3.3.1 Comments by VitaleBaby 3.3.2 Comments by 71Demon 3.4 Outside view 3.4.1 Outside opinion by Selmo 3.5 Outside view by BirgitteSB 3.6 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Background

I first interacted with Yamla on the West Virginia WikiProject Deletion Sorting page, regarding seven or so different images of West Virginia politicians. The debate over the tagging of those images, one of which I uploaded some time ago, was primarily between 71Demon and Yamla, although Pd THOR and I were also a party to the discussion.

In Yamla's first posting to that page, he conceded that "the case [with regard to the images in question] is not so straight-forward," but, he, nevertheless, concluded his first post on that page by demanding "proof" of the truthfulness of the statements made by the three separate editors who had uploaded the images, and closed with an ultimatum: provide the "proof," or he would delete the images.

It's important to point out that Yamla's questioning of the truthfulness of the three (one, two, and three) separate editors' statements regarding the seven images was notwithstanding the WP:COPYREQ mandate for WP:AGF.

Five of the images survived deletion, as the editor who uploaded those images was able to get a West Virginia legislator to provide a statement confirming those five images had been released into the public domain by the State of West Virginia, confirming that editor's original assertion that the image was in the public domain. Two other images (Joe Manchin and Betty Ireland) were deleted, one by Yamla, one by another, uninvolved administrator (Angr). In the deletion log for the Manchin image, Yamla reaffirmed his WP:AGF-defying demand for "proof."

[edit] Incidents

Of the three editors who uploaded the seven images, which Yamla became concerned with, two were blocked. I attempted to, in the most civil manner I could, persuade Yamla to better understand WP:COPYREQ and its mandate that he WP:AGF. When I recognized that he would not, I gave up trying to persuade him. 71Demon and VitaleBaby continued attempting to properly tag their images, and both (one, two) were blocked by Yamla. His initial reasons were:

• "Continuing to remove tags from images without providing required proof" for 71Demon
• "Image copyright and fair-use violations" for VitaleBaby

The block for VitaleBaby were her first since joining Wikipedia. The block for 71Demon was his first in over a year (his only prior block was in error, and was removed shortly after it was placed). In VitaleBaby's case, Yamla was the only administrator involved in her blocking. In 71Demon's case, after Yamla unblocked 71Demon, and admitted his blocking him was in error, Yamla proceeded to [[1]] another administrator to reinstate the blocks less than an hour later. During that hour, User:71Demon, attempted to bring attention to Yamla's behavior, but in poor taste. His poor taste led to his being blocked for 48 hours by Mike Rosoft, which was subsequently extended to a week by Yamla for "Abusive sockpuppeteering". (The sockpuppet he appears to have created made no abusive edits, although it is apparent it was an evasive sockpuppet to get around a questionable set of blocks.)

[edit] Issues

Yamla indicated, in the cases of 71Demon and VitaleBaby, that he was willing to block users with whom he had direct, ongoing debate. In both instances, he later removed his blocks prior to their expiration, presumably after having been convinced his original blocks were not appropriate:

71Demon

• Yamla unblocked 71Demon: (Although uploader used incorrect license, correct license has now been confirmed) [2]

VitaleBaby

• VitaleBaby: I ask that this block be overturned, as Yamla is acting in total haste.
  • Yamla: Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): WP:AGF [3]

Looking at Yamla's block log, the number of instances in which he lessens or removes his own blocks for editors seems alarming to me. I count the following instances in his most recent hundred:

Please note: This list of editors that I had supposedly blocked and then unblocked was changed after the initial RfC was filed. See this edit. This appears to be a case of the original complainant correcting a mistake. --Yamla 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Registered editors

• User:DXRAW: (User just reverted)
• User:VitaleBaby: (hhm)
• User:Prince Godfather: (Discussed with user)
• User:Morris Munroe: (Userreq)

Of his hundred most recent block activity, I found 23 unique blocks for registered editors and 31 unique blocks for anonymous editors. With Yamla removing or reducing 4 blocks for registered users, that would indicate about a sixth of his blocks have required his correction.

That is just in the past six days.

[edit] Summary

I believe that it is important that Wikipedia be as open and accomodating to editors as much as possible, especially those who are still learning Wikipedia or who contribute only sparingly. In two instances with which I have directly observed Yamla's abilities as administrator, I found his behavior highly questionable. I found his (admitted) inability to WP:AGF, as both an editor and as an administrator, to be alarming and disappointing. In each instance in which I encountered or saw Yamla acting as an administrator, he used his administrative privileges directly on other editors, editors with which he had personal, ongoing editorial conflicts.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The issues I believe need to be resolved are threefold.

Image policy Wikipedia, specifically through WP:COPYREQ, does not empower Yamla, or any other editor, to arbitrarily compel editors who have uploaded images to provide proof of the status of those images, if those editors have already confirmed the status of the image, which would otherwise be accepted under WP:AGF. Yamla, commendably, polices Wikipedia's Image namespace quite regularly, but, in this case, he exhibited his unwillingness and inability to reconsider his inaccurate interpretation of Wikipedia policy, and Yamla wielded his administrative privileges, rightly or wrongly (mostly the latter), to quiet those with whom he had ongoing editorial disputes.

Administrative Privilege Conflict'" As previously noted, Yamla utilized his administrative privileges to block two users with which he had ongoing editorial conflicts. He later removed each of those bans before their normal expiration. Nevertheless, figuratively, he had already pulled the trigger, and, in both cases, Yamla's blocks prevented both users from hours of time they would otherwise have been able to edit Wikipedia.

Excessive Use of Administrative Privilege As noted above, Yamla has reversed himself in a third of the instances in which he has recently blocked registered users. This is extremely disproportionate to the ratios that I saw in my cursory review of other administrators with which I have previously encountered, and in a few I randomly reviewed from WP:ANI. Wikipedia's policy for administrators is not shoot first, ask questions later.

I believe Yamla should be encouraged to:

• Seek to better understand WP:COPYREQ and its mandate for WP:AGF.
  • In his initial posting on the deletion sorting page, he admitted the images should not be categorically deleted, and, after heated, inconclusive debate, used his administrative privilege to delete one of the images, regardless.
• Refrain from using his administrative privileges in any dispute in which he has become involved (by any reasonable measure).
  • I believe he is capable, as he did utilize, and receive assistance on WP:AN/I during his dispute with 71Demon.
• Use greater caution before blocking users, in general, especially registered editors.
  • In many of his unblock comments, he cites further discussion with editors as the reason for his reversal. While I recognize there may be many cases in which users compromise after being blocked, I do not believe Yamla should be promiscuously using blocking as a tool towards that end.

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Powers misused

• Blocking (log Yamla block log):

1. User:VitaleBaby block log
2. User:71Demon block log

[edit] Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. "[Blocks] should not be used as a punitive measure."

Yamla seems to have used blocks punitively.

1. "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project..."

Yamla seems to have used blocks for conduct which, on the first instances, fell far short of "severely" disrupting the project.

1. "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited."

Reasonably, Yamla's blocking of these users led to the silencing of an editorial conflict inolving himself.

1. "[Short blocks] used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events...is not approved"

In both instances, Yamla's blocks were expired early, serving only to mar the Wikipedia records of these editors.

1. "Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith."

Yamla admitted in his unblock comments that he was unblocking the editor, now assuming good faith.

1. "[Damaging] blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block."

Both VitaleBaby and 71Demon had a history of valid contributions.

1. "Short term or cool-down blocks."

Both of Yamla's initial blocks of 71Demon and VitaleBaby were set for a short term, and reduced further upon demand.

I believe would be best off cooling down until the block expires. Yamla [4]

1. "If in doubt, don't block."

If Yamla was not in doubt, he should have been.

1. "Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful."

Yamla repeatedly blocked and unblocked 71Demon, and asked for the assistance of another editor to re-block 71Demon after he himself had unblocked him.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Justen 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Mr. Vitale 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) - see certification comments below
3. 71Demon 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) - see certification comments below

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

I would first like to address the issue of the images uploaded by 71Demon. This was not a case of content dispute, 71Demon uploaded a number of images and indicated they were licensed under the GFDL. This turned out to be false. The images were released to the public domain. 71Demon claimed on more than one occasion that the image was released to him under the GFDL and later engaged in abusive sockpuppet behaviour, etc.

VitaleBaby has made a number of errors in the blocks he claims I made and then later softened. Please note that I monitor unblock-en-l and the category of users requesting to be unblocked.

• Neptune2007 (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I lifted another admin's blocks when the user withdrew the legal threat.
• DXRAW (talk • contribs) was blocked and then unblocked 25 seconds later, a mistaken block that was quickly rectified.
• VitaleBaby (talk • contribs) was blocked for 24 hours for image copyright issues. Later unblocked approximately 20 hours later after discussions with user on user's talk page.
• Prince Godfather (talk • contribs) was blocked for chronic image copyright and fair-use problems. After the user agreed to abide by the policies, I unblocked the user.
• Abu badali (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I lifted a block that I believe was placed for a misunderstanding of WP:STALK.
• DeanHinnen (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. This case is somewhat complex but I lifted the block as a result of a consensus of those on unblock-en-l who expressed an opinion.
• Morris Munroe (talk • contribs) asked to have his account shut down and his page blanked. He later requested that this was undone; it is possible he never intended that his account actually be shut down.
• 65.124.147.50 (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I softened the block placed by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs) because it was causing collateral damage.
• 64.115.154.99 (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I softened the block because it was causing collateral damage.
• 213.42.21.82 (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I softened the block because it was causing collateral damage.
• 137.164.143.112 (talk • contribs) was not blocked by me. I softened the block because it was causing collateral damage.

Of the eleven blocks raised by VitaleBaby, seven were not actually blocked by me. These were the result of my monitoring unblock-en-l and the unblock category. I believe these reflect positively on me. Of the remaining four, one was a clear mistake reverted within a minute. Another was the result of the user asking to have his account shut down. Prince Godfather was unambiguously violating Wikipedia image copyright and fair-use policies. I discussed the problem with the user, the user agreed to abide by the policies, and I lifted the block because there was no longer a reason for the user to remain blocked. I believe this is the appropriate course of action and indeed, is how blocks are meant to work.

Finally, there's the issue of VitaleBaby. This block was placed because the user uploaded an image. I placed a warning that the user had uploaded an image claiming it to be in the public domain but had provided no evidence. Note that at one point, the image was tagged as a copyrighted promotional image. VitaleBaby blanked this warning without any indication that the problem was being addressed. Subsequently, the user readded the license to the image without providing any further evidence of copyright status. The image was subsequently deleted (by me). Note that blanking warnings from your talk page is not against Wikipedia policy but is generally though not always held to indicate bad faith if the user does not fix the problem and/or continues the actions which led to the warning in the first place. A review of the talk page history for VitaleBaby (talk • contribs) shows a number of warnings about images. In all fairness, I believe the user resolves most, though not all, of these issues. Although a number of images uploaded by this user have been deleted, this appears to be fewer than would generally be expected.

In summary, most of "my" blocks which I softened were actually not placed by me. It is my opinion that our policy on requiring source and license for images is to ensure that the copyright and licensing status of an image be verifiable and that if this is not the case, we are to request clarification from the uploader and delete the image if this cannot be provided. This helps to eliminate images with false licenses such as those uploaded by 71Demon, described above.

I do not believe this is considered a content dispute. In my understanding, a content dispute would be something like, "Governor such and such was governor from 1980 to 1984" with the other person claiming "1981 to 1985". I do not believe requiring that image uploads have source and license verifiably stated counts as a content dispute. I could be mistaken. I do believe that Wikipedia takes image copyright and fair-use policies very seriously and that we should aggressively delete those images which violate the policies. I further believe that blocks are appropriate for people who do this deliberately or people who violate the policy numerous times. Additionally, in 71Demon's case, I believe it appropriate to request third-party opinions on the conduct of editors and that reblocking may be appropriate if that third party so decides.

It is my intention that the above answers all points raised by VitaleBaby. If I have missed an area or if anyone requests clarification, I am happy to add to my statement. --Yamla 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC). Especially the point that having monitored and criticised a user over copyright issues doesn't mean an admin is "involved in a dispute" in the sense of content disputes. Also in recognition of Yamla's excellent work on the unblock category.
2. Please note that this RfC was filed by User:Justen, not User:VitaleBaby. With that clarification, I endorse the response. In particular, I have checked the block logs of the users identified in the RfC, and Yamla is correct that a majority of the blocks discussed were not placed by Yamla at all, but in fact that Yamla unblocked the users in question because either he believed the block by another admin was inappropriate to begin with or because the issue that led to the block had been resolved. It would be at best ironic for an admin who has taken the lead in reviewing unblock requests, an important and often thankless job, to be unfairly criticized as having been responsible for the very blocks he reversed. Moreover, I believe that if the filing user had realized Yamla was not responsible for most of the blocks under discussion, he would not have believed this RfC to be necessary. Therefore, I urge that it be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. In this edit, Justen states, "Of his hundred most recent block activity, I found 23 unique blocks for registered editors and 31 unique blocks for anonymous editors. With Yamla removing or reducing 4 blocks for registered users, that would indicate about a sixth of his blocks have required his correction." If the number of blocks and number of unblocks or block reductions is correct (I have not checked, and Justen's initial report of my blocks was certainly incorrect as listed elsewhere), I believe this would indicate that 4 / (23 + 31) blocks were reduced or eliminated, or approximately 7.5%, rather than 16.7% as claimed by Justen. However, as already stated, I do not believe that reducing a block is necessarily evidence of a problem; I believe administrators should be free to unblock or reduce a block if the blockee agrees to modify the problem behaviour. --Yamla 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   With Yamla removing or reducing 4 blocks for registered users, that would indicate about a sixth of his blocks have required his correction. (Emphasis added.) The figure was always based on the number of registered users. It's important to recognize that, in your situation with 71Demon and VitaleBaby, the situation was not you "unbloccking or reducing a block" -- you were backtracking, as the reason or situation for your original block was inappropriate. Justen 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, in the case of 71Demon, investigation into the image proved that the license 71Demon used was incorrect. I unblocked because once I had placed the correct license tag on the image, it was unlikely that 71Demon would continue to insist that the image was licensed under the GFDL. This was most certainly not a backtrack. I agree that the VitaleBaby unblock could at least debateably be seen as backtracking, however. I have already listed why I blocked that user (user blanked warning, did not indicate that he or she was tracking down the permission as far as I am aware, etc.). I would specifically like to state for the record that I have a lot of respect for VitaleBaby. While I do not agree with the user clearing the talk page as soon as a warning or comment comes in, I would like to especially thank this user for the contributions. --Yamla 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

4. On not blocking all users VitaleBaby listed. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
5. BenBurch 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. TomTheHand 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. As one of the people who was unblocked by Yamla at Unblock-en-l, I'll add that I found Yamla to be remarkably civil and diligent. I was sometimes frustrated by the slow process obtained there, but Yamla was clearly looking out for the best interests of Wikipedia and his conduct encouraged me to be patient and see it through. I don't know that much about image-related issues; but if he has made a mistake here, I think he's entitled to a mistake now and then. I've previously observed that no running back can run with the ball, down after down and week after week, without stepping on a few toes. Dino 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by VitaleBaby

I would like to comment, since I am apparently involved in a dispute here. First of all, as someone pointed out, I did not make any claims against Yamla regarding any other blocks but my own. The second point is that I feel the real problem with Yamla is not his views on images, but his abuse of administrative powers. For one thing, he should not block users with which he is having an ongoing dispute. And no user should ever be blocked over a copyright issue until it is resolved. And even then, unless it was a calculated attempt to defy wikipedia policy, blocks should not be handed out. Imagine how the noobies would feel when they were suddenly blocked for making an error out of ignorance! Yalma has some problem checking facts. Our dispute involved an image of WV Governor Joe Manchin. It was an image that I received by personally contacting the governor's office. I uploaded it as public domain, as they agreed to my request for a free image. It was never labeled as fair use, unless another user was going around changing tags at some point. Yalma deleted my PD tag once, and I placed it back with a message that, if there is a dispute, it should occur on the talk page. Yalma asked me for proof and I agreed to re-send my letter to the governors office. The response was slow in coming. Yalma again removed the tag and I placed it back, again asserting that it shouldn't be taken down until the dispute is solved. However, it was at this point that I was blocked and my image deleted. Yalma should know that blocks are for more extreme circumstances than this. He tries to cite my record, in which I did upload various promophotos prior to The Great Fair Use Purge that is going on currently. However, if he would have check more carefully, he would have seen that I have not upload a promophoto in months. I have chosen to abide by the PD rule, despite how absurd I believe it is, in order to curb conflict. And yet I was banned anyway over one minor dispute. Mr. Vitale 18:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by 71Demon

I would like to comment about my block as well. I uploaded official press release photos recieved from state Senator Dave Sypolt. I asked several friends and editors and all thought GDFL was the best license to use, and that is how they were tagged. It does appear this was the wrong tag, and this may have violated the letter of the rule, but it never violated the spirit of the rule. The photos were updated with the contact information of the government official that provided them, so that their could release could be checked. Eventually after much agruing Yamla did check and find that the information I provided was correct. My point is no arguing should have taken place. I believe if some one tags anything for deletion, they should immediatly notify the originator and offer help fix the problem. Wiki is loosing valuable content, because things get tagged, and not body catches it and it is gone. Yamla was hung up on the letter of the rule, and should have been looking at the spirit of the rule. At no time was I given a warning prior to being blocked. At that point I created a sock puppet, and continued to do Normal Editing. I was furhter blocked for abusive sock puppeting, however abusive should be defined as vandalism. DarthAdmin was the name of the sock puppet, I suggest you look at the editing done by DarthAdmin, all was normal editing. The only reason for the sock puppet was to get around a block, that I believe was done for nothing more than spite. All of DarthAdmins edits were reverted. The reverts basically are vandalism, I believe one revert even put back a spelling error I corrected. And admin should be helpful to editors, and should not take on an advisaral roll. If your going to tag things, then be prepared to help the editors you tagged. Deleting without helping is wrong, and basically becomes a power trip for some. I am guilty of using an incorrect tag, on a photo that was ok to use. I'm guilty of using a sock puppet, to do helpful editing only. Wikipedia lost weeks of editing because an admin would rather argue that help and editor. --71Demon 00:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see 71Demon's talk page and the unblock-en-l mailing list for the whole story. Note also that my investigation into the image licenses proved absolutely that the information provided (specifically, the all-important license) was incorrect, as 71Demon admits. 71Demon may have received bad advice from other users, however. WP:SOCK is also quite clear that setting up a sockpuppet to get around a block, as 71Demon admitted he did, is by definition abusive and it is standard procedure to revert edits made by an abusive sockpuppet. Also, please note that I am most certainly not the only admin involved with 71Demon. --Yamla 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Above Yamla states that I posted a false' tag, here he states that I posted an incorrect tag. This is a big difference in the definition between false and incorrect. False implies an intent to deceive, incorrect implies a mistake. In the end it was proved that I was correct in the picture being ok to use, on bad advice I mistakenly posted an incorrect tag. The entire time the discussion between myself and Yamla was going on, Yamla has the abilty to varify and correct. And I repeatedly ask him to do so, and he refused. In the end it was easier for him to block me, than it was to help, and that is what he choose to do. I believe that Yamla uses terms ment to inflame the situtation, such as saying I posted a false tag. At no time did I ever post a false tag, and I do ask Yamla repeated to independently varify the validity of using the photo. What is important here is in the end the validity of being able to use the photo was varfied.

On the Abusive sockpuppetting. What abuse? I want to see any abuse the sockpuppet User:DarthAdmin did. Abuse is an action designed to harm. Again, Yamla chooses words designed to attack. If you can find any vandalism that DarthAdmin did, then I will leave wikipedia forever. Where the real abuse came in was when Yamla reversed the edits of DarthAdmin.

Yamla, also believes that stating ones opinion is a personal attack. I he has already threatened to block me for personal attacks. Keep in mind Yamla, only made this threat after I posted my side of the story on here. In short Yamla uses the block and threat of block to get his way. This is not at all what an admin on wiki should be doing.

Yamla believes the letter of the rule is more important than the spirit of the rule, but it is? The rule of tagging photos is to make sure the photos are clear to use on Wikipedia, and do not violate any copyrites. The photos I uploaded, were mistakenly tagged GDFL, instead of PD. In the end it was varified that were ok to use and no copyrites were being violated. At no time was the spirit of the rule violated, honest attempts were made to be sure the photos were ok to use. Yamla got, so hung up on the tag he missed the forest for the trees. He didn't understand what was the important issue, and I was blocked essentally for protecting Wiki's interest but tagging it wrong. The block was bogus, and I believe for spite. So I just started a sockpuppet to keep editing. Yamla got so excited, about catching me at sockpuppeting that he didn't even bother to check what was edited. The spirit of the rule of sockpuppeting is to stop vandalism by blocked users, the letter of the rule blocks everything. Yes, I violated the letter of the rule. What was the result of my violation, I just made good edits. Then Yamla reversed them which really was a form of vandalism on his part. Again, he got so hung up on the spirit of the rule, that he failed to look at the actual actions. To threaten to block me for a personal attack for stating my opinion about his actions after posting on here, well, that just speaks for itself.

Am I bitter? Yes, because when I ask an admin for help I got zero. I pressed the issue and got banned for what I believe was spite. That in my opinion is abuse of power. I understand being an admin is hard, I myself admin message boards, but at no time do I ever refuse to help. I have never told a noobie USE THE SEARCH BUTTON because that is not being helpful. --71Demon 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that 71Demon's block was reviewed by multiple administrators and determined to be entirely appropriate. --Yamla 01:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the important aspect that I, and others, have tried to convey is that it is better to not block a user who is, in good faith, attempting to resolve a dispute relating to the tagging of an image. In the most forgiving evaluation, the blocks in question of both VitaleBaby and 71Demon were rescinded before their normal expiration (and, I believe, appropriately so). The bottom line seems, to me, to be that blocking these two users, in the instances in question, was not the only way to resolve the tagging situation, and, as such, it was not the most appropriate course of action.

I believe you recognize the responsibilities inherent in your privileges as an administrator. In any future situations in which you have become more than just casually involved in the situation, I only ask that you consider additional discussion or options before resorting to a block. You had involved WP:AN/I in the situation with 71Demon, but, still, you were the one who issued the first block (the one in question). If other administrators agreed with you that the block was necessary, proactively, they could have issued it, and your use of your administrator privileges would not be at issue here.

I suppose there is some line, between when an administrator is merely involved a situation in that capacity, or when it becomes something more (i.e. a personal dispute, an editorial dispute, or some other sort of conflict that muddies the situation). In this case, to me, as a somewhat involved party, it looks as if your blocking of 71Demon and VitaleBaby could, perhaps, have been avoided, had further discussion between you and those users taken place before the block. Given that 71Demon and VitaleBaby had talked with you at length before their blocks, it does not seem as if the block could even be excused as potentially enticing them to be more open to discussion. In fact, in 71Demon's case, it seems to have embittered him to Wikipedia, and, especially, to you particularly.

The Important Part: Perhaps an analogy might help? Presumably, the President of the United States has the privilege of using big, destructive weapons anytime he so chooses. If he used them in any old dispute he became involved with, especially when further diplomacy might (eventually) have done the job, then people would question him and his actions. In this case, I believe more could have been done diplomatically between you and these two editors. Please consider that. Justen 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, it is your position that a block that is ended earlier than the initial time it was issued for reflects negatively on the blocking admin? --Yamla 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the issue could have been resolved without the block, and if the grounds for the block were arguably questionable? Absolutely. Justen 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. --Yamla 14:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The question you asked is not relevant to this RfC. Again, is it my position that it reflects negatively on Wikipedia when an administrator has to rescind a block early because the block was made under questionable circumstances, and when the issue could have been resolved without blocking? Again, absolutely. Justen 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is very relevant. I'm trying to get a handle on your claims here. Initially, you claimed as evidence of abuse that I lifted autoblocks and misplaced blocks by other admins as a result of my work on unblock-en-l and CAT:UNBLOCK. I would please like an answer. --Yamla 17:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue for this RfC is your blocking of 71Demon and VitaleBaby. The other blocks listed originally were to support what appears to be a wider pattern of problems with your use of blocks. I removed the blocks which you indicated you did not originally set from the list above of blocks in question. Again, the issues raised in this RfC relate to your conduct, not that of other administrators. Justen 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my point is that I do not believe it is inappropriate for me to end a block I placed before the scheduled end date. If for example someone is blocked for a week for repeated copyright violations and then they contact me and explain why they will not commit the same policy violations again, I believe it appropriate to unblock them. In fact, this exact situation was used already in this RfC as an example of my inappropriate behaviour. Once again, I would ask you to clarify your position. Does it necessarily reflect negatively on me to end a block early? --Yamla 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Question This conversation seems at cross-purposes, so let's see if I can help sort it out (or confuse it more). Above, Justen seems to argue that Yamla's blocks were improper, and cites as one bit of evidence the fact that they were subsequently reduced. If that's right, then the way I understand Yamla's question is "do you view a subsequent block-reduction to be evidence that the original block was in error?" If I understand Justen's response correctly, it is either "maybe" or "no with a but" (the "but" is that it reflects badly on Wikipedia if the original block is in error - so regardless of whether it is lifted, it is a problem.) If that's all correct, then the unblocking won't matter - Yamla rightly notes that whether a block is later reduced tells us very little about the validity of the block, and Justen maintains that the original blocks were in error regardless of what happened subsequently. So the unblocking would not matter to the discussion. Is all of that correct? --TheOtherBob 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think your "sort[ing] it out" was pretty much spot on. Justen 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

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.

He did nothing wrong with 71Demon, at least after the initial block. He was involved in a dispute, so he should not have blocked Demon. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have been blocked at all, only that another admin should have reviewed it. And using a sockpuppet to evade a ban is indeed abusive, which makes that justified too.

Blocks are not meant to be punitive. If he's reasonably sure that the editor will stop after less time than originally blocked for, he's obligated to unblock. That doesn't mean in any way that his original block was bad. Oh, and with the IPs, soften means that he's switching to a softblock that doesn't affect registered users, not that he's lowering the time, which he didn't.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. -Amark moo! 15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This following response was to Amarkov's original outside view, which can be seen through this diff. "Copyright law requires proof." The original issue was not an issue of copyright law. Please look further into Wikipedia's preference for free, versus fair use images. These images were deleted as they were deemed replaceable fair use images. WP:COPYREQ does allow, as you put it, "I assume this person is telling the truth!". Your second assertion neutralizes itself: "he did nothing wrong ≠ at least after...so he should not have blocked". Finally, in several instances, his unblock comments are clear that his original blocking was in error. Hence, the basis for this RfC. I hope this helps clarify. If there's anything else I can do to help make this RfC less "stupid" for you, please let me know. Justen 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion by Selmo

While WP:BP states that users can be blocked for "presistant copyright infringement", it also says "do not block to gain advantage in a dispute". WP:DP says that controversial pages that may violate policy should go through XfD. Yamla outright speedied the image, even when it was contested. IfD is a better way to go.

Yalma blocked the editors in this dispute for not following content policies. Again, per WP:BP, users should only be blocked for behavioral policy infringements, not for content policy violations.

I personally think that the State of West Virginia should send an email via OTRS and get the copyright dispute resolved once and for all. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Which image are we talking about here? Do you have an example of an image that I speedily deleted out of process? Remember, the mandatory information must be provided when the image is uploaded and an image missing the information can be deleted 48 hours after the uploader was notified. Note that I am not claiming I have never been mistaken. I estimate I have deleted between one thousand and five thousand images violating our fair-use policy and inevitably I will have accidentally deleted some in violation of process. I would like clear violations to be brought to my attention so I can see if I skipped my coffee that day or if I am indeed deleting images which do not violate WP:FU, etc. --Yamla 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's one that the complaining party listed: [11]. Perhaps you can restore it so others can look at it? Thanks, -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that one was disputed by another party and then deleted after ten days, eight days longer than required. Now, it is entirely possible that this image was indeed released to the public domain but this was not verifiable and much longer than the 48 hour grace period had elapsed. What I'm looking for is an image that I deleted within the 48 hour period, or one which had all the necessary information and was not in violation of, say, WP:FU, and which I deleted anyway. --Yamla 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by BirgitteSB

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 wanted to address the points brought up here in regards to the Blocking Policy. Especially since I believe the initiator of the RfC misinterpreted some points of this policy.

• "[Blocks] should not be used as a punitive measure."
  • I do not believe Yamla was using blocks as a punitive measure. I believe his reasoning for placing these blocks was in order to prevent disruption.

• "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project..."
  • I have been unable to locate the beginning of the User:71Demon incident his later blocks were not for disruption and under full scrutiny at WP:AN/I; so I believe any problems would have come to light in that forum. User:VitaleBaby could have prevented this whole incident by simply responding to the inquiries left on his talk page [12] [13]. It is disruptive to refuse to respond to good faith inquiries about your conduct. By deleting the inquiries so quickly, VitaleBaby appears to be refusing to respond even if he was meaning to answer the questions eventually. This entire project revolves around editors ability to communicate effectively. Acting in a way that hampers communication is disruptive. The severity of the disruption in this case is certainly arguable, but I will give Yamla the benefit of the doubt that he believed it severe enough to merit a block. This incident would not of happened if either VitaleBaby had left talk page comments when removing tags or responded to these questions on his talk page. In all fairness if Yamla had made it clear that he was willing to block VitaleBaby if he continued to remove tags without explaining his reasoning in detail, I believe VitaleBaby would have spoken up and explained himself.

• "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited."
  • The main reason I am commenting of this RfC is I think it needs to be clearly stated that disputes about administrative tasks such as copyright verifications are not content disputes. There is no evidence of Yamla being involved in any content disputes with any of the listed parties. To make this very clear a dispute over which picture appears in an article's infobox is a content dispute; a dispute about whether an editor is uploading pictures in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policies is an administrative dispute.

• "[Short blocks] used for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events...is not approved"
  • I see no evidence that Yamla placed these blocks merely make a record on the editors block logs. I believe his reasoning for placing these blocks was in order to prevent disruption.

• "Caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith."
  • Yamla could have been more cautious; particularly in regards to User:VitaleBaby. He definitely should have warned User:VitaleBaby on his talk page before resorting to a block. However his response to {{unblock}}[14] was also apologetic for reaching the wrong conclusion. All of his messages strike me as particularly polite before and after the block. This overall interaction gives me the impression that Yamla is a responsible admin. I will expect him in the future to always leave at least two talk page messages {an initial interaction point out inappropriate behaivor(1) and a final warning specifically mentioning blocking (2)) for any editor with a history of good faith contributions before blocking.

• "[Damaging] blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block."
  • See my response above.

• "Short term or cool-down blocks." I believe would be best off cooling down until the block expires. Yamla [15]
  • I think that comment is being taken out of context. He is speaking of talk page activity during a block; not his reasoning for placing the block. As I said above I believe his reasoning for placing these blocks was in order to prevent disruption.

• "If in doubt, don't block."
  • I have seen no evidence that Yamla expressed doubt that blocking would be appropriate.

• "Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful."
  • I have seen no evidence of a block war. User:71Demon was blocked and unblocked for various reasons which had to do with his own behavior, not a war between admins.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. BirgitteSB 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
2. --Abu badali ^(talk) 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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