Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship, de-bureaucratship)

Russavia

Vote

Russavia (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Russavia encouraged the creation of a painting of a fellow editor by an artist (Mr Tim Patch) who uses his penis scrotum and buttocks in his works. The intention is obviously insulting and this kind of behaviour is not acceptable for any editor and is clearly inconsistent with being a bureaucrat or an admin. The fact that the editor in question is Jimbo Wales is of decidedly secondary importance the same standards apply to dealing with any editor no matter how much you dislike them. Russavia admits to encouraging the creation of the painting here.

I did not "commission" the painting, in that there was no exchange of cash or quid pro quo involved. I did contact the artist and informed him I was writing an article about him, and I did ask him if he would be interested in providing a painting and video which he could provide under a free licence for the purpose of placing in the article. I provided information relating to our licencing and suggested a licence. I did mention to the artist that our projects are not censored. I did make a suggestion that Jimmy's photo be used as a base to work from.

(emphasis added )

It should perhaps be noted that despite Russavias' claims Mr Patch was apparently under the impression there was a quid pro quo involved[1].

In order to be able effectively perform their admin role admins need to be seen as people you can deal with without the risk of being insulted. They need to at least approximate being the good guys. This requires a certain minimum standard of behaviour with regards to project related activities and Russavia has clearly failed to meet those standards. Thus his admin and bureaucrat bits need to be removed.Geni (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Votes

•  Keep Hard to read Jimmy's mind ahead of time. Different people have different senses of humour, some people have none at all. Even if it was having a joke at another editors expense, custom is to allow enough time to see if they change their ways. Hardly enough to call for this sort of thing. Penyulap ☏ 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep admin tools for Russavia, an active and good faith member of the Wikimedia community. -Pete F (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep He's a good admin and bureaucrat here, so I don't see why his tools should be removed. Trijnstel_talk 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep This request does not comply with Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Geni has failed to discuss this with the admin in question, and he also fails to show where Russavia has abused his tools. Suggest this be shut down immediately as mere witch hunting. Béria Lima ^msg 23:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep - as noted, on a procedural issue this request is improper. Even if it were not, I would vote to keep russavia as an admin. He has proven to be a staunch defender of Commons, does great work uploading, and is generally a cool head. He has done nothing wrong on Commons, unless uploading free media is somehow against the rules now. On an unrelated note, I look forward to the retaliatory deadminship which will be levied against me in due course. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep both. I don't see the point in a de-adminship. --Rosenzweig τ 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Remove both and ban - Clear abuse of the standards expected of editors. 208.102.52.109 01:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Remove This is incredibly infantile and vindictive. Should we trust such people with powers? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Remove rights – I don't trust Russavia. I feel that Russavia is a chronic manipulator. Wikipediocracy published a blog entry in late February that exposes Russavia's lying and scheming. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Can we assume that the Wikipediocracy article is just as balanced as the Daily Dot one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipediocracy is a blog. It contains opinions, but it also contains facts and information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Wikipaedocracy is just a bunch of people getting together to snipe and poke fun at others. You're the playground bullies, nothing more. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep, essentially per comments by both Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) (diff) and Trijnstel (talk · contribs) (diff), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep. Modern art is modern art. I don't see any violations in using A and B technical flags by Russavia, and I strongly beleive that off-project actions can't influence to the competence of user. --Rave (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  "off-project actions can't influence the competence of the user"?????? Your actions everywhere are a reflection on your mental state, and therefore your competence. Just because a child can hold their tongue when in the room with adults, that doesn't mean they're not still a child. This is an incredibly childish thing to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  In-wiki stalking for off-wiki actions is REALLY bad idea. We had such cases in ru-wikipedia and the consequences were horrific. And I agree with Béria Lima, that this request does not comply with Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. --Rave (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep No abuse of admin rights = no de-admin. --A.Savin 05:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete But I don't this an issue related to Russavia alone; we can't expect more from an admin community which is struggling to understand any moral, ethical or cultural values relating to human dignity. I already mentioned it at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Update 2013/Moral issues; but I know it will not make any effect at the deaf ears. I discussed this matter with two m:Stewards (User_talk:Trijnstel#For_Your_Kind_Attention, m:User_talk:Snowolf#Inter-wiki_issue); but they also prefer to keep silent. This is the fate of Commons. See this too. I think this is the time for the Stewards to act upon; suspending all admins and crats for the sake of the poor contributors. I suggest Geni to bring it on the m:Stewards' noticeboard. JKadavoor Jee 05:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Remove. Russavia has lost the trust of a significant section of the Wikimedia community and has brought a lot of negative publicity on Commons (see the Daily Dot piece [2]). He misused both Commons and Wikipedia for furthering a personal conflict of his through an incredibly tasteless symbolic jibe at his opponent, and he lied to the Commons community about it. Personally, I find his earlier "Polandball" shenanigans even more repulsive than the Pricasso stunt. Under these circumstances, the matter is not so much whether he misused the actual admin tools. What matters is that a person who persistently misuses the project for this kind of ugly and offensive feuding ought not to be part of the public face of the project. The procedural argument about lack of prior discussion is also unconvincing – reams of debate in and around the recent deletion request involved discussion of Russavia's personal role and his status as an admin. Russavia has been well aware that his actions are seen as problematic by many, and has shown no signs of willingness to listen to the criticism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  So a hit piece is now reason for removing someone's rights? I think not. If someone wants to write about how awful Commons is they will find something they believe is beyond the pale and use it to bludgeon us. That is what the gutter press do. And I have seen no evidence Russavia lied. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Remove - vote fozzie, politeness is worthless in this tainted atmosphere - User:Russavia and his porno cabal of User:Cirt and User:Mattbuck all require globally blocking by the foundation, - they are worse than trolls. - they KNOW what they are attempting to do /are doing - decent npov contributors should vote to remove their nepotistic privileges here - They collude to control here with impunity at present with their pornographic bias but they should be aware , they will be exposed and shamed publically in the future - and good riddance to them, all of them, violent violators of the neutrality of the foundations objectives. Youreallycan (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Moved from comments to votes. JKadavoor Jee 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Wow, I knew it wouldn't take long for my name to be dragged into this. Really, I should be globally locked? Why. What have I done which is so wrong? Trying to maintain the project's sexuality images? Having a bot search for new penises? Nominating a lot of them for deletion? Uploading photos? Commenting at DRs? Are these all now suddenly actions which mean people should lose rights? What utter crap. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Remove - I don't agree with everything that has been said above, but after thinking about this for a few hours I've come to this conclusion. While Russavia may not have abused the sysop or crat flags, he has, in my mind, engaged in conduct that is unbecoming of an admin or a crat, and engaged in more controversy than anyone holding those flags should be engaged in. I appreciate that Russavia has done a lot for the Wikimedia community, but he does not need to hold these flags to remain a member of it - the adminship tools are not a reward or a flag to hold for a large number of contributions.
  
  There's also the fundamental issue of human dignity here, and where we draw the line - if this is okay, then is it okay if the subject of the portrait is female? or is it sexual harassment? Are we opening Wikimedia up to a lawsuit? Moreover, will this be an endorsed method of retaliation for any public figure who falls afoul of the Wikimedia movement (such as SOPA last year)? I think SirFozzie gets it right here. --Rschen7754 07:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  We had this conversation, and after careful consideration the outcome was that the images were not sexually harrassing and were in fact within our scope. You're not arguing that Russavia should lose flags, you're arguing (again) that Jimbo deserves special privelidges not afforded to ordinary public figures such as politicians or celebrities. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  Can you link to it? And no, that's certainly not what I am arguing. --Rschen7754 07:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  The entirety of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg was that argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Noise. --Foroa (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Don't see breaking the rules of the project. I do not exclude that not all would be offended by Russavia in this situation. Potentially offending some user may any administrator, and this situation does not say anything about that Russavia chances are higher than the others. Анастасия Львова^ru (ru-n, en-2) 07:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep per Trijnstel, Beria and A.Savin--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest closing this discussion immediately, as it does not in any way follow the process for de-adminship. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact it does just under slightly unusual conditions.Geni (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, let me guess, "I don't like the de-adminship process?" Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could a bureaucrat please snow-close this? Jcb (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you are so determined to try and avoid this process.Geni (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Either a snow close or a procedural close would do, after all De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible. Penyulap ☏ 22:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That was established not to be the case in the Stahlkocher case and policy should reflect practice.Geni (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

'policy should' does not equal 'policy does' Penyulap ☏ 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The nomination contains a significant problem: it's not relevant to consider Jimbo Wales along with "any editor." The proper comparison is "any public figure." Mr. Wales has made countless voluntary public appearances, readily shares his credentials as a founder of Wikipedia, sits on the Wikimedia Foundation's board, and has approved the broad distribution of his image under a free license in the interest of raising money for the WMF. Talking of Mr. Wales as though he were the equivalent of "any editor" or "any member of our community" does a great disservice to everyone fitting this description. Wikipedia editors should not be held to the same standards as Mr. Wales, as a rule. His status as a public figure is of central importance to issues like this one. -Pete F (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree. He's a living symbol of Wikipedia, face of it. Wikimedia as well, but I'm talking about common people, who know mostly Wikipedia. When Jimbo is editing, he should be held as every editor. When we want to "paint Wikipedia" - e.g. make a parody - then Jimbo is obvious choice. "The intention is obviously insulting" - no, it's not so obvious. It's modern art, it uses different ways to reach people. In culture of pictures where anybody can paint, it's hard to reach people using straight kind of painting. Modern art bases on controversy, shocking recipient etc. - but that doesn't mean per se it insults anything. Sometimes strange ways are not random. It makes you think - what's so bad in painting with penis? Is it worse than finger? How way of painting changes our opinion about result (i.e. painting - as we see here it changed it a lot)? Since when penis itself is insulting? Why touching somebody's face with penis is insulting? It's a rather common thing in bed. So maybe it's insulting that it's done by such colorful (as LGBT and as his look) person? Is it connected with hidden and deep fear of other man geniatalia, shown indirectly by a really lot of men? This painting is crappy, yeah, but it made me think about very important things. I think it's a goal of this art - to make us think why some of people hate so much, why here a way of painting becomes more important than a result and many other questions. I'm very serious. This is extremly interesting thing! I didn't like this artist earlier, but hatred (shown by e.g. that "The intention is obviously insulting") of Geni have opened my eyes. Krzysiu (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Hatred? Please I'm a long standing en admin. I've long since ceased having any reactions to fringe art beyond "Meh" (and by the standards of the Avant-garde this is pretty "meh" no offence to Mr Patch mind). I do however retain a certain degree of empathy and can thus see how such things could be viewed by other people.Geni (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. How would this be any different than me asking Penyulap to combine images from the two sections in User:Canoe1967/Transit page? In the USA it may be considered a terrorist plan to bomb a capital city and I could go to jail. In Canada it would just be a joke. "Getting bombed in Edmonton. Wish you were here." Many images on commons have been corrupted in many ways. Many of those are of Mr. Wales. Should we block/ban all of the users that have created those as well? Using the Daily Dot editorial as evidence is rather lame as Russavia has already pointed out that it was very biased, partially untrue, and his opinions/statements were not included as they should have been. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have no idea what the correct procedures are here, but that a bureaucrat would intentionally suggest for Jimbo's picture to be drawn in such a manner, knowing that it would annoy Jimbo, is beyond the pale. Russavia has been using Commons as a personal battleground to show Jimbo the middle finger. And this has nothing to do with Jimbo being a public figure: You don't use Commons to troll people, no matter how public or private these people are. --Conti|✉ 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, how dare he even think for one moment that a public figure might have a sense of humour. How dare he. Penyulap ☏ 23:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You know that's not what happened. I know that's not what happened. Why are we playing this game? --Conti|✉ 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not play such a game, let's play 'put up or shut up'. How about some diffs prior to uploading that show Russavia knew Jimmy's reaction. To support your claim " knowing that it would annoy Jimbo," show how he knew. Show that he wasn't assuming it would make Jimmy burst out laughing. You've made an outrageous claim, so give us a diff, give us a link. Penyulap ☏ 23:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You're still playing games. Right now you're playing dumb and pretend not to know the bloody obvious. Jimmy's reaction could be inferred from his comments about all the porn on Commons. He never liked it. He actively fought it. He actively encouraged people to fight it. He actively encouraged people to oppose Russavia. It does not take a genius to figure out that he would be pissed off from such a picture (and video). And you know all of this. And Russavia knew all of this when he specifically asked for a picture of Jimbo. --Conti|✉ 23:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"He actively encouraged people to oppose Russavia." I noticed that Jimmy seemed to direct people specifically from en.wiki to commons onto the DR page, with a message critical of Russavia. Thing is, if it was actually about porn on commons, then why not send everyone to the Village pump to change policy ? If Russavia's image turned out to be a trolling image eventually, then the whole community who decided to keep the image is trolling right along with Russavia. If Jimmy was consistent, why not try to change policy, why engage in a simple tiff ? How is it Russavia is any different to the rest of us ? Did you push for policy change in this regard ? I did. The silence and lack of support was deafening.

We, collectively, kept the image, so we're ALL trolling Jimmy, and that wouldn't change one iota if Russavia never edited again, we'd still keep the donation. Prove me wrong, if the image is a troll, get it deleted. Penyulap ☏ 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I had half a mind nominating the image again after Russavia finally admitted that he specifically asked for it. A good number of the "keep" votes on the last deletion discussion were arguing that there was no evidence that Russavia asked for the image, and therefore they assumed good faith. Had that information been known previously, they might have voted differently, and the files might have been deleted now. As for me, I did what I could to get the image deleted. --Conti|✉ 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

yeah, nominating the image again. Sure beats changing policy, everyone just wants to abuse the processes for their own personal gains. Their own personal tiffs. That's why this page is out of process, that's why Zero people will goto the VP to support a policy change on images, because you're all too busy thinking of yourselves. Penyulap ☏ 23:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Prove me wrong, if the image is a troll, get it deleted." Your words, not mine. --Conti|✉ 00:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The image is still here, in scope, so if there is a problem, it's a tiff between editors, not an abuse of process or admin tools. Penyulap ☏ 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Because no image has ever been found to be problematic after it survived a deletion discussion and after new facts on the matter came to light.. --Conti|✉ 00:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not voting, because A) I'm not a regular, and B) my feelings are well known here.. but we have a case where Russavia paid someone to paint a picture of someone,and even if he didn't do it to specifically harass Jimmy (which it's fairly obvious he did), the proper thing to do after creating a huge incident on english-language Wikipedia (which ended up with him getting indefblocked and likely banned (again)) over this picture is to drop it, not to continue the incident here on Commons. At this point, having Russavia in any position of authority on Commons is showing the fundamentally broken nature of the project. It's not only a matter of Russavia's lack of judgement, but an utter lack of human decency. SirFozzie (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we expect human decency in Commons? JKadavoor Jee 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll also not vote as a non-regular, but I wholly endorse Fozzie's comments. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)