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

      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 · SULinfo)

      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)

      Votes

      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - unbeleavable. Marcus Cyron 11:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove (as in opposing this user being an administrator). Aside from restoring images in nearly 150 cases where there was a clear conflict of interest, the user has used the administrative tools less than 50 times between May 2006 and June 2007. Giving administrative privileges to a user should reduce the workload for other administrators, not increase it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove as per Marcus Cyron. --S[1] 12:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment User:Joymaster and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Szymon i Krystian 004.JPG highlight some misunderstandings of Commons:Project scope. --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove -- knowingly and intentionally using administrative tools against commons policy makes removal a no-brainer if you ask me. --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - I support deadminship - I have been editing at en for a long time, and I have never seen such a clear violation of the tools. Unless the user is willing to redelete the entire gallery before this discussion is finished, I support deadminship. Although he's shown he doesn't have much use for the tools anyway. Patstuart 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove for now. He can re-apply once he has familiarized himself with Commons's licensing policy and goals. / Fred J 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove --Polarlys 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Nobody is perfect, but Joymaster shows no efforts to learn about and accept the commons guidelines. --GeorgHH 18:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I have permission, I show it on commons: 100px, 100px and other like this: [1] - za zfodą: www.3elt.com źródło: www.3elt.com it was too hard for you - one mail to 3hr elt... sorry... people like you are enemy for commons and wikipedians project! Joymaster 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per given evidence on user's actions. feydey (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - We can AGF a few times, give him a chance to change his ways. But if he doesn't we need to step in. Giggy\Talk 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove When this admin makes no reply after undeleting too many questioned images without clear reasons, I consider this like pleading "no contest" to us. Let us fire him/her from adminship for now.--Jusjih 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove William Avery 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Fred J. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Ρх₥α 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove yes, please --ALE! ¿…? 10:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Fred J. --Digon3 talk 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Fred --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Not knowing the rules, having no idea about copyright law, misusing his privileges, and ignoring all warnings is not acceptable for admins. --AFBorchert 22:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Our mistake, too, but we can correct it. Samulili 06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • remove. When I read User talk:Joymaster, I can see that this person does not have high skills in English language. This fact in itself should not be a criteria to be or not to be a sysop, however it appears to me that the warnings sent to him weren't written in Polish as well (requesting the help of some Polish sysop would have taken more time but may have been of some help to better understand each other). Even the newest warnings that are added using templates could be set to Polish language... Anyway, it appears that Joymaster doesn't { know | understand | apply } Commons rules, so I think she/he should not remain an admin. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --WarX 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Maybe Joymaster doesn't understand very well English nor our policies, but most of you doesn't understand how some things work in Poland - if Joymaster has drunk vodka with someone and this person gave him permission, it better then any kind of e-mail send to OTRS, etc. --WarX 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      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)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per Fred J. --Szczepan talk 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Szwedzki 00:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) per WarX, thx for "vodka licensing" story
        • this is the best: Stokfiszewski.jpg (licensing: Author granted permission to use this photo under terms of Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license. - it's like a present wikipedians with a fait accompli), I have black on white that I can use photos from other site: for example: 100px. Myślenie to przyszłość, ale niektórych jak widać to boli! Joymaster 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Starscream 00:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Aotearoa 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep} Masti 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Rudi pl 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      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)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Inapproproate use of admin tools trusted to the user, possible readminisation after a period. Wpedzich 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • oh, really? 100px oraz 100px - niezwykle interesujące... mnie za moje dzieci chce usunąć a sam swoje wstawia... Joymaster 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove there was also a de-adminship procedure on Polish Wikipedia against Joymaster. Finally he requested removal of access. It isn't the first time he misunterstands his mission. Pimke 16:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Too many problems. Lupo 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • too many? too many words! but no one can search this: 100px (for example) Joymaster 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per nom and Fred J. -- Avi 04:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Has lost the trust of the Community that he will use the tools per Commons policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Remove, Joymaster has exhibited enough disrespect to Commons policies and goals. Lack of communication is a serious problem, too. MaxSem 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Lukas skywalker 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove per nom. Maxim(talk) 02:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove. Accusations of misconduct are serious and appear to be made out. No longer appropriate for him to continue as a sysop here. WjBscribe 05:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove - this user no longer has the integrity required to act as an administrator given the above. Daniel 05:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove ~ Riana ⁂ 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Symbol delete vote.svg Remove, user in question has compromised the project in a very precarious and possibly legally liable position. - Mailer diablo 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

      Comments

      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Using the templates Symbol support vote.svg Support and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose may not be a good idea, because it is hard to see what you support or oppose. I would suggest using Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and Symbol delete vote.svg Remove. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      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)
      Actually, I was pretty confused by it too. I suggest the keep/remove banners too. Patstuart 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      Sounds good. Marcus Cyron 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      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)
      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)
      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)
      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)

      (← 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)

      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)
      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)
      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)

      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)

      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)
      Last modified on 1 December 2011, at 14:40