Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
SchuminWeb, an admin since 2007, has (it is alleged) been violating policies governing the use of the administrator tools, and failing to follow the governing principles of Wikipedia while engaging in the use of them. In particular:
 * 1) He has not remained accountable as required by the administrator policy, which states that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed";
 * 2) He has undertaken deletions which are contrary to policy, and closed deletion discussions in an uncommunicative and consensus-nullifying fashion.

Desired outcome
That SchuminWeb either pledge to more consistently respond to users questioning his administrator actions, and to try to avoid making WP:IAR-y actions with the tools, or hand them in.

Description
In his role as an administrator, SchuminWeb deletes many pages and files - most of the time, justifiably. There are occasional blips of inaccuracy (as discussed below) but, although some are particularly egregious, it's not enough alone to justify anything more than a slap on the wrist.

The actual issue is that we've tried that. It doesn't work, because he doesn't respond: and not just to efforts to tell him about the specific issues highlighted here, but generally. On the files and pages listed here, he responded by blanking the discussion with the edit summary "rm chastizement by other editors. This is what DRV is for. Go there.", or simply not at all.

This is not a case of the admin in question not being willing to reply to people at all. He. But in some cases, crucially, cases where his judgment is being directly questioned, he simply refuses to deal with it. This is not an acceptable thing for an admin to be doing.

Powers misused

 * Deletion (log):
 * File:Bart to the Future.png, contrary to the deletion discussion;
 * Template:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, deleted as "unused or redundant" when in use on 8 articles;
 * Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa), speedy deleted as "no context" despite the title providing context on its own.

Applicable policies
The applicable policies here are somewhat woolly, because the issue is somewhat woolly. On the deletions themselves, the applicable policies/guidelines are really WP:CSD and, for the Simpsons Files for Deletion discussion, the general and universal principle that discussions should be closed in line with consensus unless the outcome would be insanity. Those are not on their own the heart of the issue, though: the issue is that in these cases (and in many others) SchuminWeb is failing to follow the administrator policy and not "[responding] promptly and civilly to queries about [his] Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed".

Attempts by Ironholds

 * discussion re "bibliography of the Tonga people"]
 * Participation in the AN discussion
 * talkpage comments

Attempts by GiantSnowman

 * making user aware of AN discussion - he responded with this

Other attempts

 * attempt to open a discussion after the deletion of the Simpsons file
 * Query about the disputed template deletion
 * Administrators' Noticeboard discussion
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention
 * Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Following the tonga issue, SchuminWeb persisted in refusing to communicate to people disputing his actions
 * He refused to participate in the AN discussion of the same issues, and wrote it off as "everyone with whom I've ever disagreed in eight years".

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 * --Malerooster (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --KTC (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * -- DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --Centpacrr (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * --  D r e a m Focus  15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * -- MrX 17:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Kilopi (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the sysop whose actions are disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one else should edit or change this response.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add their views of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Phil Bridger
I would like to add this attempt at discussion to the evidence. SchuminWeb deleted this article under an inapplicable speedy deletion criterion, but provided no answer to my civil question even after a reminder, and while editing in the meantime. It turned out that another speedy deletion criterion was valid, but, as a non-admin I couldn't read the deleted article and several editors had to waste time discussing it at WP:DRV to come to this conclusion. This could have been avoided if he had simply replied to my questions. This behaviour seems to indicate that SchuminWeb considers a few seconds of his own time to be more valuable than much more of other people's time, which is not an attitude that any administrator should have.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) This behavior seems consistent with experiences I have had with this admin as well as other issues (see below). Centpacrr (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC).
 * 5) He doesn't seem to respond to questions about his actions when he should.  D r e a m Focus  15:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I have had a similar experience, in which my question on his talk page about deleted files and a follow up email were not responded to. The issue was eventually resolved, so he may have acted on my question behind the scenes. Although it may be be excusable in this case, generally, not replying to a reasonable question breaches our civility standards and is not really acceptable for an admin. - MrX 17:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I'll also add this attempt at discussion. SchuminWeb's deletion of The Benjamin Gate seemed to be either due to a misunderstanding of, or due to ignoring, CSD policy. That's fine; admins make mistakes sometimes. But the way he ignored my attempts to discuss it with him now appears to be part of a larger problematic pattern, unfortunately. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) KTC (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) His attitude that he is only very grudgingly answerable to anyone else creates a lot of unnecessary friction, especially considering his penchant for delivered-from-on-high rulings about fair-use (which see below). Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-involved view by Quasihuman
While not directly involved in any of the deletions listed, my civil question about a which SchuminWeb closed as delete, was not answered civilly, but was removed as chastisement, which it was not intended to be. For me, the central issue is not the appropriateness of the deletions (I can accept that we all make mistakes from time to time, and I AGF on the part of SW), but the failure to answer reasonable and civil questions about them per WP:ADMINACCT.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) SchuminWeb's talk page ended up on my watchlist after I left him a message, so I have seen what has gone on with regard to image deletion and agree that he needs to answer questions regarding his administrative decisions.  CtP  (t • c) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) This behavior seems consistent with experiences I have had with this admin as well as other issues (see below). Centpacrr (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) This jibes with my experience also. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC).
 * 5) He didn't seem to read any of the discussion, just went through and mass deleted a lot of images at once as a super vote.  D r e a m Focus  15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree this is the central issue. Kilopi (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) KTC (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Centpacrr
Over the past two years a number of other editors and I have had multiple issues with this admin over both his attitude toward and in dealing with "ordinary" editors, and over his extraordinarily narrow and inflexible views on WP policies in general and particularly as to the fair use of "Non Free" images when such uses having been fully justified with appropriate rationales and often having been in place in articles for many years. One of the most inappropriate techniques this admin applies to achieve this end is to unilaterally and arbitrarily remove such long standing images from all the articles in which they appear along with the rationales from the images' host pages, and then speedy delete the images themselves from WP on the specious grounds that they are "orphaned". (See for an example of this.)

This admin also has a history of closing discussions and deleting images which the community has indicated by large (or even unanimous) majorities that should be kept, and then becomes very defensive when such (re File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg) are challenged and overturned on review. The Admin often takes these challenges very personally and often uses threats, and/or denigrating and condescending language, against those who have disputed his arbitrary actions. (See, and here for examples.) Centpacrr (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Agree. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, I don't fully agree with the paragraph (the third one) that Centpacrr added after my endorsement. I wouldn't necessarily insist on a user responding to an RfC. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC).
 * 1) Seems to be a pattern of ignoring consensus and arguing he is always right even when most/all everyone else says otherwise.  D r e a m Focus  15:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I also had dealings with SchuminWeb in the whole Otto Perry debacle, including dealing with the "delink to orphan" tactic. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS: I note that the admin being discussed here has ignored and failed to post any response to either the issues originally raised here or to the comments of the other editors who have posted their views in this section. I find this neither unexpected nor inconsistent with this admin's observed historic patterns of behavior on WP and to be a further demonstration of his apparent lack of respect for "ordinary" editors.Centpacrr (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, he hasn't really edited at all. That's more consistent with burnout than ducking the point. Ironholds (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ADDITIONAL VIEW: Hiding in the weeds and not editing for a few weeks until the current kerfuffle "blows over" does not really solve the long standing issues with this Admin which have been ongoing for a period of years. Centpacrr (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by User:TParis
''In yet another example of failure to abide by WP:ADMINACCT, User:SchuminWeb has ceased editing claiming that "Apparently this has brought every person with whom I've ever disagreed in nearly eight years here out of the woodwork" despite that many concerned editors, such as myself, have never heard of him before now. As the user seems intent on avoiding scruitiny, I suggest that this RFC be suspended and should they return that it be promptly restarted or sent to Arbcom. Administrators making mistakes is fine, Administrators losing their cool and going off the deep end is tolerable, but administrators plugging their ears is unacceptable.''

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --v/r - TP 14:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They can either participate or give up their administrative tools. These things become pointless if someone can just avoid them and come back later on when less people are around to notice.  You want to be an administrator, then you have to be held accountable for your actions.   D r e a m Focus  15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In that diff he said "I'm very close to just being done with Wikipedia entirely" - no indication that he's actually retired for good, more like he's taking a short break to deal with whatever. Maybe he's unsure the RFC has even begun - would it be an idea to e-mail him to make him aware? GiantSnowman 15:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse: Based on the subject Admin's previous history I believe that there is no doubt that he is completely aware of this page and process. The issue is not whether or not this user remains active as a WP editor, but if by his actions he still retains and deserves the confidence of the community to help administer the Project with which he was entrusted with when he sought and was granted the tools of a Sysop. Admins are entrusted with these powers to serve the community as neutral referees, not to unilaterally impose their own personal views on the rest of its "ordinary" editors and/or just plain ignore the the views of the community. Neither "hiding in the weeds" when his actions are challenged by the community, nor denigrating and/or threatening other editors who disagree with him, are acceptable practices for an Admin on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse: If SchuminWeb is burned out and not in a willing position to respond, forcing him to do so will end in tears. But similarly it means than if he is not currently editing or using any admin tools, then the problem addressed by the complainants here will no longer occur, so there is no preventative action to take. There's no point trying to get a pound of flesh. If and when he returns, we can start up conversations then. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the approach suggested immediately above is that it appears to have happened before and not worked. This admin has virtually disappeared for periods previously under similar circumstances (most recently Dec., 2011 to Mid Jan., 2012) and then returned to again misuse or misapply WP's admin tools resulting in a new similar controversy. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. It seems to me (and others it would appear) that the appropriate solution is to desysop this user while allowing him to continue to participate in the project as an "ordinary" editor. If at some future time the user feels that he would like to return to adminship again then he can seek renomination and go through the RfA process anew. Unlike being a regular user, Adminship is a special privilege granted by the community which should only be retained as long as the user holds the faith and confidence on the community to use those powers judiciously for the benefit of all as opposed to achieve his or her personal ends as seems to be and have been the case here for a very long time. Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me evidence (ideally with diffs) where an RfA was proposed before? I can't see anything in the diffs provided earlier that show SchuminWeb answering back or being aggressive, beyond the recent blanking of stuff on his talk page. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the detailed accounting posted by Mangoe of the September-November, 2011 incidents leading to this Admin's last six week "disappearance" from WP in Dec., 2011 to Mid Jan., 2012 on this page's talk page at here. Centpacrr (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by S Marshall
User RFC is not a compulsory process. Since SchuminWeb is not participating in this one, it should be closed. However, the concerns raised here are serious enough that SchuminWeb should not be permitted to carry out administrative actions without facing them. In order to prevent that outcome I move that we refer this to ArbCom with a request to desysop the SchuminWeb account in the interim.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — S Marshall T/C 22:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) - MrX 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) --v/r - TP 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) If he refuses to participate, I agree, desysop him.   D r e a m Focus  23:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree, desysop is the appropriate action. Centpacrr (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree as long as he refuses to participate.  CtP  (t • c) 00:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I had hoped the RFCU would encourage SW to discuss the problems, but as he is not engaging, unfortunately ArbCom seems the likely destination. GiantSnowman 09:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) KTC (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) When the main issue is lack of response then we should take into account the lack of response to an RFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree -- No  unique  names  02:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes. Note his talk page claims I will be happy to discuss issues related to Wikipedia with you on my Wikipedia talk page, or any other Wikipedia venue. It's time his lives up to that statement, if not voluntarily here, then with ArbCom. NE Ent 02:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) I agree with this. It is not necessary for a user to actively participate in an RfC, but it is necessary for them to understand any valid criticism and respond meaningfully. I don't see any evidence SchuminWeb has done that. I also suspect this may be a case of admin burnout, and I think ArbCom are better able to handle that than the mob with the pitchforks and burning torches. So I support this being taken there, and handled with minimum additional fuel poured on the flames. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Unfortunately, I am convinced that ShuminWeb's unresponsiveness as an administrator is detrimental to the project. To avoid an inevitable desysop, he needs to guarantee explicitly that this will not continue, and then follow through on that promise. I don't see it happening, which makes revoking his adminship a necessary injunction. I wish it were not so. Kurtis (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Against the current (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) It seems sensible to move the matter on as suggested. Warden (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Completely. —  ΛΧΣ  21  01:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree. The idea that the user could not take 2 minutes to at least acknowlege this board is more than concerning(and please don't think for one second that he hasn't see this, that strains credibility). A quick note or discussion by him really could have avoided all of this. Oh well, on to the next step I guess. --Malerooster (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Agree, especially in view of this narrative on the talkpage of the same type of conflict-followed-by-disappearance-until-it-blew-over in December 2011. Please note that I'm not suggesting that SchuminWeb takes these breaks on purpose in order to let his critics get knackered from the sound and fury so that he can then quietly start to edit again. Rather, I would suppose that a high level of conflict and criticism made Wikipedia distasteful to him for a while in December 2011, and then the addiction pulled him back. (For the addiction, see his 2011 break message.) I don't see that as any kind of machiavellian manipulation of the community. Nevertheless, we really don't want the same rather predictable pattern repeated again this December, and maybe again in December 2013… with the huge amounts of time and energy it has already drained from other, equally good-faith, editors. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Outside view by ExampleUsername
''{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}''

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary
SchuminWeb has ceased editing prior to the start of this RfC/U regarding Administrative actions. Multiple highly endorsed viewpoints call specific attention to the manner in which questions of administrative action are responded to. A Request for Arbitration has commenced regarding these responses. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)