Sue Gardner has stated that we have "a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography". This is a WMF policy. It cannot be overridden or ignored by any admin on any single project, especially not without any kind of discussion.
This thread deals with Kameraad Pjotr's unblocking of a user that was a self admitted pedophile who advocated pedophilia as normal on other projects and edited pedophilia related topics on Commons. (Diffs will be hard because the section was copied and pasted from another page).
This diff is his stating that he unblocked the user based on ArbCom enforcing WMF policy on one project and his belief that en.wiki is en.wiki and not acting on a WMF policy. This was pointed out to be wrong multiple times, including here where his response was to threaten me for pointing out what Sue Gardner stated is official policy. Thus, we have an admin who is not only defending the right of pedophiles to edit against WMF policy, but using their ops to oppose a WMF policy even though multiple people have told him that he was wrong.
He was warned multiple times about his outright incivility, abuse of ops, and threats, including this direct warning here. He continued to threaten blocks against others and put forth incivility as seen here. He also attempted to defend a friend of his who would put up deletion requests of images dealing with individuals they were in a dispute with, claiming that the actions were not revenge even though they clearly have the feel and appearance of harassment regardless of their merit (as they are deletions only connected to the user and not part of a pattern/coincidental to the matter).
This is not a freak occurrence, but part of a larger trend of out of process admin actions in defiance of WMF and "other projects". It has advanced to the point of promoting the access of pedophiles to our servers even though they are the most dangerous people we could have here, as we have thousands of children, including admin, who need to be protected. It is clear that he is unwilling to listen to others, that he does not care for policy, that he defends those who are putting up deletion requests to harass, and that he will use his ops to threaten anyone who tries to tell him he is acting inappropriately.
Many people have confronted him about this behavior and he has not stopped, so there is no other choice but to desysop. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have quoted a section where he admits that he is unblocking someone blocked under WMF's pedophile policy and also where he threatens over the quoting of Sue Gardner. How is that proof that he should be kept? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Hard working administrator, efficient, a bit rough, but no real deontological mistakes. Tendentious accusation in respect of pedofiles without any hard proof on Commons. As if a pedofile will contaminate the whole of commons in a couple of minutes: I prefer to have him under close observation than having him appear under another name. I have no time to spent hours on such discussions, I prefer to spent my time on constructive work. --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hard proof was provided. By the way, "close observation" is not allowed under WMF policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Kameraad Pjotr obviously has a different understanding of the WMF policy than Ottava. This is, however, not a reason to desysop him. All he did was unblock a user who so far has done no real harm to this project and as such should not be blocked. Why can't we judge paedophiles, just like all the other users, by the quality of their contributions and not by their sexual orientation. As long as they keep it off the project, I don't see why they should not be allowed to contribute. -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Zero tolerance means no unblocking. That isn't a different interpretation. He stated that he believed the WMF policy was wrong and used adminship to enforce that opinion. That is not allowed under the admin policy. Saying that they should contribute is not a legitimate statement because we do not have the ability to disagree with the WMF policy, nor is your saying that pedophiles should have the right to access thousands of child who use this site really fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The way I understand the "zero tolerance" statement is that we do not tolerate paedophilic (is that the correct adjective?) actions on our projects. As long as someone contributes productively, I do not see why we should block them based on their sexual orientation. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Firstly, this has been started in violation of our de-adminship policy as no attempt has been made to open a case at COM:AN/U. Taking the shortcut to a de-admin request is disrupting. Secondly, Kameraad Pjotr's unblock was covered by policy as there was no consensus to keep Tyciol blocked after we had some discussion which went over multiple days. Tyciol, as far as I know, did not violate Commons policy and is not globally blocked. Even if Kameraad Pjortr's unblock is contested, there is no reason to de-admin him just because someone has a different opinion. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The policy for de-adminship clearly states "Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal; for individual grievances, please use". There was already discussion at two different pages for it, both linked above, and there has been multiple discussions about his abuse of adminship dating back many months. You can see below for more information. And this is not about a "different opinion". Saying pedophiles have the right to edit is in direct conflict with WMF policy saying there is zero tolerance. He did not allow for even a discussion. He took it upon himself to unblock without even seeing a real discussion. Also, a "different opinion" does not involve threatening multiple people who oppose him, claiming that quoting Sue Gardner, the Executive Director, is prohibited, or defending someone who is making revenge deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever read the policy? It clearly states: Please note this process should only be used for serious offenses in which there seems to be some consensus for removal. This consensus for a de-admin is missing in the discussions you refer to. And regarding the case of Tyciol: If there is some justified concern that he is disrupting the Wikimedia projects globally, open a case for him at meta:RFC with the intent to block him globally. IMHO it is not helpful to open such discussions at every individual project where he did not violate any policies so far just because ArbCom decided to ban him. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This feels like a witch hunt to me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Not a perfect user so the same as the rest of us but I agree with Foroa & Jmabel --Herbytalk thyme 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
KeepAs I stated in that thread, I do not believe Sue Gardner's statement is anything other than reactionary posturing for the purpose of public relations, and I think Kameraad Pjotr's actions reflected the general consensus of the ongoing discussion. They may have been a bit premature and I'd rather he have waited for discussion to peter out, but I would have anticipated this result regardless. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Struck part of my comment above - I think Sue justified the basis for her statement in the past practice of the English Wikipedia and was not attempting to create policy, so I mischaracterized her statement. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I see nothing wrong with his actions, this appears to be another case of Ottava hounding someone who dares disagree with him. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Jmabel and mattbuck. — C M B J 04:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Remove. I agree with this comment, below, by Tiptoety (talk·contribs). Prior history involving the admin in question includes "Admin wheel-warring". The admin in question later issued an apology for his inappropriate behavior as administrator, and good faith was extended. The admin in question appears to be unable to refrain from acting as an administrator in areas where he has vested interests, and lacks the ability to remain neutral on these contentious issues. These problems, combined together, cause significant concern. It would be one thing if the admin in question agreed to refrain from acting in the areas where he has become significantly involved as a party to a dispute, or with a particular user, but so far he has failed to show the ability to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Cannot see any violations by Kameraad Pjotr. Also, the nominator is indef blocked so this de-adminship request is now moot. -FASTILY(TALK) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because the nominator is blocked, does not make the request moot. There are others here (only two, I know) who have voted to remove Kameraad Pjotr's sysop bit. Tiptoetytalk 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep; can't see a good reason for de-sysoping. –BruTeTalk 10:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
KeepWTF? I do not see any problems with his actions. --Jarekt (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Remove, per Cirt, Tiptoety, et al. Blurpeace 00:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: My main concern here is Kameraad's history. He recently resigned his sysop bit under controversy ,  after having reverted Commons:Sexual content to his preferred version and then protected it. He was then re-granted his sysop bit after a second RfA, in which the community (including myself) assumed good faith and agreed to give him a second chance. He clearly is unable to remain neutral in regards to his stance on sexual content/issues when it comes to the use of his sysop tools, and I am afraid his apology from last time no longer holds any ground. Actions speak louder than words. Tiptoetytalk 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Kameraad should be admonished to keep cool in hot situations - waiting a few days for things to settle down does no harm. A lot of people were very upset about Jimbo's actions, as well as about this blocking, but it's important to engage in calm discussion to avoid elevating conflict. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is taking alot of turns. Otava is now indefd--DieBuche (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Question - can we snowclose this now? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, might as well, there obviously won't be clear consensus in favor of this action. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Wow. This is moving faster than I, and I suspect most of us, can keep up with. I agree with Tiptoety, reverting to your preferred version and protecting is abuse of your bit. If KP wasn't admonished over that he should be. While it's well know I disagree with KP's unblocking Tyciol, I also agree with AFBorchert Ottava should not have come here first. Ottava and I have had our differences over on en wiki but we do agree with the zero tolerance policy, and I mean across all wikis. As for Gmaxwell indef'ing Ottava, I wouldn't have gone that far but I can understand his reasoning. PK needs to more cautious and judicious with his bit. As for more, I'm still trying to sort it all out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Premature. Someone wanting this outcome needs to build a careful case, hold a discussion, and seek consensus first, not just launch this process out of the blue. I've half a mind to close this early as a misuse of process. What do other 'crats think? ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Heard from other 'crats, this is a close. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)