Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yamla

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: 15:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Yamla | Yamla | contributions)

---

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.

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 two (Joe Manchin and Betty Ireland) images 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."

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.)

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:

Registered editors

• User:Neptune2007: (User withdrew legal threats)
• User:DXRAW: (User just reverted)
• User:VitaleBaby: (hhm)
• User:Prince Godfather: (Discussed with user)
• User:DeanHinnen: (As per unblock-en-l)
• User:Morris Munroe: (Userreq)

Anonymous editors

• User:65.124.147.50: (Soften)
• User:64.115.154.99: (Soften)
• User:213.42.21.82: (Soften)
• User:137.164.143.112: (Soften the block)

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 6 blocks for registered users, that would indicate about a quarter of his blocks have required his correction.

That is just in the past six days.

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.

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.

Evidence

Powers misused

• Blocking (log Yamla block log):

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

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.

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]

Discussion

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Justen 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

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

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

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.

This is stupid. Copyright law requires proof, not just "I assume this person is telling the truth!". If someone gives you a copyvio image, you can't hide behind a defense of "Assume good faith", you're still going to get sued. Yamla was justified in deleting the one image, and justified in blocking the users who continued to claim public domain without proof.

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

And then you complain that Yamla often reverses blocks? 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)

Discussion

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