Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb

Arbitrators active on this case

 * AGK
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Courcelles
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Elen of the Roads
 * 5) Hersfold
 * 6) Jclemens
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin
 * 8) Newyorkbrad
 * 9) PhilKnight
 * 10) Risker
 * 11) Roger Davies
 * 12) SilkTork
 * 13) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) Xeno

Statement by MBisanz
The broad nature of the support behind the concerns raised at the RFC makes this request even more weighty and deserving of the Committee's attention. While I know the Committee has in the past declined to hear cases regarding a party in absentia, I agree with TParis' point at the RFC that permitting further administrative action by Schumin in absence of a response and resolution to the concerns raised is impermissible. I would suggest the Committee pass a series of motions in line with the March 22 motions regarding Aitias to resolve the matter pending Schumin's return.  MBisanz  talk 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved Point of Order from User:Hasteur
In response to the 18:13, 17 December 2012 message of Courcelles, SchuminWeb ceaced editing prior to the instigation of the RfC/U. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: The RfC/U was closed citing that SchuminWeb has not edited prior to the RfC starting. Several highly endorsed viewpoints of concern, and that the issue was referred to ArbCom. So the ball is now in ArbCom's court. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Quasihuman
As one of the three editors who's questions about this administrator's deletions was removed as chastisement on 27 November, I consider myself at least semi-involved. I won't repeat what I said on the RFC. Despite what I said on the talk page, I now believe that action by ArbCom is necessary given Mangoe's evidence here. The questions raised about SW's compliance with WP:ADMINACCT are strong enough for me to believe that he should not use his tools until he addresses the issue. Mangoe's evidence leads me to believe that his disappearance is a way of avoiding the issue rather taking time out to reflect on it. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Hersfold: SW may not have been aware of the RfC, but it is reasonable to assume that he was aware it was coming down the tracks, it was flagged up in Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 that it was headed there before he stopped editing (and he didn't participate in the AN discussion either). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a danger that this case may be side-tracked by the NFCC issue, which I believe is a side-issue at best. In fact SW did respond to the questions about the Simpson's images, see & . It was the lack of response to User:TonyTheTiger's question about a template deletion that led to the AN, and SW lack of response to the AN which led to the RFC. ADMINACCT is the issue here, not NFCC. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@David Fuchs - The wording of your motion would allow SW to make speedy deletions or PROD deletions. I wonder if this wise, given that one of the questioned deletions was a speedy. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hahc21
As a participant of the RFC, and after investigating SchuminWeb's past administrative actions, as well as they way he interacts with users (administrators included) that question his actions, I consider that an arbitration case is needed. To try not to rewrite what has been said in the RFC, seems like Web's behaviour when heavily confronted because of his questionable actions is to take an unannounced wikibreak, and return when things have calmed down to avoid any procedure to take effect against him in a preventative way. There is a clear concern by a considerable part of the community about the way he uses personal preferences over policy when it comes to delete images. As Mangoe states in the RFC, seems like Web's modus operandi is to silently orphan the images and then tagging them as such before deleting them, although he has also showcased move visible actions against consensus in deletion discussions. In my personal opinion, this is a very alarming way to game the system and to achieve his goals against the standard procedure for the deletion, and discussion of deletion, of images (and non-free content in general). This is not a new behaviour recently spotted from SchuminWeb; previous issues out of his behaviour have been appointed in the last 5 years, starting from his very request for adminship in 2007, when one of the opposers stated that he'd "be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia", which has been demonstrated by his actions. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I have tweeted SchuminWeb. As he seems to be very active on Twitter, there is no way he cannot be aware now. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update #2: I have established communication with SchuminWeb and he aknowledges his awareness of this case. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update #3: I have no intentions to hurry up the committee; this is not an emergency case and there is no need to rush procedures. That said, I'd like to add another tweet. From this information, I won't expect any response from SchuminWeb anytime soon, so this case will have to follow without him. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Centpacrr: The case is already accepted, and all further needed information should be provided when it begins. There is no need to keep expanding your statement in this moment, as it will look like you have a great personal interest in the matter. What needs to be done, will be done, and what doesn't need to be done, won't. Arbitrators have already expressed their willingness to suspend SW's administrative tools as a preventative measure until the case is started, so my opinion is that no more additional information is needed by now. I may be incorrect, of course. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @ArbCom: Although not needed, I'd like to express my satisfaction with the passing motion. It prevents SchuminWeb from performing any administrative action until this matter is solved, and sets a limit of three months for a desysopping in case he is really retired from the encyclopedia. I agree that an immediate desysopping may be too fast, and these restrictions, although acting as a quasidesysopping, leave grounds to alternate solutions in case SW wants to avoid a future RFA, or to address all the concerns raised here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan
He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to putting up the retired template - I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = deysop - I will add that I agree completely with his cautious interpretation of the wikipedia foundations copyright and non free use statements but he needs to comment to defend them and his admin actions here. You really  can  20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken
Doing an entirely unrelated task, I've just discovered that on November 19th SchuminWeb, without any consensus discussion that I can find, changed the wording on every "Non-free" template so that they no longer required an "Appopriate rationale" but instead a "Complete rationale". To do this on a number of templates that are fully protected, he had to use his admin bit to make the change. Is the use of admin powers to make potentially controversial edits on locked templates without discussion allowed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted SchuminWeb's edits to unprotected templates, as not being the result of a consensus discussion, and therefore being Bold edits that I have Reverted per WP:BRD, and I filed edit requests for the protected templates that SchuminWeb made this edit on, but I'm somewhat disappointed that no admin has stepped up to undo those edits - after all, with no discussion or consensus behind them, these are the personal edits of SchuminWeb, and it doesn't seem at all reasonable for him to make Bold edits using his admin bit that cannot be reverted by other editors in the WP:BRD process, unless they, too, have the bit. I suggest that some admin needs to rise to the occasion and revert to the status quo ante until a discussion cane be mounted that covers these changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently addressed, see here-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by non-quite-involved Masem
I've been involved in the post discussion on the validity of the FFD closings in the DRV and subsequent ANI thread and on KWW's talk page (who closed the DRV), and do agree some trouting of SchuminWeb was needed for what seemed to be blind closing of all of those. (this being unaware of any previous actions this case against Schumin is bringing up).

I do want to point out that when one steps away from the mass closure, the individual closes that SchuminWeb did followed normal practice at FFD for most of the images given. That is, they only has 2-3 !votes, one from the nominator and a couple others - this is typical of FFD (and a possible issue, as we really should have more input, which I'm trying to figure out how to address by a slight change in FFD nominating practice). The nom gives a policy reason, the two others do not, and because we're talking NFC policy where we usually default to delete if we can't prove the image meets NFC, the deletions were generally appropriate. The ones that were subsequently individually challenged sometimes did, sometimes didn't, have more discussion and Schumin should have closed those no consensus (hence the trout for doing this too fast). But of about 260 others, Schumin had every reason and support from previous FFDs to close those as he did.

This is no way to approve or disapprove any other action Schumin may be investigated with. --M ASEM (t) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Elen's statement below: The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Our en.wiki NFCC policy has had #8 prior to the Foundation Resolution, and in fact the Foundation used our NFCC as an example of an appropriate EDP. Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8". That said, I point to my statement above: FFD has normally operated on very little input with defaults to delete if there's no counterstatements to the nominator's statement that reflect policy.  That itself is a problem that needs to be addressed by better notification of interested parties (as right now the only requirement for notification is the uploader, who may be long-gone as an editor). I do not believe that a NFCC discussion would be needed, given that the policy is always under some type of review, and that my perception is that the bulk of editors know what they need to provide for NFCC#8.  Schumin's closure of these, outside of rapid fire closing, under NFCC policy really isn't the issue, since any other admin that regularly closes FFD would likely have closed these the same way.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Kurtis: We have non-free content review to discuss images with questionable NFCC-meeting uses but without the demand of admin action to complete. --M ASEM (t) 16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kww (peripherally involved)
I closed the DRV related to SchuminWeb's mass deletion. I'm not aware of any previous interactions with him, although undoubtedly there are some trivial ones. This looks to me to be a problem that all admins face, and I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to deal with. The NFCC criteria represent a case where the editors that attempt to ignore or subvert the criteria work en masse. Wikipedia is rife with WP:NFCC violations, and any admin that tries to deal with it winds up with cases where, indeed, hundreds of images need to be deleted at once. It's a fair bet that if every admin deleted a hundred WP:NFCC violations a day we wouldn't be done for several months. Since SchuminWeb is one of the few that tries, he gets abused and constantly dragged to DRV. After a while, he's faced with two choices: stop working, or stop responding to what has become a chronic source of irritation and annoyance. In turn, we have two choices: we can either give in to the hordes that insist on decorating Wikipedia with screenshots, or we can figure out how to be more supportive of admins that wind up in his situation. I think there's a case here, but the case needs to be determining a way to help the SchuminWebs in our admin corps, not simply allowing the horde to smother an opponent by sheer weight of numbers.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I think SchuminWeb is probably a lost cause. I would strongly object to using this discussion as a platform for undermining NFCC#8, though, and I don't think Arbcom has the right to do so. What we need is a mechanism to deal with the situations where we have large clusters of users that ignore our polices and grind down the admins that enforce them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I support Collect's notion of making this a general remedy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Lexein
(peripherally involved and having no position) This was originally a response to Kww, above and Removed by author as irrelevant to the purpose of this page  Starting over:

I was directly involved with discussion at the mass FfD, mass close, and its DRV, and ongoing discussion on Schuminweb's talk page. I'm glad Masem stated: Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8" This point, raised at several FFD discussions, and proven, was not replied to by Schuminweb prior to closing. To me, this is a red flag. Whether closed "blind" or "read and ignored", I consider this to be breaking faith, and admins just shouldn't do it. I did not expect 272 comments, just (perhaps) six, in truth, and closed "no consensus", or not closed yet. Default-to-delete and I-hate-this-job may be an observed phenomenon, but should not be used as a reason to delete which overrides discussion. Especially when it just dumps the mess on others to deal with. You get the admin bit, you get to be patient.

Some NFCC language is subjective, and should be clarified by more examples, because it is the source that delete/keep "sides" are both saying is "theirs." Expanding on this briefly: 1. Admins should not play cat and mouse with editors, nor play NFCC#8 and #1 against each other: that is, if an image or the subject in it is described and commented on by critics or reviewers, that description should not be used as an excuse to then claim, "See? It can be described in text!" 2. "Described in prose" is subjective and needs to be revisited for clarifying examples, because if "described in prose" were applied ad absurdum, no non-free images would remain on Wikipedia. 3. "Significantly increase understanding" is being exaggerated in practice, without regard to its range of meaning. And no, this doesn't mean I want a flood of images at TV articles, but it does mean that I want images of scenes which are critically discussed in multiple sources which significantly increase understanding of a topic and which cannot briefly be trivially summarized in prose and meet all other NFCC restrictions to remain.

@Kww - nobody is trying to ignore or subvert NFCC anything. I do however insist that the actual words used in NFCC be respected in practice, and I strongly feel they are not. "How we always do it" is wrong, where it goes directly against the text of NFCC as understood by a reasonable human.

I'm satisfied that of 272 nominated, three images survived DRV, though four, and possibly a very few more, should have. But in my opinion, if Schuminweb had stayed the course, engaged, and acted with calm and aplomb, and maybe more slowly, those (3? 5?) could have been retained in one step, instead of ever going to DRV.

If Schuminweb has retired (even temporarily), the admin rights should be turned off, then re-requested as usual.

The discussion of "suspension of these proceedings pending return" seems unnecessarily tentative, since as of December 20, 2012, 2:05 AM, on his public website  http://schuminweb.com,  User:Schuminweb declared unambiguously that he has left (archive). Seems pretty definitive to me. Return seems unlikely, so desysopping is merited, and I thought, usual.
 * Schuminweb off-wiki declaration

Statement by Kurtis
This situation is probably better handled through a motion to desysop ShuminWeb pending his response, as opposed to a full case. The question is not whether his deletions are in violation of policy, which is debatable in itself &mdash; it's the fact that he doesn't always communicate with people when his decisions are questioned. If he were more willing to explain his actions, then this ArbCom case wouldn't be happening.

On a related note, I think we really need to discuss WP:NFCC as a community. Specifically, we need to try and figure out what would constitute an acceptable fair use rationale for an image within the context of whatever article it's being used on. We might even want to consider whether it would be a good idea to create a new community process or noticeboard for discussing fair-use images; I don't think IfD is sufficient as a venue for this. Perhaps something to the effect of what I'm proposing already exists? Kurtis (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Heim
It's really regrettable this kind of thing happens. I applaud the people who can deal with the abuse being heaped on them for enforcing NFCC, but those are a small number of people, and it seems we're losing more and more of them to burnout. Frankly, I think it's a disgrace to the Foundation that they establish this sitewide policy but then foist it on their volunteers to deal with its enforcement and the abuse that comes with it. I tried to enforce NFCC once and got crapped on. I'm never doing it again, not until the Foundation steps up and defends the policy itself, at the very least by defending those who enforce it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Spartaz
As a project we are dreadful at supporting users who are burning out and the usual reaction to users whose actions show evidence of burnout is to reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I'm sure I said this at an earler RFAR several years ago but it appears that we have learned nothing in the interim. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SteveBaker
I've had problems on one occasion with SchuminWeb - the matter relates to - a situation where the resolution of a test image was under debate, SchuminWeb acted in a very high-handed manner - eventually going against a unanimous "strong keep" decision from a significant number of experienced editors who were well-versed in the subject matter and using his admin powers to reverse the strongest consensus I've seen in years - and in such a manner that no non-admin could fix up the resulting mess. This feels to me like admin-burnout. Sadly (because I'm sure SchuminWeb has done great work in the past), I think it's time for him to hang up his spurs, hand over his badge and retire gracefully. SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't so much that SW removes images that shouldn't be removed - sure, that can happen, everyone is human. It's his failure to respond to serious debate about whether they should have been removed and the way that the underhanded ways that he sometimes employs to remove them (eg by delinking them from all of the places they appear - then claiming that they are orphaned images and speedy-deleting them before there can be informed discussion).  This RfA is all about how he handles disputes about his actions.  My personal issue with him wasn't about NFCC#8 at all.  He demanded that the resolution of a fair-use image be reduced and then ignored the near-unanimous agreement that (a) that didn't need to be done, (b) that it would utterly destroy the article in which the image was used if it were to be resized and (c) he'd completely misunderstood the copyright status of the image.  He simply wouldn't engage in discussion - deleting the image, refusing point blank to restore it and saying things like: "To restore that image requires an administrator to do since it involves deletion.  No administrator with a healthy understanding of WP:NFCC would be willing to do so.  In short: it is against WP:NFCC to have the larger image.  So please do not ask me again about restoring the image, because it will not happen." - this being in right in the middle of a carefully thought out, reasoned discussion of the issues and in the face of unanimous consensus from highly experienced editors.  As I pointed out at the time - as an admin, he is supposed to listen to the editors and help them towards a decision, then implement that decision.  What he actually did (and has evidently done many times) is to form his own decision, act on it unilaterally, and then ignore all subsequent debate on the subject.  SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Koavf
Huh I like the part where Lexein wrote "is this really the right place to attack editors not involved in this particular discussion?" and then two sentences later: "You, like Koavf, falsify the intent and language of other editors, and of policy: time to stop." Is this somehow about me? If so, please notify me (I only stumbled upon this by accident.) If someone wants to let me know that this conversation involves me, that would be nice. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Bwilkins
When the AN/ANI report was active I sent a gentle, friendly e-mail to SchuminWeb that really just recommend he show up at that report say "Hmm...I may have made an error, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again; sorry". The angry reply e-mail accusing me and other admins of circling the wagons showed me we had an admin on the verge of going postal. I unfortunately believe an emergency de-sysop is required, and a case is going to either be required now (although in absentia is not fair) or when he returns - DEFINITELY this de-sysop would be considered "under a cloud" if no case goes forward now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by PAR
I was also involved, along with SteveBaker, in the Lenna controversy (see ) and I fully support SteveBaker's characterization of the abuse and his recommendations. PAR (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to "uninvolved Hammersoft": You use the phrase "Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork", a phrase used by SW as well to characterize anyone objecting to his abuse of Admin powers, as if anyone objecting to such abuse is some sort of destructive infestation of Wikipedia. This attitude is toxic, particularly in one with Admin powers. Let me take this opportunity to thank all NFCC workers who quietly improve the quality of Wikipedia by their unabusive hard work. This does not extend to those who see their Admin powers as an opportunity to experience the joy of vendetta, the joy of destroying, just because they can, the hard work of experienced editors who are also attempting to improve Wikipedia, and who are not bugs that need to be swatted. Let me ask Hammersoft if, after reading and really UNDERSTANDING the objections of the various editors, he supports SW's behavior in this case. I totally support his statement that the behavior of both sides needs to be looked at. In this particular case, I think there is no downside to that for those who are objecting to this abuse of power. PAR (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Black Kite
Masem is right about the individual deletions; in most part they are generally correct; people forget that deletions at FFD default to delete, not keep, if the case for their free use can't be proved and they don't pass NFCC. Apart from that, I think Spartaz and Heimstern said it best. I spent a long time doing NFCC enforcement and I tell you, it isn't worth it for anyone. The amount of abuse you get it ridiculous, and the community, numerous ArbComs, and the Foundation have repeatedly refused to do anything about it. Indeed, I've even seen (former) Arbs involved in it. I wonder how long it will be before we have no admins willing to work FFD? Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Previously involved and how-did-I-miss-the-Rfc KillerChihuahua
In October of 2011, I had my one and only encounter with SchuminWeb; in that encounter he was high-handed, dismissive, insulting, and generally obnoxious to the several admins and editors (myself as one) who tried to discuss an action of his, which was within the letter of the law, I suppose, but amazingly CLUEless. The discussion on his talk page was moved, then blanked, then redirected, but you can see it (albeit with the retired banner above, as that is templated across all his pages using an earlier template) here, scroll down to the first section, Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use in which Future Perfect at Sunrise, followed by myself and others, voiced concern that he had completely and utterly negated the speedy for fair use, by his changes in the verbiage of the template, hamstringing the speedy process for fair use, which would of course have grave concerns for all of Wikipedia. There was further discussion on ANI, in which IDHT was the response. The issue is the same as in the Rfc; high-handed admin action, and hostility to all who have concerns, which he then later buried. I have grave concerns about allowing this admin to "retire" and be able to come back to Wikipedia with the bits intact, without having addressed any concerns at all; this seems to have been a tactic used in the past and I have no reason to believe that he will come back with any change in attitude or approach; his past history would indicate the opposite will occur. Recommend removing admin bits under a cloud, forcing a new Rfa. We are not hard up enough for admins that we need accept this type of deafness to community concerns. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect
I note the proposed motion, and would suggest a broader motion:
 * Where any administrator is the subject of an Arbitration case, and retires without participating in such a case, their rights as an administrator shall be removed for not less than six months, following which they may regain them either through a new RfA or through application to the committee.

Thus removing any "dramah" strictly relevant to the case at hand, and furnishing forewarning to administrators in the future that retirement does not forestall communisty displeasure. Collect (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved Hammersoft
@Collect: Re-word to add that the admin's use of tools must be under scrutiny. Being involved in a case for nothing to do with use of tools should not be subject to losing tools for failure to participate.

@ArbCom 1: Yet another case where people are coming out of the woodwork to complain about an NFCC enforcer. NFCC is absolutely thankless work. The very few people who do it are frequently the target of personal attacks, reports to WP:AN/I, and more. Such people attract huge numbers of editors who are 'against' them. It becomes a personal issue, regardless of the policy issues. A person conducting NFCC work is, by default, wrong. In accepting this case, ArbCom is going to have to take a careful look at what actions were taken with respect to NFCC compliance. You shouldn't shy from cautioning people that their actions with respect to NFCC are wrong. Already in the statements above I am seeing linked material trying to hang SW for not adding a rationale, and instead tagging it for deletion. NFCC requires a rationale, and it also notes it is required of the people wishing to use such materials to provide a rationale. Yet, SW needs to lose his admin bit because he didn't write a rationale? This sort of attack on an NFCC worker must be called out for what it is. Further, two very experienced NFCC workers (Black Kite and Masem) have both said SW's actions with regards to NFCC were largely correct. Who is it that is in the wrong here?

@ArbCom 2: Yet another case going as far back in the past as possible to dredge up as much crap as possible that incriminates the target of an RFAR. Whether SW is in the right or wrong is pretty irrelevant. Enough crap, and you can bring someone down. SW, in his last note before (hours later) wiping everything and retiring, noted this problem. ArbCom, your 'solution' has always been to take out the person being attacked, rather than looking at the attackers. With respect, I don't think ArbCom has the wherewithal to avoid doing anything other than taking out the subject rather than truly looking at the behavior of all parties involved. You complain of not having enough time, ignore the workshop and evidence pages (at least some of you do), and put out fires by removing what is on fire, rather than looking at the real problems. I hope for better. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: In your 4th motion, it states "The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter." This is hardly necessary. Of course you would hear it. But, you are setting yourself up for a bureaucratic headache. Because of long term problems with your lack of training for your task, you have no established procedures for handling cases that cross from one sitting ArbCom to another. As a result, a newly elected arbitrator can sit a case that was already accepted and in progress before the new arbitrator(s) took office. This motion supersedes that common (if not delineated) behavior. Should this case resume, say, late next year you are going to have bureaucratic complaints about case management. This, for a sentence that is wholly unneeded for the motion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved Floq
While I have no opinion on the specific case here, I'm commenting because it reminded me of a recent similar case I was involved in. I think Courcelles' proposal should be the template you use in the future whenever an admin chooses not to, or is not able to, participate in an ArbCom case regarding their admin conduct, for any reason whatsoever. Temporary desysop (to keep those demanding action at bay, and to prevent gaming the system), option for editor to resume editing as a non-admin (without asking permission or admitting guilt), option for editor to reopen the case to regain sysop tools (if they change their mind, or if whatever was preventing them from participating goes away), conversion to permanent desysop in a year (for finality), no presumption of guilt (for fairness), option of a new RFA, no need for committee and involved parties to wait in limbo while editor chooses whether or not to respond ... all of that is spot on. I suggest this be made Motion #2, and I imagine you could wrap this up with little to no downside. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by mostly uninvolved TParis
I participated in the RFC/U: both leaving my own viewpoint and also endorsing someone else's. The issue of NFCC just really isn't relevant. What is relevant is WP:ADMINACCT of which this admin is in violation. He is convinced that the users concerned are only those who have a previous beef with him. I had never heard of him prior to this. An editor cannot remain an admin as long as they view themselves as above community scrutiny.

I think a full Arbitration case is not needed here. I think instead that a motion to desysop until the user returns and is prepared to participate in some forum of dispute resolution in good faith is all that is needed. The tools can be promptly, prior to DR, but on the condition of participation. The evasive retirements cannot be allowed. Arbcom is not needed yet for DR, but the desysop requires an Arbcom motion.--v/r - TP 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz
Just a note re: Motion #3: Courcelles, I do not read that as giving the crats authority to desysop him if he makes an admin action. It says if he makes an admin action it will be grounds for desysopping. Arbcom is the one who would determine if such a violation warrants desysopping; not the crats.  MBisanz  talk 02:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Davewild
The Arbitration policy says "An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion". If motion 3 passes, as it seems likely to, will arbitrators whose terms end in a few days be able to take part in the case if SchuminWeb returns in say 2 months from now. Motion 4 clearly says they will not, but motion 3 is not clear to my mind on whether a suspended case counts as a pending case? Davewild (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (1)
Since SchuminWeb has retired after notification that a case was in process; since that case had been set to open based on arbitrator votes and elapsed time since such votes had been made; and that accepting a case and suspending it indefinitely over the end of the year creates a situation where the arbitrators hearing the resumed case will differ substantially from the arbitrators voting to accept the case, SchuminWeb is desysop'ed and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.


 * Support
 * As proposer. "Retiring" in the face of criticism is unbecoming in any editor, but is furthermore incompatible with our expectations of administrators, per WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer motion 2 (subject to my caveat there about the length of time permitted). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Workable, could be fine tuned better though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Third preference. PhilKnight (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I cannot support in this form and in the absence of a statement from the admin. I'll try to work up instead something based on the Aitias motions.  Roger Davies  talk 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put together the following, which derives from the Aitias case."Absent an emergency, the committee is reluctant to remove administrative tools without first providing the administrator with an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, this case is suspended until after 5th January 2013. If, between the passing of this motion and 5th January 2013:SchuminWeb resigns his administrator tools, such resignation will be irrevocable, and the case will be closed without further action; any return of his tools may only take place following a successful RfA.SchuminWeb fails to communicate with the committee, his administrative tools will be temporarily withdrawn on 6th January 2013, pending a hearing of this case upon his return to editing. If the committee hears nothing by 20th January 2013, the temporary removal of the tools will be become permanent and may only be restored following a successful RfA.SchuminWeb notifies the committee that he wishes to participate in a case, the case will open SchuminWeb's earliest convenience and in any event no later than 20th January 2013.In the meantime, SchuminWeb is prohibited indefinitely from making any administrative action of whatever nature. In the unlikely event that this prohibition is ignored, SchuminWeb's administrative tools may be summarily removed by motion of any three arbitrators pending the hearing of a full case."Any thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Desysopping without the case and without a pressing emergency feels too much like judgement before a hearing. If Schumin is not editing, there's no threat of tool misuse. I will post an alternate motion tonight; while I think the issue of new vs. old admins is a difficult one to foresee, I think we can still handle it a bit more elegantly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with David; plus, if he should return at any point, he needs the opportunity to present his defense, as it were. This motion presumes guilt. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'd rather pass: "The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case.  Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace.  This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter  Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship."  This would solve the immediate problem, ensure there would be no more, and yet neither presupose guilt or move the goalposts if/when the admin decides to face the case. I think this motion as proposed does improperly assume guilt, when what we have is proof there are things to be concerned about, and the case should look into whether the admin tools should be removed.  Yet, the hard stop date does mot prolong this ad infinitum. Courcelles 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer the later motions.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  07:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer motion 4. AGK  [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other


 * Arbitrator comments
 * It seems to me that the appropriate next step is for someone to reach out privately to SchuminWeb and ask if whether, in light of his announced retirement, he is prepared to resign his adminship. I believe we should allow a few days for this to happen before formally voting on motions, as there's no urgency given that he is not editing (let alone dministrating), although I agree that at some point some action would be required. I don't see the end-of-year changeover in arbitrators as a relevant factor; this is not a sprawling, long-term case that it would be unfair to expect new arbitrators to enter in the middle of. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And the opposes are a good example of why people complain about ArbCom's soft-on-administrator-abuse stance. Roger's initial oppose gives any admin a "get out of de-sysop'ing free" card for the simple price of refusing to make a statement.  Hersfold's implies that SchuminWeb has not had the opportunity to provide an explanation of his actions: he has; he's chosen to not do so, inasmuch as he spent several minutes redirecting talk page archives and such when he could have been typing even the most cursory of response.  Furthermore, yes, the simple and straightforward motion does presume guilt: not guilt of any case-related conduct he's been accused of, but the straightforward and essentially incontrovertable "guilt" of failing to make any effort to respond.  That failure is already covered in policy at WP:ADMINACCT and in my opinion provides a sufficient base for returning the decision about SchuminWeb's future admin status to the community, via the RfA mechanism. The oppose votes and alternative motions tacitly reward administrator failure to respond to legitimate complaints, in a manner not necessitated by policy. I see this as yet another missed opportunity to discourage this sort of avoidant behavior through natural, policy-based consequences for consistently failing to respond. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (2)
The accepted case will be suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. Schumin is instructed not to use his administrator tools to close deletion discussions until the closure of the case; doing so, or failure to engage with the case upon return, will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a new request for adminship.


 * Support
 * As proposer--this addresses the issues brought by the filing parties regarding improper deletions, and provides an incentive to engage with the case. Per Courcelles' idea in the previous motion, it comes with a built-in expiration date (we shouldn't expect future arbs to have to deal with stale messes.) Copyedits are welcome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can support this, but would also prefer that the time frame be reduced to somewhere from three-six months. Roger's suggestions sound good as well. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Second choice) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this sufficient. The request and subsequent comments contain information that warrants a case; however, I do not believe that the threshold has been reached that would require immediate desysop. The case will proceed should SchuminWeb return to editing at any time in the next year. Minor copy edit, which I do not think changes the meaning of the motion. Risker (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Only choice that I support. Risker (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak second third choice, for the reasons I listed in my comments above, but anything is better than nothing passing. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "not to use his adminsitrator tools in any way." But this gets a weak support. SirFozzie (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Switching to oppose in favor of better option. SirFozzie (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Second preference. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weakly, but prefer three months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose in favor of better option below. SirFozzie (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In favor of motion 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the tools should be removed. Who is going to take the responsibility of watching for use? Courcelles 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One year is too long.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  07:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight. AGK  [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other


 * Arbitrator comments
 * May I suggest two copy-edits? They are: (i) deleting "to close deletion discussions" and inserting " for any purpose " in its place; and (ii) replacing "Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a new request for adminship." with " Should SchuminWeb resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. In either event, restoration of the tools will require a new request for adminship. " I still think a year is an eternity but can probably live with it.  Roger Davies  talk 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I included the specific mention just because I haven't seen indications that Schumin had blocked his opposition or abused rollback, etc; the issue is with his nature towards opens/closes of FFD/deletion discussions. I'd be interested in input from other arbs, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can accept this approach in principle, but I think that a year is too long. We must be respectful of the (perhaps temporary, perhaps not) disaffection of the administrator whose conduct has been challenged, but we must also be fair to others who would participate in the case if it proceeds. To ask those parties to revisit their issues with SchuminWeb in (hypothetically) a month or two might be reasonable to all; to ask that they do it a year from now, perhaps less so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would six months be a decent compromise? I definitely see your point on being fair to all parties, and that's what the motion is an attempt at. The time period is an absolute outside limit, but I don't know if Schumin is more or less likely to come back in X months after he's spent Y months away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding SchuminWeb (4)
The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case. Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within six months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship. If at any time before six months from this motion passing SchuminWeb submits and passes a new RFA, this matter shall be considered dismissed without further action.


 * Support
 * Puts the ball in his court over a few options on how to proceed, does not require active monitoring for compliance, nor a fresh motion to do so, and permits a bypass of this process for an RFA should he so desire it. Courcelles 22:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Equal second choice preference with the third motion, per the same rationale: the simplest solution is to just remove the tools outright. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Equal first choice. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First [Second] choice. I think this is closer to what the community were looking for.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First and only choice. SchuminWeb's conduct as an administrator is so concerning that we have accepted the arbitration request; it is quite unthinkable to decide it is appropriate that, upon our realising he will not respond to the arbitration case, we should leave his administrator tools alone. Without prejudging the outcome of the arbitration, nor wishing to treat SchuminWeb unkindly, I merely consider it sensible that we desysop this administrator until he is ready to engage in the arbitration process. AGK  [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * For same rationale as mentioned above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly afraid that the distinction among all these motions may be moot, as SchuminWeb's comments elsewhere do not suggest he will be returning to Wikipedia, and certainly not that he'll be looking to take on the burdens of administration again. That being said, I understand the point that Jclemens and Courcelles are making that for an administrator repeatedly to walk away from the project when his or her actions are being criticized is not useful. Nonetheless, I would prefer to err on the side of allowing an administrator in this position some more time to be heard from before we remove the tools for good. (I think this is what the community was trying to say to us in response to our motion in the EncycloPetey case, as well.) Whether to suspend adminship pending SchuminWeb's return, or to leave it in place but direct him not to use the tools or not to use them controversially, is a fine point. On balance, I don't see a likelihood that he's going to come back and immediately start deleting things, knowing the drama that this would cause. This is the case of a dedicated long-time administrator who may have gotten carried away and burnt out, but AGF still applies; we aren't talking about Archtransit here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my oppose to motion 1, although this is worded significantly better. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see the need to desysop at this point. The case presented is sufficient to accept and examine the behaviour, but I do not believe it is sufficient to desysop without an actual case. Risker (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favor of the currently passing motion. SirFozzie (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SirFozzie. Kirill [talk] 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per above,  Roger Davies  talk 12:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To bring this to a close.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Other


 * Arbitrator comments

Case closing?
It's been three months since the motion passed - should the case be closed? --Rschen7754 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am pinging the arbs to make the close. Thanks for ther update. — ΛΧΣ  21  02:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)