Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) update |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{| id="mp-topbanner" style="width:100%; border-radius: 0em; background:ivory; border:1px solid #AAA; margin-bottom: 7px;"
| style="font-size:95%; text-align: center;" |
{{#if:{{Casenav/shortcut|{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 4 | 4 }}}}|<div style="margin-right: 1em; float: middle;">{{shortcut|{{Casenav/shortcut|{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}} | 4 | 4 }}}}}}</div>|}}
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb|Main case page]] <small>([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb|Talk]])</small> — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Evidence|Evidence]] <small>([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Evidence|Talk]])</small> — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Workshop|Workshop]] <small>([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Workshop|Talk]])</small> — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Proposed decision|Proposed decision]] <small>([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb/Proposed decision|Talk]])</small><!-----
SECOND LINE
(Deadlines. Optional.)
---->{{#if: {{ Casenav/data|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4}}-date-workshop}}|<p>'''Deadlines:''' Opened {{ Casenav/data|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4}}-date-opened}} • Evidence closes {{ Casenav/data| {{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4}}-date-evidence}} • Workshop closes {{ Casenav/data|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4}}-date-workshop}} • Proposed decision posted {{ Casenav/data|{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | 1 | 4}}-date-pd}}|}}<!-----
THIRD LINE
(Case clerks and drafters.)
----><p>'''Case clerk''': [[User:AlexandrDmitri|AlexandrDmitri]] <small>([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|Talk]])</small> '''Drafting arbitrator''': TBD </small> </small><!----| valign="center" style="padding-right: 1em;" | --->
|}{{ArbCom navigation}}
<big>'''Case Opened''' on 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)</big>
Line 7 ⟶ 30:
<big>'''Case Suspended by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb&oldid=530017293#Motion_regarding_SchuminWeb_.283.29 motion]''' on 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)</big>
▲<big>'''Case Closed''' on ~~~~~</big>
<div style="text-align: right;"><small><span style="background-color: White">Watchlist all case pages: <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&action=watch '''1'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Evidence&action=watch '''2'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Workshop&action=watch '''3'''], [{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Proposed_decision&action=watch '''4''']</span></span></small></div>
Line 51 ⟶ 72:
=== Statement by S Marshall ===
I do not recall ever being in conflict with SchuminWeb. I am not here to raise a beef with him. My position is simply that the community has expressed concerns about SchuminWeb's use of the admin tools, and admins must answer such concerns when they are raised. They should not be permitted to hide from them. I assume good faith, so I must suppose that SchuminWeb's sudden wikibreak at this time is a coincidence rather than a tactical withdrawal in the face of questions he cannot answer. If so, the [[R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy|appearance of justice is of the essence]]. A temporary desysop will prevent SchuminWeb from returning to use the tools later without facing the process.<p>The alternative possibility, that SchuminWeb has been driven away because he is unwilling to face his accusers because he finds questions about his use of the tools stressful, is incompatible with being an admin on Wikipedia. Answering questions about your tool use is not optional, so this too leads to a desysopping.<p>However, the desysopping should not be understood as a punishment. SchuminWeb is entitled to answer the accusations that have been made against him before we reach any conclusions. Rather than a punishment, the desysopping I propose should be understood as a technical measure designed to prevent any accidental failure to follow the correct process. It follows that in the event that SchuminWeb reappears, he should be resysopped. In this case the Committee will, no doubt, want to assure itself SchuminWeb is genuinely engaging in a community discussion about his tool use.—[[User:S Marshall|<
*There's discussion below about NFCC#8 and what constitutes normal practice at FFD. The correct venue for discussing SchuminWeb's actions in this specific case is deletion review. The correct venue for a broader discussion about whether NFCC#8 is appropriately phrased or how it should be dealt with is a community RFC. I urge ArbCom to focus on the desysopping issue and not get sidetracked into open-ended discussion on broad issues that the community can handle.—[[User:S Marshall|<
*'''On the motions:''' There are two kinds of evil to avoid. One is the evil done to SchuminWeb by desysopping him without hearing him. The other is the evil done to the community by allowing contributors to avoid consequences by retiring or seeming to retire. ArbCom should find the latter evil the greater.<p>If SchuminWeb has really retired then desysopping him does him no harm. If he has not, then ArbCom's unwillingness to desysop would harm the community. Removing the tools should be described as a technical measure designed to ensure that this user engages with community concerns if he comes back, and not as a punishment in absentia, but ArbCom shouldn't shrink from doing it.<p>If we had a functioning community de-adminship process, then surely SchuminWeb would not survive it.—[[User:S Marshall|<
*'''On motion #2:''' This wrongly puts an onus on the community to watch SchuminWeb's actions for breaches, instead of rightly putting the onus on SchuminWeb to contact the community before getting his tools back.—[[User:S Marshall|<
*'''On the opposes to motion #4:''' Do we look like a howling lynch mob? Are we waving pitchforks, or preparing to tar and feather? Is the Witchsmeller Pursuivant in charge? Or is this a consensus of moderate and reputable editors with concerns?<p>Based on my experience with RFC and ArbCom, it strikes me that there's a strong incentive for anyone who's in the wrong not to engage with the process, because if you talk to people you'll get sanctions but if you just stay away from Wikipedia, then there will be lots of wringing of hands and no action at all, and it'll all blow over. The resolutions you prefer place a duty on "someone" to watch the SchuminWeb account for actions that transgress—but nobody ''is'' watching the SchuminWeb account and nobody ''will'' watch it. Because we're not a howling lynch mob.<p>Please reconsider, thanks.—[[User:S Marshall|<
=== Statement by GiantSnowman ===
Line 107 ⟶ 128:
*If Schumin were still editing, I'd be voting to accept this case now. As it is, it appears as though his last edit was several days before the RFC was filed, so it's entirely possible that he is unaware of the RFC, and it's almost certain he is unaware of this case request. If he's not checking email, that notification may also fall on deaf ears. Regardless, the RFC does appear to document a number of long-lasting concerns that do merit further investigation. I'll withhold voting on acceptance until the end of the week to give Schumin time to respond, but I agree with Risker - if his inactivity does continue, my intention will be to vote to accept the case and support a temporary injunction desysopping Schumin and suspending the case until he should return to the project. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
**'''Accept''', and I likely will propose a temporary injunction of some sort either removing his admin rights entirely, or barring him from making use of them, until he participates in the case. If he does indeed retire, then regrettable that we've lost an editor but the issue at hand is resolved. If he does return, then the issue of his admin rights can be resolved then. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*I have no doubt that SW will become aware of this Arb request sooner or later, but he also hasn't been editing since the RfC. While we have proceeded with cases when it was perceived the absence was deliberate to avoid scrutiny or they had stalled proceedings as long as possible, I don't think we've reached that stage here. There's no ongoing disruption by virtue of Web not actually editing, so I'm not sure we should be accepting.
**Move to '''accept''' and hold until Schumin returns, per Elen. I think that NFCC is another matter that can't be addressed here.
* SchuminWeb is now aware, so we can reasonably wait a short while for some kind of response. Kww makes an interesting point though. If he is right, this is the third admin I have seen implode over NFCC issues, particularly [[WP:NFCC#8]]. This criterion requires a massive judgement call, cannot be dealt with as a factual matter, and has at its heart a philosophical view about what Wikipedia is. The relevant [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy Foundation policy] does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
**Given SchuminWeb's latest response to Hahc21, I would '''accept '''the case, based on the RfC, and suspend it. That gives SchuminWeb the opportunity to take a break from editing and adminning and, as NYB says, decide how he feels about things. If he decides to return having had a break, we can look at the matter more thoroughly at that point. If there is a desire in the community to take more of a look at NFCC generally, that can go ahead unconnected to this case. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Note, I would not support a motion to remove sysop as an emergency measure, as I see no grounds for doing so while SchuminWeb is not editing and has stated publically that he intends to leave the project. I think if he returned to editing without addressing this matter, that would be grounds for an emergency desysop. If he has not returned within six months, then that would be grounds for removing the tools as a security measure. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
* Hold for now and await a statement from SchuminWeb, per my colleagues' comments above. It appears there are ample grounds presented for an arbitration case. Given that SchuminWeb has now confirmed (via Twitter) that he is aware of the request for arbitration, we can afford to wait a few days to see whether he responds on-wiki. We don't need to take any action immediately, because he isn't using administrator tools right now and there's no reason to believe he's about to start again soon. If, as appears, SchuminWeb has had enough of administrator duties on Wikipedia, the best course might be for him to resign as an administrator. If he does wish to continue as an administrator, he needs to respond to the concerns that have been raised, but I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to do it if he asks. SchumanWeb should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to editing Wikipedia than administrating, and especially administrating in one notoriously contentious area, and perhaps stepping away from adminship or at least from NFCC work would allow him to recapture the more pleasant aspects of being an editor that presumably drew all of us here to begin with. In other words, he has choices here other than "arbitrate" and "retire," and I hope he will think about that. I would also like to thank many of the editors who have participated in the RfC and in this discussion, for keeping the tone much more temperate than we sometimes have seen in other cases. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
*The community are dealing with this appropriately; however, there is an incomplete RfC on hold because SchuminWeb is absent. An ArbCom case should also be put on hold as he would not be able to appropriately explain his actions, therefore I don't feel opening a case would be a suitable option. The community appear to be requesting a temporary desysop until SchuminWeb returns, when the RfC can be finished. I would therefore '''decline a case, but accept a motion for a temporary desyopping''', which would remain in place until the conclusion of the RfC. If, at the end of the RfC the community feel they still have confidence in SchuminWeb, the temporary desyopping is reversed; if the community feel they do not have confidence in SchuminWeb we hold a motion to make it a formal desysopping. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
*'''Accept''' for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Accept''', and look toward suspending SchuminWeb's access to administrative tools until the case. This is non-prejudicial to the handling of the case, but instead its a way to make sure that no furtherpossibly disputed actions can take place until they come back to handle the case. If they are indeed retiring, we could make it permanent, but we'll see how events go. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Accept''', with a view to then 1) indefinitely suspending the case (until the respondent returns to Wikipedia), and 2) desysopping SW until he answers the community's concerns and the arbitration case against him. I echo Roger's suggestion to SchuminWeb that he contact the committee if he is reading this page but is merely too burned-out to respond to this request. I would never have us hear this case ''[[in absentia]]'' (and, if I could, I would make this vote conditional upon our not doing so). [[User talk:AGK|<
:* My vote to accept remains in place, no matter if a motion passes. [[User talk:AGK|<
===Temporary injunction ===
Line 126 ⟶ 147:
'''Enacted''' - [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:# A further alternative introducing a shorter (three-month) period than that proposed above. It also extends the prohibition on tool use to all areas; this really is the best interests both of the community and SchuminWeb; any tool use is bound to become a major source of unpleasant drama. Other than that, a few copy edits for (hopefully) clarity. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 133 ⟶ 154:
:# Second preference. Still rewards bad behavior, but not as much as doing nothing would. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:# First choice. Minor copyedit (inserted "either of"). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:# I think this covers things quite well. The instruction not to use the tools on penalty of forced removal is in effect the same as a desysopping. The situation that concerns Courcelles appears to also arise in Motion 4, that we have an injunction that will need to be enforced. <s>Equal first choice with Motion 4, though leaning toward</s> first choice, as the option for SchuminWeb to resign is useful. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
:# Equal preference to motion above.
:# First choice. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:#Sorry, but I just can't support ''anything'' that leaves the tools in place in this circumstance. Who is going to ''enforce'' the restriction? Are we giving the crats authority to do so? Are we going to have to make ''another'' motion if this one is violated? I despise doing it, but I'm going to be adding a fourth motion. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:49, 22 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. [[User talk:AGK|<
:#
:* In answer to the opposes.. if we removed them prior to a case, the overwhelming view would be that we would be judging them guilty without a chance to respond, and that they would have the burden of proof upon their return to be given the tools back. Here, they may be technically still an administrator (as no judgement has been made to remove the tools). Considering he was not available to answer the case, we do not want them using the tools without first going through the case to determine whether the mistakes they made warrant removal of administrative tools. Basically, we're not saying that a removal is warranted, nor are we saying it's unwarranted, but solely that there is enough questions whether removal of the tools is warranted we do not wish them to use the tools until first going through with us. And if they don't answer, then we remove them as we cannot leave these cases upon indefinitely. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
:* @ Davewild: while pending and suspend come originally from the same root, they are not synonyms. As far as the policy provision is concerned, it is sometimes helpful to look at the intention as well as the wording. The objective of the policy provision was to provide continuity during the transition from one year's committee to the next and and to prevent the disruption that would result from half of the committee changing in the middle of the workshop or midway through voting on an intricate proposed decision. Neither of those circumstances apply here ;) [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 11:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
=Final decision
==Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions==
Line 200 ⟶ 179:
===Sanctions===
*{{user|SchuminWeb}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=28bytes&page=User%3ASchuminWeb&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 desysopped] by [[User:28bytes|28bytes]]; 03:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration cases|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
| |||