Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 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 134:
::::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 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. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]]<sup><small>([[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk</span>]])</small></sup> 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
:# 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)
Line 161:
;Oppose
:#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|<
;Other
| |||