User talk:Russavia

User:Russavia/Top

Requesting an Arbcom case against User:28bytes

I have been having a discussion with User:28bytes (Mason) on his Meta user talk at meta:User_talk:28bytes, and I believe there will be enough to begin a request for Arbitration against him.

Thus far, we have the following facts:

1. 28bytes posted at least once on WO that I am racist[1] and other derogatory remarks about myself[2]
2. After the Arbcom elections, 28bytes advised the Arbcom that he was active on WO, that he had been critical of several editors there, including myself, and that he would recuse himself in cases where those editors, such as myself, were involved
3. 28bytes denies that he abused any tools on this project
4. At User_talk:28bytes#Agree_with_resignation, User:Elonka present evidence of one such instance where 28bytes was clearly involved and used the admin tools.
5. Here 28bytes attacks both myself and User:Giano
6. Given his comments that I was involved, and in direct violation of WP:INVOLVED given his comments on WO, 28bytes then proceeded to abuse his tools by closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advice Polack

Whilst 28bytes has voluntarily handed in all of his tools on this project, perhaps because he knew an Arb case would be coming once more investigation is done, it is reprehensible conduct that 28bytes has engaged in on WO in terms of attacking editors, and then acting on this project as if he was uninvolved, or a neutral onlooker. This is clearly within the remit of Arbcom, because although his conduct off this project is not something the committee can really deal with, the fact this conduct has had clear on-project consequences and repercussions means that there are issues that need to be looked at to ascertain the level of abuse that 28bytes has engaged in, and his conduct in general given his trusted status in this community. Above are already two clear-cut cases of 28bytes using the tools whilst involved. An Arbcom case is also important seeing as his handing in of the tools was voluntarily and he could theoretically ask for those back at some time in the future. Russavia (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you are blocked indefinitely on this project, you may not commence an arbitration case against another editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, User:Newyorkbrad I remember the WP:EEML case in which I was blocked before it all came to light, and because of the egregious nature of the case, the committee passed a motion to open a case to investigate the issues. Given that there are already two examples here of blatant misuse of the tools by 28bytes, will the committee bite the bullet on behalf of the community and start a case give the evidence which has already been provided? And no doubt there will be more forthcoming as well. Or is the committee going to leave it up to an individual editor to start? Russavia (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Committee's decision to open the EEML case on its own motion was based on the strong impression that a request for arbitration was inevitable, so why wait for it. Even so, our reaching out to bring a dispute before us without waiting for a request was widely criticized at the time, and I don't think it's a precedent we are going to invoke frequently, if at all. If the issues you raise genuinely warrant an arbitration case, then presumably at least one editor who is not blocked indefinitely with strong community consensus for disruptive and trollish behavior will be interested in filing the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, the fact that he has resigned his administrative tools means there is not much for ArbCom to do on the matter. At most they could find his resignation to have been under a cloud, though he may be willing to declare as much himself without prodding from the Committee. I do regret seeing another instance of involved use of the tools, in addition to the two already mentioned, and it makes me think describing his resignation as under a cloud might be the right thing. Under such circumstances, a new RfA would be desirable should he ever want to resume his admin duties. All that said, I believe only one of the involved actions mentioned was wrong from a policy and personal standpoint and it was not this one. The argument for deletion of that article was greater than the argument for retention. At best you might have gotten a much more sympathetic admin to close it as no consensus, but the far more likely outcome would have still been delete. Since your block was over a separate issue, this will not do anything to change your situation here and, in all honesty, will probably only cement belief that you are too vindictive to return to editing. You should work on that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, 28bytes would be well advised to declare himself as resigning under a cloud, and he should be asked to do so.

You will note on his Meta talk page that he states that informed the Arbcom of his participation on WO, and also stated that he had been critical of editors there, including myself. In the interests of full disclosure, 28bytes would be well advised to publish his email to the Committee for public scrutiny. This is even more important given things such as Special:Log/block/28bytes, where he has blocked two editors in 2013, whom on WO he has consistently referred to as assholes, and as engaging in asshattery, and a host of other unpleasant comments, and has openly taunted them behind the cloak of anonymity. If he has stated in his message to the Committee that he has, for example, been critical of the 2 editors whom he has blocked in 2013, then obviously this raises more questions as to his use of tools on editors with whom he is not a neutral onlooker, and also raises questions as to why Arbcom members have not themselves raised this issue in a public fora. Perhaps you would like to ask 28bytes to release the contents of that email for the community-at-large to review. If he is still adamant that he hasn't abused the tools, then he should have no problem with it being reviewed, and then informed questions can truly be asked of those involved.

TDA, this is not being vindictive, but merely bringing these facts, and questions, to the fore, to ensure that the "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" mentality does not continue on this project; as it has for far too long. But as Newyorkbrad states, such action, if any, will need from someone who is not currently blocked. Would you be willing to ask the hard questions that need to be asked? Even if 28bytes does declare himself to have resigned under a cloud, the community has the right to know exactly how dark a cloud it was. Would you not agree? I'll leave it with you. Russavia (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone resigns their admin tools under a cloud, the exact level of darkness of the cloud is not a matter of relevance at all, in my opinion. I don't see what purpose it would serve? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, there is no reason for ArbCom or some other formal investigation to determine the extent of possible wrongdoing. Regrettably, looking at the blocking and unblocking actions 28bytes/Mason has performed leaves me convinced that he was not only right to resign the tools, but should plainly declare it to have been under a cloud. I note at least three prominent critics of WO being blocked by him for actions directly related to WO and one is particularly bad under the circumstances, though I will not be able to discuss that one. Seems we have unwittingly had a secret high-level executioner dispensing with our enemies and protecting our allies. Not something I would support regardless of whose side they were supporting and whether they were right or not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, it only needs for him to be asked to make that declaration at the earliest opportunity. I am disappointed that it was left to me to bring the obvious abuse of tools to this community's attention, when the obvious was staring everyone in the face, and almost everyone from the very top down on this project either were either too blind to see it, ignored it, or, worse, basically didn't care. If it weren't for his staunch refusal to acknowledge on Meta that he abused the tools, I wouldn't be here. Such blatant abuse should not go unnoticed, and I imagine that if it were known at the time of the Arbcom elections, he clearly would not have been elected. Thanks for your comments Demiurge1000 and TDA, it's appreciated that you've come here, and I hope the community does what needs to be done in getting that declaration from User:28bytes. Happy New Year to you all. Russavia (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russavia. I am confident that every admin action I have taken is fully backed by our policies, but when and if I ever decide to request the tools back I would be happy to discuss those actions, and any concerns you might have about them, in detail. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the new year. 28bytes (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In such an eventuality, would you be prepared to undertake a new RfA, so that the community would be able to make up their own minds about the admin actions you have carried out, based on what we now know about the circumstances in which you carried them out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps; I'll give it some thought while I'm away. 28bytes (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Giano's take on this

I'm sorry to be even more dense than usual, but I am failing to see the sensational story here or any point in prolonging it: Editor/Admin posts on wicked, evil site (along with quite a few others), that editor is then elected to Arbcom, but does so without making his Holy Confession first. An avenging angel is then sent by God to expose him; Elonka posts a lot of pompous tripe (along with quite a few others); Jimbo (hurt, bewildered and late to the show) pontificates, but the aforementioned new Arb has already fallen on his sword and thrown himself off the cliff. Surely that is the end of this rather dull story - unless it's going to be set to some dismal music by Wagner.  Giano  21:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The only question remaining is whether he will submit to a new RfA should he ever desire to return or if he will simply request resysopping. On that point he has pledged to comment, so all we can do is wait. Should he commit to only returning to his admin duties if he can pass another RfA, then I hope all parties would consider the matter settled.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with these long outstanding NFCC and copyright violations

1. At the end of October 2013 I brought to this community's attention that File:Oliver_Tambo.jpg is in use on this project under the NFCC rationale. This file has failed the NFCC criteria since 2008 when this image was uploaded to Commons, but File:Oliver Tambo (1981).jpg also exists since July 2013. The NFCC image needs to replaced in usage, and duly deleted.
2. In mid-September 2013 I brought to this community's attention that File:Adrian Fulford web.jpg (which has been hosted on en.wp since 2008) is a likely copyright violation, with no evidence of it ever being released under a free licence. It is still in use on articles here on en.wp which can be replaced with File:Adrian Fulford (cropped).jpg which I uploaded to Commons in September.
3. Again in mid-September 2013 I brought to this community's attention that File:Frankcrean.jpg does not comply with the NFCC in Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and Whitlam_Government#The_economy; the image needs to be removed from those articles. Or if the project wishes to be sloppy in its use of NFCC images, a FUR needs to be provided for each of those articles, although long-standing practice on this project would dictate that the image is removed from those articles as the image is not being used for critical commentary of the image, and NFCC images in lists have long been discouraged.
4. Again in mid-September I brought to this community's attention that Gibraltar_National_Day#Declaration is a copyright violation, and it's usage in the article would not comply with fair-use as its inclusion in the article is entirely arbitrary, and is not subject to critical commentary. If there is critical commentary, then this should be provided, just without the long copyrighted text in the article.

All four instances are clear copyright violations, and it is disappointing that they haven't been dealt with. I have considered getting rid of these copyright violations by ignoring a block, and removing them as an IP editor. I have used an IP whilst blocked in the past to remove blatant copyright violations here; here an editor expressed the view that they were unsure of what to do -- the correct course of action would be to delete it immediately as a copyright violation and not discuss it, so as to not piss off a donator of valuable images to Commons for use on all Wikimedia projects. This of course is backed up by policy which states that we must be diligent and forceful in removing copyright and BLP violations from our projects, but I have decided against this on this occasion in the hope the community would do what needed to be done.

However, the time has arrived that these issues can not be allowed not being dealt with; for 4 months these copyright violations since being discovered have been allowed to sit on this project undealt with, and this is totally unacceptable. If they are not removed from the project within a couple of days, I will take whatever action I deem necessary to deal with them; whether that be I remove them as an IP, or whether I contact the copyright holders and have them issue takedown notices to the Wikimedia Foundation (along with relevant links showing they have not been dealt with). Russavia (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, we just don't have the manpower to deal with this. I've taken care of the first two, and will examine the other ones later when I get the chance. Thanks for your work in tracking these down. Legoktm (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Legoktm. If you need any comment from me on the NFCC issues, feel free to come back here and I can comment. If there is a lack of manpower on enwp dealing with copyright violations and the like, I guess I could request an unblock, and I may do this in the near future. Until then, when I come across other issues, usually as a result of my Commons activities, then I will continue to post here, as was determined was ok only a couple of months ago. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinging this for action on the remaining two copyvios/NFCC violations. It's been a week since I re-raised these issues to the community, so after 3 and a half months, something needs to be done. I will give it two more days, otherwise I will have to consider whether I remove them as an "IP editor" as I did on the LAN Colombia article many months ago. Russavia (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Orangemike input needed

User:Orangemike in January 2012 you blocked an editor for having an inappropriate username. I see someone else put an inappropriate username template on their userpage, and you swung by four hours later and blocked the account, no questions asked, on the basis that they represent a corporate account. If you refer to this OTRS ticket, the editor isn't a corporate account, but an individual representing themself. I have come across this photo as a result of DR on Commons which was provided by this notable photographer for which we need OTRS permission. We now need to contact this notable photographer, and I am going to be embarrassed by having to apologise that he has been blocked on English Wikipedia for essentially having a username which alludes to his real name. In the interest of nurturing professional photographers who contribute to our projects, and WP:RETENTION (which you have prominently on your userpage), would you, or another admin looking at this, please take a look at this block, and unblock them at the earliest opportunity, so that when I contact them we don't need to be embarrassed for this. I would have contacted you on Commons, but you are more active here and I'm not sure if you will see messages there in a timely manner. Thanks, Russavia (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That OTRS ticket does not appear to confirm anything about ownership of the account, Russavia. In fact, to my reading it actually contradicts what you're claiming here about the account. In any case, there is a material difference between usernames like "user:Henry Bond" and ones like "user:Bondstudio"; one represents a person and does not run afoul of our username policy, and the other a business and does run afoul of policy. Lacking both a username compliant with policy and confirmation of the account's ownership, I don't foresee any action being taken here. I would also caution you that while your pointing out copyright violations here on your talk page has been (and probably will continue to be) tolerated by the community, using your talk page to criticize other editors or to advocate on behalf of accounts unrelated to you is not likely to be as well-tolerated. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you contact the real Henry Bond, ask him if it is his account, and suggest he change it to simply be his name if it is his account, that would not be such a problem would it?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The account was blocked with a soft block that permitted new account creation, and was left a notice that "Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only you." At any point in the two years since then, they were absolutely free to do so as user:Henry Bond, user:TomatoesAreGreat, or any other non-business-representing account name (well, within reason...) they pleased. Or they could have appealed the block, as was also described in their block notice. I'm not sure what great wrong needs to be righted here; it seems like the user, who may or may not be Mr Bond, chose of their own free will not to pursue either unblocking or a new username after being blocked in a manner consistent with policy. If Russavia is in contact with Mr Bond, he's free to explain that all again and perhaps urge Mr Bond to create a new (or first) account, but in the end, all of that has little to do with the fate of an image file on Commons, the DR of which does not appear to hinge in any way on the user having an active account on enwp. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Xikun Yuan

We may have this renowned Chinese artist as an editor on this project

Could someone please look at User:Xikun Yuan. The editor could appear to be the actual artist, who is a notable individual (Yuan Xikun (zh:袁熙坤). He is an artist/sculptor and Curator of the Beijing Jintai Art Museum (zh:北京金台艺术馆), China's first private museum. Whilst it would be awesome to have an article on this individual (we even have a photo of him here -- which is how I came across this via google search), it would appear that this "article" is a copyright violation of this. If the editor is the artist, then it would be ok, but we have no way to verify this without having them submit to OTRS. This obviously needs to be dealt with, unfortunately, as a copyvio (it's too closely worded), but at same time it would be great if someone would take it upon themselves to write the article. Russavia (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:The Devil's Advocate for this. Just one thing, copyvios should be removed entirely from our project, either by being deleted or revdelled, so would you mind perhaps nominating that page for deletion so that it is no longer available. Cheers, Russavia (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This page comes under G12 speedy deletion criteria. The page needs to be G12'ed in order to remove the copyright from any possible (non-admin) view. Russavia (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)