Commons:Requests and votes/Joymaster (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This RF de-adminship is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Joymaster (de-adminship)

Vote

Links for Joymaster: Joymaster (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Joymaster was elected 2006 but as we can read at the Admin Noticeboard, he does the Job completely bad. For the whole Story see there. At the end importand are the points Jeff G. had written:

Thus, it appears that the user has done the following:

  • Lied about its understanding of Commons Policies and Procedures.
  • Lied about its understanding of English.
  • Uploaded files that were not its own.
  • Lied about the licensing on those files.
  • Restored files that were removed via Deletion Requests without proper justification.
  • Misused its administrative powers in performing the restorations (it could have just reuploaded the files).
  • Changed the licensing on those files to licensing that is incompatible with OTRS.
  • Continued to upload and restore files that were not its own after being told not to, claiming rights it did not have.
  • Failed to redelete its files to comply with consensus.
  • Failed to express sorrow, regret, or remorse for the above.

In my opinon there's no base for him to be longer an administrator at commons, a normal user would have been blocked for all these things. The procedure is equal to the normal election.

-- Marcus Cyron 11:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

You're kidding?! To give away the own Admin-Account to an other person is maybe much more a cause for a deadminship. This would be unbeleavable and not to excuse! Marcus Cyron 13:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of you guys going to explain why you believe we should keep this user? All I notice is that we have several people from the Polish Wikipedia voting {{Keep}} (reaks of meatpuppetry) and not even explaining their reasoning. Patstuart 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There should be nor problem, see The procedure is equal to the normal election.. You say yes or no to the candidate. Marcus Cyron 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was pretty confused by it too. I suggest the keep/remove banners too. Patstuart 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Marcus Cyron 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to whoever changed them to that style. I trust none of the early commentors will object, as it is much clearer. I will not myself be commenting, I think we should have at least one 'crat who can adjudge consensus and formally bring it to the stewards on meta if it comes to that, at the appropriate time. (I'm searching for where things are nailed down about our current deadminship process (see Commons:Administrators/Adminship_policy#De-adminship_other_than_through_inactivity) but I would think this needs to run a week at least, just as it would for a regular adminship request) ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good, if we had such rules. But as long we don't have them - the Community can and must deside, what to do. So I think, there shouldn't be a real problem. I trust in humans and culture ;). Marcus Cyron 16:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This process will set a precedent, to be sure... and that's actually a useful thing. Unless anyone objects I suggest we let it run at least a week, but not much more, and that any crat feel free to call the consensus after a week, and if necessary, go to Meta with the request. I'll be glad to do so if needed. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, it's a big problam not to have rules for such problems. Because at Commons it's much more problematic, if an Admin does such things, because we work with medias, not with texts. Such medias can make other kinds of problems (rights etc.) then texts. Is this the first time, such a thing happens? All Admins before make a good Job? That's a great wonder. Marcus Cyron 14:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(← unindent) Honestly I'm not surprised to hear it hasn't happened before, since admin responsibilities on commons are more cut and dry than elsewhere (not to mention relatively few in number). Making policies for cases like these isn't really necessary, IMO.

As far as letting this run for a week, that's fine by me. However, if he abuses his tools again during that week, I'd say we should immediately grab a steward, remove his tools, and perhaps even indefblock him. Our RFAs tend to run pretty softly because we've been lucky enough to preserve the "no big deal" approach to giving tools to anyone who seems trustworthy and is willing to lend a hand. If someone is demonstrably not trustworthy, they should not have the buttons. --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time I've seen what I consider to be inappropriate use of administrative tools in cases where there was a conflict of interest, which is why I feel that we really need to flesh this out sooner rather than later. I think Commons talk:Administrators/Adminship policy#De-adminship_other_than_through_inactivity is a more appropriate place to discuss general procedural matters. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fleshing the policy out first would have been a better thing. But, this came up before we had it fleshed out, and it was needful that we acted, I think. Hats off to Marcus for being willing to step up and start this unpleasant process. Let's resolve to drive the general process discussion to a conclusion that we have consensus on, before it comes up again. But we had to do this specific thing anyway, regardless. I agree that the admin policy page is the best place to discuss, we do seem to have several threads going on this at once (as per usual :) ) ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could talk weeks - but we don't need it. There's nothing more important in Wikimedia projects than a request to the Users. In my opinon we don't need more. A Question to the Users and they tell what they want. Marcus Cyron 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the previous discussion and I can make up my mind in the issue. However, generally diffs would be nice. Samulili 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's given a link above. It makes no real sense to write at two places the same things. Marcus Cyron

Submitted at Requests for permissions. O2 (息 • 吹) 19:33, 10 November 2007 (GMT)

Sysop flag removed. —Pathoschild 22:58:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Joymaster_(de-adminship)&oldid=777825512"