Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/TBloemink

TBloemink (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)

After Requests for comment/Privacy violation by TBloemink and JurgenNL and a little AN discussion, this request for removal of TBloemink's adminship is an opportunity for our community to express their refusal to any kind of off-wiki harassment. Since TBloemink did not start a new admin reconfirmation himself, we will have to go through the for him more favourable process of an RFP/R which requires 50% remove votes instead of just 30%. Regards, Vogone (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Remove Vogone (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I don't really have a lack of trust in TBloemink. After discussing the matter with him, yes it is a serious thing and yes boarders on harassment but I still have trust in him regardless of the situation. In addition the fact he resigned from his highest position of trust (steward) in light of the matter without the need to open any discussions regarding removal, show to me he does feel sorry for the events. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove IRL harassment is a large offense, especially when it is a violation of the privacy policy. Inactivity is also a concern I have. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, to avoid losing a friend. The message is clear, still trusted person imo. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove per vogone and JD--DangSunM (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep The tools have not been abused and I do not feel that he has done anything that impacts his trust here on Wikidata. --Jakob (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jakec: This does sound a bit rude to me, as a countryman of TBloemink's who could easily have been the object of the visit and/or prank phone calls. Lymantria (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove IRL harassment is a huge offence. Unfortunately, I and many others have lost trust in TBloemink. Even though he has not used his sysop rights inappropriately, being an administrator indicates a high level of trust in the community, which he no longer has. IMO it's hard to believe that some think he should keep his rights with rationales: "yes [it] boarders on harassment but...", and "Keep, to avoid losing a friend". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per Jakob. I don't think TBloemink will abuse this power as everyone makes mistakes in life. --Eurodyne (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak remove I'll admit I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, I hate to add insult to injury, and this isn't a role that handles much private info, if at all. And this isn't en.wikipedia where being an admin is a "big thing", and on the harassment scale, it was fairly low. However, three things tip me towards removing: 1) there was significant room for improvement in how he handled the situation, even once the RFC on Meta had begun, 2) his last 50 edits here go back into 2013 and his last logged actions were in July, and he only has 395 edits here (and wouldn't pass a modern Wikidata RFA on that) so he's not very active here anyway and 3) I don't think that someone who recently was involved in this sort of thing should be representing the Wikidata project. Sorry, TBloemink. --Rschen7754 22:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upgrading to full remove. After seeing Savh and ElfjeTwaalfje's comments, and having thought about all I have seen (including posts to stewards-l) I just don't think he gets what he did, and what is appropriate from here on. --Rschen7754 13:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per John and Jakob. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 02:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep The underlying case is definitely a problem, but he has already dropped his stewardship, and admin on wikidata is no big deal. --Krd (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep so far it has nothing to do with admin tools on Wikidata. I have never understood an argument "he is badass, don't give him (take away from him) a flag". Flag is given to person who know what to do with the flag, how to do it, and will not do any bad with this flag. Anything related to privacy is oversight area, it is no related to admin flag. All I see in this discussion sounds like "he did something bad somewhere, he is a bad person, let take the flag away from him". Even the beginning of this vote seems like a person attack ("...for him more favourable process..."). And I can't support it in this way. Did he done something wrong on Wikidata or other project using admin flag? No, as far, as i know (from provided info). Is it likely that he will use his admin flag to make bad things on Wikidata? No. Noone presented arguments that last two points are incorrect. That's all arguments that matters for me. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but also admins have access to deleted information. And yes, I am of the opinion that real-life stalkers should not be granted access to such information, under no circumstances. Vogone (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my point of view, anything really private must be oversighted, otherwise not counted as private (i.e. nonrecoverable). There is special tool for that and special flag (oversight) and admin shall not be required to hold not only admin responsibility but oversight responsibility burden as well. Because of that i can't agree to argument "should not be granted access to...". There shall be no access to this information for any admin in first place. Admins have no access to oversighted information. No access -- nothing to worry about when talking about granting or taking back admin flag. -- Vlsergey (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I will say (oversighter hat on) that though that should be the ideal, that doesn't always happen - sometimes, due to language barriers and a lack of awareness of the OS tool, not everything that should be oversighted is oversighted, and also, admins are usually the ones who find stuff that should be oversighted and report it to us. No, we don't hand our new admin candidates a 20 question application to see if they can handle private data, but there is the expectation that if they do run across something like that, they will handle it appropriately. --Rschen7754 06:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove per Vogone -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 14:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove to prevent possible future (even unlikely) problems. --Jklamo (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jklamo: If you think not only that there is no current problem, but future problems are unlikely, why are you supporting removal? --Jakob (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most likely because he doesn't belong to those who trust real-life stalkers. Vogone (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - if he is inactive, he will be desysoped with normal inactive run. And it is not wikidata issue. — revi^{^} 16:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
   Remove changed my mind. — revi^{^} 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-wiki events can hardly be an exclusively local issue. Vogone (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never understood this sort of argument. Behavioral issues like this are not compartmentalized to just one wiki; we do not magically change who we are when we change the URL in our browser. --Rschen7754 18:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove - There's really no valid reason at all why TBloemink should keep his admin rights on Wikidata or be allowed to. EvilFreD (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not convinced that TBloemink has or will abuse his sysop tools here, and as such he has not lost my trust as a WD admin. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  After hearing that TBloemink has continued to brag about the incident, and various other dramas, I am inclined to vote  Remove. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Per all above. --Wiki13 _talk 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove I have completely lost trust in TBloemink's judgement on how to deal with privacy and confidentiality issues. I have given it some time to think this over, but for me this means that I really can't trust TBloemink with administrator rights. I feel insecure after what happened and the views on the events and apologies by TBloemink (and JurgenNL) have not taken that away. Lymantria (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove I don't know him, but this behavior is not acceptable. An admin should be trustable. He isn't after this. --Succu (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove I'm really sorry about this situation, I don't know exactly how it is serious, on the other hand I believe that he will stay active in Wikidata (and this community). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove Off-wiki privacy violation? It won't get much worse. There is no way anyone can trust TBloemink in his position after the mistake he and JurgenNL made. JurriaanH (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Off-wiki" doesn't do justice to the case. This was a "real life" privacy violation. As in "actually being a real life threath to a living person and his loved ones and giving them a feeling of not being secure in their own house". EvilFreD (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep JurgenNL (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Krd. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove per the concerns I mention on the RfC, and the given impression that he has not yet understood the problem, as per IRC. Savh (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak keep IRL harrassment imo is not worse than other abuse like socking (compare Russavia). In addition, this user feels sorry for it and this would pretty much not occur again.--GZWDer (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @GZWDer: You're joking, right? Right? Hopefully? IRL harassment, the same level of offence as sock-puppeteering? What? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @GZWDer: I hope you're indeed joking, I don't see how this is on the same scale as socking on wiki. And additionally, on IRC he doesn't give the impression to be sorry either: He still considers the only thing he did wrong was to walk on a "public street". I'd love to publish IRC logs, but he is unwilling. Additionally, here he (and someone who shares an IP adress with him as well) opposes MoiraMoira, which in light of the occurred events he simply shouldn't have done. The on-wiki apologies seem to be solely with intention to hold on to rights, considering his activity here was limited to 4 days in which he logged (26 July, 10 June, 2 June and 22 May 2014) in the past 6 months. Savh (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Remove Regretfully. His vote against the victim of his visit in the first round of the sysop confirmation procedure on nlwiki (which started today) just decided this for me. Restraint would have been the proper way; I don't doubt the sincerity of his vote, this just shows for me that a usually competent admin and steward right now temporarily lacks the proper state of mind to have the additional sysop rights here. ElfjeTwaalfje (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tbloemink expressed his loss of confidence in MoiraMoira on 8 september, after she used the word stalker, in a discussion where a third wikipedian, Behh, complained that Tbloemink was cyberbullying Behh on IRC [1]. No action followed because the channel was outside wikimedia. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this is one of the reasons, she performed some odd behaviour in the past which is why I'd like to see a community vote.
•  Remove I admit that I had to think some days about what I'm going to answer here. After Savh comment above I have to support removal of TB's adminship. --Stryn (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Remove Some things are just so far beyond the pale of acceptability that they (should) disqualify you from holding any advanced permissions anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]