As a result of this discussion, we need to have a de-bureaucrat discussion about whether Russavia still holds the community trust for his community role as Bureaucrat. This will My recommendation is that this should be closed according to the majority consensus, as for de-administrator votes. Please keep the discussion civil, avoid personal attacks. 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly modified my opening statement to reflect the fact that (obviously) I will not be the closer, and that the closure will be up to that Bureaucrat. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because of this, in response to this, a similar note about this page on ru.wp. Apparently some people misunderstood the suggestion of advertising this page on various language village pumps on Commons with advertising this page on various language Wikipedias. So different people left notes on ru.wp, en.wp and eo.wp. --Conti|✉01:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the en.wp village pump, perhaps, but on the AN/I on en.wp is outright canvassing, and is not acceptable, or is it? Cecil suggested village pumps, she did not suggest spamming admin dramuh boards, and in a thread that spartaz was stirring up drama makes it quite unacceptable. Yet my opposers don't seem to be making that an issue, but they make an issue of the ru.wp post. Hypocrites are obvious hypocrites I say. russavia (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should it have been posted on Jimmy's talk page (and left there by him, instead of removing it as he should have done), nor should it have been posted externally in such a way as it has been done. russavia (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Russavia has done a good job as a bureaucrat. He participates in a wide range of areas and discussions, offering help, advice, solutions, etc. The Jimbo/Pricasso case looks to me like it involves conjecture as to his motives and some individual moral judgements/outrage, mostly coming from Wikipedia. The files in question are in COM:SCOPE, and so uploading them was a gain for Commons. I continue to think Russavia is a good bureaucrat, and a constructive member of the Commons community. He has my trust and confidence. INeverCry07:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat That Russavia wrote the article on the artist and asked the artist for free art is not the issue. Even that he asked specifically for a portrait of Jimbo Wales (who has been criticizing Russavia in the past in the strongest terms) is not really the issue. The issue is Russavia's words (and the silence) that followed once the issue turned into a huge, multi-wiki debate. Russavia had all the power to de-escalate the situation many times in many ways, and he consciously chose not to. Instead, he outright refused to answer questions, attacked most everyone who criticized him and pretended that there was no problem in any regard in the first place. That, to me, is utterly incompatible with the role of a Bureaucrat, and as such I cannot support him. --Conti|✉10:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvioius hypocrisy is obvious. The community is KEEPING this image to troll jimmy.
Comment So what's the deal here, the community is trying to say it's not ok for this particular editor to troll jimmy, but the rest of us (Penyulap excluded) can do so. The image is still here. That's fucking hilarious. The image is still here. It's still here. We vote ourselves trolls. Except me of course, I've proposed numerous times to change policy and remove offensive images. Penyulap☏10:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I like Russ's role and the job he is doing, but Fæ's support alone and his constant interference with this discussion 1234567 is reason enough for me to vote for de-bureaucrating. If this is the treatment that friends of Russ dish out, we don't need the dramaz. Penyulap☏11:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was already signed twice, I think triple-signing might be overkill. like one of those legal documents where every page/paragraph/sentence needs signing. And I'm not your maid/servant/slave, clean up your own mess if it embarasses you. Penyulap☏12:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is the sole reason for the entire discussion, it is obvious to some people including myself that it is in someway related to the !votes. For some reason you and Fae think it has to do with, what section is it in now ? let me see, oh yes, you think it has something to do with the close at AN/U. Whatever. It is part of my !vote, comment, whatever. A picture tells a thousand words, or in the case of this entire episode, it's the reason for seasonal monsoons on commons. If you and Fae want to keep up the 1234567 constant harassment and belittling and deleting other peoples comments, what the crap do you expect, except to do damage to your cause. Here is a novel idea, stop fucking with everyone else's comments. Let meteorites rain from the skies above, goats rise up to rule the earth, dogs and cats live in sin, and the five horses of the apocalyse roam the earth by leaving the damn picture where I put it, AS PART OF MY (was originally just a comment) !VOTE, huh ? huh ? what do you think, too radical an idea ? Penyulap☏13:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Penyulap Your multiple use of the word 'fuck' on this page is unnecessary and aggressive, and your multiple posts and repetitive inclusion of photographs in middle of this vote section are blatantly disruptive and themselves include false allegations of trolling against other contributors. If you wish to make harassment complaints, please take your them, and the evidence, to AN or AN/U rather than continuing to defame those not under review here.
Could an administrator please consider collapsing this thread as pointy and pointless. If I attempt to do so it will only result in another tirade of accusations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry Fae, I thought this was a different thread for a second there, let me just fix that (opening the edit window) Wait a sec, what is going on, let me check (checking...) Hold on a second, this IS actually the discussion about a naked man using his PENIS, SCROTUM and BUTTOCKS to paint a picture. I just checked, this is the right discussion where we are discussing Russavia's uploading of the PENIS, SCROTUM and BUM-related picture. But we can't say fuck. Right, people might be offended at the lack of censorship there. they'll be like "argh! argh! my eyes! my eyes!..."
de-BureaucratFrom my interactions with Russavia discussing his 'crat role in this incident, I have gotten an impression of him using a strategy of postponement, evasive or no answers to hope 'this would go away'. See the diffs in my vote for documentation. --Slaunger (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Russavia is a good and productive contributor, and I like a lot of his work - for instance within the area of avionics, but also many other areas. Just to mention an example he recently contacted Mærsk Line on flickr and the company has now relicensed their work such that we can host their photos on Commons Category:Files from Maersk Line Flickr stream. I notice that some users in this thread puts a lot of effort into arguing what kind of contributions are best. Original own works or uploads from other sources. I think it is a silly distinction as both kinds of contributions are needed. Luckily, a vast majority of Russavias contributions are not related to his current 'crat status, and independent of the outcome of this vote, these contributions may continue if Russavia so wishes.
After more than a month with Russavia in what I perceive as "ignore and all this will go away" mode, I then opened a thread on COM:AN/U on July 30 to gauge the community opinion about my understanding of the community role of Russavia as a crat and this incidence. Throughout this discussion, Russavia chose not to comment at all (although he promises early next week, again reminded, postpones to probably Saturday), which I find very odd, considering he was highly active. In that thread it appeared that some users shared my concern and others not. Notably two of Russavias 'crat collegues (MichaelMaggs and Dschwen) also found that the incident was incompatible with the community role. No 'crats uttered any opinion of support. I think that is pretty remarkable, as if someone should have a good understanding of their community role it should be the 'crats. 99of9 one of the few remaining 'crats did the only logical thing and opened this discussion as a followup. With some (sad) bemusement I have noted that my two good faith questions asked here has also been persistently ignored by Russavia, he even says he can't find the questions, and when another editor points them out, he applies the "I will ignore this, and then it will go away" methodology. Russavia often states that he has a very low tolerance for bullshit. Well, I can say that I am having an increasingly low tolerance for the disrespect he is showing to fellow editors in good standing by ignoring their good faith and mellow questions.
Quite some users are trying to turn this into a porn cabal discussion. I am sad to see that from from the keep and remove side. For it is completely irrelevant that the technique used in this case to depict a follow Wikimedian is related to sex, the painting technique could have been many other unusual ones, such as by puking or painting with blood of mashed heads of bats. It is the just not the right thing to do as a 'crat, especially when it is well known that the depicted have a grudge againt you. I expect a 'crat on Commons to build bridges, not dig trenches. I expect a higher level of maturity from a crat.
@ Slaunger. It is nice of you that you also notice the good work Russavia is doing. Thank you. I would like to explain that delaying or not answering the questions has in his case nothing to do with disrespect. He does not like to answer questions and be interrogated. He does not always answer me as well, although he knows that I like him and my questions are not offensive. It is just the way he is. I know more persons who do not like to answer questions, especially if others continue to push and push and push. Please take into consideration, that he has been overwhelmed with too many questions and accusations recently. As for maturity – we learn every day in real life and in virtual life. You can not expect him to be perfect. There is no faculty to learn how to be a crat. We are volunteers. He does his best, as all of us try to do, unfortunately we all make mistakes. Maturity also means to forgive and forget and move on. Why does this story [1] cross my mind each time I am on this page? Seleucidis (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, someone who "does not like to answer questions" has no business being a bureaucrat, or any other kind of community leader role. --Conti|✉22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to compare Russavia with a whore/prostitute? Or are you saying that Russavia is giving up on his immoral ways and is now promising to live a modest life without sex? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that it means something more in the region of “Let him who is without sin among you ibe the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:6–7). Tm (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what fun do we have ridiculing Seleucidis. By the way. Which of you will be the new crat? Or all of you will become new crats? Well, we need at least 3 new crats to do all the crat jobs Russavia has been doing up to now. You, boys, have all the qualities: mature, responsible, respectful, having the know-how. You have just proved how much better you are. Seleucidis (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seleucidis, I agree those comments above were not helpful and I have deleted them. I also appreciate your endevours to land this in a manner which will result in the least divisive outcome. That is also when I tried really hard in the beginning by trying to engage Russavia on his talk page. I have understanding for "ordinary" Commons users (like the woman in the story you refer to) feeling reluctant to answering inconvenient or critical questions about their conduct - we have a little over 27000 such active contributors. Of those we have selected 9 users (one in 3000) as our most trusted to be 'crats. I do think it is reasonable to expect that those one in 3000 users are sufficiently grown-up to answer legitimate, mellow questions from fellow community member in good standing, also if they are inconvenient or critical towards certain actions. I do not expect a 'crat to be infallable as we are all humans, but I expect a 'crat to reflect upon own actions and acknowledge, when there are things that should and could have been handled much better than they did. As to filling a 'crat gap in the case that this vote results in a de-cratting action, the number of edits done by Russavia which directly relate to his crat role, e.g., close RFAs, approve bots, etc. is a very small fraction of Russavias contributions, and I do not agree three other 'crats would be needed to do that. As a matter of fact if only all the current 'crats were actually active, there would be enough 'crats to do the 'crat work here. Note, this is not a de-sysop or community banning discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Slaunger, do not remove other people comments as you did in here: @Ottava Rima, It seems that you have a "superior " moral code to the rest of us "sinners", as you insult other persons and call them imoral and sinners and dont seem to understand this Bible passage or the one that says to turn the other cheek. You would be the first one in a stoning gang. @ Seleucidis, I wasnt ridiculing you as i think that your analogy of the present situation to the Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is a very good one, apart of the women had sins and Russavia as made nothing wrong. Tm (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the misreading by you - it is saying that those who seek to give up their sin should not be judged for their prior sins. Russavia has not given up his problematic ways. After all, many are called but few are chosen - Jesus makes it clear that the unprepared will burn in hell. There is no excuse to sin and keep sinning and not expect any judgment. "Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, σκοπεῖν τοὺς τὰς διχοστασίας καὶ τὰ σκάνδαλα παρὰ τὴν διδαχὴν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἐμάθετε ποιοῦντας, καὶ ἐκκλίνετε ἀπ' αὐτῶν: οἱ γὰρ τοιοῦτοι τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ, καὶ διὰ τῆς χρηστολογίας καὶ εὐλογίας ἐξαπατῶσιν τὰς καρδίας τῶν ἀκάκων." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottava Rima and Tm: I would kindly, but firmly ask you to back off from a constructive dialogue I was having with another Commons user (which we have continued on my talk page). Moreover, I do not see what relevanse disagreements in the interpretation of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery has for this RfDB. If you want to continue discussing that, please do so on your own talk page(s). Thank you. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, the religious tone by supporters of Russavia is obviously ridiculous and incorrect. If you can't see how pointing that out is necessary then, well, I don't think you'd ever understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat – Per my reasoning from the previous discussion: [3], [4], [5]. I don't believe that Russavia has good character. I don't believe that Russavia is a trustworthy person. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all accusations against russavia are based on baseless assumptions of bad faith, as I must conclude after receiving almost only non-answers to my request for evidence for bad faith on enwiki. The only exception is Conti, who does raise a valid point here. However, given how much russavia has constantly been the subject of bullying, harassment, lies and baseless assumptions of bad faith, on-wiki and off-wiki, he was still able to stay pretty mellow in my view. darkweasel9411:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attendance. It find it most odd that you say per "Michaeldsuarez" who states that I am not trustworthy, but you can't show how I have acted in an untrusted way. But I can show that you can't be trusted? I see that you are running for CU on en.wp; obviously this is an advanced tool which requires the utmost respect of privacy, regardless of the user in question. Here is something that I sent to you in private, which without my permission, you went ahead and posted publicly. What gave you the right to post that publicly, and when we consider that you are asking for advanced tools on one of our projects where editorial privacy is of utmost important, how can you be trusted to hold those tools? Furthermore, you posted this in which you recommended that another editor blatantly lie to our faces in order to have images from this project deleted. That is disgraceful behaviour, and demonstrates that it is YOU who should not be trusted with any advanced tools on our projects. I hope that people will make mention of this at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2013_CUOS_appointments#Reaper_Eternal_.28CU.29. russavia (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People do NOT go to the above link and vote or comment on this, for it would be entirely inappropriate to do so, but I have used this as an example of what is deemed by others to be acceptable. Plus I waited to post this until I knew that the voting was closed, so it would have no effect. It was used for demonstrative purposes to show what is good for the goose, and all that. russavia (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just confused, but in that quote you give him very explicit permission to quote you. What's the issue there? --Conti|✉01:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are confused. I gave him permission to do so, only AFTER he had posted it. I would have been well within my rights to go off my nut, but I am not a vindictive SOB so chose to allow it. But it surely shows that he does not have the ability to be trusted with what was essentially private information; and he says I can't be trusted. The shoe is surely on the other foot, and goes to show how vindictive some people are. I, am not one of those people. russavia (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat per Conti, Michaeldsuarez et al, and the discussion at the link given above which indicates a severe lack of trust in Russavia. Honesty and straightforward dealings are essential for this highly trusted role, and the evidence does not support this, or indicate that Russavia made their best efforts to de-escalate an inflamed situation of their own making. Begoon - talk12:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I still feel that this is between the two of them. They should be able to bury the hatchet and move on with the projects that they are both very caring about. They may agree to disagree about some aspects but those aspects will be decided by the community after weighing their input. We could also request an interaction ban between them until they shake hands.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As russavia is currently blocked on enwiki, he cannot interact with Jimbo Wales there anyway. Jimbo Wales has rarely interacted with russavia on Commons, and it does not seem like a good idea to give an interaction ban to a bureaucrat who needs to be able to interact with everybody, so I see no reason for an interaction ban on Commons. darkweasel9414:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat Following the discussion, the issues that still concern me are the explicit solicitation (in the sense of "I did make a suggestion that Jimmy's photo be used as a base to work from") of a portrait of a person with whom Russavia was not the best of friends and who, he must have known, would not have been happy; and also the lack of any straightforward and open response when questioned about his role by editors who were simply worried about the reputation of Commons and who had no personal axe to grind. It is not without a lot of soul-searching that I concluded that Russavia's actions have indeed resulted in the loss of my trust to act in a community leadership role (which according to policy here is an essential part of the bureaucrat role). He does a lot of excellent work on Commons, there is no dispute about that, and does many commendable things as an admin, but given that dreadful publicity for Commons was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his actions, I thought it right that he should offer to resign his 'crat position. Unfortunately as he has not done the decent thing (in my view), I fear that I am unable to support his retaining the 'crat bit. I am sorry that we have been forced to come to a vote. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat - I was once a friend of his, but after his first ban on en.wikipedia his personality shifted for the worse and the projects have suffered as a result. His ability to perform neutrally and appropriately has deteriorated since then. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just saw this discussion on Jimbo's page. I don't think one should remove people from positions for just having behaved in a politically incorrect way according to some people. If Russavia really is not able to perform his tasks adequately, then that could be a valid argument for removing him from his function as bureaucrat. But if we can remove people for other reasons, then what would stop fundamentalist Muslims from taking over this site and demand that everything we do here conforms strictly to Sharia law? Count Iblis (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Politically incorrect? You mean harassment of someone you politically disagree with, right? That would violate many of our core policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the evidence that this was a case of harassment. While you can't rule out that Russavia asked for this work of art to be created in order to harass Jimbo, in a single incident you can't distinguish between this theory and alternative theories (e.g. Russavia just wanted to pull off a joke). You need a pattern of behavior like someone making jokes over and over again involving some person that are not appreciated before one can unambiguously call that harassment. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is really, really hard to accept your statement in good faith. Paying someone to paint a subject you are in dispute with and posting a video of a penis rubbing against said painting is really clear harassment. It doesn't matter if it is a "joke" or not - harassment is harassment. Russavia has been shown to have a pattern of harassment against Jimbo and others. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pay the artist, this is where you are all wrong. In fact, the artist has donated the painting and has agreed for it to be auctioned off with the proceeds being donated to the WMF or another WMF-related entity. In fact, Kevin Morris was told all of this, but conveniently left these facts out of his muckraking blog post. russavia (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can corroborate that. I spoke with Pricasso a couple of days after the image and video were posted, and it was clear from our discussion that he was not paid for the painting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First INeverCry raises many good points. Also, The portrait is art, no matter how it was painted. What counts as offensive is a purely cultural construct. (Why do we host Western-made images of Muhhamad?)a This is the basis of Commons:NOTCENSORED. I'm sure you can probably find cultures around the world where penis-painting is actually a gesture of respect. The only problem I see in this episode is the fact that Russavia didn't disclose his (minor) involvement in the creation of the video and portrait. That being said, we should Assume Good Faith on his motives—for example, it's a novel art form and a self-reference would be the best way to illustrate it, equivalent to the screenshots of Wikipedia used to illustrate web standards.
Comment to Kelvinsong. I waded through all the text to find your post specifically because you are really the only one I would want to reply to here. I am very concerned that something did not occur to you. When you single out any editor on Wikipedia, or a contributor on commons, it should be for a positive reason or something that improves the project. Like when you were named the first Editor of the Week on Wikipedia. We chose one of your wonderful images to represent you and never thought of doing anything that would disrespect you, sexualize the image or any representation we used for you. We raised you up, we did not push you down. Your name has meaning to some editors when they see it. Wikimedia has taken time to spot light you as well. You are an amazing contributor. How can you condone another editor and contributor on Commons being used in this manner? Exotic performance art is not a respectable form of representation for any Wikipedia editor or Wikimedia global user. having you image used in any manner that is purpose meant to be controversial is insulting and not what our community is about.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the consensus for the paintings' deletion requests was to keep. I think that demonstrates that Russavia did nothing wrong in uploading those files. Had the consensus been to delete, the story might be different—as it indicates that Russavia's uploads were unacceptable, but that wasn't the case. The whole case does not involve bureaucrat tools, or even admin tools. It is fixated on an upload that the community already judged to be acceptable. Was Russavia's upload valuable enough to give him an Commons Editor of the Week award? No. But did he do anything that was judged to be wrong that might indicate poor leadership? No. I would find it more troubling if someone else had uploaded the painting and Russavia deleted it, overriding community consensus to keep it. And who uploaded what doesn't matter, otherwise that would suggest that as you gain user rights you suddenly lose the right to upload certain types of free, in-scope content. Leadership means setting a good example—and Russavia set a good (but not great) example by following Commons policy and uploading free, in-scope content. If you don't think that's a good example, then maybe we should change Commons policy, not go after people who were following the rules.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was ruled keep but if you look at the discussion, there was no actual policy argument for keeping it and it was a bad decision. It was also heavily canvassed by one side and there were many issues. This is just the first step in overturning the abuse in that and many, many other pages. Commons will be purged of those who have gone against our policies and abused our site. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pricasso is a notable artist who paints portraits of people. Commons should solicit contributions by all notable artists. If someone had uploaded him painting a politician it would be seen as partisan; a Queen it would be seen as anti-nationalistic. If it were some nobody he saw on the street one day it would be seen as an invasion of privacy. Despite any claims about Russavia's behavior, all the same people who have been involved in disputes over censoring Commons are here, and the message they want to send is that what you upload to Commons being offensive to them overrides your performance as an administrator. And presumably, in any other realm of life. We cannot run Commons under the philosophy that participating in it is a bad thing that permanently stains a person's character, nor should we have any more patience for this nonsense. The bottom line is that Jimbo submitted a photo that could be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will", Pricasso used it to demonstrate a curious talent, and Russavia deserves our thanks for bringing that under an open license. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sure, he may not have abused the tools, but he has violated the trust of the community, and his behavior has been clearly inconsistent with the trust required for any advanced permission on any Wikimedia site. --Rschen775416:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat That russavia was unable to foresee the furore this would cause really brings into question his judgement. Russavia took a photo of an identifiable person and without consent, of the author of the original work or its subject, commissioned what any reasonable person would see as provocative and likely insulting. There was no reason not use someone who had consented and for this we can only assume russavia, despite his protestations otherwise, was using this opportunity to take a poke at someone. Bureaucrats should not be doing stuff like this for shits and giggles. His handling of the fallout from his initial action also leaves much to be desired especially of one who would wish to be a bureaucrat of one of the most import projects on the internet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, we're all incredibly serious here, we have bum artists to document and we should stop people uploading exactly what it is that we KEEP, and always will, to use to do what it is we do. Shame, shame, shame. Like you and I, we should all vote remove, and prove it to the internet that we make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And as our mascot, I'll lead the charge ! (Penyulap, facing backwards on a rockinghorse shouts CHARGE!!!!) Penyulap☏21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per the same reasoning behind Rschen7754's comments. Russavia has violated the trust of the community and should no longer enjoy the perks that come with that former trust. Imzadi 1979→20:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Russavia and people like him being put into positions of authority here has a lot to do with why I don't participate much here anymore. --SB_Johnnytalk22:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People who mindlessly scrape bajillions of images from hither and yon on the interwebs (many of which end up deleted for reasons they should have seen beforehand) should not be in leadership positions.
People who have pretty much been tossed out of other projects for being jerks or otherwise alienating a lot of people entirely through their own actions, then blame it on the "corrupt culture" of that "other project" (en.wp or wherever, etc.), and then seek and/or attain advanced permissions here on the "we're better than those projects party" slate should be treated nicely but never given any sort of advanced permissions.
People who seem to think that anyone who has even a modicum more modesty than they do are repressive and oppressive prudes and puritans, and circle their wagons with their clique every time some (prudish or oppressive) contributor dares to suggest the deletion of a blurry pic of yet another penis should definitely not be looked to as the person who should close such discussions.
People who actually go so far as to hire a guy to paint a portrait of his "wiki-enemy" in a rather lewd manner that he knows damn well that his "wiki-enemy" won't like is pretty much an [censored], and should never be put in a position where he's looked to to judge consensus, set a good example, or god forbid represent the community in press interviews.
Remove That a commons bureaucrat commissioned a video of a man creating a picture of an notable living person, editor, and co-founder of wikipedia, by sticking his dick in some paint and rubbing it onto some canvass and then uploaded said video on wikipedia is an absolute joke. That the the other bureaucrats and denizens of this place are failing to act shows that commons is truly unsalvageable. You guys are an utter joke, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat per Rschen and several others. I have found Russavia to abuse tools for his own gratification; to be capable of bad misjudgements; and to be on some occasions an embarrassment to Commons. I am no prude; but I regard the sexual fixations as inappropriate—indeed a liability given that FOXnews has leverage to lampoon Commons through controversies that this user has promoted. I do not trust a system of Commons governance that includes him. Tony(talk) 04:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What trollop Tony and you know it. I deleted an image which was a copyright violation (there being no FOP in France), which was used in Signpost. The reason for the deletion was right here on Commons, and I removed the image redlink from the signpost. You started screaming conspiracy, and a whole lot of other nonsense, culminating in you abusing the email system here on Commons to send abusive emails to several editors (including myself...remember you sent me one in which you stated nothing but You are a gross cunt. This, and your other abuse of our editors, culminated in you receiving a block. We (meaning several admins) tried explaining to you why it was done, but you refused to listen, and were extremely nasty and bombastic. There is also no fixation on sexual content either with me or here on Commons in general. User_talk:Russavia/Archive_13#Stats_for_sexual_file_usage is evidence of that. But hey, let's not have facts get in the way of a good story hey Tony. As to Fox News, I can say quite categorically, I don't care what Fox News has to say about anything in relation to this project. I am not here to pander to that organisation, I am here to expand our "educational" media which caters to ALL editors, not just those with the "right" political, sexual, religious, moral, etc persuasion. I am about as liberal as they come, and this project is the better for it. russavia (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously entirely different to when I opened up my IRC window on May 20th to find the following message, right? 11:30 <russavia> you are a dog Woof woof, pal. — Scott•talk19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly why that photo was removed without putting up another one. Several commons editors explained on the thread, and even emailed me, that because of Florida law it was possible to use that particular photo and even pointed out its location. Why on earth they did not fix the image, when they obviously have the expertise to do so, instead of just trashing Tony's work, is beyond me. –Neotarf (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find all the keep rationales above more persuasive, while the "de" rationales are based on emotion rather than consistent logic. I've checked out his contributions and overall, he strikes me as a valuable and constructive editor. Pass a Method (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't think it is a question of the value of contributions in the past, but the situation at hand has some amount of grandstanding, possibly even soapboxing and surely this can be seen as promotional in requesting an artist create the work for Wikimedia, especially hearing that now the artwork is to be auctioned (even with the intent to donate to Wikimedia in some form). It seems very pointy. Had the artist done this on their own, without being asked, it would have not been questionable. But, this was created for commons, and in that manner we would decide if it has the right reason for being here. I don't think it does and while I encourage artists to donate work, this seems to be using the artist unfairly. What is the main reason for the image? Has it been used in some notable way? Is it notable enough just that it is a work from the artist? The reason I feel this is a violation of trust of the community is that Jimbo, regardless of his notability as a public figure, is also a Commons registered member User:Jimbo Wales. I don't think we should look at him as a public figure in this case. Outside of the value and worth of the painting itself we are talking about an image file only and not the artist's actual work. We are talking about how the image was not just found but requested by a trusted Commons member.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Art is art. Artists and their art can be seen as controversial, but it doesn't mean that Russavia must be punished for that. Nudity in art was always troublesome, for example painter Daniele da Volterra was hired after Michelangelo's death to cover the genitals in his Last Judgment with vestments and loincloths. People, but we are now in XXI century! Somehow, nobody feels offended by this painting by Pablo Picasso, which is worth $155 million:-) --Seleucidis (talk)
"Art is art" is not true. Not all things are art, and we do not keep galleries of bad children's paintings for instance. Scope requires use and not for something to be "art". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's widely offensive to billions of people AND some kid drew it with a biro then we collect it. Has to serve a purpose like 'disgrace the project' as well as be pathetic art for us to keep it. Penyulap☏18:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what's an art. It's not something you like. And this is clearly an art - a modern one. In this case it's not about form - it's cleary kitsch. It's about way of painting. It's about taboo, controversies. But why controversies? For some cultrues it's fine, for some it's offending. Interesting thing to learn. It's about hatred of people but only when they know how it's painted. It raises so many questions, so many things to discover. It's modern art, again. You are looking at the outside beauty and you can't find one. Of course you can't, because it's not about that. I've shown just a small part about it, in my other post I've shown another small part. It's art, it makes you think, but at first you have to get it. You don't get art at all. It's ok to don't understand, to haven't knowledge. But it's making me laugh how you are teaching other about art, i.e. that's not an art or it's just bad, because your shallow thinking don't allow you to see any deeper that that outter form. Look how many discussions it raised. How many controversies, questions, feelings. For me that's more ARTISTIC than Mona Lisa, which doesn't change world, it's just drawing to look at and discuss if it's nice or not. All discussions would be about painting itself, and in Pricasso case it would be about a whole lot of other things in modern world. It's beautiful. Art nowadays has changed. Hey, look - everywhere we have cavemen destroying it, because it's controversial. Like here. One of things it changed for me - it made me see stupidity and hatred of people when they've started to attack and hate russavia, because they don't get art. They just got crazy, mad, and chaotic. Do you still think it's insignificant, after all these words here?Krzysiu (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Art is not defined by controversy but the opposite. We are not hosting children's finger paintings here. Art is about quality, and controversy normally denotes that it is universally seen as not quality and only a select few are trying to find another justification. We do not appeal to the fringe to give undue weight to a view that seems more like spam than anything deserving of being hosted here. Our BLP policy mandated by the WMF makes that clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. My personal interactions with Russavia have always been cordial, however his actions have shown a marked lack of good judgement, and are bringing a this project into disrepute. Lankiveil (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume some good faith regarding diction—as a French English language learner, he may have learned to substitute 'it' for all English nouns (French has only gendered nouns pronoun-ed as 'he' and 'she'; almost all English nouns are neutral).—Love, Kelvinsongtalk15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removeAbstain The issue that brings us here is whether Russavias actions associated with this image are what the community defines as acceptable of bureaucrat, is it ethical of a community leader(bureaucrat) to commission a work(even if done freely and apparently donated for sale to benefit the community) of the Founder of that community when its common knowledge that Russavia and the Jimmy have differing opinions on what type of nudity is acceptable especially when the credited source for the painting is a photograph which was commisioned by Jimmy, who also owns the copyright of the image. Russavias use of tools(admin or crat) havent been questioned directly, Russavias action on associated projects have been questioned and there have been sanctions imposed as part of that disagreement with Jimmy prior to the commissioning of the work. The creation of the work itself has a very pointy aspect to it, its uploading here and subsequent declared intentions of Russavia to have it used as broadly as possible is only sharpening that point. The ethical issue in this discussion is a problem because there is no clearly define ethical standard for bureaucrats, we therefore dont a have a clear yes/no basis to remove the tools on ethical grounds. What we are left with is how we read and interpret the section Commons:CRAT#Community_role, if this was the reverse process IMHO would be that Russavias actions, his escalation of his differing opinion cross multiple projects would be a deal breaker for me. When its time for a crat to make a decision even if I disagree with it I dont have the confidence that I can trust Russavia with the more controversial areas of Commons to close according policy rather than personal opinion and then be able to reasonably respond to criticism of that decision, thats the most critical. IMHO if the community resolves that Russavias actions require sanctions the removal of bureaucrat tools for these actions doesnt reflect on the actual concern as it doesnt change Russavias ability to act in relation to the issue of consent, personality rights, and nudity. While we hold trust as sacrosanct the more appropriate response for pointy cross project disputes should be the same as that of other community members which would be a block or even a community ban, with such actions removal of tools should be automatic extension. Gnangarra 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)..changed from abstain as to removed after considering this comment. Gnangarra04:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The gratuitous drama generation with this image was the last straw. Also it's obvious from the responses here that there is a widespread lack of trust. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are a lot of people, who have nothing else to do than wrench a quarrel. Now please go everybody and do something useful. I do not want to see any discussion about this damned picture and I trust Russavia. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I quite like the painting. It's better than I could do with a brush. I really don't know why Jimbo is so wound up about it, but clearly he is and that's his call. For a bureaucrat to not recognise this though, and to persist in such obvious disruption afterwards, is poor behaviour in any editor and just not up to scratch for what we require of a bureaucrat. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat The picture was commissioned to play some sort of game on Jimmy Wales. Wales objects to it therefore to persist in keeping it is clearly harassment. There is a clear double standard in Commons where friends of the in-crowd are allowed to harass whosoever they want and excuses are drummed up to claim that enemies of the in-crowd are doing things to harass even when they are exposing copyvios etc. As a bureaucrat Russavia is one of those most responsible for this double standard and he should lose all his special powers.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide examples for the copyvios—as I understand it, the painting was released under a free license. If you're going to accuse Russavia of harassing copyvio whistleblowers, please provide some diffs.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He does not claim that Russavia committed copy vios, but that he has gone after people who try to get rid of copy vios. A prime example would be pieter (although I would say that he had some serious behavioral problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I don't think you read my comment; I said If you're going to accuse Russavia of harassing copyvio whistleblowers, please provide some diffs.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As on other large WikiMedia sites, Commons Bureaucrats don't have all the much to do, but what they do do requires them to have the faith and trust of the community. Regarding the portrait of Jimbo, in and of itself I don't see it as a big deal - so some publicity-oriented gimmicky "artist" paints a picture with unusual parts of his body, ho-hum, click the "Next" link and see what else is new. But in the context of WikiMedia sites, where Jimbo is still a big deal, and dissing or supporting him is taken far too seriously by far too many people, it doesn't take a lot of foresight to see that a furor would come about because of the portrait incident. By involving himself by helping to create that furor, Russavia showed exceedingly poor judgment, and it is good judgment that we need from our bureaucrats. I have no beef with Russavia, I can't recall ever interacting with him or her ("him", I think) here on on en.wiki, so I've got no axe to grind in this. Just on the grounds of having shown such bad judgment, I have to say de-Bureaucrat is the only way I can !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the allegations made in the sections below that "Remove" votes were largely coming from "visitors" from en.wiki and not from Commons regulars, I guess I should disclose that I don't have an exact count, but I've uploaded somewhere around 5,000 images here, the vast majority of them (around 4,000) my own shots. I think that makes me a regular. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat - being a bureaucrat requires good judgment and the trust of the community that you serve. I don't think Russavia has either. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat especially per Rschen7754. Someone who uses and abuses this project to perpetuate a campaign of harrassment against another Wikipedian (whomever they may be) is clearly unfit to be a Bureaucrat. Resolute (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - has consistently violated the trust of the Wikimedia community. The Pricasso debacle is the tip of the iceberg, but even just limiting ourselves to that, I'm floored that we are expected to believe that Russavia "I thought it was a great idea, but ... if I had known what drama would have followed I would have never done it." is true. For other notable factors, see Rschen and Resolute's rationales. And before anyone tries to remove my !vote for being an en.wpian, please note that I have nearly a thousand edits here. Ed[talk][en:majestic titan]01:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Ed17, this is just the tip of the iceberg? Really? Would you care to back up this big statement with some major facts? russavia (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - If Commons is ever going to be fixed, it needs to start by removing the administrators most involved in breaking it. If you check my upload history, you will see that I have uploaded more than 100 images to Commons in the past. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - it is only the bureaucrat tool and some of the people in both sides makes it seem like it is a full ban proposal. Russavia just do the right thing and step down from that role before this situation gets even more out of hand. Jarandawat's sup04:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is starting to smell like a Witch-hunt from Wikipediocracy and from users from English Wikipedia that almost dont edit in Commons and so almost dont make part of the Commons community and so cannot give or take the trust in Burecrauts. Russiavia is a trusted and hard working user and this incident is being blowout of proportion. Tm (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly who do feel is not a part of this community and in exactly what criteria of editing are you talking about? I have been here almost as long as I have been at Wikipedia, as is true with many contributors.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boot him out Oh, I never had any idea that Russavia was (or could be) a crat anywhere in Wikiverse, so imagine my surprise... It takes a truly morally bankrupt and fucked-up organisation to condone or turn a blind eye to what has been done "for art's sake" and under the pretext of "free expression". I'm rather bemused at the sort of defence of him, because censorship and "free expression" are only peripheral issues... It's just so facile to shut your eyes to things that didn't happen here or otherwise pretend they never happened. It's a bit like the kids who see one of their peers get bullied and turn away thankful that it wasn't happening to them. Whilst on the surface Russavia's actions have no incidence on the "excellent" job he may be doing here, his actions have been highly questionable even for a non-crat, and the string of events leaves little doubt as to the mens rea. The community needs to show this man the way out --Ohconfucius (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC) (removed personal offenses --A.Savin11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
de-Bureaucrat per several above comments this is an issue of trust and Russavia should be demonsrating that he can be trusted not engaging in baiting any other contributors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically, no bureaucrat privileges were involved. Portrait in question doesn't seem offensive for me, but sure, this is subjective matter. How it fits a scope and were personality rights violated - this is different questions. Yet another question - how somebody freedom interacts with freedoms of others. And what we should do with similar kind of images and their uploaders? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crats are expected to be the upholders of our policies and be the final deciders if policy was upheld. He blatant went against policy and the vast majority feel that he needs to be removed. Hopefully, the others who also went against policy with him will be next. A small minority has tried to hijack Commons and abuse it to their own ends, and it is obvious that the community no longer tolerates it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Not sure if its really appropriate I vote, since I'm not really active here. But people a lot less active than me are voting... I'm sure the closing admin can discard my vote if I'm not active enough). A pre-requisite for Russivia's actions uploading the image in question to be inappropriate (imo), would be for the deletion discussion about the image in question to come back as delete. Since it didn't, I don't think his actions uploading the image can be called inappropriate, and no one is really suggesting other grounds for de-crating (Well actually, there are a couple people suggesting he handled the dispute poorly. The argument isn't that convincing to me, but at least that's a valid ground). This entire thing strikes me as some folks not liking the way a deletion discussion was settled, and as a result trying to take it out on the side that won the deletion discussion. Having such retaliatory de-cratting would set an extraordinary bad precedent in my opinion. Bawolff (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat The portrait which is the proximate cause of this discussion does not offend me per se. However, I believe that Russavia's intent in arranging for the portrait's creation, and his uploading it here, was at least partly to offend, harass, and publically humiliate a fellow editor. This is not conduct becoming any contributor here, let alone someone whom the community has put in a special position of trust. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I'm not going to repeat other people's arguments here, but I'll make one remark: When we elect a bureaucrat we vote on whether we trust him/her with this role. Regardless whether any policies were violated or any other offenses were committed, I think it is a reasonable procedure to give the community a chance to reaffirm or withdraw the trust in a crat at any time. It is not my understanding that the crat role is given for life and can only ever be removed if a "crime" is committed. --Dschwen (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The central issue for me is the one I raised on 9 July on Russavia talk page.[6] Is Russavia mindful of his role as a perceived leader of our community? Russavia's statement below, "If I had known what drama would have followed I would have never done it", falls far short of what I would like to see. Moreover, casting this discussion as an attempt by outsiders to impose their will on our community strikes me as a divisive attempt to shift the focus of this discussion, an appeal to tribalism to band together against "others". I view myself as part of a larger community that includes contributors to projects served by Commons. Walter Siegmund(talk)18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I think the portrait is fine and the whole event around it is another level altogether of art/commentary/satire, for which (leaving aside the feelings of the subject for just a moment) Russavia deserves some credit. But Russavia's behaviour was a performance based on a public insult to a co-worker, and he doesn't appear to recognise that that kind of behaviour is inappropriate in a workplace, and we expect bureaucrats to be capable of superior social judgment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the proper reaction when someone makes a portrait of you like this is to laugh, thank the painter for his work of art, and probably send him a check (if you have as much money as Jimbo has). That said, if Jimbo considers it "harassment", then I would remove the picture. The only reason I don't vote to de-bureaucrat Russavia is because the Commons community has clearly decided, for good or ill, that this picture should be kept. Additionally, the concerns expressed here about Russavia's alleged misconduct are remarkably unconvincing, and given that this user has never abused his tools, I would not feel comfortable in supporting this witch-hunt. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are supposed to be the most straight-laced and uncontroversial editors on a project. Adding videos like the one that was added is very controversial, and inconsistent with the level of trust in a bureaucrat. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat. I was trying to give this user the benefit of the doubt, but it just keeps getting worse and worse the more they respond here, in an increasingly childish fashion, while criticisms and examples mount, almost all of them unaddressed. It establishes a disturbing pattern, which is more disturbing still when one realizes that this is just a repeat of this user's ouster from other WMF projects. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Personal attack removed --99of9 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat Per MichaelMaggs and others. Russavia's judgement has been erratic and not dispassionate enough for what is expected from a bureaucrat. His actions and silence have brought Commons into disrepute. His conduct on en.wikipedia is a separate issue; nevertheless it confirms that he is not suited to play a bureaucratic role. Mathsci (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat. From what I have read in his own writings, the next move forecasted by User:russavia is to auction off this painting, the proceeds being donated to the WMF. What a great idea. Aren't auctions the only objective method to evaluate the artistic value of an object? Will it be 200 AUD (circa 180 USD) as asserted in a newspaper, will it be $155 million as for a Picasso, who knows? A slight concern nevertheless: should the auction be organized by a confirmed leader of http://commons.wikimedia.org, this will generate a too high buzz and such a buzz will disturb the measurement process. That is the reason why User:russavia should appear in this auction as only a former 'in charge', fired due to a lack of confidence from his community. Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd just finish to read everything and no-one is able to point a wrong usage of the Bureaucrat' tools. As a contributor, he seems dedicated to provide useful files to commons but I believe that it is out of the scope of this discussion... Anyway, I believe he is trustful and should be kept as a 'crat. Also, I'm against the willing of some en.wp contributors to censor commons. I believe this de-crat process is part of their agenda. - Zil (d) 10:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot claim that there is no argument unless you are being willingly disruptive. It is really clear that a lot of people made very clear statements that they no longer trust in Russavia's ability to serve as a Bureaucrat and determine policy on this site. The common thread is to point to clear and egregious abuse by Russavia. Supports have only made a complete denial of reality or claim friendship, which is not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava Rima, you are doing yourself and the rest of the community (by which I mean both "camps" here) no favor by repeating your opinion after every keep vote that you disagree with. We know your opinion, and we don't need to see it repeated twenty times on this page - that doesn't add anything to the discussion or help the closing bureaucrat reach a fair decision that reflects community consensus. darkweasel9422:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't hurt if Ottava wants to say something, you aren't forced to read it. Being hostile and suppressing other people trying to have a say certainly does harm though. If it didn't matter, then why make such a fuss about it ? Penyulap☏23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See his answer for the technical part. For community part (I suppose that you mean this part "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues."), I'm not 100% thrilled about what Russavia did with the painting but to me it's better guidance for Commons than requesting removal of the picture, of the video and de-Bureaucratisation of Russavia. Erdrokan (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am surprised that the initiators of this discussion were not even bothered to state a clear reason(s) for the proposed de-bureaucratship to happen. They just said that "we need to have a de-bureaucrat discussion about whether Russavia still holds the community trust for his community role as Bureaucrat". How am I supposed to decide how to vote in situation? (And no, do not tell me that I can find out this information myself—I have neither time no desire for this.) What I have been able to understand so far is that Russavia uploaded an image that some people do not like and that this image was not even deleted when brought to a deletion discussion. Does not all these sound like an abuse of process? Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat, per COM:BURO#Community Role, "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding...policy discussions and other major community issues". The subject has quite spectacularly failed to live up to this standard, given the decision to commission a penis-painted image of Jimbo Wales, someone with whom he has had past on-wiki disagreements with. This was a serious lack of sound judgement, and should quite be considered as "conduct unbecoming" of a project leader. The admin bit should go away as well, but hey, one step at a time. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I've held off commenting here for the last few days trying to make my mind up. It is clear that Russavia has annoyed a lot of people, people who now don't have faith in his duties as a crat. But, I can't see any evidence of his misuse of crat tools. I guess that to many people, the community standards are just as important as the use of tools, and for Russavia - in their eyes - to betray the communities expectations is just as bad. I however, am still unsure about it, this seems very much like a popularity contest rather than a civil debate/discussion. Liamdavies (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC
保留 Simply, I trust russavia. His actions on this project have been mellow, helpful and constructive; anything else on other projects are rather moot to me (and quite frankly, his role here). Even the deletion debates over the concerned media had nothing to do with his execution of bureaucrat duties in relation to Wikimedia Commons. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:33, 15 August 2013 (GMT)
de-Bureaucrat Did Russavia abuse of the admin tools ? In my opinion, no. But it seems that he ordered the portrait of Mr. Wales only by provocation, with the goal to harrass Mr.Wales. This is obvious to me. Therefore, I think a simple (?) ban from "Commons" should have been the solution, because it is a "user" disruptive behaviour, not an "admin" disruptive behaviour. Because of this too long drama, and the bad image given of "Commons" all over the world (I've read in some french newspapers that "Commons" is one of the biggest "penis-collection" on the Net hidden behind false encyclopedic arguments, and as very active "member" (sorry, ), I dislike this very much), I think he should have resigned by himself. He did not. Crats exist to help others, not to create confusion nor problems. Non dignus est. --Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can. What's the cause of this all? Art. Someone made art. You don't have to like it. But in art nearly everything is allowed. It's a part of Freedon. The Freedom of Speech. A groundprinciple of the american and so the western Democracy. But what's happened? This art was made with a penis, not a pencil. I say - so what?! Others say "we can't accept it". And as far as I see it, it comes from the strange kind of "moralic America". God Jimbo was painted by a penis! And they don't say: "wow - this seems not to be easy". No. They getting moralic. And at the end these "moral" view and not what he's done as Bureaucrat is of importance? We don't need a tea party movement in Commons. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad that you feel you have to play the anti-america card. However this is not about morals (or the NSA, or blood for oil, the tea party, NRA, or whatever makes up your image of America), it is about trolling, harrassment, and making this project, which a lot of volunteers put a lot of effort in, like an effing joke. --Dschwen (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The consensus even amongst those advocating de-crating is that no buttons have been abused. The merits of this vote then revolve around two issues, Jimmy Wales hurt feelings and bad publicity for the foundation. Any arguments of lese majeste don't cut it. There are two Jimmy Wales residing in the same person, the public figure, the one who the rest of the world sees, and user Jimmy Wales who is a member of our community. He has to accept that he is a public figure and like all public figures that he will be lauded by some and lampooned by others and that this is the price of fame; and I see this image more of a tribute than anything else. Mr Wales can't on the one hand claim to be an ordinary member of the community on the one hand, and on the other use the regard he is held in to have others do his bidding. With regards to bad publicity, the gutter press that would paint Commons as a den of vice, would enjoy just as much depicting Jimmy Wales as a tyrant who sends his minions out to cut down a productive volunteer to satisfy his hurt feelings. Fox news part of the Murdoch empire will never be a friend of Wikipedia, Commons and the foundation, an organisation wedded to old media and the monetisation of information, news, and images will always see us as an upstart to be kicked whenever and however they can. So which community does Jimmy Wales most want to be part of, our community which values the ideas of consensus, egalitarianism and freely sharing what we know and do, or does he value the approval of Fox and its ilk. Personally I'd fight against having to live in a world created in the image of Fox's world view.--KTo288 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's well put and I agree with it, especially, "As a public figure, Jimbo can't expect not to be pilloried occasionally".
However there is a further point: it's not about whether Jimbo is right to feel this way, it's about whether we trust the judgement of a 'crat who was happy to provoke this issue. Yes, Fox News might do the same thing, but no-one is suggesting that a Murdoch would make a suitable 'crat either. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As public person and as person who earns that much money with Wikipedia (speaches and so on) he has to accept this! This is the Freedom of Speech! And the Wikimedia Movement is part of these kind of Freedom! Not Russavia has to go - everybody who don't accept this must leave the project! Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus, you leave. I don't accept this and I am not going anywhere. This is about Jimbo being a registered user here and this being nothing more than a way to demonstrate disrespect. There is no freedom of speech or expression on Wikimedia Commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't agree the moral outrage. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Art and an quite adequate illustration of the artist's article weigh more. --Micha (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Speech does not apply to Commons. We have behavioral standards that people cannot violate. Additionally, even in countries with freedom of speech, harassment laws still apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does apply to Commons, because it s not a Wikimedia thing or Commons thing, it is granted by law of the nations where the project is hosted. Ths law is mandatory and must be followed the same way like Commons follows the US copyright law. - Nevertheless uploading a picture of art (that what it actually is), despite it does not cover your and others moral ideas, has nothing to do with the job of a beaurocrat in this project. --Micha (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. The First Amendment prevents the United States government from limiting free speech - see en:Wikipedia:Free speech for a discussion, it does not apply to Wikimedia projects or anyone but the government. This notion is an example of how far Commons is out of touch with projects that exert editorial control, a concept that is non-existent on Commons, and which is part of the problem here. Acroterion (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he was referring to trusting whether you will put the community needs ahead of the politics of personality. I didn't know you at all before all this and when I found out about it I thought you had thrown Commons under the bus to score a minor point in a petty dispute. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problems with him except he's controversial for people who are searching for controversies - some groups are ofended by everything and they use it as a weapon. Krzysiu (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of how one views Russavia's actions with regard to commissioning the portrait of Jimbo, his prevarication and delay when being asked to explain his actions shows contempt for the Commons community. If Russavia had been forthright and honest, this request to remove Russavia's Bureaucrat status would likely never have been started. This is not the behaviour that Commons should expect from their Bureaucrats. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not have problems with Russavia having the crat tools, though I believe indeed that the whole issue could have been avoided.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Everybody will agree that being a goog bureaucrat is much more than being able to use the tools with competence. There is an important ethical component which, although not detailed in the rules, is expected to be found in their behavior. Ignoring that a bureacrat (as well as a regular admin, for that matter) should, in some way, exercise some kind of leadership and be an example for the rest of us is looking the other way. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't the images, it is the conduct surrounding them. The standard for bureaucrat conduct is and must remain high, and this whole situation has been a good example of conduct unbecoming of one. For crats, it isn't about tool use, and never has been; a well trained Golden Retriever could use the 'crat tools, it is about the conduct and integrity of the holder. Courcelles03:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I held my off my vote in case I might somehow be needed to advise on closure, but it looks like less involved crats are available. I agree with aspects of many of the votes above (too many to name), and am unconvinced of the wisdom of the upload and the responses to objections and procedures afterward. As a 'crat, the additional bottom line for me is that 'crats simply need the trust of the strong majority of the community. That is enforced by vote at the time of election (~80% required), but if support for Russavia has dipped anywhere near the 50% mark as it appears above, I'm afraid I cannot support his continuation as a Bureaucrat. At the same time, I recognize the many many good contributions Russavia makes to the project, thank him for them, and hope he will continue (in a not-possibly-trolling sort of way). --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I'll come straight out and say that I am mostly active on the English Wikipedia. However, with roughly a thousand Commons edits since January and almost two years of registration I think I pass the "threshold" below. My experience with Russavia, both on Commons and on Wikipedia, has been that his contributions have been working to demoralise or denigrate certain individuals and groups, and exhibited questionable judgement. He has (admittedly this diff is from the English Wikipedia) questioned edits made as contributions, for instance, the article on Polandball remains questionable, and uploading a video of Pricasso painting Jimbo (as opposed to a landscape, for instance) was bound to solicit controversy. Don't get me wrong, I think he has been and is capable of contributing good content (since part of this mess is the Pricasso image and article, I will say that I think it is a good subject, but approached in a terrible way). However, I don't see how I can trust Russavia in a role where he not only has to advise others of proper conduct, but enforce it and serve as a role model, when his conduct has been subpar.Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat. I said that I only would start reading about the whole fiasko after closing the voting. Having seen the voting result now and how extremly close it is I decided to prolong this one week. But being curious and not having time next week I decided to start reading and make my own decision now. I had no real contact with Russavia in the last years, simply being active in completely different areas. The only thing I see from him are his crat decisions which were ok. But then 90+% of the time the crat stuff is counting and button pushing. Also this case clearly has nothing to do with his activities as a crat. And that's were we come to those rare cases were the crat job is more than just working by numbers, those that require the trust of the community, so that afterwards people while not all being happy at least can say that they are ok with the decision. Reading through the comments and the history of this fight and previous occurences, now here is what I think. There is a clear bias in this discussion being mostly English, but those biases happen quite often. I can't say that I haven't been part of those kind of discussions before. I don't like them but unless we use site notices for each not so little fight (and that will cause the notices to get worthless) they will stay a common occurence of such a big project. It is also very clear that there are some people here that are not interested in Commons as such but are just here on an agenda. But there are also a lot of people here who expressed their reason for voting and the reason for how they were voting rather well. And based on those it is rather visible that also a lot of Commons active people have lost their trust in Russavia for handling the not so clearly cut cases. I can't really say if it is a majority but their definitely are many. I want to see a clearer picture which is why I prolonged the voting. But: while following the discussion threads I have seen several occurences (discussions, non-bureaucrat related decisions, ...) involving Russavia that I didn't like at all (and no, none of those are related to the picture which I think is quite nice). A few were provoked and a few weren't. And based on those I made my decisision to vote for removal of rights. -- Cecil (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat pretty much per Crisco 1492. Bureaucrats (and admins) are expected to set an example for others to follow. Russavia's conduct has been appalling and embarrassed the project, and he is not a fit person to continue to hold advanced permissions. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I can remember when Russavia was applying for admin, I was rather skeptical of his capacity to perform admin functions even then from the evidence of his very early history on wikipedia projects. I saw later that he then got OTRS, and crat status. I fail to see any improvement in his capacity to make sensible judgements from before his RFA. sats (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat. The community, including me, has lost trust in this individual and the bureaucrat tools should be removed as a result. Although I have less than 150 commons edits, I am adding my voice as a result of Dschwen's comments here. Tucoxn (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many reasons. Both sides have been giving valid rationales, albeit I am really convinced by INeverCry and his rationale to keep. Russavia should watch it, for next time if misconduct is shown, I might support a decrat and/or desysop, but the painting of Jimmy Wales is old shit and continuing to kick Russavia for it is inappropriate. Just watch it Russavia. WorldTraveller101 ? 12:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat per Dschwen, Tony, Rschen, and Ed. Russavia has lost the trust of the community and has intentionally caused disruption. His general behavior has raised the question of whether he should be banned from the community entirely, de-crating him is the minimum that should be done. Smallbones (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone saying that. Smallbones commented on the content, questioning your judgement in having it on your user page, and seems to think the cartoons could be seen as racist. I have to agree, they could, and as such, and knowing you are aware that some people think so, from previous discussions you have had, it seems reasonable to raise the question as to why, even if you don't agree, but know some people do feel that way, you would run the risk of offending them. It's that judgement thing again, and whether it falls short of that expected in a bureaucrat. This is another thing you maybe could have de-escalated, and, for whatever reason, have not. Hope that helps. Begoon - talk16:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a link to this: Articles for deletion/Polandball. I believe you took part in that discussion. There seem to be plenty of indications there that some find the cartoons racist, xenophobic, and/or offensive. This does seem to indicate that you must have been aware of the concerns, yet chose to display the files on your user page here, and at en.wp until you were instructed to remove them there. Not the behaviour I'd personally expect from someone in a leadership role expected to set an example for other users. Begoon - talk19:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have two Polish grandparents and I feel that Russavia's cartoons are racist. I'm not alone in that. They make a lot of people extremely uncomfortable because they are racist, inflammatory, and have no legitimate purpose anywhere on this site. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat - the majority of both the Enwiki and Commons community either have serious doubts in Russavia, or are strongly opposed to him. However good his contributions are, the fact remains is that he has caused more disruption than he is worth, and that his continued presence as a 'crat confirms many people's views about the "closed circle" that is supposed to exist on Commons. That "closed circle" argument has been strengthened by those who try to discredit the !votes of non-Commons regulars as well. I'm not a Commons regular, although I have contributed several images, and edits, here; but Commons' purpose is to serve Wikipedia in general, not the other way around. Russavia has brought Wikipedia into disrepute; him being a crat here brings Commons into disrepute as well. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)15:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if you read the comment made by the second voter in this thread, then this "closed circle" issue is not what we on en-wiki think it really is. It's just that we only see the Pricasso thing which distorts the full picture we get. Also, if we also play a role in the escalating conflict about that on Jimbo's talk page, then we can hardly blame all of the disruption on Russavia. The disruption is mostly a self-inflicted wound by ourselves there. A lot of exaggerated claims were being made about Commons on Jimbo's talk page almost every day, which provoked not just Russavia but also other Commons regulars from responding, sometimes not in an ideal way. Two other Commons crats were even blocked for removing insults on Jimbo's talk page, they were thinking they were just doing what any editor should do, the problem was that they were doing that repeatedly. So, while the blocks were justified, this does show that Jimbo's talk page was a rather hostile environment for a Commons regular to make his/her points (the insulting comments were being restored by some Jimbo talk page regulars). So, this was a fertile environment for escalating conflicts, not to get issues resolved. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the names, just the incident (note that I'm not a Commons regular), they were not blocked for long, it's was just for edit warring. One of them did retire from Wikipedia after that if I remember correctly. I'll try to look it up on Jimbo's talk page history... Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about the Pricasso thing. Russavia brought Wikipedia into disrepute with it, but he was being dodgy elsewhere as well, and highly disruptive in general. The "closed-circle" thing is quite heavily based on this very thread, where several people have tried to diminish enwiki contributor's views, or have made proposals that would do so. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)17:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I am not so concerned about his role in "portrait of Jimbo Wales affair", but I am afraid that is not first (or second) time, when he was involved in some controversial matter. Simply loss of confidence for bureaucrat role (as I can see also confidence from co-bureaucrats). --Jklamo (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would be voting to de-crat, right? Because Russavia is the one with the cult of personality and doing whatever he wants regardless of the rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is kept, and it’s fine. Jimmy is not an ancient idol, so blasphemy may not be a cause for flag removing. Kf8 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat. What we are seeing here makes RFA on en look like sandwiches for kiddies. Allusion intentional. Enough of these people, a lunatic fringe has been allowed to take contol here, and are delighting and gaming. Russavia is just a symptom, but his attitude speaks volumes. Euw. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat I have commented in the earlier discussion. I aggree with Slaunger and Saffron's comments. I was particularly disappointed with Russavia's response to Tony1, which amounted to a personal-attack-as-defence (I should say, for reasons that will become clear, that I'm in no way implying I agree with Tony1's comments or that they shouldn't be challenged). Russavia above says "I am not happy with the "sexual harassment" insinuations that Colin has presented". I have made no such insinuations.Here is the link to the relevant text. It is a post where I quote Jimbo because folk had asked why he wasn't commenting on Commons: he already had commented on the issue. Which part of "his wikilink" and "he is implicating" does Russavia have problems understanding? The point of Hostile environment sexual harassment, is that it is a acusation against a group of people, not just one individual, who through action or inaction, allow sexual harassment to occur. If that group does nothing about a bad individual, the group is guilty of that "crime", and that is what Jimbo was suggesting Commons, collectively, was guilty of and needed to fix. These are Jimbo's comments, and I was quoting and explaining them, without agreeing or disagreeing with them. That Russavia has confused this, just further adds to the concern over his ability to perform a 'crat role, which requires expecially careful understanding of difficult situations. I fully expect him to strike that comment. I would not make a such an allegation, directly or through insinuation against anyone on wiki. Wrt comments below about en-Wiki canvassing and such, I agree with the comments that we are one big project and the sooner we dispense with us-and-them language the better. Yes there are folk on both sides who here because of separate issues or previous grudges/alliances but that's par for the course on any divisive discussion. I strongly disagree with the idea that a closing 'crat will just count !votes and would reject en-wiki votes/comments. I can think of a few Commons regulars who are just windbags and not really contributors: so edit count on Commons is no measure of the merit of anyone's argument. The closing crat should weigh the merit of arguments made, not just count votes -- otherwise all of us have just wasted megabytes of text and could have kept things brief. I would have liked to expand on my own arguments against Russavia being a 'crat rather than do a "per X" !vote but I'm on holiday, have commented previously, and others have said what I would say. Personally, I don't think it should come to 'crat closure -- there is more than enough community rejection of Russavia's position, by long-term experienced contributors and 'crats that he should have done the decent thing a long time ago. And by doing that, Russavia would eliminate another week of drama -- but then preventing future drama doesn't seem to be his style. Colin (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Colin, but even bringing those unfounded sexual harassment accusations in is muddying the waters in a way that I feel unacceptable. If it isn't making the accusation, it is certainly perpetuating it, and repeating things does not make it true. Jimmy is well capable of reinforcing his accusation, but when asked about the issue on Twitter, he has backtracked from that statement. As such, I see any continued "sexual harassment" claims being continued to be a continued personal attack on myself which is not grounded in reality, and I will say as much. As I already have (having professional experience in formulating EEO policy [including sexual harassment]). russavia (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-bureaucrat, essentially per Slaunger (and others). This is about leadership and the community's trust, not about misuse of tools. --Avenue (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not church of St. Jimbo. By the way, those who started this discussions did a lot more to promote the purportedly offensive image than Russavia ever done. Ah, Streisand effect, I love you. --Grebenkov (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Yet another example of the culture of abuse that is taking over the project. This should have been stopped a long time ago. —Neotarf (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat lack of confidence. In my opinion the contribution of Russavia in the affair with a portait of JW is very similar to trolling. Additionally, he promotes the xenophobic Polandball in Commons and other Wikimedia projects. --Piotr967 (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per INeverCry and Ymblanter. Russavia is a good bureaucrat for all I know. He does a lot of technical and tedious work. He also makes Commons a more lively place. GreyHoodTalk15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no b-crat rights are seen involved. Even if uploading these is connected with conflict between Jimbo and Russavia, it's not very good, but not fatally bad. Such image painted in any manner is not what breaks BLP. Uploading encyclopedic content which is suitable to irritate your opponent may be named a trolling, but it is the trolling which has to be eaten for the fundamental properties of the scary place we all have come to on our own will. Maybe I wouldn't appear in these discussion, but since there has been known of group of pushing on this user, I'd better make an extra opposition. Ignatus (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have never seen any problems with Russavia using the bureaucrat tools. And, having read all of the comments in this section, I am not convinced of the link between his role as bureaucrat and this tempest over the Jimmy Wales painting. I adopt the comments of INeverCry.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat As per Dschwen and others. The question is - does he still have the trust of the majority of the community? I think it is quite plain that he does not have that anymore. Ronhjones (Talk)18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lynch 'Em It seems to me, that a lily livered blowhard has been caught red-handed disrespecting the trail boss. Now a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, but hereabouts it seems that what this man's gotta do is wavin' the white flag and riding off into the sunset. If he don't, the man's liable to find himself facing down a six-shooter at high noon, and he 'aint liable to walk away like Gary Cooper. matter of fact if I were him I'd skedaddle lest he find himself locked-up in the hoosegow till he learned why it's wrong to ask a man to rub Big Jim and the Twins over the trail boss' face. Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat No trust at all. And a bureaucrat should have the trust of a broad majority in the community (this de-Bureaucrat vote shows the contrary). --MisterGugaruz (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Commons is international, then that would mean we would have to have even tougher standards and prudery than what we have now, since the minority of the world (the US and Europe) allows for pornography, while the Muslim world and China have very strict rules against it. If Commons is also international, then why would attacks on other nations through Polandball be appropriate? It seems that Russavia is doing whatever he can to make it hostile to the world's citizens. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole moral standards and prudery thing is completely besides the point. This is about respecting the community, not performing trollish and unprofessional teasing. Is it prudery that keeps you from whipping your dick out in public and feeling up female coworkers? This denial of norms for interpersonal communication is an adolescent male problem, and it is standing in the way of making commons a welcoming and diverse community. --Dschwen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference in the two responses above. Dschwen's comment (and in the one above about the "trail boss", etc.) suggests you could still upload just about any "making of" video (like the ones that come up if you type "Pricasso" into Google with default settings) - it just can't be about anybody well-connected at WMF. That's a much smaller restriction than Rima is suggesting. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no no no! This has nothing to do with being well connected! It is about mutual respect and empathy towards your fellow contributors. Granted, the fact that it was Wales who was the target here caused ther to be that many ripples. But that doesn't make it any better to do this to a lower profile community member. --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in theory, we can host the picture Google displays of Pricasso painting John McCain (some others are more prominent but I'm terrible with faces). But if McCain logs in and makes a few edits we should be considerate and delete it. One problem I see with this theory is that in practice when well-known BLP subjects (or targets) start accounts on Wikipedia and start editing or even complaining about anything having to do with them, it usually ends in an indef-ban, and they're lucky if they get away without being keelhauled in the press. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have a hard time understanding how this can be so unclear to people. Rather than coming up with hypotheticals to lawyer yourself out of the grip of the argument why don't you take a step back and look at the big picture. It boils down to this: Don't intentionally be a dick to other contributors! Especially when you are elected into a role that implies that you are an experienced contributor and someone that other contributors may look to as an example. --Dschwen (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Vandenberg was pretty much debunked by DC, Anthonycole, and myself, and has yet to provide a rebuttal or an explanation for his incorrect analysis. So as of the moment, Vandenberg's comment should be taken with the proverbial gran of salt...or perhaps an entire salt shaker. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Am I wrong to assume that Jimbo would have felt neutral or even flattered if a notable artist would have painted a portrait of him using his nose, ellbow or knee and donated it to Commons? --Leyo16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or he he would have used his face to paint a picture of Jimmy's dick :-D. Is that a serious question? Isn't the answer totally obvious (and rather irrelevant for this discussion)? Russavia was either purposefully trolling a contributor and is playing stupid, or he exhibited extremely poor judgement and set a very visible example for other editors. It really does not matter if anyone of us thinks that being painted with a dick is not a big deal or is rather "funny". Just as it doesn't matter if anyone thinks pinching a random girl in the butt is harmless. --Dschwen (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage people to go to commons and work to explain to the community there some of the concepts behind hostile environment sexual harassment. I encourage everyone to seriously consider whether it is appropriate behavior to upload a clearly non-notable film of someone using his penis to paint a picture of a Wikipedia volunteer. It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people.
My point was that if a Muslim were to complain that we have a picture of him done by Pricasso, for instance, then we should remove it. Personality rights should still apply and even more so when the basis is sexual. I find it odd how people are saying there is nothing sexual while at the same time condemning "prudery," which would admit to the sexual basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems off topic but it is relevant. This is exactly what I mentioned about. We cannot just act on one cultures demands. Since Muslims are mentioned, this opens the Pandora's Box. Some members of the Islamic culture (the more extreme traditionalists) feel ALL images need to be banned. Therefore all images on commons would offend them. Will we comply with such demands? If not it becomes a double standard. This is why I feel we need to be culture independent. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you still don't get it and are perpetuating the moral panic nonsense. This is not about morals and prudery at all. See above. --Dschwen (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get it? Perhaps that is exactly my point. I should be able to get it as it should be blisteringly obvious.
I do not get why we haven't attempted to determine the process to follow first essentially amending the voting rules mid-vote.
I do not get why en.wikipedia users heavily canvassed this discussion.
I do not get why there is a strong correlation with some of them whom have in the past have voted in the OMG nudity/penis delete camp (what I call moral panic, let's henceforth call it creeping interwiki politics℠ (CIP) or creeping wiki politics℠ (CWP) if you like).
I do not get why the trust of users less active on commons overrides the trust of users more active on commons particularly on a matter that wouldn't impact other wikis as this notion encourages more future canvassing.
I do not get why the very notion of trust was risen over the upload of two files of which both have been deemed within commons project scope.
I do not get why this is a de-Bureaucrat vote which makes this effectively a mere slap in the wrist if Russavia is harassing Jimbo as some people claimed.
I do not get why we are even discussing the harassment angle when Jimbo hasn't formally complained as this is hardly the first time attack content related to a living celebrity has found its way to commons.
I do not get why the image of Jimbo's iron fist of control over commons hasn't even been risen so far. Mind that I have a very strong respect towards Jimmy and his work (I do not know about Russavia or anyone else), but I do not think he wants to give the impression that he is the Wikipedia/Commons CEO image even if he wishes the images deleted. That would be a very serious conflict of interest on his part.
I do not get why you of all people is pretending this is a fair vote.
De-Bureaucrat. I feel that Russavia's behaviour has fallen far below the level the community expects of bureaucrats. Trolling, sophistry, and generally pissing off other community members are things we should stop rather than tolerate. bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "plenty" were actually 2 users, of which one got here and voted for remove. But feel free to complain on Russian wiki if you think I'm inappropriate. --A.Savin07:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compare:
[7] "Who cares about the fate of Russavia - click on the link and vote"
[8] "Jimbo, following a discussion on COM:AN/U, a request has been opened to remove Russavia's status as a bureaucrat on Commons. I thought you would like to know as this is in part related to that portrait of you, although I don't expect you will participate there."
The former looks more like canvassing than the latter, to me. It's difficult to understand how you might come to the opposite conclusion. To what extent would this canvassing be factored in by whoever closes this discussion? bobrayner (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove right. I debated weighing in because I haven't been active at Commons much lately. I have, however, been "around" Russavia on this site and enwiki for years and have seen plenty. I would also like to say that I agree with what Colin said above. Killiondude (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat As far as I can see, right now he is causing more damage than he is constructively adding to the Project and consistently shows a lack of good judgment. The fact that he has tools he can use against other editors is (one more) accident waiting to happen. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't give a damn about that particular piece of art, but as some of you may know, there has long been a pervasive distrust towards Russavia on some Wikimedia projects, and the fact that he is still a big shot here drives more that just a few people away from Commons, that being only a minor example. Speaking of the tools, what exactly has Russavia accomplished as a bureaucrat? Is it such a big deal if he loses them? Given his history of misconduct, he shouldn't have been entrusted with any special privileges in the first place. Colchicum (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So nice to see you Colchicum, I see you've come over to settle old en:WP:EEML/Eastern European-related scores and grudges; and I really have to thank you for considering this so-important, that you've made your first edit on any project in almost a year at this very request. Your appearance here, and your comments, are indicative of the abuse of this process for editors settling old scores and grudges.
You see Colchicum, I am here for the good of the project, and I encourage everyone to get along and collaborate. Take this for example, where I encourage editors on Commons on the opposite divide of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue to work together and outline how to do so. I have not yet since seen a recurrence of those problems, but I have faith that if either side has a problem in the future on this issue, that they know they can come to me for mellow advice on how to work together. Now, let's look at how you have dealt with things in the past. Whilst the EEML was still not exposed (but which many of us suspected was occurring), I approached one of those EEMLers (who deserted the project once exposed and didn't stick around to face the music), asking if they might be able to take a photo in their hometown for something I was working on. You waltzed in and left this disgusting message -- "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia."
I am sorry, but you have just shown that this entire process is being abused by editors from various projects, and it makes me want to vomit that our crats are sitting by and letting this occur. Enough is enough. russavia (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very nice, Russavia, I am sorry to interrupt you, but how does this address the issues I've raised? Your role in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is commendable as far as I can see, but you didn't need crat tools for this, did you?
Oh, and mud sticks, but I was never a member of EEML and the 5-y-old double-s pun you've liked so much was in direct reference to that infamous article created by no other than you. I am not going to be credited with your hard work, thank you very much. I hope you will remember this from now on and will not take things out of context. Colchicum (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked me to be more specific here so I'll give it a shot. David Gerard, with his nasty vote "delete" above. Delete a person who has put so much work into the project. A BLP. For shame Mr. Gerard. Who is a known troll as can be easily verified with google. There's a site called Wikipediocracy (spelling?) which is also mainly trolling and doesn't like Russavia. Finally, Jimbo Wales. Sole founder, need I say more? I would not be shocked to learn of GNAA involvement in this attempted removal of the prolific and loyal user Russavia.24.19.234.6209:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As your talk page here is empty, you've just provided a nice demonstration that there's external canvassing happening somewhere. — Scott•talk11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
decrat {disclosure, I blocked Russavia on en and I noticed this discussion on Jimbo's talkpage). That said, I have over 150 edits here and have been semi active recently. I'm firmly of the opinion that higher standards of behavior are required for holders of advanced permissions and the more advanced the permissions the more elevated the behavioral expectations. Russavia's behavior on en fell so far below what we should expect from a 'crat on any wikimedia project that I'm astonished that anyone thinks they should hold any advanced permissions. Spartaz (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call it honesty. Spartaz, why have you left out the fact that you used the tools on me whilst obviously involved (i.e. removing talk page access for the reporting of BLP and copyright violations), and if that wasn't enough after another admin restored that talk page access you accused them of being involved with me because they once said something nice to me on Commons (how did you find out about that Spartaz? Let me guess, right?) and supported me on some Commons issues (thereby implying that only admins who think I am a piece of shit or who are anti-Commons are able to act in relation to myself - yep, that'll make for an uninvolved admin alright!), and if that wasn't enough, YOU tried to create more drama by taking it to the en.wp drama boards that is ANI (and yet you blocked me for creating drama when it was obvious to any admin with half a brain I was defending myself), and furthermore insinuated that editors who are on Commons are not able to make decisions on English Wikipedia (which of course means that we now need to strike your vote here, because you shouldn't have a say in how this project is run given that you are an English Wikipedian), which of course creates an us and them atmosphere (which apparently none of this is), and furthermore you stated that you couldn't see the logic in why the talk page access was restored (well, why can't you see the logic in reporting a BLP violation which had a guys name in an infobox on an organisation which the Vietnamese government regards as a terrorist organisation -- for all we know John C. Cooke is a businessman with links to Vietnam, and his name was inserted by a competitor or whatever), etc, etc. I'm dumbfounded by your actions on that project, really I am, it cames across, not only to me, but to others as well, as something that was petty and vindictive (which pretty much sums up your initial indef block, especially as you have a problem seeing things logically), but yet you feel I am unfit to hold any tools? But please do let us know if we should strike your vote here. I'd be most interested to hear what I know would be a hyprocritical response. russavia (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly Spartaz, I am not suggesting that we should strike your vote (or am I), but I am simply applying the same standards in the above that you are applying elsewhere. russavia (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz was asked on his talk page for further comment. His response "go away". I find it disturbing that he refuses to make further comment on what are surely serious issues, but comes here to "vote and run". Certainly not someone I would call a community member. russavia (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of small-minded taunting and sarcastic communication perfectly demonstrates why you are unsuited to any leadership role and should be de-crated. I have no intention in wasting my time engaging with your rewriting of history except commenting that your block was overwhelmingly endorsed by the en community. Unless an entire project is targeting you the only other possibility is that your perception of your behavior doesn't reflect the reality understood by other people. Your actions tarnishes not just yourself but this entire project as it seems to be perfectly admissible for an admins and 'crats to attack and belittle a perceived enemy in the way you have gone for me. I'm also fascinated by the clear perception that an editor assisting a free content project free itself of incorrectly licensed images and copyvios is not contributing to the community. How pathetic. I will be making no further comment or response and I'm sure the closing crat will be more than capable of making their own mind up about the validity of the view I have expressed. Spartaz (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has it been small-minded taunting to apply the same standards to you, that you are obviously applying to others. As the instigator of the block on en.wp, please read my comments at Commons_talk:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)#Brought_the_project_into_disrepute.2C_how_and_where.3F. Also, you may be surprised, but I am not saying that an entire community is against me, because I know a lot of editors on en.wp support me. What I have an issue with is the rush to conclusions without my being given a chance to defend myself against those conclusions and accusations, and for those making accusations being required to provide actual evidence. You'll note that at your "de facto community ban" discussion, things were attributed to me, which were not done by myself at all; but who am I to try and point such things out. When you revoked talk page access, you were asked by several people for you to quote the policy under which you revoked that talk page access, which at no time was forthcoming. Additionally, you engaged in a shoot first (the revocation) and ask questions later (the ANI post) situation. This is not good adminning; I don't think I've engaged in such things on this project. Additionally, many people have a big problem when an involved (and inactive) admin appears to rush back to use the tools on an editor; I experienced such rubbish last year and it leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths (not just mine). Everything together, makes it appear vindictive and petty in nature, and I think I have demonstrated that with some evidence; have I not?
And here's a thought, has anyone considered that I am not the only person who could have handled things better? Has anyone considered that we ALL have failed to handle this better? (with the exception of the IP Wikipediocracy trolls). By this, I mean myself, Jimmy, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? Or are people only willing to say that I have acted poorly? Let's discuss this on the talk page shall we? russavia (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I waited a long time for Russavia to reply to Slaunger's original serious concerns and later requests for community comment. Now he's engaging, it appears that he'd rather attack other editors and find fault elsewhere than do any serious self-examination. Russavia, this page concerns you and you alone. Not Spartaz, not Jimbo, not en-wp, or other commons users. Colin (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ignatus and against Piotr967's reasoning. Russavia's retention of bureaucrat rights should depend on...how well he's used his bureaucrat rights. I've seen no substantial evidence of misuse of bureaucrat tools (if there's any evidence at all, I've overlooked it), and it seems as if all "remove" voters are calling for rights removal based on things unrelated to the bureaucrat rights. Those are relevant arguments on the question of whether he should be sanctioned in general (i.e. as an editor), but they're irrelevant to the bureaucrat rights. Found this at en:wp, but a quick examination of Category:Files by User:Nyttend should show you that I've been active here too. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat Image is not appropriate. Not educational and makes us all look like idiots. User who uploaded it is not appropriate as a bureaucrat. We need a more positive environment and people to uphold that. James Heilman, MD (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. There has been no misuse of any bureaucrat tool and displeasing Jimbo and his fanboys does not mean loosing the confidence of the community. inisheer (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
De-Bureaucrat loss of trust in the community required for advanced permission, (controversial) behavior standard below the level of community expectations stimulates counterproductive atmosphere in the project and negative perception of Commons in other WM projects and communities --Alan ffm (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 437,000 bytes, about 306,000 bytes were moved leaving about 131,000 bytes on this page. The intention behind this is to help users with slower connections in particular.
de-Bureaucrat per the discussion quoted above. JKadavoor Jee 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep Russavia has done a good job as a bureaucrat. He participates in a wide range of areas and discussions, offering help, advice, solutions, etc. The Jimbo/Pricasso case looks to me like it involves conjecture as to his motives and some individual moral judgements/outrage, mostly coming from Wikipedia. The files in question are in COM:SCOPE, and so uploading them was a gain for Commons. I continue to think Russavia is a good bureaucrat, and a constructive member of the Commons community. He has my trust and confidence. INeverCry 07:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment
Abstain
Question Ed17, this is just the tip of the iceberg? Really? Would you care to back up this big statement with some major facts? russavia (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Technically, no bureaucrat privileges were involved. Portrait in question doesn't seem offensive for me, but sure, this is subjective matter. How it fits a scope and were personality rights violated - this is different questions. Yet another question - how somebody freedom interacts with freedoms of others. And what we should do with similar kind of images and their uploaders? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
), I dislike this very much), I think he should have resigned by himself. He did not. Crats exist to help others, not to create confusion nor problems. Non dignus est. --Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
avia."
