Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL (de-adminship)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rights removed by Elfix. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JurgenNL (de-adminship)

Vote

JurgenNL (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

After what happened I agree with the WMF that JurgenNL should not have administrator status at any project for the moment. Today he was desysopped twice. Both times sysop status was restored by Odder. I don't want to answer the question whether WMF or the local Community should make this decisions, I think there are good arguments for both standpoints. But I do wish his sysop status to be removed. Wednesday I told him that I would start a discussion on this issue if he would not resign. Yesterday I went to AN/U to see if there is sufficent support to start a formal desysop procedure. Apparently there is sufficient support to start such a procedure, that's why I start it now. Jcb (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Remove removal of adminship (as initiator). Jcb (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Looking up a user's personal information and travelling to their house uninvited like that, especially considering the distance involved, is so very disturbing and unfunny that I don't think JurgenNL should ever be trusted again, nevermind the 1-year limitation. Fry1989 eh? 00:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Suspend adminship now for the duration of this request (to be restored without prejudice if the decision is to re-admin him)
Support permanent removal of adminship. My only question is why we're not discussing blocks as well.
Support (and I accept that this is outside the scope of this request) de-bureaucrat of Odder for his actions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove - Behaviour unbecoming a person in a leadership role, such as admin. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove, sadly. Even accepting JurgenNL’s version in full, even if access to personal, sensitive information was not a matter in question — his behaviour (prank phonecalls and stalking, however mild) means that he doesn’t have the necessary maturity to be trusted access to that kind of information in any project. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove This kind of creepy and inappropriate behavior is very serious and very unacceptable. As an admin here on Commons, JurgenNL has access to hidden revisions, deleted files and pages, etc, and could use this to repeat this disturbing behavior. I fully support removal of his adminship here. INeverCry 00:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - what he did is truly despicable but then, we do not know the whole story and also, he was was entrusted with the tools for his good work on the wiki and I will never request someone lose that tool just because of an incident off-the-wiki. As an admin here, he did nothing wrong and I will judge him on that..in regards to WMF, Jurgen losing his Global sysops and OTRS rights is punishment enough..no need to drag it across wikimedia...--Stemoc 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Uttery unacceptable conduct. As I said on the preliminary, I support odder having to face this same vote, too. Merely losing his rights is a very, very light "punishment" for JurgenNL's real-life conduct in this incident. Courcelles 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Such behaviour is seriously unbecoming of someone trusted with such rights. I think its important to be very clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. Bawolff (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per above. Wow, just wow. -FASTILY 01:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove as administrator. JurgenNL's conduct is extremely offensive to our volunteer community, and it should not be tolerated in the slightest. I also believe the Wikimedia Foundation was right to remove his administrator privileges on this website, and I do not believe this de-adminship request is necessary, but I do appreciate that the Commons community is willing to move to condemn him. I believe a ban from all Wikimedia projects is also in order. Harej (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Adminship is not just a few extra buttons to press; it requires character. After this event, JurgenNL is not the kind of person I would want representing Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove obviously unacceptable behaviour for an editor let alone someone with advanced permissions. --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary remove. These events created a specific climate leading to a lack of trust by a significant part of the community. And trust is required for an administrator: not only he to act reasonably and carefully, but people must consider him and feel it acts like this. So I don't think it's for the best of the project to currently keep the JurgenNL flag. But I'm not convinced by the way the investigation has been done on meta: a statement by Savh, three testimonies by each person concerned. And then, without any verification of the geocaching cache positions or logs or this story of workshop by anybody (which I agree is a delicate matter if we want to keep the Moira information at leat as private they were before), a definitive conclusion is drawn. This is worrying. And so, I'd prefer, like several people on meta. a OC inquiry and report before a definitive decision is taken. --Dereckson (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my reading of the RFC, TBloemink and JurgenNL did not question many of the events as presented in the RFC; they only questioned the interpretation of what those events mean in terms of policy and privacy. --Rschen7754 05:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove. --Rschen7754 05:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Although there're some users opposing this and he isn't blocked indefinitely, I don't think community wants a user with scandalincident which brings WMF action being an admin.--GZWDer (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove - EvilFreD overleg 07:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC) And may I add that this is actually NOT a community decision. The legal liability is with the WMF, therefor the decision remains upon the WMF. This desysop shouldn't have been necessary and the admin responsible for restoring JurgenNL's acces to information which was denied by the WMF should have his rights removed, as it is an illegal act that's an even worse threat to the community than the one JurgenNL and TBloemink commited.[reply]
  •  Remove - While some people point out his on-wiki actions are fine, I don't think he can be trusted with admin tools after this. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove, sadly. This case and in particular the prank phonecall and the bragging after the visit of the victim's home display a serious lack of judgement. Given this, I do not think that it is any longer appropriate to give access to hidden revisions and deleted files. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. In my opinion it is far better to have cases like this handled by the community at Commons than at the WMF/meta/steward level as long as there is not an emergency. The outcome will be the same but the message will be different.[reply]
  •  Remove — Administrator rights require good judgment. All admins make some mistakes and say or do things where they think "whoops, that was stupid, I shouldn't have done that" (and often live with said regrets). But the events described on the Meta RfC go beyond that and shows an exceptionally poor level of judgment which seem incompatible with being an admin on any of the WMF projects. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove - I am in general supportive of people who come to Commons having had trouble on other projects or elsewhere. However, there is a difference I feel. If someone has issues offline, that's generally fine. If someone gets banned from another project, that's generally fine too, so long as they aren't disruptive here. But what we have here is a situation where the user abused tools (albeit on another project) and used them to harass another user in the real world. That to me signals that the user cannot be trusted with the tools at all - there is after all no real difference between an admin on wikipedia and an admin on Commons. Perhaps in time the tools can be restored, but for now it is clear that there is a lack of trust in this user. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per my comment below. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove - I agree with my many colleagues above. We know, whether through poor judgement and immaturity, or something more sinister, JurgenNL has used some private data to behave very inappropriately in relation to a fellow Wikimedia member. It is a sensible precaution to remove their access to as much private data as possible for as long a period as this community deems necessary (for reference, I wouldn't support a return of permissions inside two years, reflecting the severity of the situation and the need to ensure such behaviour is not repeated ever again, monited over a lengthy period). I disagree that the apology is sufficient, we need evidence to be absolutely certain such behaviour will not be repeated. I also agree (and have argued elsewhere to this effect) that cases like this can be handled by the Commons community. Nick (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per Taivo. Btw, I wonder what would be there if JurgenNL + TBloemink were women and MoiraMoira a man. Namely nothing. Wow. --A.Savin 10:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the gender of the people involved even come into this? Men, women, agender, genderqueer, pangender, genderless, genderfluid, ..., whatever, the behaviour here were totally inapporiate. KTC (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. Who the hell cares about gender in this context? Savin, please point me to an instance in which someone who identified as male was stalked in meatspace by a pair of users using private data they gathered as part of their volunteer rules. If you can't, I'd suggest withdrawing the comment. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (On a related note; I see your genderflip rhetoric and raise you Foz). Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove The rights shouldn't had been restored once it was removed earlier, but whatever... -- KTC (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have read carefully the story and I cannot find any proof for misuse of rights. All information he used were, at least during some short period of time, publicly available. IMO, it was just stupid misbehaviour of young people. As I would support removal of rights that gives real access to really private data (like CU, OS or OTRS) I think that really private data should be hidden by OS and not available to admins. So I do not think removal of admin rights here legitimized. I believe, his explanation and I believe he will not repeat such behaviour. So I vote to give him a chance. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Enough said above by others. I do assume that there was no malign intent on behalf of the two culprits. However, having advanced rights comes with a responsibility.
    @JurgenNL, don't take this as a personal catastrophy, as it isn't one, but take it as a learning experience.
    @odder, leaving the global rights-removal as it had been before the re-sysopping would have saved JurgenNL another likely embarassing discussion as this one. I would have preferred that way, especially in such a rather clear-cut case. --Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove I wish if he resigned. Jee 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  REmove Unacceptable. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Unacceptable behaviour. --Geagea (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. I have no reason to assume that the office action was wrong or inappropriate, in contrast to odder's wheel war, which definitely was unnecessary and not helpful. --Krd 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove A clear breach of trust. I occasionally regret editing with my real name and this sort of incident makes me ask myself once more if I should start over on WMF with a pseudonym. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. "He did nothing bad here at Commons" is a pretty weak argument. He demonstrated such huge flaws in judgement that retaining his admin rights here would be just waiting for him to do someting bad here too. Max Semenik (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove While I believe the geocaching story to be, at best, an insincere distortion, it really doesn’t matter. JurgenNL acknowledged the phone call, which any reasonable person would have known or should have known to be harassment. No one engaging in behaviour so puerile and lacking in judgment has any business having access to sysop tools, the use of which requires sensible judgment and trustworthiness. The pervasive notion that misbehaviour in real life or on sister projects ought to be disregarded in the absence of misbehaviour on the Commons is asinine and harmful to the project. Эlcobbola talk 15:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per all the above, mainly because the resysopping was improper.--Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove --Glaisher (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove per Tom Morris and Nick. 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Unacceptable behaviour. Some people here argue that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia or Commons. This is not true, he harassed (pranked) and stalked another member due to information gained from the project and because she was also a member of the project. --Sebari (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  remove Completely unacceptable. I do not trust this user to have priviledged rights. And it was wrong by odder to re-sysop. It represents silo-thinking. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove This was a gross breach of trust and completely incompatible with holding any position of trust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Those actions were grossly inappropriate and users who conduct themselves in such a fashion should not have access to administrative tools. Mike V • Talk 18:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Unacceptable behaviour for someone in a position of trust (i.e. holding advanced permissions) in a Wikimedia wiki. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. I was unaware of all of this until now, but I have carefully read everything that has been presented here and at Meta and it appears from all of that at the very least a prank phonecall was made and that knowledge gained from seeing (in whatever circumstance) confidential information was required to make it. That alone demonstrates an error of judgement so grave that it is incompatible with holding a position of trust, even if the other, far more serious, allegations are not true. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Creepy story. I understand that he might not have technically misused sysop-tools but he has used confidential knowledge to stalk somebody. It doesn't really matter whom he has stalked. Could have been any user.--Stanzilla (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove. Prank calls and boasting online about visiting someone elses home with having been given the address personally, and without permission to visit .. ? No thank you! JurgenNL should have resigned immediately. Regarding admin-rights, admins are often given diff-links that need to be revision-deleted or suppressed by an oversighter. They are trusted to perform these actions and refer the issue to oversighters if appropriate. Even if the brain cant forget some details, it must decide not to misuse them for a bit of fun. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Moral keep I have to admit I have been thinking about this for a long time. I do agree with the people above me. However, I know that I won't turn the situation around if I vote keep. So, this is my moral vote to Jurgen. I hope he will not be devastated by this. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 01:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Pleclown (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove – These actions by JurgenNL and his behaviour afterwards show a serious lack of judgement which is incompatible with holding any position of privilege on Wikimedia projects. I don't consider these infractions to be unforgivable, but it will take an awful lot for him to get the trust of the community back again. CT Cooper · talk 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove more than once I have seen poor decision-making  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove Whether or not the actions actually violated some policy, the decision-making was poor, and as admin rights mean a position of trust, and that trust has been shaken, the rights should be removed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remove We only get to know sensitive information in order to judge if we have to remove it or not. It is our obligation to avoid any other use and we have to actively avoid it. There is no such thing like having any kind of benefit from knowing sensitive information, no matter how useless this information might be in a certain moment, and blame it on some accidental occasion. At best, I see a failure on being active on avoiding misuse of sensitive information. Sorry if you didn't want to cause all that trouble.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • My thoughts are with the victim MoiraMoira. No editor of any project should have their privacy and safety compromised, and be made to feel discomfort or fear because of it. The idea that someone who has violated another editor's privacy like JurgenNL has could be trusted with adminship on any project is completely wrong. We need to protect editors, not excuse completely inappropriate behavior and pretend something serious was no big deal. Lack of carefulness and maturity in dealing with personal info could end with someone getting hurt, or having problems at work or in their personal life, etc. It's not a joke. INeverCry 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Stemoc's comment that JurgenNL "did nothing wrong", I would say that just because it was meant as a prank doesn't mean it isn't stalking and that it isn't potentially criminal in the real world. That JurgenNL involved Wikimedia in this, abusing tools entrusted with them to do this means that ANY project where they have access to such tools which could facilitate doing this again should revoke those tools immediately. This is not "dragging it to Commons", this is serious. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part said "As an admin here", so i judge him for his work here..I thought commons was different, we didn't treat everyone as trolls and vandals and we didn't backstab our own unlike that 'other' wikipedia?..apparently not..Jurgen already paid the price..and one year from now, people would still not trust him so he every much has lost all his trust because of a prank which honestly is understandable seeing that both him and TBloemink are teenagers..I was a kid once, a teenager, I played pranks as well so I will not judge others....I know how it feels for a community you love to lose trust in you and its not really a good feeling....I wouldn't even wish that on a vandal let alone a highly trusted wikimedian..--Stemoc 03:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should Commons be different? We are all interconnected projects and they used tools authorised to them to look up another user's personal information in a matter that can't be described as anything less than stalking. If they can do it on one project, they can do it on any project where they have those tools. If you abuse it in one place there is zero trust that you won't do it elsewhere too. Stalking isn't funny, it's criminal. Fry1989 eh? 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are three situations which are getting conflated somewhat:
  • The situation we have with Russavia, who has been banned from other projects but remains an admin here. The ban from enwp was entirely for onwiki actions, there was no real-world harrassment, no abuse of tools there or on commons.
  • The situation where we have a user who has a less than pleasant past in the real world. I do not believe that what people were in the real world is really any of our business. It might have a bearing on admin rights, but is no reason to ban a user.
  • The situation we have here, where someone abused their admin tools on another project. This shows a lack of mental maturity required to be an admin on any project. This does not mean the person cannot be part of the community, just that we shouldn't give them the keys to repeat their past indiscretions.
I support removal of rights in the here and now, but I hope that one day we can restore them. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not here to punish him. We're here to protect other potential stalking victims by not leaving stalkers with privileged access.
The regular idea that on-wiki admins who harass on-wiki editors are forgivable so long as the actual harassment took place off-wiki really has to stop! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am myself an admin in et.wiki. I know most of our admins by name, often we have met from eye-to-eye, I have visited two admins in their home. Actually half of admins in et.wiki (including myself) use their first or familiy names as user names. Once we started to talk about that with fellow admins, I said for couple of users, that I do not know their identity, and somebody of us replied: "Yes, I know him, we have met!" It is difficult to be an active wikipedian in Estonia so that nobody knows your identity. So what happened? Somebody understood MoiraMoira's identity. Somebody googled her name and knows now her address and phone number. And now she feels frightened ... why? I do not understand her. I see no reason for being afraid. I am shocked and sad seeing, that Jurgen is going to be desysopped. If somebody has acted weirdly, then this is MoiraMoira, she is unnaturally timid. I have never, never in my life made a prank call, and this was Jurgen's fault. But actually I believe TBloemik's and Jurgen's explanation. I believe their apologies and I trust Jurgen. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If somebody has acted weirdly, then this is MoiraMoira, she is unnaturally timid. "
Maybe, and that would be her right!
Incidentally, if one were inclined to write an article for an angry feminist or quasi-feminist blog on the subject of "Wikipedia hates women (again)", then this sort of quotable comment is an absolute gift for it. But then, as some admins here see the political independence of Commons from WMF as being suitable grounds to support the insupportable JurgenNL over this, then maybe they'd have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My identity isn't a secret. I have met many fellow Wikimedians in person, I enjoy doing so, and I would love to meet many more. However, whether they like their identity and or personal information public or not is up to the individual in question. Like it or not, we do have people who stalk and or harress other editors for whatever reasons, and even if that weren't the case, it is still perfectly right that people's privacy are respected. The comment above are reaching to victim blaming, which is totally and utterly unacceptable. -- KTC (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I understand your point of view, but different people are happy to share different amounts of their life with random internet people. If MoiraMoira wanted to share this information with wikimedians, she would have. She did not, instead we have someone finding out her name, address and phone number using information they were trusted not to use, and then using it to harrass her. We all know there is a vindictive streak in some wikimedians - if they started calling me, I'd be scared too. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that everybody needs to be able to decide for him/herself what private information to share and not to share. (I'm e.g. easy to find, my identity is quite publicly known.) I want to add that due to the kind of work MoiraMoira does at Wikipedia, it is even more understandable that she does not want to be identified. She fights a lot of long time vandals and also a lot of autopromoting companies and people. She gets targetted personally quite often by those offenders. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Savin makes the point above. "Btw, I wonder what would be there if JurgenNL + TBloemink were women and MoiraMoira a man. Namely nothing. Wow."
I do not disagree with that observation. However it is also possible that the case we have today will be swept under the carpet too. The better action is not to ignore this one because we'd ignore it anyway if the affected party wasn't "unnaturally timid" or a woman, it is to recognise that we demand certain standards of behaviour from admins and that if they breach those we will withdraw their admin privilege whoever they chose to harass. A Savin's argument is a straw man: we are not debating whether Jurgen's choice of target was serious or not, we are concerned over what his actions were. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taivo: As many people already commented here, there are people here with known identities, editing under real names (like me). But there are many other people here don't want to reveal such information. Chances that we may gather some information while working/communicating together; but the practice here is not to publish any such information on-wiki if the user didn't do it him/herself. There may be many reasons why a person prefer not to be traced. As a mere media contributor here, I may not have such issues. But an admin who is much active in dealing with troublemakers may not want him/her traced. I think you will get an idea from this. Jee 12:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JKadavoor, I opened the link in your post and I read it. And then I clicked link "Next reply" and Newyorkbrad answered exactly what I think: serious overreaction. I was 10 years working in university and once a student said to me: "I know which kindergarten your child goes in!" I replied: "Thank you, but I know that myself also." That's all, nothing more happened. Taivo (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "Hey, I already happen to know that place" and "I don't know that place, but I have access that lets me find it out". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I too respond as you did. But it is upto individual choice and we are forced to respect it. :) Jee 13:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if administrative tools are necessary for JurgenNL to remove copyright watermarks from Flicker files, such as from THIS to this. I would hate to see him slowed down in aiding the cause of free culture by too much credence being placed in ticky tack things like allegations of telephone harassment and real life stalking of female editors. So please, think before you act. Commons has certain standards to maintain, after all. (Oh, I see, JurgenNL's removal of an ALL RIGHTS RESERVED watermark and replacement with CC 2.0 ATTRIBUTION was okayed by a malfunctioning bot. That makes it okay then... My bad.) Carrite (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such a removal of a watermark, no administrator rights are needed. Jcb (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what administrator rights are needed to list a file clearly marked "copyrighted--all rights reserved" on Flickr as licensed under CC 2.0 on Commons? As far as I know, there is no "thievery" rights level. The watermark clearly isn't the issue there, it's the fact that a copyrighted image was falsely listed under a free license by JurgenNL. HOT WUK (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am disappointed that Jurgen is completely ignoring this de-adminship request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this equivalent that he agreed with that decision? Note that he removed those badges without making any complaint. IMHO, there is no need of this much public discussions while those youngsters already acknowledged their mistakes. Note that he filed one resignation; he probably will have do the same for here too, if he have got enough time. Jee 12:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, no idea what I would have done in such a situation, esp. no idea if I found any strength to write something in a project where almost everybody treat me like a criminal. I'm afraid we now have lost JurgenNL as admin and as contributor. --A.Savin 13:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you^^ --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So long as we lose him as stalker too, I can live with that.
As to "treat him like a criminal", then under UK law (I'm unfamiliar with Dutch law) he should be looking very hard at the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only familiar with law of the both countries I live in, and they are surely not the wildest ones (Russia+Germany). If I were a woman, went to police there and tried to complain about what JurgenNL+TBloemnik did, they'd just laugh me down, that's for sure. --A.Savin 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, "stalker" is an insult for me, as it implies long-term abuse which surely wasn't the case. --A.Savin 13:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Stalker? I can't see long-term abuse. Please try to stick on the exact truth. And pls agf. In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Russia is almost single-handedly responsible for the European Court of Human Rights' backlog of enforcement actions and cases, I'm pretty sure "Well if I did this in Russia..." is about as useful a yardstick to what is equitable and fair as "Well if the prosector was the judge..." If you live in a country with a police department that would respond to this situation by laughing at you, the problem is your police department.
But this is splitting hairs. If we've lost him as a contributor, locally or even globally, then as long as we've also lost him as someone capable of and willing to participate in this kind of behaviour, that is a worthwhile thing. There's no quality or quantity of contributions that justifies real life harassment. Ironholds (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prosecutor=judge? That's exactly what we have here. You all consider it necessary to publicly call particular person a criminal. Without any trial, without court decision, without evidence. That's what is to call poor judgement. Oh, and concerning your remarks about Russia, or its judiciary... You Americans shouldn't throw stones around, as long as you live in a glasshouse. --A.Savin 16:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironholds isn't an American...... -- KTC (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any arguments on the actual issue, or do you just need to have the last word? --A.Savin 18:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KTC have given their comments on the issue above. Pointing out factual flaws in someone else's arguments is not a "need to have the last word" it is what happens in civilised discussions. Let's move away from the ad hominems and address the issue at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call him a criminal. Nobody, in fact, called him a criminal. You said he was being treated like one, and Andy said "if treating him like a criminal is what you think we're doing, then...[statutes around computer misuse]". But this is distracting from the point; regardless of the ethical arguments here (in which, we've confirmed repeatedly, I think you're wrong); please explain to me why accessing private information with the intent of unexpectedly crank-calling people, or turning up outside their house, is something that it is appropriate for people to do? Ignore whether you're okay with Moira being uncomfortable although for reference, the only person who gets to decide if personX is allowed to beuncomfortable is personX, or your perceived gender issues: explain to me why this behaviour was acceptable. Explain to me why "well, lots of admins know each other!" is acceptably extended to accessing PII and turning up on someone's street. Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't state that the prank-call was OK (in fact, it was rather childish behaviour). What I said is that this kind of bullying campaign is absolutely disproportionate in relation to what he did. Several people (including Andy Dingley, Corcelles, and others) call him publicly a "stalker". Stalking is a crime. By logic, it implies that they call him a criminal, i.e. somebody who committed a crime. Despite the fact that there was no judicial inquiry, no court decision etc. Is it normal? No! It is disgusting, especially given the fact that several long-term stalkers and mobbers e.g. from the German wikipedia still being administratively protected there and even receive money from the local chapters, e.g. for Wikimania tickets. Useless to discuss. There is no justice at all. There are only power games by some people who do not have enough possibility to play such games in their real life, so that they play it here. --A.Savin 20:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your contend that only those convicted of stalking in a court of law may be described as a stalker, so who has been convicted of stalking from German Wikipedia do you refer to in your above comment ? Nick (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I cannot name them because it would be a blatant violation of NPA. Ignoring the fact that some people here do not hesitate to call an other person a stalker - despite the fact that what he did was a childish joke which - I'm sure - not a single RL judge would take any serious, whereas what some people on German WP do (and, I suppose, some on English WP too) is real long-term abuse resulted in resignation of numerous productive authors and also health problems of some of them in real life. That would be, at least in Germany, very well a serious issue before court; if there was not their coward anonymity... --A.Savin 21:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is coming off a lot like "well nobody punished people I had a problem with, so NERR". Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The above discussion is getting out of hand. The heat on both sides of the argument is likely to make someone say something with unfortunate consequences, legally or personally. There isn't anything to be gained from continuing this and it is most unlikely that anyone will be persuaded to revise their !votes, which are overwhelmingly one-sided. I suggest this be closed. -- Colin (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation by JurgenNL

I successfully passed an RfA on Commons in December 2013, and since then I have diligently, and to the best of my ability, used the admin tools on Wikimedia Commons to serve the Commons community.

As a result of issues unrelated to Commons, and for which I make no excuses here, many in the Commons community have lost trust in myself as is evident above. Although at no stage did I use my admin rights on any project in a way that one who was entrusted with those tool should not, I do understand that the prank phone call was unacceptable, and I have apologised for this, and do so again now. I also understand that this act has caused members of the Commons community to lose trust in my holding of the admin tools.

With this in mind I am resigning the admin tools I currently hold on Wikimedia Commons and if I seek to have them returned to me in the future I will do so by submitting a fresh RfA. JurgenNL (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per above and m:Special:Diff/10101635. Alan (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/JurgenNL_(de-adminship)&oldid=136164818"