Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kameraad Pjotr 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Consensus to repromote has been established. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kameraad Pjotr

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

Scheduled to end: 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As some of you may know, Kameraad Pjotr was an administrator on this project since August 2007 (see Commons:Requests and votes/Kameraad Pjotr), but resigned after Jimbo Wales' intervention to change our policy on sexual content, as he strongly disagreed with the method employed.

Now that things have cooled down a bit, he decided to come back and asked if the community would simply reinstate him. Some users have expressed concern regarding the events surrounding his departure, in particular his reverting and then protection of Commons:Sexual content. He has therefore withdrawn that informal request, and said he would re-apply for adminiship through the regular RfA process, and most importantly he apologized for his behavior.

Considering the huge amount of work he used to do on DRs, I could not wait to nominate him again (seriously, each day that goes by without him having the tools means dozens of DRs just piling up; look at his deleted contributions!) He was one of our most active admins, has always used good judgment and followed policies, and on the rare and exceptional occasion where he didn't, had the wisdom to recognize his mistake and the humility to apologize. –Tryphon^☂ 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm honoured and accept this nomination. If this request passes, I will continue my work on deletion requests. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! Kameraad Pjotr 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support without any doubts --Justass (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Polarlys (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support keep up the good work --AFBorchert (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Allthough he has deleted lots of images that I had voted to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Wknight94 ^talk 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support but of course. Multichill (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Concerns about highly inappropriate behavior and use of tools as an admin, including: what was described by Bastique as "Admin wheel-warring", subsequently in another case the user in question engaged in Inappropriate use of ROLLBACK tool, and following rollback on a page where the user was involved, the user then full protected the page, which led to admin Tiptoety pointing out, "Reverting to your preferred version, then protecting the page is in rather poor taste." The user in question appears to be unable to disengage himself and recognize where he is an involved admin on certain topics and does not know when not to use the admin tools. This has been exhibited with improper usage on three occasions of not one, but three different admin tools as noted above: 1) Rollback tool, 2) Wheel-warring with Block/unblock, and 3) Full-page-protection of a page where user was engaged in conflict. Not a suitable candidate for administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the allegations here, and my conclusions follow: All incidents relate to two particularly divisive situations - the Pieter Kuiper situation, and what was effectively Jimbo Wales' vandalism of Commons. It's difficult to judge people by incidents where noone was acting all that well by the end of them. I've reviewed is talk page archives, and think that he his at least amenable to feedback, and found no evidence of any other incidents in my quick scan. I think we'd be best, as a community, to move on past this situation, which includes restoring his adminship. We can always re-evaluate it should it become necessary in future. Further, I would not want administrators acting in good conscience to protest a founder gone rogue - by resigning - to be punished for their moral stance when the situation resolved to remove the reasons for protest, particularly when the loss of most of Jimbo's powers, and m:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag indicate that their moral outrage was very much in line with the community's values. Administrators are allowed to be human; a very small number of controversial actions should not, in themselves, prevent adminship; otherwise, a strong chilling effect comes into play. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Keep up the good work! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support as already stated on COM:BN. With exception of the first one, all other "events" listed by Cirt are directly related to You-Know-What. I am deeply convinced that the healing of our community from You-Know-What requires that we refrain and reject any kind of retaliation against single users, especially when he/she has apologized as Kameraad Pjotr has done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. –Tryphon^☂ 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Trycatch (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support; –BruTe ^Talk 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- User:Docu at 11:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I see no reason why Kameraad Pjotr should ask. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support odder (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Based on his actions, I think that if anything, we need more people like Pjotr. Keep up the good work. Alecmconroy (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Aye. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --JN466 13:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support absolutely--KTo288 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Matthiasb (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support  fetchcomms☛ 05:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support   — C M B J   05:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Strongly Oppose User abused administrative powers in a deliberate and disruptive way, then quit to avoid being desysoped. This user should not be allowed to regain privileges so soon. Also support Cirt's reasoning. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support humans do fail sometimes. That's not anything else but normal. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - We should all learn to forgive. Tiptoety ^talk 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support no presumption of failure, he exercised his judgment and learned from the ensuing debacle ˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.