*[[Commons:Administrators#Voting]] has a similar recognition for new users but no exact figures, both process support at least highlighting these editors [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 14:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
*[[Commons:Administrators#Voting]] has a similar recognition for new users but no exact figures, both process support at least highlighting these editors [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 14:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
**I am sorry but I cannot accept en.wikipedia users whom have no understanding of how commons works, whom avoid being active members of the commons community unless it is part of a moral panic (we have seen plenty of those) decide how we run business here. Frankly I think many commons users would agree that we have had enough of the moral panic drama from en.wikipedia that we frequently see here. Please do not insult my intelligence and pretend this is not a thing. --<small> [[User:とある白い猫/13|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫/13|ちぃ？]]</sup> 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
**I am sorry but I cannot accept en.wikipedia users whom have no understanding of how commons works, whom avoid being active members of the commons community unless it is part of a moral panic (we have seen plenty of those) decide how we run business here. Frankly I think many commons users would agree that we have had enough of the moral panic drama from en.wikipedia that we frequently see here. Please do not insult my intelligence and pretend this is not a thing. --<small> [[User:とある白い猫/13|とある白い猫]]</small> <sup>[[User talk:とある白い猫/13|ちぃ？]]</sup> 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
***That does not really seem to be your place to make such a call or decision. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
*I really don't see an honest rationale to segregate or flag editors merely because they are primarily home-based in other wikis. If they fall below the 10/50 days/edits threshold, sure, any such editor should be tagged. But I'd like to see a policy-based reason to treat en.wiki-primary users who satisfy the 10/50 threshold, if that is rally what is being proposed here. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
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 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]
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!..."
Suspense vote This vote needs time for me to make up my mind. I expect to be able to vote on (probably) Tuesday, (maybe) Saturday, or Sunday, arh next month. --Slaunger (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de-Bureaucrat – Per my reasoning from the previous discussion: [2], [3], [4]. 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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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:-)
Delete. 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]
Abstain 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. Gnangarra14:34, 12 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]
Comments
While working on the article about Pricasso, I got the idea to illustrate it with a portrait of JW, hence the painter is Aussie just like me. So why not do it? I thought it was a great idea, but I had no other motives! If I had known what drama would have followed I would have never done it. I would like to add that the artist always supports his portraits with a video, so it is not an exception in the case of Jimbo's portrait. I will note that the article, complete with portrait, appeared on Polish Wikipedia at their DYK, and there was no issues in relation to it on that projects. That others on another project, with their anti-Commons agendas, have made it into a monumental issue is for that project to deal with.
In relation to the Daily Dot article, it was evident from Kevin's initial email that he is a muckraker, and his article was full of fabrications (such as my never revealing my name, etc), and lacking in detail on the questions and answers he asked/got from both myself and the artist. I am curious as to why he left out that the artist had heard of Jimbo, is an occasional reader of Wikipedia, and that the painting (for which there was no cost involved, nor quid pro quo) has been donated so that it could be sold with the proceeds going to either the WMF or a related-charity. That others based their articles on that article really is an issue for them to deal with themselves. Liberation did not respond to a request for clarification/amendment. I will also note that the Sunday Mail emailed me saying that they were running a story, but I refused to co-operate with them, given the nature of their questions portraying the broken and repetitive meme that Commons is a porn site -- it didn't run in the end. That one blog ran a hatchet job of a story, and it was picked up and printed as a blog on a newspaper website (and that's about the extent of it) does not mean that we should be looking for a public lynching of anyone.
I am not happy with the "sexual harassment" insinuations that Colin has presented, and the escalation presented by User:Jkadavoor in the above linked thread. As a person with professional background in formulating sexual harassment policy, and because I have zero tolerance for any sort of harassment against any editors, I am going to suggest that if people, such as Jkadavoor feel so strongly about this issue, that they start a community ban discussion on myself. Or we work together as a project, and fine tune our policies, if that is the consensus of the community.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I was awaiting a response from Jimmy, but he has not responded, so not delaying this any longer. russavia (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you are still trying to link this issue with sexual harassment. I never used those words; my complaint was/is always based on infringements of personal rights of the subject and the original author. It is not good to use/misuse a portrait of a person which is granted to the community for a good purpose. It is worse, if it is used to defame that person. If we (and a crat) behave so; how a contributor shows confidence to make further contributions to this project? I’ve no problem if you are not willing to encourage good contributors. But please don’t discourage (and insult) people here. (See my concerns at Commons talk:Courtesy deletions too.) JKadavoorJee07:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you comment on Jimbo's talk page in March, pointing out that Jimbo "was quite aggressive towards individuals personally, and Commons and OTRS generally." So please do not pretend that you didn't know that Jimbo was quite critical of Commons (and, subsequently, you, as you were personally involved in that very issue) months ago. Here is a comment from Jimbo about one of your deletion discussion closures: "Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed.--Jimbo Wales". --Conti|✉10:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This diff is not me. The second diff that you present, can you please explain to me how I came to post that on Jimmy's talk page, when I was blocked at the time? He wasn't responding to me, I know that much, and for a long time I have ignored what is written on JW's talk page (I'm not alone there). russavia (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You have ignored what is written on his talk page? And yet you have edited his talk page more than 25 times while you were unblocked between March and and June. Are you seriously claiming ignorance of Jimbo Wales' views on Commons and you specifically? --Conti|✉11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two Questions @ Russavia You state, that you initially thought it was a good idea to have JW as the subject for a portrait made by Pricasso, that you had no ill intentions, and that if you had know what drama had followed you would not have done it.
Looking back at what followed after launching the perceived good idea, is there anything you could have done to de-escalate the situation?
Irrespective of the outcome of this vote, are there any 'lessons learned' on your side?
Jkadavoor, russavia did not defame Jimbo by uploading those files (he did not communicate any statement about him except the statement that Jimbo was the subject of a painting by Pricasso, which is undoubtedly true). He also did not present him in a false or disparaging light, unless you think nudity is by itself disparaging, which is not a position I agree with or hope the WMF, when drafting the resolution you keep citing, agreed with. darkweasel9411:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I missed the beginning of the scandal. Could somebody explain: is uploading of pictures with Jimbo’s face the only accusation against russavia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, what was more controversial is the "making of" video. Some users have also raised concerns about russavia's handling of the situation in general, but yes, it all has to do with the Pricasso thing, not with the bureaucrat or administrator tools, which nobody has accused him of abusing. darkweasel9412:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If just the portrait had been uploaded, even if it been accompanied by a textual explanation of the painting process to put it into context, that would have been okay, I think. But uploading that video is just offensive and disturbing and I'd say that no matter whose portrait had been painted with Pricasso's penis, testicles and butt crack. I'd also feel the same if the painter had been a woman. I seriously doubt that people watching that video are interested in the "artistic process" or are art lovers (or even fans of Pricasso). Newjerseyliz (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are accusations that Russavia uploaded/asked for the files in bad faith in regarding Jimbo, but for me, the issue is Russavia's behavior in the whole drama, not the fact that Russavia's action started the drama in the first place. --Conti|✉12:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even when Russavia was being denounced as "ethically broken" above, that was a response to his careful research into the issues surrounding a specific upload, in which he was able to determine that the subject was aware and consenting to a series of photos. To be sure, there were some places where Russavia took a dismissive attitude that was not the most productive, but that's the sort of thing that tends to happen when someone is subjected to a very long series of unjustifiable and politically motivated policy complaints dating back, as I recall, all the way to some incomprehensible block against him for drawing cartoon volleyballs. We don't need to perpetuate vague assertions of "bad behavior" arising from old disputes on en.wikipedia; the question is, what has Russavia done wrong in his work on Commons? Wnt (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out in my vote above what he has done wrong (in my opinion, obviously). I forgot to point out how Russavia said how he will try to have the Pricasso article translated in as many languages as possible and have them all show the picture in question after it was revealed what Jimbo thought of the picture. That is nothing short of vindictive. I do not want a vindictive bureaucrat. --Conti|✉17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that some people have voted to de-bureaucrat on the basis that "russavia no longer has the community's trust". To me this sounds like "I vote to de-bureaucrat because 'the community' (= everybody else) thinks he should be de-bureaucratted", which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can't you at least say "he doesn't have my trust"? That would be more honest. darkweasel9421:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on process
How to count votes
Question Perhaps 99of9 as the creator, can point to an existing guideline or past cases so we are clear on how this vote works in terms of how to assess the outcome, i.e. do we go by a simple and literal majority for a de-Bureaucrat supported or opposed decision, and do we only count de-Bureaucrat/Keep votes? --Fæ (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of direct precedent. I expect that we will take a lead from Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which says "Although the process is not a vote, normal standards for determining consensus in an RfA do not apply. Instead, "majority consensus" should be used, whereby any consensus to demote of higher than about 50% is sufficient to remove the admin.". I'm not sure what your second question means - are you worried about how people format their !vote? I expect if they make their intent clear in any way, that will be sufficient. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 99of9, that is clearer. In terms of !vote, I was thinking of possible ambiguous intention if someone simply !votes as "oppose", "delete" or "+1", though I would guess that if that does start to happen, we can always nudge them to clarify their vote before this discussion closes. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person who closed the discussion there did not sign their name to it. That noticeboard looks fucked because there is, yet again, a box around the entire page. Penyulap☏10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for alerting me. I was one tilda short of a signature. Now fixed. I don't think I caused the box though. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AN/U close
Penyulap Please avoid disrupting the votes section with your comment threads. If you have comments to make, please add them in the comments section, that is why it is called a comments section and the votes section is called the votes section. It would be appreciated if you would have the courtesy to allow others their voice to be heard, this is not your personal blog. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
on what planet is this 'my thread' you COPIED my comments here, to the point that otherpeople are sick of your repetition. Gawd, I could die tomorrow and next week you'd be copying my remarks and then complaining about it, wouldn't you. Penyulap☏18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, your constant belligerent interference with this process is in itself reason enough for the community to say FUCK Russ's Bureaucratship. I've changed my comment to a vote, which I didn't want to do, exclusively at this point because of you're constant intolerable harassment. 1234567 Hope you're happy buddy. Penyulap☏11:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sticking to the process. Having been the subject of some very unpleasant real life harassment, I have an understanding of what it is and in comparison your claims seem to be made as some kind of bad joke. However, if you have a complaint about harassment to raise against me, please make your case on AN/U rather than defaming me and taking unrelated discussions off-topic. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not therapy. What the fuck are you saying "avoid disrupting the votes section with your comment threads." for ? you are the one starting new threads, I haven't started ANY threads, and Comment is a template often used in freaking "votes" sections. I really think you've given poor Russ enough 'support' I'm not sure he can takle any more of it. Really. Soon, people will be sympathy voting keep thinking "shit, this guy must be scraping the bottom of the barrel, let's chuck him a keep" Penyulap☏11:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect any answers to questions rather than being ignored as a troll, note that I consider it an act of aggression to use the word "fuck" in the way you are doing in this thread. The use of "Russ" genuinely confused me as to who you were referring to. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there you go again, creating new sections with non-neutral names, are you going to try and blame me for that section as well Fae ? you're making me laugh out loud at this point. Keep it up please, I need the amusement. Is Russ trolling Jimmy ? no, not with you here doing this, you show me how it is done. Penyulap☏11:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the word 'fuck' Fæ, regarding the word 'Fuck', please don't read too much into its meaning or weight—because it varies greatly. For example, in my country and age group, the word "Fuck" is essentially equivalent to "'I'm done (with this)" and the phrase "What the fuck" is used to simply describe anything unusual one hasn't seen before. "LMFAO (Laughed my fucking ass off)" is interchangeable with "LMAO" or "Haha". Assume some good faith. That being said, Penyulap, I would not recommend you use that word again for the same reasons above.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk15:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, it's not a word that I use everywhere. I wouldn't be using it when discussing svg's with you, or Christian wikipe-tan mascots I drew for the Christianity wiki project and so forth. This painting and video of a guy using his arse to paint with is the basis for this entire discussion. Many of the people here have no doubt seen the painting if not the video (I passed on that one), so the idea that they'll be easily offended by the word is a bit far-fetched in the context of this particular discussion. I would rather see that someone who is so easily offended by absolutely anything it seems, where nobody else would be, reign in their own over-sensitivity rather than endlessly attacking everyone else. Commons is not censored, I think it should be, but hey, I have no problem getting along with everyone and living with it. I think everyone should put in more effort to getting along in peace and harmony. This artist who paints with his arse, and puts his pecker to good use painting, well good luck for him. Good on him. Everyone should persue their dreams, whether it's to use their naked arse to push a lawnmower, or clean windows, or bake a cake for the church fair, they should put in the eff.... actually, maybe not that last one, but they should all do thier own thing if that makes them happy. Penyulap☏16:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, "comments" threads are only for commenting on the whole of the request and does not preclude individual responses/questions threaded in the rest of the section. I think Fae's interpretation above does not conform to standard practice and precludes discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why a vote?
Honestly why is this a vote of all things? I find this bizarre. I read about community trust in the comments above which baffles me. Someone who has lost community trust should be indefinite blocked not just demoted. Also has Russavia abused any one of the Bureaucrat tools? Discussion should be revolving around that and I see little evidence of it. I also find it tactless that people are attempting to discuss this on Jimbo's talk page when this discussion is available. Also I have noticed Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship, de-bureaucratship) (again why a vote?) which closed about a month ago. You cannot hold a monthly vote to try to remove someones access. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the process used for De-adminship. I don't think we've had such contention over a Bureaucrat before. As far as I know there is no tool abuse alleged, thus this is not a de-sysop, but the primary concern is over trust in Russavia's responsibilities in "leading and guiding ... major community issues". I don't think there is any suggestion to block Russavia. I agree with you that discussion is best conducted here.--99of9 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we short on real estate here ? the whole sentence says "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."Penyulap☏00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does Penyulap. Do you think my summary missed anything pertinent to this discussion? We are not short of space, but many readers would prefer concise discussions to verbosity. --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking you missed most of the sentence. There is no policy discussion here, and as for the picture, it was up for deletion already, with no shortage of KEEPS, so what is lacking in 'leadership' even if some dickpik was a 'major community issue' ? I tried to get policy made at VPP, and failed so what is Russavia supposed to do ? He can no more create policy than I can. I think the issue is that you're missing an issue. The discussion is an esoteric search for an 'I don't like you, but I just can't put it into words let alone policy' kind of thing. No use of tools, no big issue contrary to the community's expectation, the image IS still here isn't it ? I don't think there is a need to take the policy out of context in the scramble for that special something that is missing from the discussion, it's just not there. With a lot of work and personal introspection eventually we can all move on, or have a de-something or other on a weekly basis, either one is good for me. But hey, if we have space for the policy, then we can use the space. Penyulap☏03:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the previous request, that *was* a de-sysop request, so was definitely supposed to be governed by Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Because there was no prior discussion showing a misuse of tools, I speedy closed it as procedurally invalid. Since then, other discussions have clarified that there is no abuse of tools issue, the concern is over the Bureaucrats' community role. --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't quite answer mu question. How often is demotion a vote? If someone abuses a tool and enough people sees it as an abuse they would be demoted regardless of the vote percentage. When have we decided that Bureaucrat tools are only available to those with 50%+ popularity? Popularity doesn't necessarily demonstrate community trust. I sincerely hope we will not start approval ratings for sysops and bureaucrats. Furthermore, I think no one is suggesting that Russavia abused the Bureaucrat tools so again I am baffled why his tools are in question. As for your point, how is the entry you abbreviated and Penyulap expressed in full is even in question as far as the tools are concerned? I cannot exactly see the relevance of the text you brought up. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have multiple jobs. Some involve tools, some don't. The concerns raised in the AN/U discussion I closed were that Russavia was not fulfilling the (non-tool) responsibilities of good leadership/guidance. There is plenty more discussion in that thread if you are interested. --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the very start of this discussion links to another LENGTHY discussion. It makes no attempt to explain/summarize what prompted this vote. I keep asking the same question and I cannot in good faith see a reason why anyone would start this vote. I am not accusing anybody. It is just that either the reason eludes me or the suggested reason isn't REMOTELY sufficient to start such a vote. Perhaps this vote should be advertised in the site notice as we seem to have a number of voters from other wikis that do not normally contribute to this wiki. We cannot let drive-by voters decide who keeps what flag. This feeling of a drive-by demotion attempt greatly disturbs me.
Which job are we talking about here? The discussion liked at the start of this page revolves around an artist painting a picture of Jimbo Wales which was with the request of russavia. We have many derivatives of Jimbo Wales on commons thanks to free licenses. This is something ANY editor can do and is hardly a Bureaucrat specific job. The beef seems to be about the specific image itself and I cannot see the problem with it. It appears like a faithful re-creation of the subject of the painting. If harassment is the problem (as claimed), an office action would suffice which has been the traditional avenue for this kind of problem. Why has this step being skipped? Would WMF Office decline to act? This seems to me as more of a content dispute which is not a sufficient reason to start votes on removal of access. Given how the file seems to have been nominated, discussed in LENGTH and kept, what exactly is the problem?
This kind of overly-impartial, rational, and reality-centric thinking doesn't cater to the needs of the masses. They have needs you know. Think of the breaking news, and then apply it to the community processes rather than containing it on one's own userpages. We need Moar ! Penyulap☏03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why are you linking to that specific diff from my userpage. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Because of the whimsy, where there is a cute picture of the Penguins, and the caption is 'Breaking News! Penguins!' and that matches the whimsy of this discussion where 99of9 says 'Quick, popularity contest' or some such, however he puts it. Same sort of inventive fun at work, disconnected from reality, or policy as the case may be. Penyulap☏07:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The part you seem to be missing time and time again is that all this drama could have been avoided, and if russavia was being honest with himself he would agree. The fact that the image was kept has more to do with inadequate commons policy that it does with the actions of the person that commissioned it. Commissioning a prick portrait of anyone without their consent is not in keeping with Wikimedia ideals and russavia should have put those ideals ahead of any need or desire to get an image for his article especially when there seems to so many people that would love to have a prick portrait of themselves. Russavia failed as a leader of this project, what he does with either of his tools is not under consideration here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly have people create derivative works of freely licensed content including simple crops to complete recreations. Since Jimbo is the main subject of this discussion File:Jimbo medal.png can be seen as an example of a similar derivative work. Also, I do not know what you mean by "prick portrait". You are seemingly under the false impression that we are supposed to see Bureaucrats as leaders or role models. Bureaucrats are ordinary users just like admins. The only difference is they have a few more tools. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And what's your stance on this issue...Jimmy's English Wikipedia talk page is being used to bring the usual anti-Russavia, anti-sexuality, anti-Commons crew here, and it's plain to see. Given that we have a site notice and a village pump notice advising this community of CU/OS/BC Requests, would it be appropriate to do the same thing for this request? The wider Commons community would likely be unaware of the request. Also, given that this request is being discussed on JW's talk page (and I am sure an external site) would it be appropriate for a notice to be posted on ALL WMF projects' Village Pumps so that they too are able to have their input -- after all, we on this project serve more than English Wikipedia and those with agendas. Thoughts welcome. russavia (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm not suggesting that this be done, just curious as to your thoughts on how we as a project should be dealing with obvious canvassing is obvious cases. russavia (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, considering that this was sparked by the image of Jimbo that you commissioned, I thought it was appropriate to leave a note on his talk page. I'm sure someone else would have done so if I had not. Jimbo's talk page is one of the most widely read pages on WP, so unless you think that most of the English-language WP community is "anti-Russavia", your concerns about canvassing are ill-founded. As for the "anti-sexuality" crew, you and MattBuck keep trying to use that term to attack editors concerned with how Commons deals with issues of consent not of sexuality. Some people are fooled by this, but not many, and it has become as tiresome as your attempts to label your critics as "trolls". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would consent be an issue? We have clear consent of Jimbo for the original image this derivative is based on. That consent of course extends to derivatives. There is a reason why we use CC-by rather than CC-by-ND. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The issue of consent, in this discussion, is generally meant to refer to things like personality rights, which are not covered by any copyright license. There is a legitimate question of whether a public figure who has consented to broad global use of his image has personality rights that need protecting in a case like this; but his use of a free copyright license does not in any way speak to his consent as the subject of the photo (as opposed to photographer or copyright holder). -Pete F (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the work of an Australian artist, produced in Australia from a work produced overseas and licensed under a CC-by unported license could very well be the subject of a moral rights complaint under the Australian copyright act, as a quick/easy link example of moral right case case law([5] though applied to a sound recording), could very well open the issue of a violation moral rights by the performer. It is potentially covered by copyright law in the country in which painting & video were produced and therefore should not be so readily dismissed. I make no claim of being sufficiently knowledgeable in the legal complexities, nor am I(like every other editor) qualified to speak with any athority I can only see that there is some potential It would be remiss of me as a Sysop, who is Australian with sufficient knowledge of the Australian copyright act not to highlight that to utterly dismiss with a statement of ...personality rights, which are not covered by any copyright license... is a poor statement to make. Gnangarra11:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing personality rights with moral rights. Moral rights are not relevant in this instance, because Jimmy is not the author of the photograph that was suggested to be used as a possibility for a painting for the article. Even though the image was a work-for-hire, moral rights can not be transferred. This is stated quite clearly here, in that whilst copyright can be transferred (which has apparently occurred, although there is no OTRS evidence of this), moral rights will stay with the creator of the work. And whilst the image wasn't created, nor has it been used by myself to attack or troll Jimmy, there would be no moral rights claim possible, because it also has not been used to attack or disparage the actual creator of the work. russavia (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, whilst the artist used a supposedly freely-licenced image as a guide, the resultant work is obviously his own work, and is completely different to the photograph. There is no derivative issue in this instance. russavia (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moral rights remains, Its already being said in this thread its a derivative image as means of conferring consent for the painting to be created, so either its a derivative with consent and therefore potentially subject to moral rights or its not a derivative. The licensing of the painting says its a derivative of and includes the photographer name in the author field and links to his corporate page. The image page also says the image is owned by Jimmy who released it under a CC-by licensed, as I said its a complex legal issue that should not be summarily dismissed with such a reference as justification for the image and your actions. Gnangarra13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimmy's English Wikipedia talk page is being used to bring the usual anti-Russavia, anti-sexuality, anti-Commons crew here, and it's plain to see" Did you know that the page has also been vandalized in a way to attack you and several of us took that seriously and took quick action? This is not an attack on you by me. I just don't think you thought the whole thing through all the way, but I think I see what you were doing. As critical commentary, even I have created and uploaded derivative works of a feely licensed image to commons of a public figure. But at least it had some reasoning of encyclopedic value, and only because it was used in a campaign video before I uploaded here. It could be used on Wikipedia in a VERY limited manner but as yet no particular article for it. So in that manner the image itself is harmless. It is just a painting, but then you do have the video of the artist "performing" and that adds another level. I do think that we should be looking out for our Commons member and not creating parodies of them. This is not about a public figure, its about a Commons member and that was indeed where you let the community down. I really don't think you were trying to push the envelope on civility towards another member as an admin/crat but that is the line crossed that let down the community. I could guess that Jimbo Wales has both a sense of humor and some exposure to these types of artistic expressions. I just think that going out of your way to have a controversial artistic performance created that involves another member (and is Jimbo also another Admin/crat?) is reasoning to de-admin, if even just for now. I don't see why you couldn't get it back later if everyone agrees or a consensus of some form is gained. But no, were not out to get you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jimbo Wales is not an admin or bureaucrat on Commons, nor does he seem to be a bureaucrat on enwiki, though I don't know what "founder" does exactly. Also, we are discussing removing russavia's bureaucrat status, not his admin status. BTW, how is that video a parody of anything? It's an illustration of the very particular way of working of a notable artist. No more, no less. darkweasel9410:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It was requested in a manner that could be seen as a parody...some are far more critical and just outright call it trolling and I think the notable artist was used unfairly.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Were you present when russavia asked Pricasso? Or how else do you know in what manner it was requested? And what manner of requesting would make it a parody? darkweasel9411:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we have ever needed witnesses for content creation. We aren't Guinness Book of World Records after all. This isn't the first artist to have an unorthodox gimmick to paint. If the video is the problem it can be nominated for deletion which would again be a content dispute. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this just another invented on the spot policy?
There is no actual page for de-Bureaucratship, so there is the 'idea' that we can just follow a de-adminship process, but that process in itself suggests there must be agreement that there has been misuse of the tools first. I quite prefer a swimsuit competition to this rather more boring 'do we like Russ' popularity vote, but meh, I guess if we are inventing process where none exists may as well make it sexy. But if we ARE going to have a discussion then it should in some meaningful way follow some kind of process, or at least be discussed at the village pump (policy) pages first. I do like the idea of a simple 'popularity contest' and it's application to admins who haven't used/misused the tools. I like the precedent that this discussion intends to set. It's lovely and flexible in the 'applies to anyone, anytime, kind of feel it has'. Not that I want to be a spoilsport, but shouldn't this nonsense be closed until such time as it relates to a similar existing process ? Penyulap☏04:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious reservations with the way this "de-Bureaucrat nomination" is handled, mainly how it is rushed before the process itself is established. The entire premise behind the nomination/vote is a vague interpretation of Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role and Commons:Administrators/De-adminship by a few editors which is not based on consensus. The precedent this would create is outright terrifying. For instance 99of9 decided/interpreted that higher than about 50% was sufficient for this. I feel per COI 99of9 should have avoided making such assertions entirely but that aside who exactly granted such a privilege to 99of9 or any other Bureaucrat? I personally would apply reverse nomination rule for Bureaucrat-ship which I believe has a 70-75% margin. By that I would see 30-25% sufficient for de-Bureaucratship given that trust is a factor. But this is my personal interpretation that should be taken with a grain of salt. This would mean that any Bureaucrat would be demoted if they loose just a tad bit of popularity. This would result in a 30-25% minority deciding who remains a Bureaucrat. Another interesting question is how long should this vote remain open? I'd say 2 weeks for a fairer discussion but again this is merely my opinion. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 05:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please can you clarify what COI you think I have? I did not participate in the AN/U discussion apart from closing it, and creating this page was part of the closure, based on the volume of concerns there. You will also note that I have not even expressed an opinion here either. I'll also note that two other bureaucrats were involved in the AN/U discussion, and thus are safer and wiser not to involve themselves in the closure. --99of9 (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm personally not shaking in morbid fear, as I know policy a good deal better than most, to the horror of a few bad admins. No, I think that if 9of99's limited consensus is good enough to stand, which, laughably I doubt, then it does make it a great deal easier to clean up the misbehaving bureaucrats in future, because even less is required. Also, I figure it goes for admins also, as '99 is actually quoting the de-adminship policy in his opening statement. So by skipping the village pump and inventing a new path to de-adminship or de-bureaucratship, then closing any future discussions while not closing this one would be misbehaviour, or, at the very least it would be seen as no big deal should people enjoy opening de-adminship discussions every other week about the problem admins. I can't see how new discussions which are kicked off on 'community trust'? could be fairly critcised, when the complainants can point at this one.
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 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)
So basically, 'as for de-adminship' we now no longer need to show misuse of tools, people simply need to chat about 'community trust' and that's all there is to it. Fascinating stuff. That's a lot easier than before, where a consensus for misuse of tools was required first. The voting block where every commons admin who voted, voted in support of the blatant misuse of tools by Bidgee, in contrast to the general communities voting is a new obstacle, but on the other hand this new process certianly balances that out. I see clear advantages to this invention, though, it's not in any way legit without a mention at the VPP, but that won't matter if it continues to the end. De-facto is after all De-facto. Penyulap☏07:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since both process followed directly from a COM:AN/U discussions commencing this isnt an inappropriate option. To reconfirm the standing of a bureaucrat is something that has never occurred at Commons before. A proposal to make a clear policy in case of Bureaucrats is necessary but to hold up this over until then would be ignoring the consensus reached at COM:AN/U that the community has potentially lost confidence in Russavia's ability to act according the standards we require of a bureaucrat. To have an unresolved matter awaiting a policy/procedure would poorly reflect on its development, to use a process most similar in nature as guide isnt unreasonable in the circumstances. As Commons has no ARBCOM type processes the only other potential alternatives was for another bureaucrat to take action based on consensus at COM:AN/U, or for the Foundation to step in make an office decision, neither of which I suspect would be acceptable to the community and would almost guarantee the creation more significant digital bloodshed than this process. Irregardless of the outcome of this, the processes involved and the reasonings behind this occurring would be a good starting point for the creation of a formal policy and process including what potential effect this has on the communities standards required for both admins and bureaucrats. I would also expect that Russavia would be afforded a reasonable degree of latitude in the good faith of the community recognising the difficult position we find ourselves in. Gnangarra12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent that would be established here is that anyone can be demoted through public lynching over a single upload. As an end result people will be more than hesitant to upload ANYTHING here. We can't afford to call ourselves the free image repository if we base policy on public lynching. Mind that this vote is heavily canvassed if you look at the activity of some of the participants.
I do not see how community consensus to establish process would undermine the past discussion which wasn't even properly advertised to the rest of the community. Why can't we can hold such a vote after the policy is established? What is the hurry? Going through with this undermines the community consensus that gave Russavia Bureaucrat tools. It is not like Russavia abused his authority and that is not the complaint. On the other hand based on the text expressed by 99of9 above ("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.") we shouldcould hold a similar vote on 99of9 whom is "imposing his/her will". I can just as easily argue that 99of9 has lost community trust and start a similar discussion then poll. I can even argue that it is Jimbo Wales imposing his will since burden of proof (of misconduct) is out of the window. I can possibly come up with a similar rationale to any other Bureaucrat or even Admin. The real question is do we want such a poisonous battle royale mentality?
ToAru, whilst I understand what you are saying just above, you stated "we should hold a similar vote on 99of9 whom is "imposing his/her will". This isn't something that you are actually suggesting, but is rather something which is more rhetorical. Can you please confirm that, because 99of9 has my trust. russavia (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More rhetorical for me but someone else may think differently which is my concern, not my wish. I merely tried to play a similar scenario to discuss possible unintended consequences due to the possible precedent. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OK great. I understand now what you are saying, and now the rest of the community does too. As I say, and reiterate, 99of9 has my trust. russavia (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted my wording to better reflect the sentiment. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please resolve discussion format
It looks to me like Fae was trying to enforce a straightforward distinction (votes versus discussion) that people don't always make - I've seen it both ways on en.wikipedia, but I'm not sure how common this is on Commons. Usually it's not the thing of great drama but obviously tempers are frayed today. In any case can we please make some neutral agreement which way to have it, applied to all discussions above, because right now half of the stuff is up there and half down here under "ANI close"! I'll start things off by voting that we put a top-level header "Discussion" at the bottom (the smaller "Comments" header doesn't seem to be cutting it...), and move anything under any vote to subheaders === discussion of XXXX's vote === beneath this. Thanks. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I clarified above, the number of people participating here and their !votes will be counted (unlike a DR where we would not count and the closing admin only interprets policy using the discussion as a basis to do so). Though the closer may have some discretion to interpret the count of !votes and may chose to, say, close this as no conclusion if the discussion was heated and the count very close, the numbers do matter and should not be buried under long threads with multiple changing opinions that the closer may easily miss or misinterpret. One would hope that if someone changes their view through discussion in the comments section, they would go back and change their one vote in the votes section. I dare say this process could run several ways, but this seems normal practice, and a reasonable one, on Commons. I suggest we should try to keep to a format where the votes section is relatively clean and welcoming/easy to understand for new contributors, with votes and short statements, with clarifications, illustrative examples, questions, and debate in the comments section. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine why this is a vote as I discussed above. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion time period
There is a suggestion above that a two-week period would be better than the one-week period from the default timestamp I left on this. This is probably best resolved earlier than near the end of the week. I don't have a strong opinion, but from the look of things it looks like there is already plenty of "attention" being paid to this page. Other opinions? --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as a week has past, based on the processes we are following. Yet given the undefined process for this if there is continued significant activity a continuation would be reasonable but we should recognise that this is a very stressful situation for Russavia to be in and therefore definitive end point despite continued discussion should be made clear. Gnangarra12:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the attention is from en.wikipedia given how this vote is linked/mentioned on Jimbo's talk page. An extra week with proper advertising would give the local community enough time to react. I do not see how an extra week would harm the discussion. In fact Bureaucrat nominations themselves should also be given 2 weeks probably. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
2 weeks is reasonable in line with the points above. If Russavia finds this stressful, he is grown-up enough to take a wikibreak from watching this page. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noticeboard advertising
There is a query above over whether the community should be notified about this page somewhere such as the Village Pump or in a sitenotice. We usually advertise requests for BC/CU/OS. My preference is not to use so many sitenotices, and save them for things that will likely affect the majority of contributors. But I think a Village Pump notice might be appropriate. Other opinions? --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a danger that the !vote section may be distorted through the active promotion of this discussion on venues that do not routinely represent the majority of the Wikimedia Commons community, nor the more established contributors to this project. Anything which can be seen to balance that actual or perceived bias, such as neutral notifications on the top level Village Pump and Admin Noticeboard would be a sensible precautionary step, and avoid later challenges or a re-run of this same request. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA lot of the attention is from en.wikipedia given how this vote is linked/mentioned on Jimbo's talk page. Proper advertising through noticeboard(s), village pump, mailing list and even site notice would give the local community a chance to react. I would further suggest all future nominations to be advertised on the sitenotice as we don't have that many nominations. After all we have POTY on the site notice along with WMF and steward elections. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Support 99of9, I think the VP option is a good idea. It will alleviate the concern that some obviously have in relation to external canvassing. russavia (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Put it at the tops of the watchlists; I don't usually watch the Village pump cause it blows up my watchlist.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk
Support advertising this in some way to the community. A link to the discussion that led to this request would be required, too, for context. --Conti|✉13:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the votes, I get the feeling that big parts of the "remove" fraction is coming from English WP (probably by canvassing or so), whereas most of those who trust Russavia are active Commons users. Some en-wp accounts are rarely or hardlyactive on Commons, and consequently they cannot identify themselves with the community of Commons, nor are they able to sufficiently understand the processes here and to distinguish them between their homewiki and Commons. I wonder if we the community of Commons really should depend ourselves on the very different community of a very different project and take comments à la "Remove - well-known troll on en-wp" any serious. Otherwise, we probably should consider to give up Commons as a self-standing project and to merge with English WP (I guess, this is what Jimbo & friends wish). --A.Savin12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar concern with the influx of votes from en.wikipedia. I also feel this is the type of decision the local community should decide. I do not think "Jimbo & friends co." is scheming this however. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I made it clear that I came here after seeing the discussion on Jimbo's page. I think it would be proper for everyone who isn't a Commons regular who clicks on the link given on Jimbo's talk page to this page to declare that they have done so. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's primarily Jimbo's Wiki talk page where the overwhelming consensus is for strong action against Russavia with a few dissenters (e.g. Wnt, me and one or two others) based on only that Pricasso incident and the perception that there is too much porn on Commons . The notification there of this discussion has indeed had the effect of skewing this discussion toward "remove". Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was only using you as an example, I wasn't trying to nullify your (or anyone else's) opinion on the matter. It's just obvious that this page attracts multiple people from outside this wiki, both in support and in opposition to Russavia. --Conti|✉14:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove voters seems to mostly be visitors from the English Wikipedia
Regarding that nine-vote block of Remove votes that appeared overnight, I think it should be noted that seven of the voters have near-blank userpages that soft-redirect to their English Wikipedia userpages. Most of them still have the Welcome boxes at the tops of their talk pages. The eighth has a semi-full userpage but has made just five edits in 2013. Of the nine drive-by voters, only User:Graham87 seems to be an established Commons member (albeit a moderately inactive one).—Love, Kelvinsongtalk13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voters from en.wikipedia perhaps should be clustered differently. How do we differentiate locals from other wikis is something I am not sure how we can objectively define. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We could group all the voters who have "→ See my page on the English Wikipedia", though (disclaimer) I have one of those on my userpage too. We could also list the number of contributions in the past month (or year).—Love, Kelvinsongtalk14:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ponder that analysis as I may get Faebot to stick such a report in a sandbox for a bit of fun. I doubt the 'authority' of a vote would ever be tied to number of contributions as in a <!vote>*<#contributions> weighted ranking, I would currently be on top, and there would probably be several people keen to make a scandal out of that. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FPC voting requirement is Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote given this is an unusual case it would be reasonable to highlight !votes from editors who dont meet this requirement the same way as en would highlight new users there and the leave it upto who ever closes this discussion as to how much weight they give to the opinions expressed by these editors. Gnangarra14:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I cannot accept en.wikipedia users whom have no understanding of how commons works, whom avoid being active members of the commons community unless it is part of a moral panic (we have seen plenty of those) decide how we run business here. Frankly I think many commons users would agree that we have had enough of the moral panic drama from en.wikipedia that we frequently see here. Please do not insult my intelligence and pretend this is not a thing. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see an honest rationale to segregate or flag editors merely because they are primarily home-based in other wikis. If they fall below the 10/50 days/edits threshold, sure, any such editor should be tagged. But I'd like to see a policy-based reason to treat en.wiki-primary users who satisfy the 10/50 threshold, if that is rally what is being proposed here. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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
Suspense vote This vote needs time for me to make up my mind. I expect to be able to vote on (probably) 
JKadavoor Jee 11:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w7WBItj9rgA/UCv2vNYVuhI/AAAAAAAAAW0/U1yNrdmndV8/s320/haters_gonna_hate3.jpg){kind=link}
Abstain 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)
Support There is a danger that the !vote section may be distorted through the active promotion of this discussion on venues that do not routinely represent the majority of the Wikimedia Commons community, nor the more established contributors to this project. Anything which can be seen to balance that actual or perceived bias, such as neutral notifications on the top level Village Pump and Admin Noticeboard would be a sensible precautionary step, and avoid later challenges or a re-run of this same request. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)