The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Info - Now that the main page has been closed following Russavia's resignation, this talk page no longer serves any useful purpose and it is now time to close it and move on. The continuing side discussions on issues of consent and so on may continue elsewhere. Should Russavia wish to return as a 'crat in the future he would do so in the normal way via a new RFB application. In the meantime, I would like to thank Russavia for all he has done over the years as a 'crat, and of course as a continuing admin as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, it's been going a week and is the largest discussion out, and there is no talkpage ?
Actually, it's rather interesting to see just how much discussion clouds this discussion, regarding what should be counted, what does and doesn't constitute grounds for removal, thresholds, basically everything which should have been separated and done first, is now lobbed into the discussion itself, making a complete mess. A lot of votes are saying that it should or should not be about trust, or that it should or should not be about tools, and how to count.
I haven't read this far yet. The time at the top said today, so I closed the voting and started analyzing the votes and reading the comments. I will read this part now. -- Cecil (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, open again. I changed the date to reflect the new end next Sunday and hope that by then one side or the other makes it above 60%. I am off now and will look at this page starting next Saturday again. If something occurs that I should be aware of before, then somebody please leave a note on my talk page. -- Cecil (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. In some parts of the US it is probably still Saturday. I didn't change the time, just the day. It is still Sunday 6 o'clock in UTC time. -- Cecil (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to spell this out in the linked discussion, I doubt anyone would object to whatever the hour of the closure would be, so long as it is clear a few days in advance. --Fæ (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fae: The decision to prolong this fight was probably a very easy way out. I am not too sure about it since this will poison the atmosphere for one more week. On the other side not matter how I would have decided now I would have felt as if I let down the other 50% because the result was so close. I would seriously propose to put notices on all village pumps (english, french, german, russian, chinese, ...) to let people know about it. Then afterwards nobody could say that they didn't know and that it is an english vote. -- Cecil (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the benefits of this process is for everyone to have their say with regard to Russavia's actions and be heard/be seen to be heard. In the context of several other inflammatory and probably more toxic discussions preceding this one, a definitive !vote without leaving reasons to have it challenged later, is useful. I would certainly support your idea of putting out more notices on non-English projects and this would be in line with the existing discussion on notices which had overwhelming support. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be that if there are no new !votes being added for 24 hours, then either yourself or another 'crat might want to close earlier than next Sunday? I'm not tied down to next Sunday as the minimum, just raising the prior discussion for your attention. Thanks again for your considered replies here. --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, if we want to have an equivalent to the "notification" on the :en surrogate VP (a.k.a. Jimbos talkpage) we would need to go the :de directly, not just to the de-Forum on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have kept it on Commons village pumps to prevent more visitors but I leave that open to you. I just don't think there is an equivalent of Jimbos talkpage on de Wikipedia. -- Cecil (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Giving up on the languages. I will post it on all village pumps in English. Given that the discussion here is in English, if they don't understand the notice they will also not understand what is going on here. That said I noticed that there is a one week old notice on the English village pump already so I think I leave it at that. If somebody disagrees then post a new one there too. -- Cecil (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused now. It is okay and encouraged now to post this in all the Wikipedias? Discussing this on en.wp is canvassing, but apparently it is not so when we leave a notice on ru.wp or eo.wp? What? --Conti|✉09:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone wanted to stop discussion about this consensus process anywhere, the issue has always been whether there is an appropriate balance of views and whether there was a resulting bias resulting from canvassing. One way of assessing this was to look at the level of experience of contributing to Commons !voters had, hence my setting up of User:Faebot/SandboxX. Note that Commons has no specific policy against Canvassing, though activities which may manipulate the outcome of !vote processes would and should be considered in closing any consensus process (such as attracting a travelling circus to overwhelm certain topics in deletion requests). --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Commons wants to set a cut-off line for votes, then that's perfectly fine. I'm just confused because advertising this on any wiki is quite obviously going to bring in voices from outside of this wiki. Assuming there is a cut-off line, this seems like an entirely pointless thing to do. --Conti|✉10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce drama, I will translate what I wrote on eowiki; I don't think that's canvassing by any standard, given that I have no idea what most people there think (and in fact I have doubts that anybody there cares too much about Commons):
Extended content
De-bureaucrat discussion on Commons
On Commons there is now an ongoing de-bureaucrat discussion concerning the user "russavia". As the discussion to this point has been heavily influenced by voices from the English-language Wikipedia, it was suggested on the talk page to advertise the discussion on other language Wikipedias. The discussion is available at: [link]
It is unfortunately in English, because English is the most widely understood language there, but if you do not feel able to express yourself in English, you can participate in another language and use machine translation to understand the messages of others.
I wasn't criticizing you personally, but given that there was all this talk about canvassing throughout the week, I'm very confused that, apparently, canvassing is encouraged now. In principle, I'm fine with it, but it does seem odd given the circumstances. --Conti|✉10:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the notices being placed at other Wikis contain any verbiage as to how those solicited may not be able to actually have their votes counted? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear: my thought was that the notice will posted here on Commons only on the different language village pumps. And I posted that notice which you can see on all of them. It's really just one short sentence informing that there is discussion and where to find it. Goal was to really just spread the news among the Commons crowd. The text that darkweasel posted is now actually encouraging nonCommons people to come which is the thing that I criticised that the English community has already done more than enough. We really don't need the other communitys do also pick up those bad manners and make the decision even worse at the end of week two. I would like to encourage darkweasel to either remove the whole message or at least all but the first sentence. -- Cecil (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brought the project into disrepute, how and where?
Having read this entire mess, and the AN/U that predates it, the issue appears to me the crux is that some people believe russavia has brought the Commons project into disrepute by his role in the Pricasso pic/vid. One set of arguments especially annoys me: that Jimmy has been sexually harrassed and comparisons to expected behavior between co-workers under U.S. or Australian law. We are not co-workers with Jimbo Wales. When we contribute to Wikimedia content, we do so as volunteers. As a community we define policies and guidelines that determine expected behaviour between volunteers, and of content, and we have admins which try to implement the community expectations, both written and undefined. I can't see any evidence that russavia has harassed the user Jimbo Wales ; they don't appear to have many interactions, but those interactions appear to be well within the normal range of acceptable interactions prior to this event at least. Regarding Jimmy Wales, the public figure and subject of this artwork, we must treat him the same as any other public figure, and this is an area we don't have well developed policies here on Commons. If Ariel Sharon was a contributor, he would no doubt have a very valid complaint about Caricatures of Ariel Sharon by Carlos Latuff harassing him, but those are deemed to be appropriate for Commons as political commentary. russavia suggesting Jimmy Wales to Pricasso as a subject is not surprising, and the Commons community has recently judged it to be acceptable media. Given Jimmy's opposition to sexual material, as reported in his Wikipedia bio on English Wikipedia since 2010, I think the painting and video are valid ideological commentary. And to be fair, it is pretty tasteful criticism/commentary compared to the work of Carlos Latuff. I would be very surprised if Pricasso didn't read Jimmy's Wikipedia bio before undertaking this painting, and I think it is safe to say that Pricasso would have seen the irony. The fact that Jimmy has publicly taken offense is surprising, especially claiming to be sexually harassed, as normally public figures don't draw undue attention to cartoons about them that they find offensive, as that usually adds winds to the sails of the artist.
I don't see how russavia has brought the Commons project into disrepute. There has been no serious coverage in the press about this, despite a decent amount of attention being given to these files by wikipediaocracy, Jimmy's talk page on enwp, and similar places journos look.
Are the writers of w:Criticisms of Wikipedia bringing the project into disrepute? No, of course not. Likewise creating/requesting/commissioning media that is critical of wikimedia projects or wikimedia celebrities is not bringing the project into disrepute (in and of itself). We don't have good policy framework for what is acceptable criticism in media files, but this media seems to not clearly fall within acceptable levels based on current practise. There are many examples of similar parodies and critical media on Commons; the press could use any of them. If we delete only media which can be viewed as criticism of Jimmy, or punish the uploader, but fail to remove similar and more obvious critical files than we are really giving the press reason to write about this. I think there are very real concerns that anyone could upload nasty/joke/harrassing media about any Wikimedia contributor, and it wouldn't be deleted. I also think there are valid concerns that nasty/joke/harrassing media about people of minor notability should also be prevented to protect BLPs.
These missing policies should be the focus of our efforts rather than de-crat-ing russavia, which would certainly make an example of him, but that example would not be instructive to others in how they should avoid a similar outcome, unless "don't disrespect Jimbo" is the lesson to be learnt.
fwiw, so far I havent seen reason why russavia shouldn't have my continued confidence to perform his duties as crat, and I haven't seen any reason to believe he would disregard Commons policy or consensus in pursuit of his own agendas. He is knowledgable and consultative as necessary when performing his duties.
p.s. As user:Anthonyhcole has confirmed that russavia didn't commission this painting, and doesn't own or pay for the painting, it seems that many of the contributors commenting here have been misled, possibly by the Daily Dot article and/or chinese whisphers. I've read a few times of russavia trying to clarify this, but not everyone has either seen or believed him - I hope confirmation from Anthony puts those false allegations to rest, and people strike those allegations - they are also harassment and could bring the project into disrepute :P John Vandenberg(chat)09:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, of course, but for me, the issues you refute are not the issues I have a problem with. The issue is that Russavia did not and does not act like a community elected leader should. He is not open to criticism or questions (he still did not answer most of the questions to him on this page, even after they have been provided to him multiple times), and most of all, he does not seem to care at all about the community's concerns and instead brushes them off dismissively. That is not what I want to see in a bureaucrat. Of course you are free to disagree with all of that, but to me, this is not an issue of bringing the project into disrepute. --Conti|✉10:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell us you looked into his background and found no disqualifying material that would prevent him from being a crat.
Something is either being misunderstood of misrepresented here. Anthonycole said the following; "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". All that confirms is that there was no monetary transaction in this affair. That Russavia commissioned the painting with the intent to use it to insult Jimbo via its inclusion in the en.wiki Pricasso article is not a "false allegation" in the slightest. Who do you think you're trying to kid here, Vandenburg? Tarc (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said before, that intent was already proven by the en.wiki discussion that led to Russavia's indefinite ban from that project. Do you need the links to that discussion again? I did give it in the main page a few days ago. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's bedtime here, and I haven't read John's comment, but Tarc asked for clarification, so I'll post this now and read the discussion tomorrow. I had a face-to-face meeting with Pricasso a couple of days after the painting and video were uploaded, and I gathered from that that someone had told him he was writing a Wikipedia article about Pricasso and had suggested Pricasso might want to do a portrait of Jimmy for the article, pointing out that "Wikipedia is not censored." I asked if he still had the painting and he said he did. I asked if it was for sale and he said it was. I made him an offer and he accepted. I left him my email address, but didn't hear back. That's all I know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but it's in my browser history (en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#I_have_just_blocked_Russavia_indefinitely. It wasn't proven there either however, just repeatedly stated and assumed, and some of the commenters there stated that the Pricasso drama was not the only reason they endorsed the block. Just because many people assume a certain intent, doesn't mean everyone needs to consider it proven. But I guess I should unwatch this drama page, nothing useful for free culture (which is actually why I started contributing to Commons) will result from it anyway. darkweasel9415:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was proven, I'm afraid. Perhaps not to your personal satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of the en.wiki community. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as cool as a cucumber bro, but I do like how at the head of your Commons essays you (unlike en.wiki) state explicitly " editors are not obliged to follow it". So, there you go. :) If TDA ceases these pithy accusations of bad faith, I won't need to defend against them. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDA, you're not acting very mellow. Russavia commissioned the painting, and a jury of his en.wiki peers believed that commissioning to be in bad faith. How much simpler must this be drawn out for you? Tarc (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, you or anyone else are always free to re-open the matter at en.wiki for reconsideration. Until then, however, "the truth" is a settled matter. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A jury of my own peers? What an interesting trial that was then, when the accused was prevented from defending themselves, and when they attempted to, they were basically told "No, you can't do that", and were then duly escorted out of the courtroom, and locked out, whilst the trial continued. Stalin would be proud! en:User:Newyorkbrad is apparently a lawyer, so go ask him if what he participated in was a kangaroo court or not, and whether he thinks I had a fair ability to defend myself, not only accusations made by several people in that community, but also against accusations he himself made. russavia (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't go along with all of russavia's rhetoric here, I'd agree that likening that ANI discussion (or many others) to "a jury of his peers" is a slander on conscientious jurors everywhere. There is a big difference between that sort of hurried pile-on voting and a considered decision by well selected jurors after the presentation of evidence from both sides. --Avenue (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg, I find your entire commentary somewhat surprising, since you are usually much more clueful than this, but your statements about Russavia commissioning this painting are especially odd. I think the confusion may be that Pricasso apparently received no money for this commission, but there can be no doubt that Russavia contacted him and asked him to paint the portrait of Jimbo. This has been confirmed in a press report, by the artist, and by Russavia himself. Why you would cast doubt upon this simple fact is mystifying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's strange about it? John used a specific word, "commission", which implies a contractual obligation. The difference between a commissioned activity and one that you only help funding, or support in some way, or – even less – just happen to propose (as it may be the case here), is that only if you commission something you are directly responsible of how that something looks like, otherwise it's not your deed. I may be missing something but I don't understand how the replies and accusations above relate to John's message.
John, back to your question, I just think we're looking for a scapegoat and we probably found a good one. --Nemo04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
typed into the devtools/firebug console will give you a current approximate (assuming everyone used the voting templates) de-crat percentage. Oh, and to avoid accusations of bias:
will give you the keep percentage. Take with a boulder of salt!! Best used in section preview to avoid miscounts due to spurious voting templates in the discussion. Not to be taken as an official result. Yada yada yada. Terms and restrictions apply. --Dschwen (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might work if all votes were being counted, but there has already been discussion about discounting or discarding a large number of votes based on number of contributions and other more arbitrary factors. Of course, the Bureaucrat who stated that has since voted to remove Russavia's bits, so I guess they won't be closing the vote anymore. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let me quote myself: Not to be taken as an official result. Yada yada yada. Terms and restrictions apply. Was that not clear enough? --Dschwen (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coooome oooon. It even says "Evil vote counting", I mean "Evil vote counting", or should I say "Evil vote counting" in the title :-). --Dschwen (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Looking back and knowing what has happened Russavia would have never ever done it, believe me. He would have asked Jimbo for the permission first. Russavia has invested a lot of his free time, knowledge and effort in Commons, he obviously likes the project and enjoys editing, so he wouldn't like to destroy all of his achievements by a silly misunderstanding (probably it was meant to be a funny joke, but Jimbo didn't laugh at it and felt offended instead, unfortunately it happens more often with jokes) and that's what is happening right now. Everything he said or says is used against him, so at a certain moment enough is enough. One quits answering. Who can stand personal judgements going on and on continuously? He wanted to explain he whole situation to Jimbo, apologise, but unfortunately he didn't get the chance. --Seleucidis (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope he can and I hope he will do it. It's for his own good. He is not as bad as you think about him. Maybe sometimes he is too spontaneous in his actions, but he does a lot of good work at Commons. Removing his crat-tools is in my eyes an exaggerated punishment, in no proportion to uploading of a picture and video illustrating penile art technique . We will also miss him, yes, yes, mark my words. Who is going to do all the bureaucrat stuff? One could always count on him, his presence and helping hand. We should not drive Russavia and Jimbo apart from each other, but try to convince them and help them to be friends again and work together for the benefit of Wikipedia and Commons – projects we all love. It will be stupid to lose such an experienced and devoted crat like Russavia just because of one or two mistakes. Seleucidis (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the outcome of this vote, are there any 'lessons learned' on your side?
The lesson for Russavia: don't make jokes concerning people, personal jokes; apologise to Jimbo. The lesson for Jimbo: don't make drama out of a silly joke. --Seleucidis (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Seleucidis, I really appreciate your help trying to guess what Russavia could reply and that you are trying to encourage a friendly solution to this mess. I would have hoped for such a kind of reply as well. Preferably end June, when I tried to understand our gap of understanding of his community role on his talk page. Regrettably, he has chosen to ignore the questions (again), depsite the fact that another editor below specifically point them out (twice) in response to Russavia not being able to find the questions on this long page. --Slaunger (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"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." (emphasis mine). I do think at least a few editors have made sure to put themselves as individuals with opinions forth.Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it appears that de-crating Russavia will never pass, albeit there is great discussion. Should this remain open or should a bureaucrat or another experienced, trusted user close this? There is much discussion here, albeit like I said, this will never pass. Russavia's conduct has been below subpar in cases and the mess on English Wikipedia does not help, but I feel like some !votes are just kicking him for the painting, which is within project scope, but the nature of the painting is fairly deleterious. Something for everyone to think about here is net negative or net positive on Commons. He is currently a clear net positive on Commons IMO, albeit he really lacks my trust on English Wikipedia IMHO. He's racked up several blocks for drama and disruption there. However, I once again feel like desysopping and/or decrating accomplishes nothing, if not is a deleterious decision for Commons. I cannot evince enough the need to concur with me and figure it out: Is Russavia a net positive or net negative on Commons. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 ? 21:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you come to this conclusion at all. Currently a supermajority of contributors expressed distrust. Were this a crat election it would have no chance in hell to pass. This request will stay open until the 25th. Before that date there is no point to such speculation. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that this is not a discussion of whether "Russavia is a net positive". This is only about his Bureaucrat flag. --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both may have misread or missed my point. My point was to let people decide, not necessarily telling anyone to close it. And 99of9 it is a matter of net positive VS net negative: is the community better off with Russavia or is it better off without Russavia as a crat. WorldTraveller101 ? 02:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a loaded binary opposition. That's like "we can't have Russavia unless we have him as a crat". Really now? Is that the Commons policy, ban someone after they lose crat status. The choice is out of four, basically: Russavia with a crat flag, Russavia with an admin flag, Russavia with no flag, and no Russavia. I could accept the last two.Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You all are missing my point: it's about whether it's a net positive or net negative to lose Russavia as a crat. Quite frankly, I could imagine any of the four things you listed Crisco 1492, albeit it is fairly divided and most WMF sites are voting for "No Russavia". The question now is what the vote is on Commons. WorldTraveller101 ? 13:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has listed anything positive he has done in any capacity - all of his edits could be done by a bot. So yeah, he is an obvious net negative. If this was a ban proposal it would probably get even more support. Commons is done with those who hijacked the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment by Ottava Rima appears to be a new low as the nastiest false allegation in this entire mud raking discussion. I am sad to see that that comments like this are not promptly removed as blatant ad-hominem attacks by one of the many administrators or bureaucrats watching this !vote. Could an admin please show some basic human respect for Russavia as a person, and a highly productive volunteer on this project, and collapse this stuff from public view so it can be ignored more easily? I would do it myself, but I don't fancy being subject to more off-wiki attacks and threats than I am already. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on actions is, by definition, not an ad-hominem. Please stop misusing words and making nasty personal attacks like you do. You have failed to show basic human respect to anyone in your attacks on Commons. You have been told by a lot of people to stop and yet you persist. The faster you are shipped off this project the fast Commons is able to repair all of your damage. I have never once made an off wiki attack on you, yet you lie about it anyway. All you ever do is lie about the actions of other people and that is unacceptable behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote here because my vote is probably going to be discounted anyway, but after looking into the background on this it appears that Jimbo and Russavia had some personal animosity going on between them, and Russavia chose to troll Jimbo by commissioning this work. If Russavia were simply interested in documenting (on Commons) the work/technique of Pricasso he could have chosen himself (i.e. Russavia) as the subject of the painting, not someone else, and particularly not someone with whom he had disputes. After reading Jimbo's opinion on this, I think the image of the painting and the 'making of' film are eminently in violation of Jimbo's personality rights and should be deleted if the spirit of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people were applied properly (even though this is a paining and not a photo). Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:14, 20 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]
"Simple and literal majority" is out of question. Even Commons:Administrators/De-adminship doesn't say "majority" but "majority consensus", so the number provided is meant as a rough indication of how strong the consensus has to be, not as a mere vote headcounting threshold. (All this is also not set in stone, as the definition is... a link to a discussion. It's just a summary of the best approximation to a possible proper consensus policy.)
It also has to be remembered that the header of this discussion (i.e. Commons:Administrators) says: «Any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.» Surely a lot of work will be needed to assess the "eligibility" of the participants. --Nemo17:12, 14 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]
Take this with as big a grain of salt as you wish, as I've voted to de-crat Russavia, but: I think that retaining the position of bureaucrat should mandate demonstrating that you maintain an overwhelming degree of support within the community. If the community shows a non-trivial amount of distrust, that should be the end of the matter. I make it currently 35 votes keep to 50 votes de-crat; that's 41% who think he should retain the position, and 59% who think he shouldn't. I would not allocate a position of the level of bureaucrat to anyone with so little of the community's trust. — Scott•talk19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, even though I voted to keep, that the current status of the vote would mean that a closure that reflects community consensus would be to de-bureaucrat him. However, people still have some time to vote, and consensus may well shift toward keeping his bureaucrat status, so not even those who voted to de-crat should yet open a bottle of champagne. darkweasel9419:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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([4] 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]
When I used the word "consent" it was not in reference to the portrait of Jimbo, but instead a reply Russavia's oft-repeated but false claim that there is a "crew" of "anti-porn" or "anti-sexuality" editors. I am not "anti-porn" or "anti-sexuality" but I have nominated many images containing nudity and explicit sexuality for deletion. Many of those were simple (and easy to detect) cases of copyright violation. Some of those were cases were we lacked the necessary consent and had reason to suspect that the subject of the images would not consent to their images being uploaded here. Just to give a single example, there were images of a couple engaged in outdoor sexual activity that were taken surreptitiously through a window. There are more than enough people willing to deliberately and voluntarily share their images of nudity and sexuality here. There is no porn shortage (and if there was, more could easily be generated). There is no reason that Commons should host such images without positive confirmation that the subject consents. Rhetoric like "anti-porn" is simply divisive and makes it difficult to have a serious discussion about this issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 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]
If I may answer that, the COI here is that you, 99of9, both started this de-Bureaucratship discussion AND invented rules for it in your opening statement. (and I must say the opening was also rather poor as it lacked any outline of wrongdoing, but it's the making up the rules AND making the complaint at the same time thing that stinks) Penyulap☏17:57, 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)
@Penyulap: There is a very clear procedure for de-admin. I have not changed that, this is not a de-admin. If you want to change it based on this, go there and discuss. There was no procedure for de-Bureaucrat, so I co-opted key elements from that most similar process. However, there is also a crucial difference, Bureaucrats have the "community role" responsibility, thus it's not only abuse of tools that could lose community trust. --99of9 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what you have done is hand-pick what suited you, without discussing the process you cooked up with anyone else first. You've not even bothered to get any community input whatsoever because it simply didn't suit you. Obviously, there will be no need to discuss misuse of tools in future if a de-Bureaucratship vote pops up for either you of Michaelmaggs who I also see going along with all this, because clearly that's not something that concerns either of you. In fact, it can be reasonably be said that anyone at all can interpret the Bureaucrat page in any fashion they want and start a de-Bureaucratship process against either of you two, as that is what you support. So no pre-discussion first, they can do as you have done and invent the process to suit the candidate.
What you SHOULD be doing if you had the "leadership"/balls/whatever, is to close the discussion, or pause it or whatever, discuss the idea at VPP, which isn't going to take more than half a dozen editors to comment, (as it's about process rather than numbers), and THEN re-open/re-start an APPROVED process. Makes no damn difference to me or anyone else what that process actually is, just so long as there is community input. As it is, anyone can do exaclty the same to any of you, invent any process they like, when they like, and there isn't sh** you can do about it. Because they would be acting fair. Heck, I can see the irony in both someone else opening a discussion about you with a novel process AND quoting this discussion you've opened as a reason for you to be removed from the position. I can see two extra people here in this discussion that would no doubt agree that it is misbehaviour. Nobody likes a dictator, of course, you won't know that until they stop pretending. Shrug. Penyulap☏10:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case law
Since we don't have a true process then we may need to follow existing democratic ones. I found w:Article Five of the United States Constitution which requires a 3/4 vote to pass after a 2/3 vote for proposal. I also found w:Constitutional debate in Canada which is one of the newer cases and is still being debated. Other countries probably have similar that can be cited. A 'crat role is one of our highest and we may not wish to count canvassed votes from en:wp where the issue seems to have the most contention. This is commons and shouldn't be swayed by stacked en:wp votes. 'Crat positions will cause friction between other users and the 'crats. A straight vote may not be the correct procedure as users will probably vote negatively from past path crossings with a 'crat and not how the tools are being used. We should seek consensus on a policy formulae before we decide on our first case. If this case is decided ad hoc then it may be over-turned or set a precedent policy formulae that will prevent consensus on a better policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep pointing out the votes coming from en.wp, but conveniently ignore the votes coming from other wikis? --Conti|✉16:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the issues we need to discuss in a policy for removal. We may need to count each project as one vote each. Majority vote of that project would count as one vote here. We also may decide on commons only votes. 1,000+ edits and/or 100+ uploads. The projects themselves can decide which images to use so their input on how we host may be discounted altogether.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read Commons:Administrators/De-adminship differently than you it seems. I read it as "acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status". If that is the case then a 50%+ consensus is needed. Any de-'crat policy that we ad hoc here should at least follow the standards for de-admin and not lower them to the level of en:wp attack !votes, canvassing, and vote stacking.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that you are being honest int he above. The language was really, really clear, and the basis for this was really clear. The process has been around for a long time and used across Wiki for a long time. It seems that personal bias is the only thing at issue here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you bothered to read this page or even policy? It is obvious that the vast majority of people see clear abuse by Russavia, and the majority of his supports come from friends who are ignoring our policies. The community is speaking, and the people who are acting like yourself are showing a clear disregard for the community. There should be some kind of penalty for such actions because it is willful abuse and not acceptable conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems rather harsh but don't worry I have thick skin. I did read the policy as most on this page probably have. The ones that are following it are voting to keep because there was no 'action against policy' nor 'routine abuse'. The delete votes seem to be friends siding with Jimbo in this tiff between them. Depending on the outcome we may lose some members. Some will leave because en:wp has taken over commons and others will leave because they can't take over commons from en:wp.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that the oppose are friends of Jimbo is utterly laughable. It is obvious that most of the people here in support are also members of Commons IRC channel and have spent a long time in a friendship with Russavia, have voted with him the same way on lots of pages, and can be seen as a close group here. It is also obvious that the opposes come from a very varied background with people who cannot in any way be claimed to be friends of Jimbo. A tiny group of people who are opposed to our policies and standards vs the vast majority of the community who have stated that enough is enough.
And for your information, I was once Russavia's friend and he knew that I had serious problems for a long time with his behavior and abuses here that started after his ban on en.wikipedia. I was never Jimbo's friend. A lot of people seeking his removal of Crat were former friends of his that tried to get him to stop abusing Commons and was in turn attacked by him and others who have gone out of their way to use Commons in a destructive manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just some examples of how this method is flawed. En:wp was canvassed to far more people than the other projects by its sheer size alone. Thus we get more negative votes from a project that doesn't like commons. The votes by friends and 'crats may be just a way of trying to improve the reputation of commons which I don't think will help. We are working toward adjustments in scope and ethical deletions. If these succeed then the project will have more respect even with Russ as a 'crat. If they don't succeed then our rep will still be in the toilet but Russ will be gone.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassed? En.wiki? Many of the people who are "from en.wiki" are users who are banned there or not in power in any kind of way. Those like Delicious Carbuncle are far from friends of Jimbo. When you make such claims, please remember to think that such absurdities do your arguments no favor. Everyone who opposed is doing so because they know that Russavia really screwed up. So far, the only proof of canvassing can be seen on the other side. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't call that long winded thread on Jimbo's talk page canvassing? That is probably the most watched page of all the projects and probably contains all of his friends as watchers. Highly unbalanced for input over here. Canvassing all of the law and ethics projects probably wouldn't even come close to balancing it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Delicious carbuncle did not vote here, they only left some comments here. How many people, btw, who voted here are banned on enwiki? I only know of you and Michaeldsuarez, both of whom are indeed not people that get into my mind when I think "people from enwiki". And where is your proof of canvassing on "the other side"? darkweasel9405:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
No opinion, apart from the urgency to confirm the closing date right now (14 August) when the result is not so clear, rather than the 18 August when the result will be known. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close date The !vote should close on Sunday 25 August 2013 (midnight UTC). August (in many countries) is when most Wikimedians are likely to be taking a holiday break, and the discussion on this page has been highly active. An extra week will give those on vacation more of a chance to contribute and the various issues raised on this page to reach a more stable state, if not a consensus. No objections have been raised here with regard to this damaging the process for consensus and no objection, such as the potential for this being more stressful, has been raised by Russavia. In terms of the page becoming unreadable or unusable due to excessive length, any blatantly off-topic discussion could be either collapsed or moved to a sub-page, or village pump thread, and linked to, for anyone following the conversation. --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to propose a discussion to establish the criteria for de-Bureaucrat requests prior to this. There are profound questions that needs to be addressed before we start/resume this vote. I feel it is being rushed. We haven't even decided on how long this request supposed to be let alone the criteria that this discussion should be based on. Any notion of a consensus is out of the window if we do not even agree on which conduct should lead to de-Bureaucrat action. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
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]
Support A 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]
Support given the amount of concern being raised, the unusual nature of this occurrence, its implications to Commons policy direction and development irregardless of the outcome a neutral watchlist notice would more appropriate than a VP notice where its unlike to been seen anymore than the current listing via COM:ADMIN page. either or both I support Gnangarra16:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be best to let 99of9 do it, given that he's the bureaucrat who is taking care of this de-bureaucrat request? --Conti|✉16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it matters. darkweasel posted the link in a neutral and fair manner. I would like to propose though a link to the discussion on Russavias talk page June 26 - July 21 is added at the top of this rfdb for reference and to get a better understanding for the sequence of events for users jumping in in the middle of the RfDB. --Slaunger (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of balance I would certainly object to singling out advertising on EN:WP, I see no special reason for further attention from EN.WP besides those watching Jimbos talk page there. --Slaunger (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think using numbers of voters to ignore the valid concerns about malformation of this discussion is inappropriate. Opening the discussion where there was only concerns about 'community trust' rather than 'misuse of tools' is outside of existing policy. Opening the discussion and at the same time, and by the same person, setting the 'goalposts' re 'same as for de-adminship' is not appropriate. Hand-picking one part of the de-adminship process that you like, re, vote numbers, and disregarding another, the 'misuse of tools' is not appropriate. Using advertising and numbers rather than addressing these concerns that a number of editors have raised is simply 'working up the crowds into a frenzy' and not appropriate. I've voted remove, and it's well known that I start de-adminship discussions, so when I see similar starts there will be a solid precedent which is impossible to argue with. Crying about it later in a hypocritical way won't help if you do not follow proper procedure at all this time around. Just saying. Penyulap☏18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a lot of comments in a lot of places and none of them ask for community input on the process you invented all by yourself to suit the candidate and your desire to remove him. I haven't seen any explanation about that as yet. Not holding my breath. Penyulap☏20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support measures to get more eyes on this. There is clearly canvassing going on elsewhere; get in some people from Commons. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First you guys try to cook the vote by exclusion; now you're trying to cook it by selective inclusion. The suggestion that there is distortion "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" suggests a sick community, not to mention governance, on a site that is central to all WMF sites. You do not own it. Tony(talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you ? Advertising this page on another project is fine, but not for the community most impacted by this !vote ? The commons community do not own Commons, but it makes it live, despite the constant interference (I may even say ingérence) of en.wp. The members of this community are entitled to be advertised of this decision, and to take part in it. Why should only en.wp community (or worse, only the UT:Jimbo followers) be informed of this page ? Pleclown (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons = English WP?
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]
Count Iblis, here is the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Unsurprisingly, I can find no one there arguing that Russavia's bureaucrat rights should be removed because Commons contains too much porn. Please stop scaremongering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove voters seem 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]
People will make scandal even if you don't. It is not like people need a good reason to create a scandal out of thin air these days. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've set up a report, I'll probably have it refresh on an ad-hoc basis as new !voters turn up and depending on my availability. This analysis is for interest, not promoting any particular action:
Sortable table of !voters with edit count and upload count (open as new page)
Me too. I am going by the Uploadcounter tool, along with a few hand-fixes where this gives odd results such as a registration year of 1970. See your example report. This seems a fair compromise as there are several ways of counting these numbers and it is debatable as to whether to count associated bot accounts, F2C uploads etc. The main reason for analysing was to give a rough guide to any odd pattern of new or very low contribution users giving some sort of bias to this vote. In those terms, this analysis is probably sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 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)
Every one is welcome to participate in discussions, I linked to two current Commons standards which address the issue of "new user" participation in discussions irregardless of what their primary language is both are consistant with established practices on many other projects as well where concern over advertising of discussions can cause imbalances, the accepted practice is to trust the judgement of the person closing to ensure community policies are the ultimate consideration for any outcome. Gnangarra16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly my point. You are deciding where my place suppose to be. Why even have a local community if all our decisions are going to be decided by members of some other wiki. Commons community should be able to decide who gets the Admin, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, Oversight flag based on our day-to-day operation with each other. Users from other wikis should just comment rather than vote respecting the local community's consensus just as how commons respects the consensus of local wikis. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you are deciding that your voice should qualify as being worth more than those with whom you disagree. That itself is troubling. And sorry, but while my home wiki is EN, I've been a long-time member here too, with a few hundred uploads to my name. You don't get to tell me that I may or may not vote, or that I should only comment, or that I should stay away. Resolute (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words with about 40 edits to commons namespace (mostly for deletion discussions) and never participating in a prior nomination (admin, bureaucrat or anything else) you see yourself as to be fully qualified as to dictate which individual qualifies as a bureaucrat on commons? If so, I rest my case. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do. You may or may not be aware, but I routinely defend Commons and its admins on EN against people like Delicious Carbuncle - people who engage in campaigns of harassment. This situation is no different, and I am not willing to give Russavia a free pass on his own harassment. I do find that Commons is unjustly targeted at times, but you do yourselves no favours by circling your wagons to support someone who behaves exactly like the people attacking you. Resolute (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolute, here at Commons we like to keep everything "mellow". Perhaps you could confine yourself to slandering me on WP rather than bringing your tired act here as well? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that I am in support of Russavia. I am neither supporting nor opposing his Bureaucrat-ship. I do not make such decisions lightly. Comments (including those from en.wikipedia users) may persuade me either way. At the moment the rationale for the complaint escapes me. I am more concerned about how this voting is conducted at this point than its outcome. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I was simply pointing out that there are people from non-en.wp wikis coming here, too, something which you did not mention. --15:49, 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]
This vote started out of a non-policy related reason (vague claims of lack of trust doesn't count). I cannot imagine why you would want policy based rationale. You can't have it both ways. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
How the vote started is rather irrelevant; Commons is here right now having a vote on whether to remove rights from this editor, that's the reality. Your words above were, quote, "I am sorry but I cannot accept en.wikipedia users whom have no understanding of how commons works", commenting on their "moral panic". You're calling for editor's opinions to be either removed, sectioned-off, or diluted because of what the opinion is, and to me, that just doesn't seem right. At en.wiki there is a threshold of a certain number of edits one must have before they can vote in an Arbcom election. If you have something like that in place here, great, enforce that. What I object to is a subjective and vague notion of who is considered "a Commons local" and who is considered to be "from another wiki". That can be gamed. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How the vote started is very relevant. We would not have this vote if it wasn't for the high and all mighty attitude of some en.wikipedia users whom arrogantly see themselves as the moral compass of this and all projects. There is a difference between votes and comments from en.wikipedia users. If ONLY en.wikipedia users chose to comment rather than vote (respecting the local community)... Unlike en.wikipedia commons is primarily run by common sense which I know is an alien concept to the policy heavy en.wikipedia. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, no, it isn't relevant. The vote is taking place RIGHT NOW, you aren't going to be able to short-circuit it on some sort of technicality; Russavia's bureaucrat bits will stand or fall by this discussion. You don't get to limit discussions like this to "the local community" is my point; you can't just make up rules on the spot to address things that you do not like. Wikimedia projects are all joined at the hip, even moreso now with the ever-tightening unified login. As I alluded to above, the 10/50 thing is fine to keep out the literal new editors form such discussions, but beyond that it does not appear that the Commons has any rules in place to support what you want to happen here. But the point is that you can't just make up exclusionary rules on the spot to get rid of editors who may primarily be en.wiki-based. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how the voting started IS relevant, and this discussion can and most likely SHOULD be shut down, though, it's doubtful if there is another Bureaucrat with the balls to do so. There won't be any need for new policy if it doesn't get shut down, because regardless of what limited consensus or rubber-stamping people come up with after the fact, it sets a precedent. Picking and choosing which discussions you have, some according to policy and some throwing policy out the window is a simple measure of what you can 'get away with' in future. Wont' make a lick of difference in future when there is any kind of event that causes enough ruckus about any Bureaucrat if there is no abuse of tools. Anyone can pick the moment, open the discussion, and viola! It's done with this de-Bureaucratship as the precedent. With enough excitement it won't be closed down, and it won't take as many people to keep it open in future when each and every one of them can point to this discussion as hypocricy :D Penyulap☏18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, grounds for a vote, but not grounds for starting a de-anything discussion. If it were, then we could have perpetual de-adminship discussions all day every day. Penyulap☏20:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status" That is in the policy. It is a grounds for a de-admining. I feel as if people against the process have failed to ever actually read that page. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: while en:wikipedia focused users are being attacked here it should be noted that the image, the video and the source photograph are hosted here the paintings creation has an apparent cross-wiki implication in an ongoing dispute on that project from which Russavia has been community banned, an assumption of bad faith in the opinion of those users is not helpful to resolution of this discussion its also further reinforcement of the concerns about commons inability to serve/respect the needs of any project when cross-wiki issue arise. Gnangarra16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion of weight of individual votes is being blown completely out of proportions. Of course weigths of arguments and the community standing should be taken into account when closing the discussion, that is what he have 'crat discretion for. I am perfectly confident that if a capable 'crat like 99of9, whom I (and Russavia, I see elsewhere) trust completely does the closure, this will of course be taken into account. Since we (Rusavia and I) sort of represent both sides in this dispute could we not leave it at that? We should not invent some rule on the spot for how active you should have been, or where you come from. Outside views also have some relevance as projects outside Commons are affected. --Slaunger (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am more worried of a senseless vote count to be honest. En.wikipedia users loosing trust on a commons bureaucrat blocked on en.wikipedia is kind of a given. We have a long history of being open minded about people coming from other wikis - even if they are indefinitely blocked there. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it odd how people challenge the users who are for the de-cratting but don't mention Tokvo's support as being the most suspect of anyone. Hypocrisy isn't civil nor proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table is silly, it puts Zhuyifei1999 as having the second youngest account here, yet he's to be pushed through the RfA process by the 'voting block' of admins here rather soon. Ha! Penyulap☏18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would revert if someone remove my vote. It's ridiculous if you think I'm not part of this community. I'm the second editer of this page after 99of9. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud that is not what I'm talking about people. click the table twice in the 'registered' coloumn. It says AKAF 2013-05-03, Zhuyifei1999 2013-03-09. Hello ? Penyulap☏18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The top five editors in terms of edit count are Fae, Russavia, Mattbuck, Savin, and Cirt, all of whom voted to keep. All the other editors in the table, yes or no, combined, have fewer edits than Russavia. The same is true of overall uploads, except that User:Pleclown is in the fifth position (and supporting) rather than Cirt. So I mean yeah, sure, we can replace Russavia with ten offsite stooges who think it's evil to contribute content here, but it won't make for a better run site. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's evil to contribute to Commons, although I only have a few hundred edits here. However, I do see significant systemic problems with Commons' leadership that make me uncomfortable contributing here. I'd certainly contribute more heavily here if I had more faith in the leadership of the project. Decratting Russavia is a step towards improving the environment of commons, and if it's followed up with a few other things, the net result will be more uploads and edits, not fewer. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I agree there are problems, see the top of my talkpage. Though, I think inventing new processes that are tailored to the particular editor, rather than agreeing on actual policy first, is adding to the mess. Penyulap☏20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this commons leadership you talk about? It is not bureaucrats, that I know for sure. Sure, commons has problems but the constant moral panic from en.wikipedia prevents us from addressing them. People tend to be either too fatigued by the moral panic waves of these or by the existing workload. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Automated edits shouldn't count as real edits. Pushing a button on a bot and having it operate on your account is rather poor form. Even script assisted edits like that is poor form. We use to have bot accounts for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly unreasonable that English Wikipedia people are objecting, given that what I'm guessing is the precipitating incident was visited on them in particular. Commons users need to get over this strange delusion of theirs that they are a totally independent project, when things they do affect every Wikipedia project. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how Commons seems to switch back and forth between being a totally independent island of necrobeastiality and a wholly owned subsidiary of en.wp inc. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it were amazing how the defenders of the "independent island of necrobeastiality" squawk when they are reminded of the original purpose of commons before it apparently declared independence. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you all creating drama just for drama's sake? I expect and trust the closing bureaucrat to, at their discretion, possibly discount or give lesser weight to votes that are likely the result of canvassing, that likely come from sockpuppets, or that come from users whose only or almost only contribution in a relatively long time has been participation on this page. No drama of the form "omg enwiki is evil" is necessary or useful for the closing bureaucrat to handle that well - that's why bureaucrats are among our most trusted users, after all; it's exactly their job to judge consensus. Let's not make it more dramatic than it already is. darkweasel9423:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of en.Wikipedia editors coming over to Commons, my view is that we are all part of the same large family, and that we are all in our own ways attempting to support the WMF's mission "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". Commons acts as a repository for all the the WMF's projects, including the English Wikipedia, and it is absolutely right that English Wikipedia editors who have opinions on the way Commons operates should feel free to come here and express those opinions. Both Mattbuck and I have strongly argued for that in respective Wikipedia Signpost Op-ed articles. As Mattbuck rightly says,
"Wikimedia projects are based around collaboration and discussion within the community. I would urge those of you who feel that Commons is "broken" to come to Commons and offer constructive advice. Attacking long-term Commons users will get you nowhere, nor will pasting links on other projects, or on Jimbo's talk page. If you truly want to make Commons a better place, and are not in fact just looking for any reason to tear it down, then come to Commons. Come to the village pump - tell us what is wrong, and how you feel we could do better. Use the systems we have in place for project discussions to discuss the project. Sitting back and sniping from afar does nothing for your cause, and it only embitters the Commons community."
What is most intriguing is the line that experienced editors from the sister projects in which Commons is embedded should button up and keep out, and that our movement as a whole has no vested interest in improving the governance of Commons. A lot of people in the movement desperately want Commons to wake up and reform both its governance and processes (let's not even mention the interwiki/interlinguistic challenges it faces, ahem ...). Trying to cook a vote by shutting people out of a forum like this is not a good sign. Tony(talk) 12:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed to see the attempt to discriminate people based on their home wikis. See, we have only one community under WMF projects; well monitored by Meta. All others including Commoners are sub-communities. Our projects will be successful only if we are working in a harmony with mutual respects in heart. JKadavoorJee06:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On why the en-Wikipedia "witchhunt" is entirely proper
I only got involved in commons in the first place because (a) the upload process keeps badgering me to upload to commons instead of locally, and (b) in the end it didn't matter because anything I uploaded which wasn't fair-use got hauled off to commons anyway. Commons is not an independent project, regardless of whether anyone wishes to say otherwise. The fallout of commons actions gets visited upon en-wikipedia (and presumably the other languages as well): commons deletes an image in an article I read, and the image is just as missing. The notion that commons can have its own little subculture, with no responsibility to the various wikipedia projects, is incorrect. Perhaps the various wikipedia languages are not responsible to one another, but commons must answer to them all. Besides, the presenting issue was deliberately visited on the English Wikipedia from here. It's right and proper that people call commons and its people on the carpet, even if they aren't active here. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons intersects every language Wikipedia and the subject's bad behavior on one is perfectly good reason for participants on that language encyclopedia to seek a reduction in authority here. As for myself, having as I do maximalist aspirations for the future of Commons — no opinion, with a smirk. 24.20.128.148 (Carrite on en-WP) 18:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Commons is responsible to all the other WMF projects. The flip side of that is that Commons has rules that differ from the other projects (because it is responsible to multiple projects, their rules are not consistent, and because Commons needs to be multilingual while most projects don't). And yes, Commons does have a distinct culture, which is relevant when issues of leadership arise. None of that precludes people from other projects from weighing in here, although (like anyone) their views may be discounted if they don't address all the relevant issues. --Avenue (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a COM:DEL thread
This isn't a COM:DEL thread. People seems to be confused as to why this discussion exists. Comments should be aimed at the conduct of Russavia. Content discussion only serves as a distraction. Personal taste towards a video/painting is irrelevant. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
users are using {{Vk}} to express a keep !vote other are using its opposite {{Vd}} most have piped this to say remove but the intention is clear where they havent. those havent have clarified their intention and reason, but nobody has mistaken this a deletion discussion over the works which are central to issue being discussed Gnangarra16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought the main issue was that one painting and that one video. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It is rather clear that most of the removal votes are based on conduct when most of the supports are about strange notions of "freedom" and "art" that do not apply. White Cat, at least try to represent the situation fairly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale of the nomination
Frankly I still am unsure what the complaint is. I'll try to summarize the claims. Based on reading the comments of various people the complaint is...
...over claims that Russavia paid for the painting - something Russavia denies though he admits requesting it. Him paying for the artwork would not have made a difference as far as I care.
...over alleged personal rights violation/trolling by Russavia for uploading/requesting the above two files.
...over sexual harassment as alleged by Jimbo Wales as implied here. No formal complaint was filed by Jimbo Wales to WMF or even to Commons as far as I know.
...over the artists preference of brush (or a lack of it) as the artist has an unorthodox method to create paintings using his penis, scrotum and buttocks which gave him his fame.
So... people would not have had an issue if...
...the art was created by using traditional brushes
...if the art was uploaded to flickr and a bot picked it up
...the subject of the painting was anything but Jimbo Wales himself.
Is this an accurate summary of some of the sentiments behind the nomination? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
maybe, but I'm sure they're all the reasons why we are KEEPING the image. Commons is the place where we shall keep sexually harassing images that attack editors here until pretty much the end of the project itself. That's what commons does. It's our job apparently. Penyulap☏22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people have pointed out that Russavia's behavior during all the drama is the issue, not the drama itself. --Conti|✉22:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am equally appalled russavia says he didn't foresee the drama. That in and of itself is a clear demonstration of a colossal lack of judgement. Frankly I believe he knew it would cause a drama and he thought he would get away with it. That's even worse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, some people have been flattered by the attention of this artist. Publicity is publicity, and outrageous stunts designed to attract publicity are welcomed by many if not most public figures. Jimbo has had his face on flags down the sides of some street somewhere, he uses himself as a brand, so what we are looking at is not that there wouldn't be a reaction, but saying that Russavia should have used ESP to know that Jimbo has no sense of humor whatsoever, which is somewhat harder to do. You have to push your fingertips into your temples real hard, rub them about a bit with your eyes closed, and then you can know in advance which people are happy, flattered, and laugh at the funny side of it, and which have no sense of humor at all. We have crystal balls on commons, he should have used one. Penyulap☏01:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people believe russavia's intent was to be funny. Even if it was, being funny with your mates is one thing being funny at the expense of a "co-worker" is quite a different thing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there people out there quite happy with this artist painting them if your assumption is correct ? Shouldn't everyone be upset with the publicity and the attention according to your theory. Your basically saying that EVERYONE should know, from the start, that Jimbo has *no* sense of humor. That's not a nice assumption to make about a person if that's what your saying. Penyulap☏02:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you pinch your hypothetical secretary in the butt there will always be jerks who find it funny. If she feels harassed, does she have *no* sense of humor? There are a ton of people here who need their adolescent boy bubble popped. --Dschwen (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
reminds me of the comments to the effect of 'some artist was rubbing his dick and bum on Jimbo's face' same leap of logic you're using to place this in the same class as physical assault. It's not Jimbo's face, it's a canvas. If someone came and rubbed their dick all over you're face it may be a bit easier for you to appreciate the difference. Penyulap☏03:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I've said time and again and people here won't have a bar of it. People say Russavia did it and shouldn't, but they want to do it themselves, and they want the image kept. Hypocrisy. Penyulap☏03:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to Jimbo to have a sense of humour, it's up to whomever is arranging for the painting to be made to make sure he'll not be offended. If I were the subject of the painting, I'd probably be more amused than anything, but Jimbo is not "wrong" if he doesn't find it humourous. Really, anyone who doesn't see the picture as trolling given the past history between Russavia and Jimbo is either dense or in denial. Lankiveil (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Which past history? The past history seems to consist of Jimbo criticizing russavia for some decisions - and russavia always being respectful toward Jimbo in return, just not treating him better than other people. Or does it not? That is at least what I conclude from the evidence that I've seen so far. darkweasel9407:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
View of Amadscientist
There are a number of issues that revolve around the current de-Bureaucrat process being developed here (as I take it this is new ground).
First of all, I think we have to separate a few things.
Whatever opinion we have of the artist and the performance art involved in their work, it was produced by Russavia (Bureaucrat) by requesting the work from the artist and suggested the image to use, with he purpose of uploading it to Wikimedia.
No payment is known to have been made however, there is an auction that is going to be taking place that I think all proceeds have been committed to being donating back to Wikimedia in some manner.
I don't know Russavia. I know who they are of course, because I pay attention. But I don't think I can tell you what their reasoning was for producing these pieces. I can tell you that, whatever they may have thought, there was just as much, or more they didn't think about.
The purpose and the concept seemed to have mixed badly when using elements of other (Commons workplace) volunteers.
Not just taking advantage of the work of others (freely licensed) but the personality rights of another must be considered before having a work created that is actually defined as erotica or erotic performance art.
In a formal manner this is sexual harassment.
Is this something that should be removed from Wikimedia? Yes, absolutely. Why? for all of the above and because this was conceived in such a manner as to consider all of the reaction following the upload to be a part of the performance act. In a way, we are performing for an audience in that this may still be part of the performance art piece. Write your characters well people.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well it's going to go on being sexual harassment for some time to come. It's been kept after more than one deletion nomination, because policy for this kind of image does not exist. Jimbo could have simply asked the WMF office for an office action to remove it, and they'd be compelled to do so. Instead of asking the WMF to remove it, he's using it to get rid of Russavia. Which makes you wonder if any of the claims are true, or just a means to an end.
Everything you mentioned about Russavia is beyond the scope of de-Bureaucrat discussions. It becomes a very subjective series of assertions when the abuse factor isn't even an issue in a de-Bureaucrat discussion. I am not a lawyer but I think you are trivializing sexual harassment as I have never heard of it apply to a situation like this. I agree with Penyulap such that a simple office action would have done the trick assuming such an office action would be taken. That is upto the WMF. The image will be kept on commons regardless of the votes here, probably even despite the votes here as we have votes/comments of a very confrontational nature. I don't even know why we are even holding this discussion in the absence of even a complaint by Jimbo. I think this discussion is doing a great disservice to Jimbo himself as it may make this painting even more famous due to this very drama. Perhaps this is something that would benefit the fame of the artist. Mind that the media loves this kind of drama and I can imagine some media organizations weren't very pleased with his speech at Wikimania. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is not about whether or not to keep a media in Commons; this is about whether a person who failed to predict his action is harassing to other community member is capable to continue his Community Role as a crat. Human is prone to do mistakes; but filature to understand or unwillingness to accept is will make him not good for a reputed position. JKadavoorJee12:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To assume that Russavia's decisions here "failed to predict his action [would] harass another community member" requires stretching AGF beyond its breaking point. Jimbo's views of the existence of nudity and erotica on Commons are well known, and it is likewise well known that there are many on the projects Commons serves, including and especially EN, who share those views. As I said on the discussion at Jimbo's talk page, there is no way Russavia could not have known what the reaction was going to be. He could have had Pricasso paint a generic image that would have been acceptable nearly by all. Instead, he chose to use the guy to harass Jimbo. At the risk of presenting a false dichotomy, Russavia's actions were either overtly malicious or carelessly unthinking. In either case, he's bringing Commons into disrepute. Even in the best case, he's shown that the trust that allowed him to become a crat has been sorely misplaced. Resolute (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; that is the maximum we can stretch; giving all consideration to his words. Otherwise, he will be banned from the entire Wikimedia community. JKadavoorJee15:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal of a more friendly and less radical solution
I would like to propose, to the person who will close this discussion, to take into consideration that there are other possibilities to solve the problem than the most radical and cruel solution and that is the de-crat. There are plenty of attenuating circumstances:
many people still trust Russavia as crat and vote "Keep"
the difference between votes pro and against is not very significant
decisions on Wikipedia (and Commons) should be a result of a clear consensus, like 20% : 80%, which is not the case here
the de-crat procedure was established during voting and in fact it should have been established and known before the voting had started
up to now there were no serious complains about functioning of Russavia as admin and crat on Commoms, please do not confuse it with some events that took place on en-wp
problems should be solved assuming good will, in accordance with Wiki-Love
proposed solution should be acceptable for both parties involved in a conflict (Russavia and Jimbo) and should not lead to abandoning of the project by any of them
proposed solution should be acceptable for both followers and opponents of Russavia, as long as there are followers and opponents in order to keep a good atmosphere on Commons and avoid disturbances
the subject (Russavia) is a devoted and experienced contributor on Commons, losing such contributors must be avoided due to the benefit of the project itself
in a completely neutral environment neither the article nor the picture caused any problems
The more friendly and less radical solution:
issue a reprimand for Russavia, reminding him that a crat should avoid uploading potentially controversial contents or should seek an opinion of another (neutral) crat/admin first
obliged Russavia to place apologies on Jimbo's talk page within 2 weeks
forbid Russavia to upload any further content connected with Jimbo
forbid Russavia to take part in any further discussions about the Pricasso contents he uploaded and left the decision about "to be or not to be" of them up to the Commons community
I didn't see anything bad in your intention. But your first comment in this discussion is very biased. So I think it will be nice if you retract it first because it will be sweeter if such a proposal is coming from a neutral person. JKadavoorJee11:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3. As I commented above in the "how to count votes" section, retaining a high-trust position such as bureaucrat should require an exceptional level of support, which is clearly not in evidence at this point.
4. Commons does not have a practice of drafting regulations for every possibility in advance (as is evidenced here). There is no reason why it can't produce policy in response to ongoing events.
5. Russavia has brought Commons (even further into) disrepute with his actions on the English Wikipedia. When you hold a position like bureaucrat, what you do reflects upon the community that gave you that position.
6. Most people here agree that Russavia has worn out his entitlement to having good will assumed.
7, 8. No, the solution should be acceptable to the community.
9. Why are you assuming that losing his bureaucrat status would cause Russavia to quit, when he's clearly devoted to Commons?
Scott, you are wrong. Russavia quitting might be a positive thing to the community and we should encourage it. His edits have either been attacks on other users or automated edits that could be handled by a bot. Both are net negatives. Maybe some time off will allow him to return to the Russavia he was 3 years ago when he was actually making real uploads and interacting with people in an appropriate way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Scott Martin. Why can't we create a win-win situation out of it, instead of a win-lose situation? First we must put the hatred aside. At the moment the community is divided into followers and opponents, so only a win-win solution (a compromise) will be accepted by the whole community, any other solution will be accepted partly: hence 60% is for removal, but still 40% is against. Of course, it is easy to remove the crat-tools, but what does it give us? A short-lived feeling of satisfaction for the opponents van Russavia? Do you really believe that immediately Commons will be a better place? That the problems with Commons will be solved. No. We will just miss one crat, some of us a colleague and the rest will stay the same, especially the problems. I witnessed many people leaving the project, because of applying win-lost solutions and I would like to prevent that happening again. Seleucidis (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have an answer to that; real life doesn't always resolve to "win-win", sometimes people "lose". They lose arguments, girlfriends, jobs, etc...all the time, because someone else or a group of someone elses decides in favor of another person's opinion instead of their own. Maybe in young kid's sporting leagues, the winning and losing teams all get to go out for pizza and chips and it doesn't matter who actually won the game. But later on in life, that sentiment kinda disappears. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, life is what you make of it to a degree, and in cyberspace it surely must be. I think a friend of mine wouldn't mind me saying, that once when I was talking of the replacement website I would like to create, that it should be a refuge from Real Life, rather than real life being a refuge from wikipedia. The idea made an impression. Surely that shall be my aim as I work towards a place that everyone can enjoy working together. As for this malformed discussion, I think a lot of people just want to express dis-satisfaction and not much else. I mean, why on earth take away tools that were not misused, it's like blocks as punishment rather than to prevent disruption. The two don't connect. I say people should vote to give Russavia a Donut of DOOM. It's not a nice thing to do I know, people who nibble it often suffer bad side-effects but I think it would be just the ticket for some portion of voters, and keep the issue in perspective. The image is here now, so how bad can it really be ? taking away tools that haven't been misused is just spiteful. This is two editors who are both misbehaving (hello canvass). If you take the time to weigh up everything all together, it comes out to about a DoD. Should we give Russ a DoD or is it too cruel for words ? Penyulap☏06:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This vote/discussion wont satisfy anyone
I don't think whatever comes out of this discussion wont satisfy anyone. The poisonous confrontational nature of the discussion will only increase the drama level. If Russavia is punished, the people opposing de-Bureaucrat action will be complaining afterwards. If Russavia is not punished, the people supporting de-Bureaucrat action will be complaining afterwards. I would suggest prematurely close or pause this discussion and first establish the criteria of de-Bureaucrat action. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the nature of a dispute: Somebody's gonna go home unhappy. Your suggestion would not change that at all. --Conti|✉13:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Sometimes the community disagrees with me, sometimes it agrees with me. And that's okay, I'll have to live with it if russavia loses his bureaucrat status due to the community's consensus. I'll look into the future and continue to upload free media files here. russavia not being a bureaucrat won't prevent me from that - that's what we're all (or at least, most of us) here for after all, not for creating childish drama about individual people's status. darkweasel9414:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're worried about in the last diff. If it's the "cheers", that is a common sign-off of thanks for a notification, so I don't think it was intended as "funny". --99of9 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BULL - effing - SHIT we'd followed all available procedures. Where is discussion on the village pump policy page for a de-Bureaucrat policy ? The only thing I see is a discussion I started, after this happened, and 99of9 doesn't want to wait for an outcome. 99of9 had no interest whatsoever in public input or he would have asked for public input. He didn't. He hand-picked the parts of another process to suit himself and his own desire to see a particular outcome. He saw that there was no abuse whatsoever of the tools, so he left out that part of the de-adminship process and kept the voting threshold.
"We had followed all the available procedures." where is the "asking for public input before arbitrarily inventing your own process", where did he do that. Give me a diff, prove me wrong. Where did he ask the community for jack shit in relation to a new process for de-Bureaucrat action. Bureaucrat Michaelmaggs and 5 other editors are discussing at the Village pump/policy, where the hell is 99of9 ? Busy ignoring "all the available procedures" as far as I can see.
That certain White Cat suggests " I would suggest prematurely close or pause this discussion and first establish the criteria of de-Bureaucrat action. " which is something I also have suggested earlier and 99of9 ignored. That is procedure. THAT IS THE FUCKING REASON WHY WE HAVE VILLAGE PUMP/POLICY. So that we don't have dictators editors running about creating their own policy willy-nilly to suit a particular candidate.
99of9 is IGNORING procedure. (sorry about my swearing, but commons is not an autocracy, and this is a discussion about bum and dick paintings) Penyulap☏19:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I predict that 99of9 and others will wait until after they have thrown Russ overboard using their invented process and then make a process for de-Bureaucratship which makes it difficult or impossible for him/them to be removed in the same way as they're removing Russ. That's why procedure should be followed FIRST. The process that is the same rule for ALL Bureaucrats should be discussed first. Not 'I invent one rule for my enemy and a different rule for myself' Penyulap☏20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a concern over 99of9's bureaucrat actions, then by all means make use of the same procedure that we're doing now for Russavia. If all your objections amount to are, "I disagree" in regards to what he has done in this discussion though, I wouldn't expect to gain much traction with that. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
because it is fair and proper to allow him the opportunity to improve what he's done. If the community doesn't like Russavia, they'll remove his tools this week or next month or whenever. The timing shouldn't matter unless it too is part of the misbehavior, aka, to take advantage of Jimbos' canvassing to remove Russavia. He should in my opinion be given time to consider what he is doing, and what other people editors think of it, and how he can improve the situation and do things properly according to procedure and process. Individuals don't invent important policies single-handed, the community does. I don't actually care what the policy is, only that everyone has their chance to have their say. That's what is going on at the VPP right now. Penyulap☏20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Penyulap, I was de-sysopped from Wikiversity in an abuse of process, closed after 3 days, and filled with sock accounts who were solicited on another site. Commons actually has a de-admin policy. The Stewards would abide by our actions here. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not de-adminship, plus there was no abuse of tools. Well, I long for the day I can move to a replacement project and get back to the work I love writing articles and drawing pictures rather than trying to hold together a million cracks and leaks in a project falling to bits. I hope you'll be there, and everyone else too. Proper systems are easy to craft, and to make a better system than this is to find the ground when you fall. Penyulap☏22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pen; I'm positively surprised to see a different person other than the usual admin who use words like "shit" against me, in Commons. I put down my sword; because you have the freedom (only you have) to say anything to me.
Coming to the point: I think 99of9 gave more consideration to Russavia than what he deserved. He will lose the admin and crat bits altogether, if this is a formal de-admin request. I saw some arguments that admins have no community role; they are just bots operate the tools. See Commons:Administrators#Community role: "Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus… Of course, some admins are influential, but that derives not from their position as such but from the personal trust they have gained from the community." See Commons:Guide to adminship: "Unlike actions taken on most Wikimedia projects, actions taken on Commons have the potential to affect the entire Wikimedia community—hundreds of other wikis." Now see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship: "In the rare case that the community feels that an administrator is acting against policy and routinely abusing his or her status, it may seek de-adminship in the same way as adminship is sought." Yes; his status as a trusted member of the Commons community is challenged now. So he should be de-admined or de-crated, at least.
Only to Pen: I think every member in a community has some community roles and responsibilities. Not only humans; even insects follow it as an instinct. See these damselflies. The male here is not only programmed to do it routine enjoyment tasks. He has an instinct to take any risk to help his girl as the situation demands. In my knowledge, Homo sapiens is the only species who blame others instead of taking responsibility of their acts. JKadavoorJee06:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to appear to use my wiki-dragon breath against you Jee, and I'm glad you know that as friends we are both welcome to speak free. You can always tell me what you think, warts and all. I respect you a great deal. I use the word not against you but against the idea that 99of9 used all available procedures. We have a village pump policy section to discuss new ideas for policy where none exist. On such an important matter which is very clearly not urgent the VPP should have been used. There is no excuse for it. This is not a dictatorship and it shows contempt for the 'rest of us' and our policy and our VPP. Penyulap☏19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your view that we should finalize a process before acting rather than using similar appropriate bits of a similar process. Anyone who strongly thinks that way could easily vote "keep until a Bureaucrat-specific process is finalized". I think that if we tried to write a policy right now, people would be thinking about exactly one imminent case, and would be biased by their opinion of that case. I think it is better to document policy when there are no current disputes. Also, Commons policy has traditionally been developed to reflect existing practice rather than being set pre-emptively. --99of9 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this vote will not satisfy anyone. First the community should agree on the actual process to follow as previously suggested. This vote/poll/discussion is meaningless unless this is done. Profound questions such as the ones listed below need to be answered first.
"Should non-tool abuse lead to de-Bureaucrat discussion"
"How long should de-Bureaucrat discussion last"
"How should de-Bureaucrat discussion be advertised"
"What vote percentage is needed for a de-Bureaucrat discussion to conclude as fail"
Let me clarify my stance since it doesn't seem to be obvious to some. I will NOT be satisfied with either possible outcome of this de-Bureaucrat request UNLESS consensus on above questions are established prior to the conclusion of this discussion. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposal of an even more friendly but somewhat unlikely solution
Russavia, recognizing that he has lost the trust and respect of a number of his fellow editors (including fellow Bureaucrats) voluntarily resigns his rights as a Bureaucrat and issues an apology to Jimbo and the Community. I believe this would defuse the situation almost entirely and will make it possible to start repairing the damage done by this latest episode.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a response to the idea of voluntary resignation
This section was part of the above section, but it's off topic, so rather than collapse the good points that a few editors have made, I figure just give it it's own section. Hope this suits everyone. Penyulap☏07:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but the 'community' is KEEPING the image, so it'd be like "Ok, alright Russavia, that's enough trolling jimmy, we'll take over trolling jimmy from here, you take a rest now, we've got your image, we've got your video and we'll serve it up to the newspapers and anyone who wants it.'
Or is it more we a matter of Jimmy waited until halfway through the first big deletion discussion to first express his dislike of the image, and then sent people to commons, not to create new anti-offensive images policy, not to remove the image, but to attack his arch-enemy Russ ?
Jimmy didn't ask for an office action to remove the image did he, he asked for a public lynching which doesn't actually get the image removed. It's still here. Is it the image he dislikes or just Russavia ?
There is still no office request to remove the image, is there ? gee, why would a person wait until AFTER Russavia is thrown overboard before asking ? gee, I don't know...
It's a tit-for-tat at best, except that Russavia has been inside the rules the whole time. The image is here. The community is Keeping the image. If the image is the problem, if the image is trolling, then setting commons to read-only and blocking all of ourselves is the fair thing to do. If the image is the problem, why hasn't it been deleted ? is the primary purpose of delaying an office action to use the image to remove Russavia ?? time will tell. Penyulap☏20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the millionth time: The problem that is discussed here is Russavia's behavior, not the image. In my personal opinion, the image is problematic, too, and should be deleted, too. But that is entirely besides the point of the main issue: Russavia's behavior during the whole drama. --Conti|✉20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so it's not the image then, I'll just object to the behavior of the whole community that is keeping the image to troll jimmy, or jimmy who is delaying an office action and using the image to throw Russavia overboard.
The image and video were commissioned and uploaded by a Commons bureaucrat to further a grudge with the subject. That is not conduct that by any rational stretch of the imagination can be considered "good" for a bureaucrat to engage in. This is why the vote is trending the way it is now. That the image and video were not successfully deleted via deletion discussion is unfortunate and a poor reflection on those who voted to retain the media, but there's not much to be done about that at this time. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times I hear that same spiel repeated without any supporting diffs or reasoning it still doesn't replace my brain, hmm, must be something wrong with my brain eh ? Penyulap☏22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The "to further a grudge with the subject" part is not proven (or if it is, I haven't seen it despite having read most of these discussions) - it's a baseless assumption of bad faith. That's the problem with your reasoning, and that's the reason why I see no reason to vote remove. All I can see is a bureaucrat having succeeded in getting a notable artist to release in-scope media under a Commons-compatible license. Some people are voting to de-bureaucrat on the basis of lack of judgement. That is an argument that at least makes some sense - but I must confess that I am just as surprised as russavia that this has generated so much drama. I've said it before and will repeat it here: when you want to pick a human subject for an image in a Wikipedia article, it makes perfect sense to, as a little self-reference, pick the person most commonly associated with Wikipedia, just like Wikipedia articles on web browsers usually show Wikipedia itself in the screenshot. Now yes, a website is something else than a person, I fully realize that - but it is totally credible to me that russavia's line of thought was similar. darkweasel9422:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith. I have reasoned it as such. russavia could have tried to get consent even if it is not required (although it should be). I wouldn't want people commissioning paint brush portraits of me without consent let alone prick portraits. Ask yourself why russavia didn't seek consent and you will discover why so many people think he did this on purpose and except for this last bit got exactly what he wanted. Even if he didn't know there was risk involved to the project, he should have known, and that is at the heart of the lack of judgement call. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not normally consent to people. Perhaps we should. That's however an entirely different discussion from this one. Mind that I personally do not agree that we should seek consent of people as to be fair it is too much of a hassle. Free licenses work towards that consent for derivatives. This is why we do not accept CC-By-ND as a license on commons. If people do not want their photographs to be mercilessly edited, parodied, redistributed and recreated they shouldn't agree to have them uploaded with a free license. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, there was no grudge. Show me the evidence of that. That is the invention of en.wp -- in fact, when I have challenged the very assertion of such on en.wp, I had -- surprise, surprise -- my talk page access revoked. It is evident that the "facts" of this case is what others say, without any evidence, and in fact, with evidence to the contrary -- people with grudges don't give other editors file mover tools; people with grudges don't ask for support on making child porn images easier to report, etc.
Also, Tarc, I am miffed as to why the level of your decorum here on this project is the stark opposite of that on en.wp, where you have repeatedly referred to myself as an asshole, etc. Is there any reason you don't engage in such a manner on this project? Sorry Tarc, but there is one editor here with a grudge, and it is not me. I can easily show diffs that show that you have a grudge not only against me personally, but all of Commons. Are you prepared to show diffs of this alleged grudge against Jimmy? russavia (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are currently banned from en.wiki for precisely what I described at the top of this brand-new section. These aren't my claims, so I would be out of line to defend them, I am merely repeating the findings of the en.wiki ANI thread entitled I have just blocked Russavia indefinitely. I'm sorry if you disagree with the finding of fact I laid out earlier today, but if you disagree with that, that disagreement is not with me. Tarc (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed yourself at what is now the beginning of this section: The image and video were commissioned and uploaded by a Commons bureaucrat to further a grudge with the subject. You didn't refer to anything on enwiki, you adopted that as your own opinion, so it is certainly not unreasonable to ask you for evidence, don't you agree? It would certainly be accurate to say: "Many people on enwiki believe the image and video were commissioned and uploaded by a Commons bureaucrat to further a grudge with the subject." However, given that nobody there has yet provided any evidence either, I'm not sure how even that accurate statement would help the discussion. darkweasel9405:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nature of the Russavia-Jimbo altercation/grudge/whatever is common knowledge here, and does not need citation. But now you have the link above to the en.wiki discussion where consensus was reached on this matter, so I don't think there's much more to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is common knowledge is that Jimbo Wales made a comment about a COM:IDENT-related decision by russavia where he (Jimbo Wales) said that russavia "should be ashamed" and that Commons is "ethically broken". I do not know if russavia ever responded to that one, it's been linked to above I believe. Jimbo Wales also made a comment, after being notified by russavia about a permission issue concerning some uploads by Jimbo Wales, that our COM:OTRS permission management is broken, which is not a comment against russavia but against our processes - which exist in a similar way on enwiki as en:WP:DONATEIMAGE. I also remember reading a discussion where Jimbo Wales expressed concerns about some inappropriate file names on Commons, in response to which russavia gave Jimbo Wales the filemover right. Links to the latter two of the discussions I mentioned are at en:User_talk:Russavia/Archive_27#Special_BLP_enforcement_restriction. These are all examples of Jimbo Wales criticizing or attacking russavia or matters related to russavia - and russavia responding in a courteous way that's exactly what I'd expect from a bureaucrat, so I don't know where the dispute is. Do you have anything else that you believe is "common knowledge"? Because I, at least, don't know of anything else. That the enwiki community has made the decision it has made reflects poorly on that community (or perhaps it does not, as the Pricasso thing wasn't the only thing that was mentioned in that discussion - people also accused him of NLT and other violations but I haven't checked how far that claim is based on facts) but it's not usable for this project. darkweasel9406:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not comment about the DR critique by Jimmy, because #1 it wasn't here on Commons and #2 I didn't post anything to JW's talk page about the issue in the first place -- it was another editor who did so (without attribution mind you). russavia (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I knew that it was not you who posted it on Jimbo Wales' talk page, but I wasn't sure if perhaps you made a comment about Jimbo's response somewhere else. Thanks for clarifying. (On a side note, this closure is however something I must criticize about you: you should really have waited 7 days and not just 2, as this DR was not at all a case for either speedy keeping or speedy deletion.) darkweasel9406:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)I really don't care whether you hold a grudge or not. What you did was reckless and unthinking and I feel that was your intention. It attacks another registered member for no reason. Yes...attacks the member. If you can't figure out why, I am sorry. But clearly what you did was not something anyone would do who respected the other. Sexual harassment doesn't even require the intent, by the way. You may be so insensitive you just really never get it. What calling a woman "Babe" is sexual harassment. Dragging your genitals across the image of another user is sexual harassment and video tapping it is as well. You are not off the hook because it isn't your dick if you asked the guy to do it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm a bit confused by your 2nd question, re "stark opposite", do you want me to be rude? Of course I won't do that, as the parameters are different here; one doesn't bring a hockey stick to a basketball game and expect to score points. We're here just having an honest discussion about you, is all. If I have violated a Commons policy or guideline, I certainly welcome the pointing out of my wrong step. Tarc (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but thank you for confirming for me that you are being deliberately rude, and intentionally engaging in personal attacks on en.wp in relation to myself in order to, as you call it, score points. russavia (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, why do you go to such great lengths to avoid answering simple, good faith, direct questions? Various people have asked you questions on this very page (myself included) that would illuminate some of the issues we have and make it much, much easier for everyone to clear up their mind about all of this. And yet you seem to deliberately ignore these questions, even though you once again could easily de-escalate the situation. --Conti|✉11:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What simple, good faith, direct questions? Sorry, I am seeing 100 walls of text here, so if you point them out, I will answer them; within reason. russavia (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course: Here's two questions from Slaunger, which were answered for you by another user, oddly enough. And then there was my question: Did you not know what Jimbo thought of Commons and you personally (the "you should be ashamed" quote from Jimbo springs to mind) when you asked for the portrait of Jimbo to be taken? Did you genuinely believe that there would be no drama at all following the uploading of the pictures? --Conti|✉12:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite irrelevant what Jimmy thinks of Commons, and it's even more irrelevant what I think Jimmy thinks of Commons. Commons is much bigger than Jimmy, me...or you. russavia (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true. Could you please answer the questions now? Heck, by now I'd be happy if you would only answer Slaunger's questions and continue to ignore mine entirely. --Conti|✉09:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a fair warning from a bureaucrat
I hate to be canvassed and currently I am quite disgusted by several of the people here who are heavily contributing against Russavia. Reason: A few of you seem to think that based on my earlier contributions I am against Russavia. And so you guys have written mails to make me close this de-bureaucrat voting according to your wish. The mail content made very clear that I have gotten them because of a high probability of closing this discussion by removing the rights from Russavia. Considering that you tried to canvas me I suspect that quite a lot of votes here happened the same way. I will now start looking through all the voters. People who have not been active enough before this vote will not be counted. -- Cecil (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting point but what do you mean with "People who have not been active enough before..." exactly? Where do you draw your line? --High Contrast (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started looking through them (both keep and remove). People who have less than 150 edits or who have pretty much not been active in the last years. There are a lot who have lot of edits but have been pretty much inactive here for some time or have been active in exactly one topic (you can guess which). Those I will need to investigate closer.
I think they are pretty obvious. Also if somebody is interested they can inform those users in case that they have another account with more contributions which would make their vote valid. -- Cecil (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This policy of discounting "!voters" from other projects was pretty much made up on the fly by the 'crats at the time when my RFA/CU was trolled by one of the WP cabals. You're using it wrong. --SB_Johnnytalk01:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently creating a list for me to see who actually voted. I had a few tabs open multiple times and some were overlooked and for a few I accidently closed the tab. As soon as I have a stable list I will check the rest of the voters. So expect more names. -- Cecil (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit offended that you think I would !vote on an issue like this after being canvassed. I'm not the most active here, but I'm a crosswiki guy, and I keep tabs on Commons (I've had a note saying this on my enwiki userpage far before this discussion started). I don't think it's right to randomly discount votes of people who "aren't active enough" here because you were canvassed. TCN7JM14:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know any of the users. I can't tell if one of them was canvassed or one just decided to look at the voting page on that day. I simply had to draw the line somewhere. -- Cecil (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't. You could have left well enough alone. Now it appears this discussion is fixed to exclude contributors based on your perception alone.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TCN7JM's comment demonstrates why this is an unwise course of action. Based on nothing but pure supposition, a bunch of people are going to get their votes stricken. If you have doubts about any particular voter, Cecil, raise them here on the page and get the person in question to reply. If they're mainly active on another wiki, leave them a note there and get them to come back and talk some more. As in the case of TCN7JM, they may have perfectly valid reasons for voting on this. I can scarcely believe that an experienced bureaucrat would partially base their assessment of a discussion on guessing. — Scott•talk20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, about the number '150'. In many Wikipedias (among them mine) we have for internal votings "a right to vote" for which you must be active 2+ months, must have 200+ edits in total in the important namespace and 50 of those votes must have happened in the last 12 months (these numbers have to be counted from the moment of the voting begin). For arbitration there is a even stricter right to vote. I am not much a fan of it but if a voting has a certain smell then these numbers are my orientation. In the case of above names I lowered the border because none of those below 200 made it over 150. -- Cecil (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons.
Cecil, please don't discuss thresholds in public. It has the effect of producing X-number of pointless little edits on numerous accounts all over the place. Also, it's not a threshold unless it must be mentioned in public to let people know who can vote on a particular thing. It's a grey-area scale, a linear sort of thing, you're not going to face any stiff opposition that can't be hosed down by other people here. It's a norm. It is expected from one end of the project to the other, and people who want to talk about numbers are on one hand having a valid thing to ask but at the same time leave everyone wondering 'why are you so incredibly interested in this particular issue ?, are you a sockmaster?' I wouldn't see the need to worry about discussing such a standard widespread practice as this. I can't see it being a major issue where it is not laid out and defined, because we don't often lay it out and define it. Penyulap☏22:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Cecil, thanks for the heads-up. Am I to understand that you are being contacted by people encouraging you to close this discussion with a removal. Can you disclose how many people have contacted you in relation to this, and how they have encouraged you to close this. Also, are the people who have emailed you people who have added a "vote" in this discussion? I, too, share the disdain that people are going to such lengths -- it is quite underhanded I think. It's bad enough that there is canvassing going on in full view on another project and on off-wiki sites; that others are trying to subvert our processes for their own ends is despicable. Can other bureaucrats also inform if they too have received such emails. russavia (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will not name them, but there were two. One arrived today, one 2 days ago. With the first one it sounded more like a heads-up but todays mail was pretty ugly citing something I said very visible quite some time ago, telling me that (s)he thinks the same and that I seem to be the opposite of Kanonkas and somebody who currently has a de-bureaucrat. And then telling me that (s)he just wonders who will close this discussion in a very sleek way. (s)he did not say directly what I am supposed to do but it was more than obvious. I could guess from the content what the user has voted -- Cecil (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil, there is substantial evidence that the support retaining crat has also been canvassed, especially over IRC. I hope you take that into consideration. I find it odd that you would make statements about canvassing when two people contacted you, especially when you are a Crat who would need to have this matter brought to your attention. It would suggest that your statements are not complete fair and that you are unduely affecting the matter here by weighing in as you did. A bureaucrat is supposed to not do that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the crats has voted support. There are only three crats left who haven't yet been on this page. One of them is completly inactive, one of them does not really participate in this kind of discussions until nobody else is left and the third seems to be on vacation. Considering the activity rate of all three I seriously doubt that any of them has been on IRC. That leaves Eugene and me. I am not on IRC and Eugene has voted neutral. -- Cecil (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim above by me about canvassing for support was from the voters and not necessarily from Crats. The timing and the bulk of early supports are, for the most part, associated with the IRC crowd that Russavia, Mattbuck, Fae, and many others here are very active in. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this comment by Ottava Rima. I have not canvassed on IRC for this !vote, neither have I been canvassed about it. I have not even had access to IRC for most of this week, so this allegation is asinine, presumably just intended to smear reputations of those Ottava Rima has chosen to take repeated random pot-shots at, without bothering to go to AN with evidence. Put up or shut up. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your incivility and personal attacks deserve a block. I stated that you were very active in IRC. Any claim to the contrary would be a lie. Your standard behavior is to make blatantly false claims about what others say to hide from your own problematic behavior. Once Russavia is removed, your allies that encourage your disruption will be even fewer. Your abuse and the abuse of the handful of supporters that you have left is about to come to an end. You have added nothing positive here. Instead, you operate a script on your account instead of a bot to hide from the fact that you add nothing positive here. That isn't acceptable behavior. Dominating IRC and using it to wage war on others isn't acceptable behavior. Using Commons as a weapon against others isn't acceptable behavior. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do as I do Ottava, when Fae causes constant disruption 1234567 and creates attack pages along with Matt, which huge crowds of people just rush in to NOT have a part of, don't let it get you down. These sorts of things were specifically mention at his second unsuccessful adminship request, people love this sort of thing, so don't let it worry you ok? even if you're not here, someone else can bring it up later on. Just settle down. People can see in your comment above that you didn't say a specific person canvassed, it's quite enough that we know it is going on. Nobody is going to refute what Cecil has said about it. Just don't worry. Penyulap☏05:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out, again, that this de-bureaucrat request has gotten a lot of attention from non-Commons users, both in opposition and in support of Russavia. This page is clearly and openly being discussed on en.wp, but many users from smaller wikis have also somehow found their way here, without any apparent similarly open discussions. --Conti|✉13:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Bureaucrats: "A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus. Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome."--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The extra rights of a bureaucrat allow the user to decide admin/crat/...-votings (we can give them the admin-right, but for removal we need a steward), to give bot-flags and to rename user accounts (the last one not for long anymore). Those rights are Commons-internal rights that do not influence other projects. If this would be about a image deletion of an image heavily used all over the projects I would count them but that is not the case here. -- Cecil (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they influence other projects. There are thousands of users on other projects who have contributed media to their own project. That media is often rehoused here and removed from their own project. This is a vote concerning one of the officials with advanced rights concerning stewardship over that donated content and the others who administer such. Commons is one project which serves, and benefits from the contributions made to all projects by all of their users. Denying the contributors of that content a say in its governance and those who administer it is quite simply unacceptable.
Instead of counting Commons contributions, why not count uploads? Or both? After all that's the point of this place, isn't it? But wait - now you have to include all their local uploads to their own project(s) that ended up here... Too hard? Impossible? Good. Don't try. Any user of any project in good standing is entitled to express their opinion on this shared project and any arbitary "contribution count" is meaningless. No other approach is tenable. Please think through the implications of what you are doing and saying here. Begoon - talk16:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome. Quoted from Commons:Bureaucrats#Community role. All that Cecil is doing is to judge what is the most likely way users have found out about this discussion: through Commons venues such as the administrators' noticeboard and the village pump, or through discussions in other places - the latter case, given that some people have canvassed by email, creates reasonable doubt about the genuine good-faith interest of those users to help decide who is or isn't a bureaucrat here. That doesn't mean they cannot express their opinions - only that they are not given as much weight. To judge that, it seems most useful to look at those user's long-term and recent activity on Commons. Counting uploads doesn't make sense because you can follow Commons venues even without uploading anything. darkweasel9417:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You say That doesn't mean they cannot express their opinions - only that they are not given as much weight.
Perhaps Cecil should have been more careful with his language on a multilingual project then, because I can't help interpreting comments like "I will now start looking through all the voters. People who have not been active enough before this vote will not be counted." and "...in case that they have another account with more contributions which would make their vote valid." (followed by a carefully researched list of users whose opinions/votes are presumably to be ignored) or "I simply had to draw the line somewhere." as something somewhat different to taking opinions into account. Sounds a lot like wikilawyering over exact vote counts and eligibility than careful weighing of consensus to me. ymmv.
And this I truly don't understand: "Counting uploads doesn't make sense because you can follow Commons venues even without uploading anything." So the biggest contributors of what this site is supposed to be about, could, according to you, have no say in its governance because counting their uploads doesn't makes sense? Unless presumably they also wish to talk about media all day instead of getting on with providing it. Lost me, I'm afraid... Those guys running those third party flickr bots all day to get their upload counts up and look like huge contributors would presumably be horrified by that line of thinking too (although it may have some merit there - those are admittedly of somewhat negligible value compared to other work and contributions of original, useful content)... Begoon - talk17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a 'she' and I've been pretty vocal about that as the more active users can tell you. Check the list of people above. There is among others one account who has exactly this one edit and a second one that is not better. I don't like Russavia but I do not agree to play dirty. Also for me personally, picture uploaders count a lot. There were a few quite users whose vote I see no problem with simply because they have a good image upload history despite showing man-on-a-mission behaviour in the last few months. -- Cecil (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - I use 'he' as a neutral pronoun - I know it upsets some people but I hate 'they' and all the 'xe' nonsense. As a guy of English origin I think I've only ever seen Cecil used as a male name, but I should not have assumed at all. My apologies. Thank you for confirming the value you place on uploaders, although I'm concerned still that you see a problem with any vote from a user in good-standing on any project on a matter which I believe is of concern to all those projects.
It goes without saying you would discount a vote from a user with only a very few edits anywhere at all - but it's perfectly natural that a respected user, maybe even an arbitrator or admin on another project might feel strongly enough about an issue like this to want to voice an opinion, and it is, to me, very wrong to ignore that reality, even if it is the first time they have come here in particular. Commons is closely linked to the other projects in a unique way, and as I said above, benefits enormously from that association. This does mean that there are times when members of other projects will have things of value to say here. It benefits nobody to not accept and cater for that reality.
I hope none of the men-on-a-mission are ladies who would object to that description, and I must admit I'm unclear who or what you mean by that, but thanks for the reply anyway. Cheers. Begoon - talk17:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
standard practice. If there is a 100 contribution threshold a sockmaster can make hundreds and just leave them until needed. An activity requirement is an obvious way to pick out the ones that come back to life just for voting a particular cause. Why would regular editors return and do nothing here except vote ? we don't lose very many votes by disqualifying them, but we sure mess with the socially retarded puppeteers. Keep their little hands busy. Make them work for their votes. En.wiki is the place that caters to sock-masters entirely. Why does it get you so incredibly upset that you swear anyhow ? Penyulap☏19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice? Hmmmm. So are you really blocked from uploading on commons and would that disqualify your vote. I say yes, according to this thread.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well there is always a cut-off. How many times have we seen a person who knows nothing at all about process, who has never used a drama board before, has done nothing but regular editing, and they arrive at ANU for the first time ever saying 'please sirs, I had some argument on some quiet talkpage' and then all of a sudden people with only a few edits turned up to support their opponent. The newbie explains to everyone else what is wrong with that. We try, I try, to make policies to remove offensive images like these, to define new procedures, to make things fair, but most of the people here aren't interested to make actual policy. They have no interest in the image or the fact it is here. They'll arrive from somewhere else after being told to come here, vote whatever, and then never return. Who gives a crap if they are counted or not when they themselves won't return to care. Complaints can be directed at actual policy discussions to set actual limits and actual policy discussions to remove offensive images, and you just see who gives a shit to actually comment on those discussions. It's inherent fact that there is a cut-off. Nobody really cares where it is, and certainly not enough to open a section on the village pump, they just care that it is there. Penyulap☏23:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil, can we amend that to for the start time I would have picked the date the previous vote started as people not eligible to vote there should be ineligible here. Their ineligible participation there shouldn't make them suddenly eligible here.
Also could we exclude uploads from the 50 edits in the past 2 months (or perhaps past 6 months)? Due to the "Commons-internal" nature of Bureaucrat rights, people only uploading photos would not necessarily be a good judge of the issue. After all, people can upload without realizing they are uploading to commons at times. I understand your point (above) on the importance of content creators/uploaders but Commons-internal specific events should be separated from content creation (such as the content created by Russavia that is the main reason behind this vote).
Also, above I proposed that perhaps we should establish processes that govern this vote before the start of this vote.
I don't agree, you can mostly upload things and still watch the village pump or drama boards - that's entirely plausible. It's intended to be a heuristic, we can't scientifically exactly determine who came from where, and I object to fine-tuning the exclusion of certain people to get the result one wants. darkweasel9419:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine-tuning is the point of heuristics. You cannot have "heuristics" if you do not fine tune your method. I object to en.wikipedia canvassing deciding how commons is run based on a moral panic. People unfamiliar with commons shouldn't decide how commons is managed. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Cecil, either reconsider this action or pledge not to be the closer of this whole affair, please. This is going to set a very bad and ugly precedent, making the schism between Commons and the rest of the WMF universe even wider, if you simply sweep aside so many editors' concerns. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he really wanted to be mean he could try implementing a Commons:NOTHERE policy (in the spirit of w:WP:NOTHERE) and throw out the votes of all the people who came here only to make trouble for a Commons volunteer after spending months politicking for Commons to be shut down entirely. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case, I would think that you would be one of the first to be tossed out. Making snide attacks can go both ways you know. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil, all this implies enough personal involvement in this that would also lead me to question the propriety of you as a closer. You're basically saying here that people whose main participation is in other projects have no investment here, which is (as I've already explained) untrue. When commons evolves to the point where it stops collecting images from Wikipedia and is no longer used to hold Wikipedia's images, then you'll have an argument that those editors don't have an investment in a well-run commons. But at the moment that isn't true. As for you, Wnt, I was unaware that "no personal attacks" was a policy that didn't apply on commons. I personally do not think commons should be shut down, but it's clear to me that a lot of people operate as if it had abandoned its original purpose of supporting common storage of media for the various Wikipedia projects. That purpose will remain as long as there is this process of removing media from the various Wikipedia projects and caching them in commons, so we are all invested in seeing that it is well-run even if we are not directly involved in the day-to-day maintenance of its content. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment from another Bureaucrat. A repeat from [5]: It is in the nature of Commons as a service project to be tightly connected to projects such as the english wikipedia. They are forced to entrust us their images which are in use in their project. It seems only fair to me that users from sister projects have a say in administrative interna of commons. The us vs. them that vibrates in many comments here looks unhealthy to me. --Dschwen (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ! the italics made me think 'where on earth is there a policy page that says any such thing' but then I see it's your talkpage. Not that I'm saying your comments on your talkpage aren't gospel of course, it's just that the community hasn't caught up yet. Penyulap☏21:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few threads below people talk about how sexually explicit images are a problem which demonstrates their complete lack of understanding of how commons operates, or what the mission of commons is. I find this astonishing. The poisonous us-vs-them is an unavoidable consequence of the constant "moral panic" raids we keep getting. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it astonishing the way you purposely leap to accusations of a moral issue, us verses them and a lack of understanding on "their" part. Seems Commons has strayed from its purpose and is becoming little more than an adult social sexual networking site and a neat place to take out your aggression against contributors you want to make look silly.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, Mangoe, it has ALWAYS been the way to discount minor votes, and that's universally understood and expected. Just why would you want to change that and let every sock/canvassed editor vote I don't know. But this is not the venue that will change it, take it up at the village pump.
I will be shocked if you do however, because there is not a single person who is unaware of the standing standard practice across the board, on every file talkpage, on every Featured picture, on every template talkpage, on every ANU thread, we do not consider the votes of people who've made a small number of contributions as seriously as everyone else. We listen, we have respect, but we do not weigh them the same way. Who takes a single-contribution editor seriously for crying out loud ? they don't even take themselves seriously. Newbies don't take them seriously. Nobody does. We listen, sure, but if a Bureaucrat were to say he was going to weight it all the same, THAT would be the problem. Take it to the village pump, campaign for change, I double-dare ya. Penyulap☏21:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with this. I fail to see the issue and it should never even been brought up. All that Cecil has managed to do is take the norm and turn into a distracting drama festival. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any festivities. I now feel cheated out of a festival. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
aww come on the whole page is a drama festival, when it comes time to hand out ribbons and trophies for the people who made it so, I'll be dammed if cecil gets any. Notifying us that he's being canvassed is just proper stuff we can all be thankful for. BORING !!! bring on the dancing pigs !!
Saffron, that second paragraph above, which starts with 'I will be shocked if you do however,' is still addressing those who want socks and other low-conrib threshold votes counted. It's not directed at I'm so boring because all I do is follow the norms Cecil. Although, to give him credit where it's due, telling us about the canvassing is refreshing. Nice work Cecil, now get out of here back to your books to make heads or tails of this mess before I make 20 more long boring useless remarks you have to wade through :D Penyulap☏21:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, what threshold defines "low contrib" ? What policy is in place on this project to authorize Cecil to invalidate the ~two-dozen votes that he wishes to? The biggest problem here is that this cutoff thing appears to be entirely arbitrary, and that is what rubs a lot of people the wrong way. So if you could, please give a grounded-in-policy reason why an account that is 2 years, 3 months old with 114 edits will have its vote discarded? Tarc (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'a lot of people' bulls***. A few, yes, but not enough and not chapping their asses enough to goto the village pump and set a threshold instead of complaining here or using it as an attack here. HERE IS THE POLICY.
Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons.
I invite you to go and set new policy at the village pump. That's what it's for. Complaining that Cecil is threatening to do his job is like, Durr, that's his job. He can threaten to do it all he wants. Penyulap☏00:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that isn't good enough, so let's parse through this. First is "well-argued opinions than unargued votes, where I clearly fall on the former side, as I did not simply vote sans argument and cited the aspect of COM:BURO that the subject has IMO violated. Second up is only a few contributions to Commons, which seems to be a failure of the Commons to have such a vague policy. What is "few" ? Too few uploads? Too few Village Pump participation? Is 114 edits in 2+ years "few" ? What you're doing it here is placing an inordinate amount of power into the hands of a single person, to make his or her own determination as to what "few" means, and now to the outside world it gives the appearance of impropriety, that a person id discarding votes to affect the outcome. I'm not saying that Cecil is doing this or will do this , but if you look at this through a Public Relations lens, it looks terrible. Bureaucrats are pretty much the high-end of the project, the leaders, right? Like it or not, it is a political position, and so far Commons has 2 that aren't handling it so well. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can half pretend that the world is going to come to an end because the socks aren't being counted proper, or the sleeper socks aren't being counted proper, or the people who are commons contributors once in a while really really do not trust the rest of the 80 or 90 or 95 % of the voters or whoever it is, to do what is right. you see, it's only the people who came this week that REALLY know what is going on. It's only those people who can't be bothered taking an interest in commons who really know what should be done. Really. It's true, the other 90 % has no freaking clue. I'm with you. Lets goto the village pump, no, no, lets goto ANU, No, let's start a de-Bureaucratship discussion Tarc, I'm with you all the way for the whole 2 minutes it will last <nods>
<sigh>. Well, I'm sorry, I did try, there was that whole quoting the policy page and well it's just not good enough. We need a new policy that ONLY people with 300 edits OR LESS can vote because quite frankly the rest of us cannot be trusted. Penyulap☏00:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning. This editor does not have enough gravitas on commons to comment, discount before reading if you are a bureaucrat. Editors with few edits are usaully discounted to prevent abuse; to stop sockpuppets and the like. When editors are well established on wikimedia projects generally, there is no grounds to discount them. The people you are trying to discount are clearly not sockpuppets but concerned editors. What happens on commons effects the other wikimedia projects which depend on it. More generally, I think this comment "the standing standard practice across the board, on every file talkpage, on every Featured picture, on every template talkpage, on every ANU thread, we do not consider the votes of people who've made a small number of contributions as seriously as everyone else", would not occur on any other wiki where the argument is what matters, not the pedigree of the editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie- that is how votes on en.wikipedia is counted. Just because someone has 90,000 edits on ru.wikipedia doesn't make their vote valid on an en.wikipedia RfA provided he or she has practically no contribution on en.wikipedia. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In the vast majority of discussions at wikipedia, no. new editors are not discounted. New editors may be discounted at some large votes to counter sockpuppetry. Also Commons:Project_scope#Aim_of_Wikimedia_Commons. This is a repository for wikipedia projects. This project is here to provide a service for the others. There is no such relationship between the English and Russian wikipedias. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry isn't the only reason why new votes are discounted. Not being familiar with the rules and procedures is also another factor. Canvassing is definitely another. This is where you are wrong. This is NOTJUST a repository for Wikipedia projects. This is a general free image repository. We even serve sites that has no connection to WMF in any shape or form. We serve academia too. It is not a stretch of imagination why the community wouldn't want users whom are not familiar with what commons is about or how it operates to dictate the management. After all, it is the local community that will be impacted by the presence or absence of said management. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Cecil, Commons:Bureaucrats says you may disregard my argument due to my low edit count, but the rationale for that is explained above as concern for meat-/sockpuppetry. I am not a sock- or meatpuppet. I'm here because I saw it mentioned on Jimbo's en.WP talk page, which is advertising not canvassing or recruitment of meatpuppets. I'm very familiar with this case and the workings of this project. If someone attempted to canvass you via email, that has nothing to do with me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil a person who has made 5 edits is a member of this community and should be heard, how much weight you give to that opinion is upto you but you shouldnt be arbitrarily deciding to ignore those opinions if a person has 100 edits spread over a couple of years across a broad area of issues should be heard and listened to. How much weight will be given to a user who has uploaded 100+ images, who's other edits are categorization(500+), has only interacted with Russavia and only contributions outside of this is to vote during POTY. Gnangarra03:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil, if your intention is to make an unbiased decision; better you can ignore the number of votes and weight every point raised in the discussions (here, [6] and [7]) carefully. You can take a decision alone or make a collective decision as of a Bench of Crats since no ArbCom exists for this project. I still have full trust in you. JKadavoorJee04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to open a discussion about the policies that we have, at the village pump rather than have all the comments here, addressing and maybe trying to sway the closer (not that that is wrong). As the policy stands, there is no set limit to the threshold. 'getting a rough tally' for a rule of thumb, and then working through a second time to weigh arguments seems a simple way to break a large task into smaller chunks. There isn't a threshold, and even within the 'few edits' category, there is 'partially discount' as well as discount. That indicates the shades of gray. In the end, it doesn't come down to a photo-finish. There are arguments that have to be sorted out and stacked together and grouped. Like if 75 % agree Russavia is not the messiah and just a very naughty boy, and 60% think it's abuse, but only 40 think it's abuse of tools and 70 think that it's about trust and so on, it's all something that comes into it. Actually, I can't see that there wouldn't be more people afterwards that have something to say in regards to what does and what does not form grounds for removal. Something that should have been discussed first, but there is no reason why it can't be discussed at the VPP now, and it is, and with that outcome, or an 'undecided' or 'no consensus' result to this discussion, people can clarify at the VPP, start over if that is what is decided by new policy, and then it would be easier to sort votes into piles. People can agree on how to count votes properly, and do it in advance of the big discussion.
If people goto the VPP and decide it is about trust, then that is what a discussion can be about on a do-over. If they decide it's about tools only, then that's how they could count a do-over. It's up to everyone, and the VPP is the proper place. Telling everyone what new policy is only works at the VPP. You shouldn't be telling someone during the discussion what the policy for closing should be. Penyulap☏05:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the real world exists nevertheless
Wikimedia is not the real world, but only a (small) part of it. And I am surprised that many comments here are not taking into account the very existence of a such a massive entity. What happened in the incident under scrutiny? The real-world Russavia has commandited a certain painting to be made in the real world and thereafter has orchestrated some derived pictures of this painting to be publicly released to the real world. By now, the picture called 'Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg' exists and cannot be un-released. This apply as well to its 'making of'. This pictures have been seen and downloaded worldwide of the real world, and each of the downloaders can testify that they were released under a free license implying both the painter and the uploader. This can not be changed. Moreover, the uploader was, at the time of the upload, allready known in the real world as an elected leader of http://commons.wikimedia.org. This also cannot be changed. Both facts are (small) parts of the already written story of the real world.
And now the community involved in the various aspects of the freedom of contents is facing this 'fait accompli' and has to react to the resulting mess: better take the greater picture into account while answering. As usual, there are people who try to promote a 'no sex is needed' policy... and other people who try to promote a 'no consent is needed' policy. One of the greatest misdeed of Russavia in this story is having obscured the debate and the very fact that 'sexuality and therefore consent are needed'. Trying to divert the debate into a case 'pictures people v. articles people' is aggravating the misdeed even more.
The question to answer is twofold: what to do with the pictures, what to do with the uploader? Therefore, the answer must be twofold itself, the key point being the disclosure of how the two decisions are correlated. In my opinion, 'keep the picture, remove the trust' is the best reply to the 'fait accompli' created by russavia. For the first point, it should be noticed that 'remove the picture from the real world' is not an option for an already publicly released object, so that 'keep' only acknowledges that these pictures will be irreplaceable for any study about the real-world evolution of this well known real-world charity.
For the second point, the answer may follow the teachings we can obtain from these educative media. I am not sure that everybody here has opened the File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv and looked at it three or four times in a row. Please, examine carefully how the rushes have been cut, pasted and interleaved with precisely this real-world picture that is well-known by the real-world donators and contributors of Wikimedia. How do you think they feel, all these real-world donators and contributors? What is the answer they wait for, in you opinion?
Additional remark: obtaining more details about the forecasted real-world auction of the real-world painting would be great, especially before the closing time of this procedure. Pldx1 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""real world" activities is not a can worms that should be opened as part this discussion, there already disputes as to whether an editor of very good standing with 100,000 en:wp edits is entitled to even have their opinion considered. To expand that to include considerations outside of WMF projects, do we need to see Russavia FB wall, or twitter account, IRC logs, school records, work history, FBI, CIA, KGB files, NSA records, police record. As a community we consider Russavias actions in relation to the community and whether those actions are what we expect from a bureaucrat. Gnangarra02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shudder at the thought of Russavia's Facebook wall. It is probably littered with pictures of LONG, FAT, HARDAirliners... -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Erotic performance art
I appreciate Pldx1's detailed post above, however...just because something is released into creative commons license and cannot be revoked...does not mean we have to host it here. There is no logic in saying that once its up...its up for good. This is erotic performance art, normally only seen at adult venues. why are we hosting it?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to assume my argument (and inaccurately I might add) then perhaps it is best not to comment. Again, do we allow erotic, sexually explicit videos? Do we allow these videos to be used against registered Wikimedia members?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted as is your lack of a link to any actual policy or guideline that states as much....because there is none. This is an interpretation of "No censorship" which does not state anything about sexually explicit performance art of an adult nature.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkweasel's point is that it should only be kept because it is objectionable. He is quite willing to toss out useless things that aren't objectionable. His opinion is shared by a small minority of which Russavia is part of, and of which the community has now made clear they will no longer tolerate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amadscientist, we have always hosted sexually explicit content since the launch of this site. Never at any point was sexually explicit content banned from this site. While there were attempts to that end from time to time, it has always failed. It is astonishing that this isn't clear to you when you are commenting on a de-Bureaucrat request.
Ottava Rima, you are the last person on this thread or site to talk on behalf of the commons community. What is being tolerated here on commons is the constant bigoted rants by a minority that keeps trying to dictate commons every so often. Perhaps that should be discouraged or outright banned since it only serves as a waste of everyone's time.
I find interesting how so many editors just jumps to conclusions and makes such broad assumptions. There is nothing that outright states that sexually explicit videos normally only seen on adult sites and venues should be hosted here. I am not talking about a less than encyclopedic snap of a persons genitalia, which is all our guidelines cover. And if you are really so astonished that "it" isn't clear to me, I would point out, it isn't clear to you either.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As this video clearly meets our project scope, you'd need to demonstrate what guideline does prohibit it, not the other way round. Also, this is not a deletion discussion, it is a de-bureaucrat discussion. The deletion discussion has already been decided. darkweasel9421:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The project scope of commons isn't restricted to being encyclopedic. This isn't Wikipedia and commons doesn't ONLY serve Wikipedia. If (for the sake of argument) someone decides to create a hardcore porn movie (explicitly adult content) and releases with a free license, it may very well find its way to commons. The only exception to this is when the local law (county, state, federal, international) prohibits us hosting the content in question. Mind that vast majority of commons content features content that is not sexually explicit. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ottava Rima, if you follow my comments at DRs, you will see that I generally often !vote in an "inclusionist" manner - sometimes more inclusionist than the admin's closure - no matter if it is objectionable to somebody. Ah, or, did you mean to say, for example, that keys on MacBook Air keyboards are objectionable to you, or to somebody you know? If yes, then you are of course right. darkweasel9421:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are also citizens who should use their brains before mindlessly supporting stupid laws. Just think about the bigger picture here. It is only because we have been indoctrinated when we were children that "sex = dirty business " and when we are adults we indoctrinate the next generation with this, that this whole problem arises in the first place. If we start questioning the scientific basis that porn (and I don't mean the extreme violent porn, child porn etc.) is bad for children, we may change things for the better. As things stand now, pornographic material is seen to be a threat to society and subject to censorship laws while videos of real beheadings (e.g. from the conflict in Syria) are not subject to any restrictions at all. Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counting the votes for only the Commons regulars without an ad-hoc cut-off on the number of contributions
To do this, determine the results as a function of the cut-off and then you extrapolate this to infinity. So, you're then polling how a hypothetical group of Commons members with an extremely large number of contributions would vote, given the way people have actually voted here, the information coming from both the vote results and how these correlate with their number of contributions here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
closing by Stewards
given that bureaucrats are involved in this and potentially have vested interests in the outcome maybe there should be a request for m:Stewards with no Commons history to closes this according to consensus based on policy.. I'm sure a panel of stewards could be easily founded by Cecil Gnangarra06:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read that page? Stewards are not a replacement for local governance: they can't perform actions reserved to bureaucrats if there are local active bureacrats and even when they do they don't decide what's the consensus but rather apply the consensus as determined by the community (except when the wiki has no community and they assign temporary sysop rights). --Nemo06:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Stewards generally do not perform actions on wikis where local users are available to perform them, except in emergency or cross-wiki cases." So there is nothing wrong if our crats wish so. Otherwise they can do it themselves. JKadavoorJee08:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could that be a cross-wiki issue? It's irrelevant. Jkadavoor, I am disappointed that you are continuing here the same vindictive pettiness that is occurring on en.wp by even making that ridiculousness an issue here on this project. russavia (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you leave en.wp to act in their petty ways if they so desire -- they are more interested in whipping up drama than in ensuring that people are able to deal with BLP and copyright violations. And others are more interested in flinging mud at others because they have been active here on Commons and have thanked me for the work I've done -- nothing like an anti-Russavia frenzy on en.wp -- I dealt with the same rubbish last year, and I'm dealing with it again now. So please, let them deal with it how they wish, it doesn't concern us here on Commons; unless we want to stoop to the same level of vindictiveness and pettiness as they obviously do? That's not the Commons that I know, nor is it the Commons I wish it to become. russavia (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have little idea about what had happened here or in EN:WIKI earlier. I think my first interaction with you is in this case. I give high importance for the rights of my subjects as a photographer. Further, I don’t like my works being used to molest anybody; even as a derivative work. This is the only point we have different opinions. I think your action will frighten photographers and they refrain from further contributions, at least in people photography stream. See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2013-August/008499.html Many people in CC community already expressed that opinion. JKadavoorJee09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; they said "it is difficult/impossible to prevent a reuse. So beware before making any contribution". That is the real problem. We loss many works, due to such silly acts. JKadavoorJee09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What they are saying is still not backing up your statement at all. Do you have any evidence of us losing many works? I believe we just passed 18 million files. russavia (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See. The problem is you take everything silly. It may be your basic attitude; one difficult to change. See one comment. "The rest I find quite silly to be honest. Painting pictures of people you don't like on things in funny ways is art. It's no different to toilet paper with the president or prime ministers head printed on each sheet." I will laugh if Pen do it (sorry Pen); but I can’t if a crat do it.
The loss will not reflect in one day. You succeeded to get a lot of works from Maersk. But what will happen if you started use their work to harass them? JKadavoorJee11:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I've created a few works featuring Jimmy. I've been careful to avoid his family because I always avoid private individuals. I surely don't think I've been very offensive but I respect that there may be people who disagree, only because people will always disagree about art. When I asked Jimmy about a very cute non-offensive image I made, I didn't get a meaningful answer, I got an answer, but I couldn't see that he had any sense of humor about him, so I just leave him out now. Jimmy didn't say what he thought of the Pricasso image until it was halfway through a DR, and then most of what he said was attacking Russ. What I brought away from that was the timing. The timing and the aim. I've never seen people sent from jimmy's page to the village pump to help make policy to remove offensive images and I wonder about that. I wonder is the objection about the painting or is it all about Russ. As for Russ's part, I mostly always put that down to a clever critique of the commons policy on keeping dumb-ass images about. Then, as for punishing him, I ask, why aren't we punishing ourselves for keeping it ? Anyhow it has nothing to do with tools, and policy about 'trust' based removals should have been discussed FIRST, at the VPP, because MANY editors are saying that there has been no abuse of tools and so it should be keep. Obviously, if there was a policy saying 'trust' then that wouldn't happen, and the vote wouldn't be so close. Not sure if enough people want policy to say 'trust' either, who knows what they want unless we ask first. Penyulap☏11:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Jkadavoor, again, he is saying something the complete opposite to what it is here you are saying. Perhaps it is because I am a native English speaker, and am better able to understand what it is he is saying. It is clearly obvious you don't. I see no reason to entertain anything else you are saying, especially because you continue to attack me in ways that are not backed up by what you are actually using against me; unfortunately this is not a problem that is confined to yourself, but some others as well. russavia (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact I'm going to entirely ignore the CC-BY-SA which gives people permission to make copies of the work." Isn't it means he is planning to avoid using CC-BY-SA? I’m not native English. JKadavoorJee12:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of the argument that he is making, he is ignoring CC-BY-SA, because that licence specifically allows for parody use (such as File:Putin on the Ritz.jpg). What he is saying is that even an all rights reserved work can be parodied inline with the law (this is usually a fair use application, and is not suitable for commons). He is also stating that the resultant painting isn't an actual derivative of the photograph, but a brand new work. He is also saying that if it were a derivative of the original photography, a brand new work has been created with the video. He is also saying that Jimmy is a public figure, and that mockery goes with the territory (as it would for criticism, worship, etc). And then he talks about the Streisand effect. There's nothing there to suggest that he's gonna stop offering works under CC licences. russavia (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the bottom part. A painting is not a derivative work; but a video showing the photograph several times is doubtful. Even if that video is a derivative work, moral rights are difficult to prove; so better ignore any legal claim. But all these facts are not helping us (a free culture encouragement project) to encourage such silly games. Instead, such acts only discourage people from contributions if they have any commitments to their subjects. I’m not talking about paparazzi style peep shots; genuine real photographs. JKadavoorJee13:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Stewards are for boards that do not have sufficient governance of their own. Actually if the outcome was remove, and Russavia recognized as much, he could uncontroversially close it as such and remove his own Bureaucrat bit. The software would allow him to, and it would then immediately report an error, telling him he can't do that :D even though he just did it and it worked, as if the software was itself protesting the change. A Bureaucrat is required if it is a keep however, as there would be less objections on as close a margin as this. Penyulap☏09:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that technically the bureaucrat bit will have to be removed (if the outcome is remove) by a steward anyway, but the decision should be made by an uninvolved bureaucrat (and I consider e.g. Cecil one, she hasn't actually expressed any opinion on the matter). darkweasel9411:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far I don't know much about what is going on in trying to stay neutral (I only read what happened after my first comment about the canvassing attempt). The checking through of the votes was done by simply going through the list and opening each name in a new tab and not reading what they voted for. I know what each crat has voted as I recognized their names while going through the tabs and looked at their vote. Otherwise I only know that it is about that picture depicting Jimbo Wales somewhere right at the beginning of the discussion. I know it was not painted with a brush and I know that russavia is somehow involved in it. The idea was to not read the rest until tomorrow. If the votes reach an easy majority than I would just close it. If there is no easy majority then it means checking each vote in detail and reading all the comments. A task I am not really looking forward as tomorrow is my dads birthday. Currently a crat is trying to reach the three remaining crats to see if this could be decided by more than one person. -- Cecil (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the remove and keep votes is about 10 while there are about 100 votes cast, so this is far from statistically significant (short of doing a detailed statistical analysis, clearly 10 is not much larger larger than sqrt(100), statistical fluctuations are therefore significant here). I didn't discard the votes of anyone, but it's easy to see that if the poll result would be statistically significant, the outcome would not be so sensitive to a handful of voters with little contributions. Count Iblis (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards performed actions all the time on en.wiki until the Arbitrators were given the ability to desysop, so even on the biggest project they were active. It seems silly that people don't want them involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slight smell of corruption about Commons governance, and the xenophobic reactions to people from other sites are an unfortunate feature of this page that confirms the odour. Stewards are the obvious choice when an uninvolved functionary is clearly required to decide on this matter. - Tony1
Ah yes, casually accuse your peers of racism if you do not happen to disagree with their concerns. That will win you friends Tony1. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That is assuming this is closed as "remove access" which may not be the case. Stewards WILL carry out the action as Bureaucrat lack technical capability. Stewards will act up on the closing Bureaucrat's decision. Yet another example of why this vote without establishing process is a horrible idea... -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am one of the three (apparently) local bureaucrats who have not been involved in this discussion, and I would be more than happy to review it and recommend a closing course of action when the time comes. However, I have not been particularly active here as of late, especially in terms of behind-the-scenes affairs (and the other two uninvolved bureaucrats have also not edited in the past three weeks or eight months, respectively). I do think it makes sense to resolve this locally as far as possible without recruiting stewards, but I just want to verify whether the community is at ease with myself and/or the other uninvolved 'crats playing a role in finalizing this process. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk20:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see an issue with you closing this discussion when that time comes. I do have a major issue with Cecil closing this discussion now.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious reservations of canvassing from en.wikipedia. I have problems with that. If that is addressed and considered when the discussion is closed who closes the discussion (except Russavia of course) is not a concern as far as I care. I insist that this vote/discussion is premature since we have no established procedure to begin with. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about who is voting here was launched by User:A.Savin at 2013/08/12, 12:48 UTC. This resulted in User:Faebot/SandboxX. While rediscovering the question four days later (2013/08/16 14:24 UTC), User:Cecil commented that some of the nine "elected leaders" could be completly inactive. Therefore, the page User:Faebot/SandboxX should provide also the statistics relative to these nine "elected leaders" of http://commons.wikimedia.org, the ones that will judge the case. We have the statistics relative to Dschwen, EugeneZelenko, MichaelMaggs, Russavia but those of 99of9, Cecil, Juliancolton, Jusjih, Kanonkas are not provided. It would be slightly amusing if any sleeping leader was allowed to judge who is sufficiently active among the users to be qualified as voter and who is not.
In any case, the decision to take is judging if the community http://commons.wikimedia.org does endorse or does not endorse the public behaviour of one of its "elected leader". The case is sufficiently important and sufficiently divisive to require a written statement, as judge of the case, from each of the nine presently "elected leaders". Pldx1 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My preceding comment was released before reading the just above comment of User:Juliancolton. This gave me the idea to look by myself into the activity of this user. Between 14 July 2012 and today, user:Juliancolton seems to have had only 100 contributions, among them less than 15 uploads. At least, it is what can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juliancolton. May be I have missed something. May be User:Cecil could provide some useful comments about the required level of activity? Pldx1 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem if Juliancolton, Cecil or both of them together finalising this process. I think there is no need to call a steward as far as one of you are willing to spare enough time to read everything. This is a big discussion and there are two related discussions too ([8], [9]). JKadavoorJee05:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not being very active for the past year is a good quality in this case, it allows a more dispassionate weighing of opinions and matters than someone with a more active interest in events and people. Given that most of the active crats are disqualifying themselves by voting, as an alternative to going outside the community, I was going to suggest something that would have much the same effect. That we should ask semi active ex-crats, ones who have not voted and who gave up their buttons in good standing, to either as individuals or as a panel to close this.--KTo288 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that one of the Commons' bureaucrats recommended discounting votes by participants who don't have an active history on Commons? If true, this is some incredible myopia. People on Wikipedia use Commons vicariously, by moving, placing, and reviewing the use of images that are hosted on Commons in WP articles. So, they have a right to come to discussions like this and have a say in Commons' administration. Please tell me that Commons' admins aren't this completely stupid and out of touch with reality. If you can't tell me that, then it would be wise to have a steward close this discussion by providing some needed adult supervision. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you hold the reciprocal position to be true, that the vote of someone with a lot of Commons edits but few en:wiki ones should hold as much weight as an active en:wiki user ifin a similar vote shoulf occur there.
Three new Crats needed?
"Well, we need at least 3 new crats to do all the crat jobs Russavia has been doing up to now." Seleucidis. I find such a claim interesting. I have asked before what Crat stuff Russavia does (making admin, approving bots, renaming), and very littleappears. It already seems like we have far more Crats than what we have activity for. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly is there a need for crat related actions on wikis. The number of crats needed has to do with having two or more active and available at all times. Crats also close discussions such as this one. Clearly for some we do not have any crats left to close this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong stats anyway. Here is the correct way to check them for those interested in countings: [10][11][12][13]. I see over 150 rights/rename actions by russavia; nothing compared to the 2500 EugeneZelenko has with his tireless renaming etc. work, but e.g. about twice as many as 99of9 who was elected bureaucrat about the same time.
In the other activity somehow related to bureaucrat status, mentioned by とある白い猫, I'd remember the constant (and very tiring) pedagogic work in instigating, keeping on track and explaining Commons' fair processes and functioning to the less experienced users. --Nemo07:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions/attribution status of Pricasso material
Something important is missing from this painting. Can you tell what it is? Here is a hint...CC BY SA 3.0.
While many people just assume this is a notable work because it is from a notable artist, the one thing that reduces the notability of the work (any artistic work) is originality. It isn't the original work of the artist. In fact, this is a copyright violation. I am amazed that no one has noted this yet, but the file itself at Commons is the only place with attribution, but if you notice...the painting fails to give proper attribution on the painting itself. That is right, CC BY SA 3.0 requires attribution for use. It has it on the file but clearly not on the work. This is an actual physical object created from another artist's vision without attribution in plain site. This gives the impression that the original photographer endorses the use. Do they?
Russavia, did you acquire permission from Manuel Archain to use his file without attribtution? If not, both the video and the painting are copyright violations requiring speedy deletion. If there is no answer from Russavia, I believe we can assume there is no such permission and a copyright violation is clear and speedy deletion is the proper route. I know we push the envelope in many places, is copyright one of those places? I also note that, if this painting is auctioned off without permission from the original author without attribution it compounds that copyright violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume that this is a derivative work (which it basically is not), there is nothing to say that attribution is required to be given on the actual work itself. Attribution on the painting could very well exist on the reverse of the painting. But that is, of course, assuming that the painting is a derivative.
But again, people are looking at the issue from the wrong angle, and it's something I've noticed and have already started making enquiries about. The photograph was taken by Manuel Archain, whom according to his website is a professional photographer. When the photograph was uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation website here, it was done so with a note saying (and quite prominently) "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use." (bolding emphasis mine). This was changed a week later when the licence was changed to CC-BY-SA-3.0. A couple of days later it was uploaded to Commons, with Wikimedia Foundation as the author. An editor queried this, as it had no source information, and linked to Jimmy's statement that the photograph is under CC-BY-SA-3.0. I, for one, am not willing to take this statement as authoritative, for obvious reasons. Jimmy, himself, then changed the information to say that it is a work for hire, with copyright owned by himself. Later someone has added an attribution requirement to the licencing; something that is not required if the photograph is a work for hire. If it is a work for hire, then attribution to Manuel is not necessarily required.
So far, the only definitive information we have on this particular file is that it was taken by Manuel Archain. There is zero definitive information that he did this as a work for hire, there is zero definitive information that copyright lays in the hands of the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimmy Wales, there is zero definitive information that the photograph is licenced under CC-BY-SA. Given that the photographer was not involved in the upload of this photograph to either the WMF website, or to Commons, can you tell me what's missing on the photography? Hint...it's called COM:OTRS.
So, in order to ascertain what the true copyright status of this file is, I have begun an COM:OTRS procedure, by contacting the photographer directly and asking them for further information. A copy of my email is here. Due to the unacceptable aggressiveness and personal attacks levelled by Jimmy on people who have tried to get this information in the past on another photo, and incorrect information given by Jimmy in that case, I have decided not to involve him in this case until the photographer confirms that this is a work for hire with copyright held by Jimmy or the WMF, at which stage they will be contacted to provide permission as per our standard COM:OTRS operating procedure.
As it stands at the moment, this is not a photo I would be recommending anyone to COM:REUSE to create true derivative works, because the actual copyright and licencing information is not clear enough. russavia (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at the beginning of this mess what the original artist's view was on the use of his image in this manner. Ostensibly did he even want attribution or did he consider it a violation of the "derogatory action" clause of the CC-BY-SA license. There was no response. Curious as to how you consider this work as not being derivative.Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are talking about en:moral rights, and you fail to put it in context -- "...which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." Are you saying that this painting was produced to prejudice Manuel's honour and/or reputation? His moral rights have not been infringed in anyway, shape or form. russavia (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure whether the painting is a derivative; but the video shows that photo several times. If the photo is not CC-BY-SA, the video is clearly a copyright violation. Even if it is CC-BY-SA, it is a violation per http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d (Original Author is the producer, not the photographer in a work for hire contract); but difficult to prove, legally. JKadavoorJee06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are copyright violations as the film does not include attribution with the original image while on screen or in credits whish IS a CC requirement. As for Russavia's sudden denial of a derivative work. That is simply not true...at all.
The file states clearly:"Pricasso/pricasso.com *This file is derived in inspiration from File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG by Manuel Archain, Buenos Aires, http://www.manuelarchain.com/ and is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence"
I am requesting speedy deletion of both the main image file which clearly shows a copy right violation by not attributing the original author in plain site. This means the artist is now claiming the work as their own. You MUST attribute the author on the painting itself in plain site as it is the actual work and the image file is a derivative of that.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to file a deletion request based on that rationale. A de-crat discussion is definitively not the proper location for that. However, you should be aware that your premise about the disputed painting being a derivative work in the legal sense of the Archain photo, might be disputed. Being inspired by a work does not equal being its derivative. As this touches artist's freedom/creativity, the evaluation whether or not a derivative will really be a challenge. (To be sure, I am not comfortable with that painting, but if deleted, it should be for the right reasons.) --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be disputed but it already has quite the documentation proving it. The video even shows the original photo and the file uses the the wording "derived". Its parcing words to claim he was only inspired when he paints from photographs. And we can dance along these lines all we want, but as an artist that paints from my own photographs I can tell you the "inspiration" is not the image, it is the subject. This artist has never met Jimbo so he could not have been inspired by the subject. All this is moot because we already have Russavia's own words that he suggested that image and that image is shown in the video. What further proof is needed? None really.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about the video, which might pose a more complicated situtation as it seems to show (I never viewed it) the Archain photo itself. In regard to your evidence: being a derivative or not is a finally legal question. I assume that none of us is either a lawyer or a judge experienced in art jurisprudence. You may try to get our legally most experienced contributor User:Clindberg in the boat. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amadscientist, it seems like you are confusing copyright related concepts:
None of which answer the question of attribution and if there was no attribution were permissions acquired from: Author Manuel Archain, Buenos Aires, http://www.manuelarchain.com/ to use the photo without attribution? We know it is a work for hire and the copyright owned by Jimmy Wales, released as CC BYSA 3.0. But attribution is never sold or exchanged and is always a part of the CC license and really the very heart of this project. But if there is no attribution in the video as required per the CC license than it becomes a "copyright violation" for uploading because yeah...CC licensing is still copyright...freely used with some requirements. Now suddenly Russavia has just moved the goal post to call the work entirely original when the attribution issue was raised [14]. That's pretty outrageous behavior in my view in the middle of all this when I have not done a single attempt to edit the file in anyway. Russavia even admitted that the video could be reloaded with the credit. The file we have is indeed a derivative. Seriously...of the PAINTING! LOL! its a picture of the painting and we are seriously telling the community that isn't even a derivative? The question Russavia means, I believe, is that the painting is not a derivative work. I think the artist could simply add "Derivative work of Manuel Archain" directly below his signature if even on the side of the canvas.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ALL derivatives of Creative Commons licensed works are required to have the same license. They cannot be more or less restrictive. So from the start File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg is freely licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license for being a derivative.
Even furthermore the image itself does not have to display the CC logo and OTRS ticket #2013061110001059 handles all copyright questions. Same ticket also handles the video. Therefore the painting and all photos of the said painting share the same license which happens to be a compatible Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
This is just a brief explanation of the copyright related aspects, I hope it clarified the issues you seemed to have confusion about.
As for the attribution aspect, linking to the original image is more than sufficient to satisfy the creative commons requirements here on commons. Rarely (if ever) do we attribute the original author of derivative works beyond just link to the original. I personally feel it is always nice to attribute the authors by name but this is commonly neglected. Mind that even if there was an attribution issue, deletion would be out of the question as adding in the attribution would be sufficient in fixing the problem. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 10:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"I personally feel it is always nice to attribute the authors by name but this is commonly neglected.". That's nice but not relevant. What you personally feel is not the point at all. The CC license does indeed have a requirement beyond just keeping all derivatives to the same license, it does still require attribution with even commercial use. My point being simply, that the artist may not have been aware of the CC license requirement, but it is a requirement. If I see my work being used commercially and the only thing I am asking if you use it, is attribution, then that is a small price to pay for free use. And that's what it is...free use with attribution. とある白い猫, all of what you say is quite true, but not part of my concern.
I disagree: imagine if somebody downloaded a partial dump of Commons files + descriptions and mirrored that, they will unknowingly violate the license if we don't add the author to description pages of derivative works. However as for attribution requirements on the painting itself or other products of people's imaginations - has anybody actually read the license? The notices need to be provided reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing. For online usage on Commons, description pages have always been considered reasonable to the medium the licensee is utilizing. If the painting itself is auctioned, I think a reasonable way to attribute would be to accompany it with a sheet of paper with the relevant notices, or to write those notices on the image's back. darkweasel9410:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do NOT remotely care about 3rd party violations and licensing issues. As far as the license in question and copyright laws are concerned there is no problem here. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
True. After all creative commons is copyleft. But you are right, what could I possibly know about copyright, commons policy, copyright laws etc. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Amadscientist is mistaken about copyright in this case. He claims that the painting being inspired by a photograph is a copyright violation (or at least a derivative work). I don't think that's the case here. There are plenty of modern day painting portraits made this way, and generally they are considered sufficiently original to have their own copyright. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful comparison. The Hope-case was much more complicated in that the poster-creator had first sued AP[15], not the other way round. Also, the poster-image looks indeed rather close to the alleged original AP photo[16], which by the way wasn't under a CC license. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turelio, even if the AP sued first, the judge made it clear that the AP was being infringed. My point was that a painting based on a photo is still derivative and still can infringe. :) Additionally, we do not know if the original photo was CC'd licensed because 1. the original author did not license it as such and 2. it was "on Jimbo's word" that it was re-licensed, which hasn't necessarily been the most accurate thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US case law on this is pretty complex, with examples on both sides. See p. 316-317. In Blanch v. Koons it was ruled that the following changes were sufficiently transfromative: "Compared to Blanch’s original photograph, Koons completely inverted the legs’ orientation, painting them to surreally dangle or float over the other elements of the painting. Koons also changed the coloring and added a heel to one of the feet, which had been completely obscured in Blanch’s photograph." I think the painting here has enough transformative elements similar to that case. The Obama AP photo was settled out of court (on undisclosed terms) so it does not create case law. (Also, in the Obama AP photo, the contours are practically identical, showing that it was a Photoshopped version of the original rather than a painting; see en:File:Fairey poster photo source?, by stevesimula.jpg). Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Someone not using his real name, that case law you mention is about "Fair Use", not Creative Commons attribution and is not the same thing at all. We are not discussing the Fair use of a work. We are discussing a blatant use of a CC licensed image and video without attribution. I believe there is case law for this particular issue (Attribution, not specifically CC licensing). But that isn't it.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The painting is sufficiently transformative" No, it is not. It clearly is not. The Obama case was very clear, which you showed obvious lack of understanding above. The absurdity that you substituted a clear analogous case with another regarding an image that moved body parts around and made it almost unrecognizable is ridiculous, especially when the findings were not regarding CC-BY-SA and were limited to fair use only, which Commons is not allowed to host. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting discussion and very illustrative of the odd tiered system we have here at commons. First of all, we don't really need case law, when we have our own policy on this based on case law. It has already been admitted to be Russavia that they suggested the image to use. As I have already stated clearly, the painting is the true derivative work, the image file we have is simply a derivative work or the derivative work. However, because the image shows the painting, it also clearly shows that Pricasso has only attributed themselves on the painting. We should delete the image file based on that lack of plain site attribution which is indeed required as the painting is an object created from the original image of another artist/photographer. By the way, the Obama "Hope" case was about "Fair Use" not about attribution (although that is a part of requirements for Fair Use). Now this is something of a grey area here it seems because the file itself has the proper attribution...but isn't the actual work in question, the painting is. The main point here is that all argument that this is a notable work is actually inaccurate. The work is not original and is truly derived from another artists vision. There is case law for this if that is what people want. I believe it is in a case of a sculpture made from a an image that was not public domain. The video however is not grey area. Clearly not following CC licensing by attributing the author in the video itself. I actually find it very funny that we are now discussing how this isn't a derivative work after it has already been established as such. Tis a little silly to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: The CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires that the relevant notices be placed reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing (section 4c). The medium, here, is online storage on a MediaWiki site, where putting them on a file description page is undoubtedly reasonable to the medium, because that's where people expect them and are most likely to look for them. See also Commons:Watermarks#Notes. darkweasel9418:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know for sure what is or isn't on the back of that portrait? In any case, although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that copyright law is concerned with distribution. We have three cases of distribution here as I see it: (a) Pricasso's distribution of the files to russavia, where none of us knows what was in those emails; (b) russavia's distribution of the files to the WMF server, which was accompanied by adequate notices; (c) the distribution from the WMF server to other reusers, also accompanied by adequate notices. Just where is the copyright violation? darkweasel9421:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient to hand a sheet of paper explaining the license and merely linking to commons. An email to OTRS has always been sufficient which wasn't even necessary given how the original work was a CC license. We do not care about the license violations by third parties. Amadscientist, what you propose is the deletion of practically all creative commons licensed content as such mistakes are common and are quickly corrected. Even I at times failed to attribute CC license to the proper people and quickly fixed the issue with the next edit. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
To demonstrate I noticed a problem with a creative commons licensed upload: File:Cannery Row at night.jpg by Mark James Miller. Which has the following disclaimer:
This artist and Wikimedia member understands that, where copyright ends, "Fair Use" begins. If you intend to use this image under "Fair Use", you must still attribute the CC-by-3.0 license, you must still attribute the original artist as well as supply a full "Fair Use" rationale as well as all other steps required with such use.
US copyright law allows a complete breach of copyright which is called "fair use" provided certain conditions are met. It is not where copyright ends and it is a very important part of the copyright law itself. Mind that not every country has a fair use equivalent.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license requires all works derivative of the original to carry the same license. So if I use this image as a part of a larger image, my entire work would have to be with a free license. Using the image under fair-use would breach that and hence the disclaimer is a violation of the license.
Should we delete the image? Absolutely not. Should the disclaimer be adjusted or removed? Probably. This is a day-to-day business on commons.
God fucking lord what is wrong with you とある白い猫? Seriously. If your entire argument has fallen into just attacking my work to retaliate for my vocal opposition to your view, you can seriously see this discussion with me at an end now.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking your work how? Have I nominated it for deletion? Have I modified it in any way, shape or form? I am just demonstrating a case where license related issue can arise and be resolved without involving admin tools. I picked the first image I saw on your userpage and was going to construct a hypothetical but then I saw an actual problem. Also, you have not relayed a "vocal opposition" to my views as far as I can tell as I have not voted on this discussion so far. I merely raised objections to the process as it is very problematic in my view. I see a wiki-lynch-mob on Russavia instead of a fair mellow discussion. This is not the commons way. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license requires no such thing as you state in your second bullet point. What it does state however is that [n]othing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.darkweasel9422:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which means if I claim full copyright on the work entire work, I would inadvertently create the said limitations. Particularly if multiple CC images are used and my only creative input is the arrangement. I am fully aware there are situations where this would be averted through various means but that really isn't the point. You really shouldn't use a CC-by-3.0 work under fair use. I would use a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license instead of the disclaimer which requires attribution, what the uploader wants. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the duplicate of this thread at the image deletion discussion (where it was dismissed and the image was kept), this is totally absurd nonsense. The whole point of a CC license is that you can reuse it with attribution, and from the day the image was uploaded it has carried proper attribution to the Jimbo fundraising image. There is no lunatic policy or law demanding CC images be credited right in the film you're watching at the moment you're watching it. They don't even have to do that with commercial images under far more severe restrictions. It is even more absurd and insulting to suggest that WMF founder Jimmy Wales arranged to upload an image of himself and use it on a site-wide fundraising appeal for weeks in violation of a photographer's copyright! Some people here are simply not here to build Commons, not here to honestly interpret policy nor WMF resolution nor law; they are only here to mindlessly obstruct the good work of the site out of a belief that it is better to censor and tear down everything than to let a few hundred things they disagree with be left alone. We have the right to fight back.Wnt (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advising of OTRS results
OTRS on the image is now done, and it has been confirmed that the photographer has transferred all of the copyrights to Jimmy/WMF as per the current description. I have amended the image information page accordingly. The only thing that needs to be done is for it to be checked with Jimmy whether the attribution is correct -- as the copyright holder, it is not necessarily the case that the photographer needs to be credited. russavia (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo is the copyright of Jimbo Wales and released to creative Commons license he may still require attribution of the original photographer and he can also demand attribution for that on the painting and in the video The license states that you must obtain permission from the copyright holder (CC license holder) if you wish to use the work without attribution.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If de-cratted, does that mean he's still an admin?
Loss of community trust as a crat equates to the same in terms of adminship (although a higher standard of trust is expected of crats, of course). May I ask whether de-cratting will involve desysopping too? Tony(talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so, for the very reason you cite: we expect bureaucrats to be even more responsible than admins, with the best possible judgment, so Russavia's actions could be sufficient to lose the community's trust as a bureaucrat, but not necessarily so much so that he can't be trusted as an admin. My feeling is that it would take another discussion/!vote to de-sysop him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is only about Russavia's Bureaucrat status. Note that our de-sysop policy requires prior consensus that the admin has abused admin tools, so I procedurally speedy-closed a prior de-sysop request which had not established that. --99of9 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome Russavia will be able to delete, undelete, etc the typical admin actions. The only access he would loose is admin/bot promotions, username renames, and other community specific tasks that doesn't require special access. Mind that username renames is possibly going to be removed from all bureaucrats on all wikis as it may become centralized.
So Russavia will keep the tools that impact other wikis the most and will loose the tools that do not impact other wikis at all - that is assuming he looses Bureaucrat access.
I propose all non-vote specific discussion be moved to the talk page. Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests is overloaded particularly if we have some other vote. This is also worthwhile for archiving and vote couonting purposes. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Somewhere else, the File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv is discussed for removal. It seems useful to recall that this movie, the way it was commissioned and the way it was publicly released are the core of the procedure undertaken here. As of now, more than 140 contributors have stated their opinions. Due to the obvious fact that whatever decision could influence the policy followed here (and in the whole Wikimedia), this discussion has been advertised far beyond the usual drama boards. One can think that this or that advertising has been done with the intent to canvass this or that side. But (this is at least my opinion) the net result of the process will be to collect the opinion of the more important person, i.e. the rank and file contributor, the one that provide contents instead of providing tempests in bowls of <put here your favorite drink>.
Before the present discussion is closed, i.e. before 06:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC), each and any voter need to look at the evidences by herself in order to make her own opinion instead of relying onto anyone else to choose between harassment and art in good faith. The very idea to restrain file access to only the chosen people, and address the others to so and so external web sites looks rather weird. And after that? In my opinion, the harassment comes not so much from the explicit content of this file, but from the "censor or accept" dilemna purposedly created at this occasion. How the community could hold her grounds while enforcing both the 'no censorship' and the 'consent is needed' policies? Replacing the File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG in the video by another strong evocation of the Wikimedia community seems to be a possibility. A great choice would be a statement of the revocation of Russavia from his position of 'elected leader'. Pldx1 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though Commons:Bureaucrats explains how Bureaucrats are chosen to help lead or guide community discussion of issues and policy improvement, this does not make anyone with the 'crat flag an elected leader. Considering how some the of the 9 crats appear to have made no edits in the last two months (Russavia being unusually active and engaged with volunteers), apart from a notification list they have no special system for discussing issues with each other (so they are not the equivalent of an Arbcom), and most of our community have no idea who holds this particular flag, I think it is fair to say that our community see this as just a special type of trusted administrator—particularly as highlighted in this discussion, policies on Commons tend to follow working practice. --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a good or bad thing? I am merely trying to understand your sentiment. :/ -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Never have I heard on any sizable wiki where Bureaucrats have been hailed as leaders. I do not regard Bureaucrats or even Stewards as leaders. Wikipedia does not have a command structure. We are not a military. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 10:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It may not seem like that now, but believe me, if people here somehow let in just one of these pro-censorship people as a bureaucrat, you will find out just how strictly hierarchical the system will be ever after. They'll be desysopping the good admins all day long on their own initiative and if you complain they'll laugh at you and ask if you want the WMF to intervene. Never forget that the good guys are the only ones who follow the rules. Wnt (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wnt has concerns about all of these pro-censorship people. Considering all the amount of water User:Russavia has brought to their mills by his behaviour during this mess, User:Wnt should perhaps change her vote into bureaucrat fired for bad results. Pldx1 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of helping the closer decide what to do, the !vote is at ~95 in favor of removing and ~67 in favor of keeping (as of the time of this writing). Yes, I know this is not completely a vote count, but all the same I thought it would be helpful to quantify things. --Jakob (Scream aboutthe things I've broken) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those that missed it, there is a maintained summary at User:Faebot/SandboxX. Though Faebot kindly counts these up for me (he tells me Keeps 63 Removes 93 which skips a couple of !votes for various reasons), the totals are deliberately left out of the report to encourage reading the !votes, their rationales and some consideration of who is making them... --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that users who are very active on Commons are more willing to keep the user as a bureaucrat than users who are less active. A clear majority of the sysops have voted "keep" whereas a clear majority of those who have made less than 100 edits have voted "remove". Two editors who voted "keep" have not edited any pages on Commons at all except for voting in this discussion. I'm wondering whether users who are not frequently contributing to Commons really are able to determine if a user is suitable or unsuitable for a Commons position. On the other hand, many of the users with few edits appear to be active on other projects (mainly English Wikipedia) and may have experiences of working with the user elsewhere. Although Commons has partially different needs, activities elsewhere may be indicative of whether the user is suitable for an advanced position on Commons or not. Should we somehow take into account whether a user is active on Commons or not in future nominations? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Most of Russavia's support are coming from ru wiki and other places canvassed and lacking a real understanding of the matter. All of the Commons Bureaucrats voted against him for a reason. The community is done with Russavia, and only a poor attempt at gaming the system has not made it 90% or more against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only see four ru.wiki users with insignificant Commons contributions (say below 1000 edits) who voted keep and two more who voted deflag. This factually contradicts your statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A proactive gentle(wo)mans agreement?
Shake hands, do not grave dance.
Independent of the outcome of this !vote, I think it evident, there will be a need for a healing process afterwards at the community level. Could we make a proactive gentle(wo)man agreement to abstain from any kind of grave dancing from either party or user, and be mature enough to get over personal grudges, shake hands and get on with work, like clarifying our policies, provide Awesome! freely licensed content to our repository users and continue to be the best source for freely licensed media in the known mellow universe? --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plus anyone indulging in grave dancing may be subject to being tutted at by the community and classed as non-U. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for the community to be healed is for Russavia and his supporters be completely removed from the project - otherwise, they will continue to push fringe ideology in opposition to our policy and our consensus, and they will continue to abuse others here and on other projects. They are using Commons to wage war against a myriad group of opponents they create at a whim. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a helpful list of names for those contributors you claim are pushing "fringe ideology" and are proposing to "be completely removed from the project"? Presumably you intend to take your list to COM:AN or create a RFC for the community to make a positive decision, rather than leaving this as empty rhetoric. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No he won't, you see the process is broken! We in the "cabal" cannot be removed because we control all wikimedia, as this decratting shows! It's only going to happen because we secretly sockpuppeted in 100 people to vote against Russavia to throw you all off the scent. Oh no, I spilled the beans! If only I could revdel this... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a referendum on Russavia, Fae, Mattbuck, Wnt, and anyone else that has proven themselves to be here for the sole intent to ignore the community and make a mockery of everything associated with Commons. As soon as Russavia is gone, I expect Mattbuck to quickly be removed. The community has clearly stated that enough is enough, and you two could do us all a favor by leaving before you are cast out in disgrace. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, you aren't really helping anyone with these comments, least of all the people you are purportedly trying to help. --Conti|✉01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Justice is the only way to truly help people, and it is obvious that Russavia et al are about to have it served to them. Their bad behavior was tolerated for far too long and we need to be honest about exactly what is going on. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yeah, sure. What gets decided should be accepted. Although it doesn't mean that people should stop trying to stand up for what kind of place they think commons should be. --Dschwen (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But realize, this vote is to remove Russavia as a Bureaucrat. It's not like he is being banned. He can still contribute, it's just a question of who should represent the Commons and have crat tools. I don't think he'll disappear. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not voted either way as nothing mentioned so far was objectionable enough to convince me to vote either way. One group trusts Russavia other doesn't. Neither side offers a concrete reason. I find this very troubling.
Furthermore, regardless of the outcome of the vote we have a rather large problem that needs to be addressed. Throughout this discussion we have seen clear heavy canvassing from en.wikipedia in particular. A good portion of that was motivated by what I like to call (for a lack of a better term) moral panic where they have problems with nudity/genitalia related on commons. This group of people should be familiar to most as frequently they vote in blocks (probably through off-wiki canvassing) trying to find loop holes and opportunities to seek the deletion of the nudity/genitalia related files as well as users that either upload them or users who prevent their deletion through closures or votes. This causes a reactionary counter response of counter votes by the commons community creating a self sustaining feedback loop that only intensifies the mutual hostility between the two groups. This type of drama primarily serves as a serious distraction from the more important problems.
Unless this problem is properly addressed unfortunately the very idea of MELLOW in my view is wishful thinking. The current precedent regardless of the outcome is that any user whom at some point uploaded, discussed or voted on content related to nudity may face consequences ranging from dealing with overwhelming drama to loosing access or even blocks.
Then with respect for your work and efforts as a volunteer, please immediately start a RFC with your list of those editors published here that you claim are pushing "fringe ideology", or forever cease your soapboxing in multiple threads, and never having the apparent conviction to take any real action apart from repeatedly attempting to derail community discussion with dramatic or threatening rhetoric to make yourself the center of attention, without producing credible evidence, until your comments become equivalent to meaningless noise. Thanks in advance for not responding to this comment with personal attacks and unproven statements about me being a liar, criminal, bad person, malicious etc., etc., etc., without taking your evidence properly to a RFC or to AN/U. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Healing process? Yes, obviously. But diagnostic is a part of any healing process.
In this respect, comparing the Pink Parrot Incident with paintings of Obama, Putin or the Queen of Australia is misleading. This three real-life paintings are, for what can be seen on the web site of the painter, stored in the painter's back office and mostly used to convince the passerby to invest 50$ in the painting buisness : "the powerfull are pictured, be one of them". But the drama here hasn't been constructed that way. Let us describe a closer analogy. A portrait of the Queen is discovered in the Ballroom, Buckingham Palace, with a movie describing the painting process that was done using a semi-flacid trowel. Quite immediatly, one discovers that the painting was commissioned by Charles himself. Of course, everybody knows the long lasting quarrel between Charles and Mom (about what he says on the phone and so on). But Charles explains: all I have done was for the glory of the Empire, If I had known what drama would have followed!. There are portraits of Obama, Putin, etc. Why not Mom?. And he launches a campaign "only native Britons should vote, who cares of this damned Commonwealth". This Charles, really, playing stupid for not pleading guilty.
But this is not the end of the story, because all of that don't explain all of the inflamatory process. There is a background problem here, at http://commons.wikimedia.org, with the stolen pictures i.e. the pictures of private persons that were taken in private places but nevertheless publicly released without their consent, in a context of mercyless categorizing or editing. There are people who are using this fact to support their 'no sex needed' agenda. There are other people who are using the no censorship policy to support their 'no consent needed' agenda. Without a strong assertion of a 'sexuality and consent are needed' policy, the inflamatory process can only become recurrent. For example, the very idea to mix rightful erasing of a stolen picture, courtesy removing of a star with a mole on the nose and scope discussing is strongly wrong and inflamatory. This should be clearly fixed, and this should have been our main concern, instead of being diverted into fixing the present sideway mess.
In the long term, we should not only require from our administrators to "treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect" but also to provide a minimal decorum to keep that assertion credible in the eyes of a wronged person wanting to complain about stolen pictures.
I find your British politics/royalty analogy to be rather problematic. Jimbo is neither royalty nor is commons England with ex-colonies. I know this probably is not your intention but I fear some people may find it offensive (due to historic reasons). What you are describing is politics and we should base our decisions on commons out of common sense not politics. It is very hard to talk about common sense when there is a tsunami of politics serving as a big distraction on what is important. A fair non-canvassed discussion will reach the best common sense decision/compromise. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the discussion here is not about art (how to paint with gouache), but indeed about politics (how a rather large gathering should manage its self-governance). As you know, there is a strong cultural bias here and an analogy with Cao Cao and Lü Bu would have created more surprise than light. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I agree with Ottava Rima's comment above. There are other functionaries at Commons who should also consider taking a break for the sake of the project. Tony(talk) 12:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then with the greatest of respect for your work and efforts as a volunteer elsewhere, please immediately start a RFC with Ottavia Rima's list of those he claims are pushing "fringe ideology", or forever cease your soapboxing in multiple threads, and never having the apparent gumption to take any real action apart from repeatedly griping at the rest of us without producing any tangible evidence, until your comments become equivalent to meaningless noise. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but then who could be against? However artificially playing happy families will not fix the rift only paper over a crack that will erupt again sooner or later with maybe even greater acrimony. Demanding the unconditional surrender of the other side now or in future, as opined above is unreasonable and unlikely, and this applies to both sides of this divide. I have to say that I don't see much wrong with the status quo at the moment, and see the dissenting voices that claim that Commons is fundamentally flawed as a minority. Some may therefore see the solution in attempting to silence such dissenting voices by blocks and the threat of blocks, as an search of AN archives attests, but any comfort such an action provides is a false victoty. In any community dissenting voices are an asset not a nuisance, we may not like what we hear, we may not agree with them and we may not act upon them, but if we are ever found to be naked in pulic we can't complain that no one told us our new clothes were fake. I do not think we will be able to fix the rift, and maybe that's not a bad thing. When proposals to change Commons do not and cannot carry the consensus of the community is it really because Commons is broken and needs to be discarded or the community fixed, or is it because those proposals were from the onset flawed. To the dissenters I say, rather then let your dissappointment fester into anger and the belief that your can short circuit processes by petitioning Jimbo into changing things by royal proclamation, lets admit to the elephant in the room face up to it, work toether on the principle that whatever side of the divide we may stand our shared goal is to make Commons the greatest file repository in history and as a basis for this we have to hold a respect for individuals who hold values different from ours and to engage with them in an open, honest, civil and well tempered manner. Contributing and editing together where we can, agreeing to differ where we cannot and submitting to the consensus of the community on all things even on issues we care deeply in. We must not see the other side as enemies to be defeated, humbled, exiled or reeducated.--14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)--KTo288 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfB and Rfd-B are two sides of the same coin
It's not described as such, but essentially, this is a reconfirmation RfB. And an RfB would not pass with this amount of votes against it.
There is no consensus behind this. It is a vote for de-Bureaucrat, not confidence. I do not envy the task of whoever has to close this. Arguably its a no-consensus or no action depending how you count the votes. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood something. "A motion of no confidence is primarily a statement or vote which states that a person in a superior position - be it government, managerial, etc. - is no longer deemed fit to hold that position." That's exactly what this is. The title is "Russavia (de-Bureaucrat)"; people are voting for or against that proposition. Your assessment is also off; as I've stated before, gaining or retaining bureaucrat status requires an overwhelming display of community trust, which is not the case here. — Scott•talk19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus quite clearly favors a stripping of the Bureaucrat bit, that isn't debatable. What remains to be seen is if we find a closer who can respect that consensus. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to close the discussion, but I don't think I am the only one of the 'regular' content creators on Commons that is both capable of respecting consensus and of respecting Russavia as a colleague and valued contributor here. --Fæ (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well spotted. Strangely enough although many folks assume that is a deal-breaker, it does not strictly stop someone from closing. Anyway, just an offer, bureaucrats are welcome to email and ask me. In a tricky case like this, it is even reasonable for others to propose closing statements as a way of helping the closer. I'll ponder it, as I think I could mentally separate Russavia the volunteer from Russavia the bureaucrat in the context of the many viewpoints expressed in this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting your ability to do so. Not at all. But even if you would pull off the perfect closing statement out of your hat, there would always be doubts about your honesty and integrity due to your prior involvement. That's why, at least to me, this very much is a deal breaker. Not because there's doubt about anyone's abilities to be neutral, but out of principle alone. It's nothing personal at all, and I would not wish for anyone who voted different from you to close the discussion, either. One of the bureaucrats (I think) mentioned a potential crat chat for the close, which I think is an excellent idea. There was also the idea of asking a Steward on meta (someone truly uninvolved and neutral) to look over the discussion, if no more Commons bureaucrats could be found. --Conti|✉20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I will be happy to close this discussion in place of Fæ. Unlike Fæ I have not voted in the proposal nor have I commented in it. I'm also pretty sure that I'm a much more objective editor when it comes to this matter than Fæ (no offense Fæ, I mean that in relative terms).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be wise to have someone close who has not publicly made nasty personal attacks of Russavia off-wiki, such as repeatedly calling him a douchebag. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I guess I'm going to have to spell it out, since you insist on pretending that you don't get it. When I proposed that I'd close the discussion I was clearly making fun of your proposal that you get to close it. The point is that it would just as ridiculous (maybe even less) for me to close to it as it would be for someone like you to close it. With your long friendly history with Russavia, with your constant support for anything he does now and in the past, with your friendship and obvious collusion of interests and your already cast support vote. You closing the discussion would be simply laughable. Given all that, I would STILL be the more objective person here compared to you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that if someone did not take part in this discussion, or did not vote, it does not mean that he is objective, neutral and independent. It only means that he did not reveal his meaning publicly, so we don't know what he thinks. Contracting a steward to close it, is not a good idea either, because he probably did not follow the de-crat from the beginning and now he will be hopelessly lost in the mess. The case should be closed by a group (something like ArbCom) or one person in consultation with other people, eventually I propose a group of thee men: one representing Russavia (Fae), one representing the remove voters (Slaunger) and one active crat (EugeneZelenko who voted neutral or 99of9 who started this procedure). Seleucidis (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, good idea, but what you makes you men would be required? Wouldn't a woman be just as good for that? So much so, I would agree to a woman "representing me". Do you know of anyone? :) russavia (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, full Support to the proposal by Seleucidis. This issue has been much too complicated and controversial to let the full responsibility for the result burden a single user, even if they're a highly skilled, neutral and mellow one. The named three colleagues are just examples (acceptable for me though), and of course are female users as welcome. --A.Savin09:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer INeverCry as Russavia's advocate and MichaelMaggs as the opposition's advocate. Perhaps we should use a group of five or seven. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given how the vote is running - never mind the fact that there's only one way that any reasonable honest person could close this discussion given the votes, and never mind the fact that these silly proposals by people who already voted in support of Russavia amount to nothing but a desperate attempt to cheat and save his butt - shouldn't it be two or three people from the "remove" camp (+1 "neutral", +1 "keep")? At the very least? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek You may have become far too used to publicly attacking Commons volunteers (with Russavia as your favourite target) by repeatedly calling them douchebags or worse off-wiki. Defaming other contributors on-wiki is considered a personal attack, and is directly against policy here. Alleging that others who have contributed to this discussion are cheats is not acceptable without presenting a clear case with evidence. Please explain precisely who is cheating and how, or kindly redact your accusation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ I haven't defamed anyone here so I'd appreciate it if you quit making baseless accusations, poisoning the well or making other bad faithed attempts at manipulating the discussion. These kinds of baseless accusations are considered a personal attack and are a direct violation of policy. Trying to change the rules in the middle of discussion because the consensus is clearly against you is clearly cheating, by any reasonable definition of that term. The 'evidence' is this very talk page and this very proposal. Or what, you gonna ban me too, just like you're now going through and banning people for voting do de-crat Russavia? That's not cheating either, right? Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it best that it be left to the three crats that haven't yet commented to close this, another thought was rather than to go for someone totally outside our community was to ask Lar if he would be willing to play Cincinnatus for us. Whoever does close this, I think they should be given time to trawl through all the votes and opinions. Close it to new votes on time on the 25th, lock down this page from further comment and allow three or four dys for a decision to be reached--KTo288 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Kto288, that it is best to leave the responsibility for closure to an uninvolved 'crat. We require a 'crat to close RfAs and de-RfAs, so naturally a 'crat (at least) would also be needed for this closure. I would even say it is a must that no speculations can be made, that the closing 'crat is involved in any way considering the unprecedented occurance of this kind of discussion and the very divided opinions. Juliancolton has offered to help close this, and considering that the two remaining uninvolved 'crats appear to be sleeping (as observed by Ymblanter) I think we should stick to Juliancolton. I think we should encourage Juliancolton to get help from other users he trust at his discretion to help evaluate the comments and !votes, but the final decision should be done at 'crat level (or higher). Julian has himself stated that he is a little out of touch with the community due to his recent inactivity. Actually, I think that is a bit of a plus as it probably enables him to better look at the entire situation in a neutral birds perspective detached from known or even unconscious personal alliances. I also agree with KTo288 that given the possible impact on the community, the page should first be locked and then an evaluation period of 'a few days' (whatever the closing 'crat feels is needed) to make the closing statement. Should we ask Julian to share his thoughts about the closure process? --Slaunger (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KtO288 mentioned Lar. For me it would be fine to involve him - I trust him. Another possibility for widening the number of users looking at this would be to ask Rocket000 to briefly revive his 'crat status and help with the closure. Rocket000 is in IMO one the most trustworthy previous 'crats on Commons ever, very, very mellow, and with excellent personal judgement. --Slaunger (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have a big community wide vote to decide on how to close this vote. And then to close that vote an even larger discussion will be needed. The issue being undecidable, let's close it as such. Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever does close this - individually or as a troika - is pretty much in a no-win situation. It is pretty obvious that Russavia can't remain a crat without further damaging Commons' reputation. If he actually cares about this project, he should just resign. Resolute (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About two current subordinate cases
Two other cases have been opened, that are obvious subordinate cases of the present main case. How poorly these two subordinate procedures were/are managed bodes no good about the future of the healing process. I put my remarks here precisely because I think they are subordinate cases.
Instead of what, the discussion ignited. At the end, the inflamatory nature of this subcase was even more than apparent and was strongly requiring for a well worded closure, stated by an non-involved admin. In an ideal world this could even have been a simple "in use in a pending case" ruled by one of the sleeping bureaucrats.
This procedure was nevertheless closed by a clearly involved person ruling the case by a non-neutral closing statement. Some strongly worded comments (in a strongly worded discussion) are a reason to step back. Instead of what, we got an "I don't see that" in the closing statement. Such wording is horrible and should have been "the community hasn't see that". And this ends by a sarcastic comment, that amounts to assert: if the movie has been about painting without a semi-flacid trowel, nobody would have complain about painting with a semi-flacid trowel.
This was inflamatory. Not only for the delete voters. But also, and even mostly, for the keep voters, myself among them: we doesn't deserve to be presented as a bunch of biased people.
And obviously, this has ignited an easy-to-ignite person, that got cited and sentenced in (18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) – (17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)) i.e. in one hour and sixteen minutes. I am satisfied to have used above an analogy with the Queen of Australia rather than with the other possibilities at hand, since this gives only: the dissenter was sent to London Tower by the Prince of Gibraltar himself, and three other sergents.
After a period of astonishment, the case has been reopened, invoking some kind of habeas corpus. Here again, a procedural closure as non bis in idem should be ruled, the inflamatory comments by User:Ottavia Rima counted as a shame for the de-bureaucrat voters and the unappropriate behavior by admin:mattbuck counted as a shame for the keep voters.
As a final remark, I reassert my opinion that the "crat/decrat" conclusion should be written by the college of the nine people in charge. One reason is ensuring and asserting independence and authority in this divisive and controversial mess. Another reason is that I am curious of what could be the statement, as a judge, of the 'elected leader' Russavia over the pending case. But not only. I am also curious to *see with my own eyes* the statement, as a judge, of each and every other 'elected leader' over this case. It is clear that the way the decision will be written will be of paramount importance and that elevation of thought and consideration of the broader picture will be required for the decision to be accepted, useful and healing rather than adding more ignition to an already ignited situation. Should we re-elect any 'elected leader' that would be reticent to prove 'leading capabilities' when required?
I do not see anything you have put here as a subordinate case that would be decided by this one. Bureaucrats are not a college of 9 elected leaders in charge of Commons. If you have a proposal for how the closure of this discussion should work, it would help if you could spell it out briefly, and avoiding tangential legal terminology. --Fæ (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to my closure, I feel that my closure was valid. Controversial maybe, but any closure in the case would have been, and, frankly I agree about one thing - it should have been immediately closed, albeit on the grounds that it was kept two weeks prior.
As for Ottava Rima, I don't see why I should have to wait another week or two for this to be closed while he slanders myself and others. His behaviour, while mainly at this discussion, is not a product of it - he acts that way of his own volition, and many many other people have managed to vote against Russavia while remaining perfectly civil. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... except you DID make an announcement about your Ottava block request on the Commons IRC channel to your buddies (after talking it up for a couple days prior) right before you posted it. They then showed up - indeed, they are almost the only commentators in the initial discussion - and then someone (don't know if that's another IRC regular or not) closed it giving you the block you wanted after only about two hours.
You and your little circle made... let's say "informal" plans to get Ottava blocked on IRC, you then canvassed support for the block on IRC from your friends and then you got it with lighting speed. Add on top of that that it very much looks like the purpose of the block was to create a chilling effect on the people who are voting to de-crat in this discussion and who are articulating their criticisms (while folks like White Cat, another Commons IRC regular, and russavia himself get to harass and harangue people all they want), and sorry this whole business stinks. Ottava can be a difficult person to get along with, no argument there, but in this instance ... the block is bunk. In more ways than one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned I wanted a ban discussion, and started writing up the initial post. In PM, Russavia asked me to hold off on it, we talked a bit and I decided I would post it regardless. I then linked him to the discussion (as we were already talking about it) and then went and made dinner. After eating dinner, washing up etc it was an hour or so later, and I went back to Commons to find Ottava already blocked. I fired the celebratory cannon on the roof of my volcano lair, then went about my business. There was no canvassing beyond me talking to someone who already knew I was going to post it. I did not announce it, the closest I can see to that is mentioning that he should be allowed to defend himself despite his AN restriction. There's no conspiracy here, just that (surprise surprise) those of us who are on IRC are the peachy keens and so refresh our watchlists more often. I was not intending to create a "chilling effect", and if people believe Russavia should not be a crat anymore that is their right to say so, and to argue for it, but they can do it without being objectionable to others. The same goes for those of us who argue for Russavia to keep his cratship. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck, that would've been fine if not for 1) the more or less the only people who commented in the block discussion were exactly the people who you were chatting up on IRC when you posted the announcement, 2) the discussion was not closed so quickly and 3) you had not been making comments on IRC for a few days prior, basically letting all your buds know you were going to do it. Is that a conspiracy? Not smoke filled rooms, grassy knolls and cloak and daggers. But it's blatant canvassing to get what you want, in order to screw over somebody you don't like.
And I can't speak to your true intentions, but can only describe your actions and what kind of intentions these imply. It very much looks like an attempt at creating a "chilling effect". You can say abstract meaningless stuff like "The same goes for those of us who argue for Russavia to keep his cratship" all you want, but until you file a block request for White Cat, and hell, Russavia himself, for harassing the de-crat voters, and then canvass on IRC for its support, these statements are empty. Oh yeah and Fae too, who's busy making obnoxious defamatory remarks about me on this very page, both above and below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, only Volunteer Marek on his extremely nasty and years long anti-Russavia campaign, could turn stopping Ottava Rima's pointless disruption of this process as a secret conspiracy by a pro-Russavia cabal. You will never have the gumption to take a complaint to the admin noticeboard will you? In fact I can see you have not actually bothered to engage in the Ottava Rima block discussions by providing evidence. Utter nonsense. Please stick to writing this sort of unpleasant rubbish off-wiki rather than creating a hostile environment on this project. --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's amazing is that here you are, making stuff up (about some "anti-Russavia campaign") and lying about me, making accusations that are far worse and far more uncivil than anything that Ottava wrote yet... none of your friends are jumping to file a block request for you. Funny, huh?Though not as funny as the fact that you (along with Russavia) already got banned from one (major) WMF project for more or less creating a hostile environment and playing these kind of sketchy games and here you are trying to lecture me about it.
Your campaign is dead easy for anyone to find off-wiki, it's not as if you have attempted above to deny repeatedly calling Russavia a douchebag off-wiki. I remain seriously concerned about how you are choosing to bring in the same type of off-wiki aggressive battlefield tactics to disrupt consensus building discussion on this project. It damages the chance of fellow contributors reaching a consensus and polarises the discussion. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, or deliberate malfeasance by trusted administrators, then take it to the administrators noticeboard rather than forum shopping or soap boxing elsewhere. I have the complete IRC logs for the past week, I don't see what you, apparently, see. --Fæ (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fae, you are again making stuff up. There's no campaign and this "anyone" you speak off does not exist. Of course I don't think Russavia is a net benefit to the project, Commons or en-wiki, and I have said so previously. Pretty detrimental and an endless cause of unnecessary disruption actually. And whoa! Here I am saying it again. Apparently more than 100 editors in good standing seem to agree with me - looked at your Fae bot count lately?
You say: I have the complete IRC logs for the past week - whoa! I thought logging IRC was prohibited? Why haven't you been kicked out of IRC yet??? Or is it that only *some* people get to log IRC but not others? Anyway, I didn't ask you whether you had IRC logs yourself, but - since you asked for evidence - whether you actually wanted me to provide it or not. I'm sure "you don't see what I see" but that's you just denying, making stuff up etc. "Evidence" would involve letting others make up their mind about it. So how about *you* post the logs? I'd be perfectly fine with that.
And frankly, weaselly bad faithed statements like this I remain seriously concerned about how you are choosing to bring in the same type of off-wiki aggressive battlefield tactics to disrupt consensus building discussion on this project. were a good part of the reason why you got kicked off English wiki, weren't they? They sound ... "sincere" ... because you know, you're only "seriously concerned" - except they're anything but that. They assume a particular conclusion by making it implicit, the whole "did you stop beating your wife" thing - there's no battlefield tactics here, just a very different view of how Commons should conduct its business. Which, again, appears to be shared by the majority of users involved. I'm guessing that's how your ban on English Wikipedia actually unfolded - you went up to an WMF employee, gave them the same kind of hypocritical Newspeak line as above and that's the point where they decided that, whoa, this guy's not to be trusted and yeah we don't need him around. The fact that you're still going around playing these games suggests very strongly that you have not learned that lesson. Thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as you have referred to it twice now, I am not banned on en.wp (or anywhere else), the Arbcom ban of 2012 was lifted on my first appeal attempt. You might consider why, but the ins and outs of that are irrelevant to Commons. Your assertions against me of playing games, "weaselly bad faithed statements" etc. are not evidence, they are attacks on my character and they only serve to show readers of this thread the unpleasant battlefield polemic you are used to applying in adversarial campaigns and are now, sadly, bringing onto this project. As for keeping personal logs of #wikimedia-commons for your own reference, I believe that is acceptable, it is public logging that is problematic and considered a breach of the conventions. In fact, I have put the case for official logging several times, and the recent case involving disgusting behaviour by a WMF employee, would seem to make that a positive proposal to ensuring all users behave a bit better towards each other there by being accountable for their actions; however again, this is not a topic worth spending time trying to resolve on this project. As you have now chosen to raise a note on AN/U with regard to Ottava Rima's block, I consider the thread here at an end and further discussion and questions should be directed there. --Fæ (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were currently banned. I said that the kind of behavior you are engaging in currently here on Commons is what got you banned on En-wiki. You were banned there, weren't you, right? Incidentally, that also makes it relevant to Commons. Congratulations on your appeal btw.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fae did nothing wrong then, and he does nothing wrong now, and there is no reason why he should even be the topic of discussion here (as opposed to, say, Russavia, or Pldx1's comments), except that here we have (surprise) the same detractors doing the only thing they know how to do, constantly complain because the people who actually do things occasionally do things they don't like. People who should have known better indulged them, and this is what happens. Wnt (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got only one thing to say about this absolute nonsense. I did have a quick private discussion with Mattbuck in which I did ask him to delay the indefinite block/ban discussion. For it to be stated that there was co-ordination between anyone on IRC is pure idiocy. The fact of the matter is that Mattbuck felt that OR is a pain in the arse to this community with their constant and endless polemical statements and accusations (all without any sort of evidence), and in this case Ottava Rima dug their own hole. That I support a community ban on Ottava Rima isn't evidence of any co-ordination, but simply affirmation that I, and many in this community, have simply had a gutful of them and their non-collegial accusations and, in general, bullshit. Now, is there a bureaucrat around who is going to enforce 99of9's opening statement here and shut this down, or is this going to continue as a free-for-all? russavia (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the work you did for the community and to the benefit of this project wearing your bureaucrat hat. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia seems to have fully-protected the page and declared "voting closed". I can understand that it must be upsetting to be on the brink of having his Bureaucrat rights removed and I am sympathetic, but this is clearly an abuse of his admin rights. Can someone please unprotect the page, at the very least until the circumstances of Russavia's resignation are clarified? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. thus OK to protect the !vote page ASAP after resignation. I do not see any abuse in admin rights in doing that. It is pragmatic. --Slaunger (talk)
If Russavia has resigned as a Bureaucrat and states that he will not ask for the rights to be returned except by standing for an RfB, that's fine. If he intends to ask for the rights to be restored later (without an RfB), that's different. I think this should stay open until he clarifies his intentions. Even so, Russavia should not be closing a request to remove his Bureaucrat rights. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
..... a rather theoretical question. Of course a new RfB would be needed given the stage we have reached. The !vote is now moot. And I respect Russavias decision. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russavia, thank you for your work as bureaucrat and your service to Commons. I don't understand that any further discussion of this matter would be helpful. I, for one, am content to see it resolved. --Walter Siegmund(talk)16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A few hours ago I emailed User:Wpedzich and asked him to remove the crat bit (thanks for your comments in the log, I appreciate it). I have always said that having the crat bit is not a big deal, it is mainly technical. It has been said that the crat also involves "trust"; one does not need to the bureaucrat bit to have the trust of others, and I know that I still have the trust of a huge section of the Commons community regardless of whether I have the crat bit or not, and I thank you for that. During this entire discussion there has been no solid evidence, and only the odd accusation, of any type of abuse of the tools, or anything I have done on this project going against any policy. (Commons_talk:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)#Brought_the_project_into_disrepute.2C_how_and_where.3F pretty much states that case as well. And that will be continuing into the future, and I will continue doing what is good for this project. I am not going to desert this project, and nor will I be pushed out of it. A big part of our crats duties are being transferred to our stewards, and "bots" were never really my area of expertise, and policies on this project are pretty much good, and I have some other things which I will be pursuing in the future relating to our projects, so given that, now is as good a time as ever to spend some time on that.
On this process and what lead up to it, I am disappointed in numerous aspects of it, and I could call it a clusterfuck, but I won't. The potential results from this process are chilling in numerous aspects that would affect our projects (not only this project), in numerous ways, and in unintended ways that I would rather have things left unsaid by myself; but I'm sure that others will obviously have their say on numerous things when the time is right for them. By my refocussing my immediate attention to some other things, as mentioned above, these issues will not need to come to a head on this project, thereby creating more unnecessary drama, grudges, etc.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Needs a proper close
The closing of this with the page protection by Russavia himself and a one-line "close" from a supporter of Russavia seems highly improper. It looks like an attempt to avoid the inevitable "Russavia was de-bureaucrated by the community" with something like "Russavia just happened to resign." It completely nullifies the community's role in this, and is thus disrespectful of the community.
Speaking of disrespect - Russavia writes above "On this process and what lead up to it, I am disappointed in numerous aspects of it, and I could call it a clusterfuck, but I won't." Well, he did just characterize the process as a clusterfuck. Total disrespect to the community. Both Russavia and the community deserve a proper close. Smallbones (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a lot of reasons I think the community is very fatigued by this discussion. Since the actual commons community never had any role deciding the outcome of this vote, it is only fitting that we are left out of it as well. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 05:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I agree regarding the fatigue, but concerning Since the actual commons community never had any role deciding the outcome of this vote... this is an absolutely puzzling statement for me. Five Commons 'crats - every active 'crat we have, have voiced their opinion on this matter. Four of them (MichaelMaggs, 99of9, Cecil, Dschwen) has !voted remove and one (EugeneZelenko) neutral. Of the three remaining 'crats two have not been available (Kanonkas, Jusjih) and the last one (Juliancolton) had offered to close this. Are these 'crats not a part of the actual commons community? Do you agree that existing 'crats are those who should know best what is to be expected from a 'crat? Does it not make an impression of you that not a single 'crat has uttered a voice of support? --Slaunger (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not upset or happy about the outcome of this vote, I however have significant reservations towards the execution. From below: perhaps the commons community would have reached the same conclusion had there not been en.wikipedia canvassing. I think some people voted Keep strictly due to the canvassing. I think no one is disputing that a significant portion of the votes here were canvassed from en.wikipedia. I see this as a problem. This undermines the commons community as a whole. I am not suggesting we completely disregard people from other wikis we serve, but surely we do not want them to dominate outcomes like this. I'd like to also note that 'crat comments are no more significant than the next member of the community as this would have been a 'crat only vote if that were the case. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no "canvassing" on en.Wikipedia. I left a note for Jimbo Wales that the request had been made. That notice does not suggest that anyone vote. It is a courtesy notice, since Jimbo Wales is the subject of the painting which ultimately lead to the request. Russavia did not wait for the vote to close, but chose to resign, so any discussion of the makeup of voters is misplaced. Please stop banging this drum now. It's over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were over you wouldn't be here. Please do not insult my intelligence by refusing the obvious. The discussion didn't concern Jimbo Wales. Jimbo's talk page is like a noticeboard and I do not believe all that was done was that notice. Has there not been attempts of private communication to insure the outcome? We have even seen attempts of private communication with commons 'crats to sway their decision! -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me take this point by point. "If it were over you wouldn't be here" - I'm here to refute your provably false claims that there was canvassing on en.wp, not to reopen the vote. "The discussion didn't concern Jimbo Wales" - it is directly related to Jimbo Wales. The comments made here and on the voting page prove that. "Has there not been attempts of private communication to insure the outcome?" - if there was, it wasn't canvassing on en.wp then. "We have even seen attempts of private communication with commons 'crats to sway their decision!" - I haven't seen that, but it was claimed by one of the crats. Their subsequent statements lead me to believe that it may not have been an attempt to sway their vote and it was one (possibly two) Commons editors, not editors from en.wp. Again, this did not happen on en.wp. SO far as I am aware, Jimbo's page was the only place the request to remove Russavia's Bureaucrat rights was discussed. Users of other language Wikipedias were also notified of the discussion. I know you are trying your best to place the blame elsewhere, but Russavia resigned his Bureaucrat rights. If you are unhappy with that, you need to speak to him, not bluster about a vote that was not counted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow here to defend Russavia. That is where your entire argument collapses. Point is, an overwhelming number of en.wikipedia users decided to determine the outcome of a de-Bureaucrat for us. I would have risen the same complaint on en.wikipedia if commons users (or another wiki) decided to overwhelm a vote there. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Perhaps the commons community would have reached the same conclusion had there not been en.wikipedia canvassing. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 06:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The optics russavia of shutting this down is as sad as the incident that started this whole mess. Resigning at the sound of inevitability is one thing but using every tool he has left to stop the discussion so he can try to have the last word is pathetic. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze, I apologise if you think I have shut down discussion or done anything at the "sound (sign?) of inevitability". I came to the decision on my own and for my own reasons. My protecting of the vote page was done only because the process, at the end of the day is moot, and whilst I preparing a quick statement, a vote or two were placed after Wpedzich did what I asked him to do. Whilst I type this, I have also unprotected the vote page, to allay any thoughts of me abusing the tools to stifle discussion; of course, it should be obvious it was done because the vote is moot. As you can see this talk page is still open for others to continue discussion amongst themselves if they so wish; I have now taken it off my watchlist, so won't be involved further in it. I don't think we need more drama, so that will finish that episode.
This project is bigger than any of us, and the project always comes first. Those in the community whom believe I betrayed the trust of the community would be mindful to read my comments at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_13#My_response. There are numerous discussions occurring on Commons at the moment so those who want to get involved in can do so. Please get involved in those discussions, and asking for a stronger "BLP" policy from the WMF would also be the other course of action. The last word isn't with me; it's with the community. Cheers, russavia (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotecting the request page after the scheduled closing time, at the same time asking for another admin to close it again immediately, was purely shambolic, making a cheap point without any content whatsoever. No wonder you have lost the trust of the community. Smallbones (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Smallbones. If you have a problem with PierreSelim's action and believe he is acting in a shambolic fashion, I suggest you discuss the matter on his talkpage. I am sure he will be happy to account for his actions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a problem with Russavia's unprotecting the page after the scheduled closing date and asking for somebody else to close it at the same time. Shambolic is a nice word for that. Claiming "Whilst I type this, I have also unprotected the vote page, to allay any thoughts of me abusing the tools to stifle discussion;" seems to be intentionally deceptive, or maybe Russavia is just playing us all for fools. That's what this Request to De-bureaucrat has been all about - nobody trusts Russavia any more for obvious reasons. Smallbones (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that you appear to believe you speak for everyone, and know what the intentions of others are. It is self evident that you do not possess such powers, neither does anyone human. Please take a moment to step back and consider the way you are expressing your point of view. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Smallbones were correct with their inflammatory statement "nobody trusts Russavia", then 100% of the !votes would be for de-Bureaucrat. They are not. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still with the semantic games Fae? Ok. About 66% (or is it 63.453%? Don't bother pointing that out btw) don't trust Russavia. Smallbones still speaks for a lot more people here than you do. Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative closing opinion, taking the larger picture into account. It exists here, at http://commons.wikimedia.org/, a controversy about some specific files with explicit content but without explicit consent. Part of the contributors is acting for these files be kept 'as is' and even used as a flagship for "Commons is not censored". Part of the contributors are acting for these files be removed on the very basis of their content. Finaly, the last part of the contributors is acting for the decision of keeping be delayed until a version of this kind of files is obtained with an explicit consent of the model. In this context, it was, perhaps, not the best idea to make a move that has even more ignited an already ignited discussion about the best policy to adopt. What could have been interpreted, in a more peacefull context, as yet another Freudian way to kill the father has been interpreted, by a not so small minority, as yet another way to despise their opinions and feelings. Let this larger discussion not get derailed again. Pldx1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the consent of the model be even needed? Anyone can make a painting of anyone without their consent, particularly if it is the derivative of a freely licensed work on a famous person. Their choice of brush or a lack of it is not our problem. Both files were nominated for deletion and unsurprisingly were kept as they comply with commons policies. If your problem is explicit content, just say so. A small self rigorous loud minority from en.wikipedia has always had issues with explicit content demanding their removal by trying to find loopholes, brute force it through canvassing or through sneaky nominations. While this minority is large enough to outright overwhelm commons and will possibly dictate all future votes on explicit content, they do not represent the vast majority of en.wikipedia. These kinds of campaigns tend to backfire eventually. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you simply answer the question? Why would we need the consent of a model for a work that is the derivative of a CC licensed photo? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A minority from en.wikipedia can overwhelm the majority on commons. But hey, feel free to argue about the semantics to your hearts content. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 07:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Be bold, White Cat. If you really think that a File:Woman masturbating with improvised vibrator.jpg is needed, take your own clitoris, your own toothbrush, your own camera. Take the picture, release it here, in http://commons.wikimedia.org and don't forget to send your own consent in written form for your own image being advertised worldwide and merciless edited. Otherwise, part of the people would think that you are pretending you don't understand "why would the consent of the model be even needed" only because you are not that bold. Pldx1 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've protected the voting page as the voting period has ended. Anyway, in case a proper closure was to be done, the bureaucrats will be able to edit the page. This talk page is not protected and anyone is free to comment here (and stay mellow). --PierreSelim (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Info - Now that the main page has been closed following Russavia's resignation, this talk page no longer serves any useful purpose and it is now time to close it and move on. The continuing side discussions on issues of consent and so on may continue elsewhere. Should Russavia wish to return as a 'crat in the future he would do so in the normal way via a new RFB application. In the meantime, I would like to thank Russavia for all he has done over the years as a 'crat, and of course as a continuing admin as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
Support votes or 
Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.» Surely a lot of work will be needed to assess the "eligibility" of the participants. --Nemo 17:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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.Savin 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
JKadavoor Jee 06:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AJimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso.jpg&diff=102190064&oldid=101966380){kind=link}
![[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fairey_poster_photo_source%3F,_by_stevesimula.jpg){kind=link}
Awesome! freely licensed content to our repository users and continue to be the best source for freely licensed media in the known mellow universe? --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In a tricky case like this, it is even reasonable for others to propose closing statements as a way of helping the closer. I'll ponder it, as I think I could mentally separate Russavia the volunteer from Russavia the bureaucrat in the context of the many viewpoints expressed in this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)_Headquarters_Group,_III_MEF_during_130819-M-DR618-085.jpg)
Keep strictly due to the canvassing. I think no one is disputing that a significant portion of the votes here were canvassed from en.wikipedia. I see this as a problem. This undermines the commons community as a whole. I am not suggesting we completely disregard people from other wikis we serve, but surely we do not want them to dominate outcomes like this. I'd like to also note that 'crat comments are no more significant than the next member of the community as this would have been a 'crat only vote if that were the case. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
