Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Case Suspended by motion on 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page unless you are an Arbitrator or Clerk, or are making yourself a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; as such, they should never be changed. (In the case of lengthy statements, an exerpt only may be given here, in which case the full copy will be added to the talk page—where any statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be saved.) Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should be added to the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

• mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This is as a follow-on to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb. Other steps have not been undertaken in part because SchuminWeb has been completely unresponsive and indeed has not edited since 27 November, and in part because the consensus response of the RfC would require ARBCOM to carry it out.

The immediate genesis of this case lies in the RfC linked above. I'm not going to repeat everything that is in that case, but will try to point out a few salient points.

There have been complaints for at least a couple of years about SchuminWeb's imperious and idiosyncratic use of his admin powers in closing deletions, particularly with respect to fair-use images. This has come to a head at least twice that I know of. Most recently, he deleted a bunch of TV show screenshots which were used in articles on specific episodes. This came to deletion review as a mass request in which SchuminWeb did not participate. This is not atypical, as in the RfC various people pointed out how he was wont to delete requests to reconsider his decisions by saying "take it to DRV." The DRV upheld his deletions, but it also raised awareness of his behavior a lot. Thus, when the RfC was started, his behavior found lots of additional detractors, and no real defenders, again, not including himself.

But this all had happened before, as reviewed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. Last year he started a campaign against a set of fair-use images from the Denver Public Library and some related images, beginning with a deletion in September 2011 which was overturned. Most of these images were uploaded back in 2005 by users who haven't edited in years, so it was easy to delete a lot of them simply because (a) they weren't being watched anymore, and (b) SchuminWeb often employed tactics which allowed him to delete the image before anyone knew it was marked for deletion. This campaign increasingly ran into opposition. Centpacrr got caught up in this because a lot of his articles were losing images, and he was more vocal in chasing down the FfDs and objecting. In the middle of this SchuminWeb marked a personal picture of Centpacrr for deletion, first because of a logo, but then on the grounds that someone else had been holding the camera. This elicited a lot of complaint, as did a completely unrelated fair-use deletion in which SchuminWeb closed his own deletion nomination (which was overturned). SchuminWeb then largely dropped out of Wikipedia for the next month or two, ostensibly to work on his personal website.

Be that as it may, the consensus of the RfC was that we do not want him coming back after this dies down and resuming his administration work. His complete lack of response to criticism of his behavior, we felt, is unacceptable. I personally would be satisfied if he were barred from the deletion processes, but the expressed consensus was that his administration rights be removed. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On NFCC: It is, perhaps, a tedious job to do these NFCC deletion nominations, but it is a thankless and largely pointless job to bother reviewing them. Right now I've been through the remaining Simpsons screenshots in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, and while I would agree that a lot of the survivors could be readily deleted, I strongly suspect that the administrator who appears to be running through them now is going to ignore any "keep" messages I left and delete them anyway. Of the 160 Twilight Zone pictures in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 19, nobody has the stamina to look through them all, and I assume that the nominator read exactly none of the articles in which they appear, given that he used Twinkle to knock them off in less than an hour.

The big problem is that the subjectivity of NFCC#8 is being ignored. What it should mean is that disputes about whether it is being satisfied need to be addressed in a discussion whose consensus should prevail. What's happening instead is that admins like ShuminWeb have appointed themselves supreme judges and often supervote. In his case (and again, he isn't the only one) he treated challenges to his judgement with contempt, and when confronted with the problems in behaving this way, he turned around and did it again. NFCC may be a chore, but is not a crusade against stupid uploaders, and that's the way it came across. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the motion to desysop: I object to him retaining his admin rights due to retirement. It's unreasonable that we should have to actively monitor him for returning so we can see whether the issues need to be re-raised. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 appearance of justice is of the essence. A temporary desysop will prevent SchuminWeb from returning to use the tools later without facing the process.

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.

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.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.

  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.

  If we had a functioning community de-adminship process, then surely SchuminWeb would not survive it.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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?

  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.

  Please reconsider, thanks.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be as brief as I can - partly for time, and partly because there's no need to repeat what's already been said at the RFCU (of which I was a certifier). For me, the issue is two fold - it relates to the inappropriate deletion of images against apparent consensus, and it also relates to SchuminWeb's failure to engage with any subsequent discussions on the matter. There have been disucssions at DRV, AN, his own talk page and finally the RFCU - as far as I can tell he has not appropriately engaged on the matter at any venue. GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: At Arb request I have edited down my original Statement to roughly 500 words. The full original text of my statement with greater detail and additional links to be considered when the ArbCom case is formally opened can be found here.

I fully concur with all the statements supporting desysop above and particularly by the summary posted by Mangoe, the user who filed this case, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. I find this statement to be an accurate summary of just some of the improper misuse by the subject Admin of the tools and powers which have been entrusted to him by the community particularly with regard to the fair use of non-free images (as well as on several images for which I clearly owned the copyright), the Admin's routinely ignoring of community consensus, his disrespectful, and dismissive attitude toward "ordinary" editors with whom he has disagreed. I find particularly unacceptable the subject Admin's use of those tools to impose his own particular "interpretations" of WP's policies and guidelines by unilaterally deleting content clearly against consensus many of which are later reversed on appeal, altering fully protected templates without discussion as noted immediately above, and engaging in practices such as the mass removal of long standing fair use images from from articles (and the rationales from the images' host pages), and then using that as a reason to speedy delete them as "orphaned non-free" files. This Admin has also engaged in a wide variety of other similar such practices in order to "game" or subvert both the spirit and the letter of WP policies and guidelines and done so over a long period of time.

After my interactions with this Admin in the Fall of 2011 over several the fair use Perry railroad images in which some of his deletions and other actions were reversed, in apparent retaliation he then systematically went through all of the images which I had uploaded over time (most of which I had created, otherwise owned the copyright, or were clearly in PD) and challenged most of them on a variety of specious grounds resulting in the necessity to waste large amounts of time to defend them. In the course of this "campaign" against my image file contributions this Admin also gratuitously accused me of "vandalism" on the completely unsupported grounds that I was "uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value", a completely meaningless claim. Even if that were true (which is wasn't), that does not in any way constitute "vandalism" (which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense") and is a very serious charge and violation of assuming good faith for any editor to make, and especially so for an Admin.

I found this experience to be both intimidating and a clear case of overt "Wikistalking" by using the powers of an Admin to retaliate against me for successfully challenging his previous administrative actions. I in fact at the time came very close to leaving the project altogether because of the subject Admin's abusive behavior (carried out in conjunction with another Admin who is now retired and has resigned his adminship) toward both me and my contributions to WP.

In my view the only satisfactory outcome to this process is to involuntarily desysop this user with prejudice but permit him to remain as an active "ordinary" editor if he wishes to remain so. Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL NOTE RELATING TO PENDING ARBCOM MOTIONS: I fully endorse the statement of KillerChihuahua at 1.1.23 below which is "spot on" on both the real desysopping issue relating to the subject Admin's long term unacceptable behaviors (including ignoring consensus, "gaming" the system, high handed and dismissive treatment of anyone who disagreed with his actions, and refusal to be accountable to the community) in clear violation of the tenants of WP:ADMINACCT, and how he has previously used periodic specious "Wikibreaks" when things got hot to avoid explaining his misuse of the Admin tools ("bits"). KillerChihuahua's statement accurately and succinctly elucidates why the Admin bits need to be immediately and permanently removed with prejudice.

If as in this case a defendant/respondent holds him or herself voluntarily and deliberately in absentia after due notice to respond to process, and there is proof positive that he or she is aware of the RfC or RfA, then such intentional silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of the subject Admin (especially invoking "Retirement" which is prima facie evidence that there is no intention to ever respond) to avoid accountability should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute de facto and de jure renunciation by him or her of Adminship and access to its tools. Centpacrr (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft Please note that most of the Statements posted in this RfA have much less to do with NFCC itself, and are much more about the subject Admin's long standing patterns of incivility and intemperate language in dealing with the community, episodes of retaliative Wikistalking against editors with which he had disagreements, ignoring consensus, employing subterfuge and inappropriate techniques to "game" the system, unilaterally and surreptitiously altering protected templates without discussion, failing to respond to process or the questions of others about his administrative actions, and a variety of other violations of the spirit and letter of WP:ADMINACCT. The Statements posted here also came from a wide cross section of WP editors giving accounts of incidents unrelated to each other. Some may have issues of interpretation of NFCC at their origin, but the way that the subject Admin mishandled them is what resulted in the RfC and RfA. Centpacrr (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens (In Arb comments) Exactly my point: intentional silence (i.e. refusal to participate in the process) on the part of a subject Admin to avoid accountability (and especially invoking "Retirement" which is prima facie evidence that there is no intention to ever respond) should be considered an affirmative, irrevocable, and absolute de facto and de jure renunciation of Adminship and access to its tools. Centpacrr (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re Motions: Of the four motions that the Arbs are considering I believe as one of the original involved parties that Courcelles' Motion #4 is the only acceptable for exactly the reason stated by AGK in his statement of support for that motion, to-wit: "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.". Allowing an admin to avoid the Arb process and its consequences simply by deliberately refusing to respond is little more than granting an "avoid desyoping for free card" as a reward for noncooperation with the community's established arbitration process.

• Since being posted just a week ago on December 17, this RfA has: A) drawn statements of support from almost thirty individuals; B) achieved an 8-0 Arb vote to accept indicating a broadly held community view that there is clear evidence of long term serious issues with the administrative behavior of the subject Admin, and; C) been demonstrated as undisputed that the subject Admin has both a documented previous history of disappearing periodically when complaints about his stewardship of WP's administrative tools got too hot, and that he has utterly refused to participate in this current process both during the earlier RfC and this RfA case despite there being proof positive that he is aware of them and that this is in direct violation of provisions of WP:ADMINACCT requiring that Admins must do so in order to retain the privileges of Adminship that had been granted by vote of the community. Indeed his own words that he was "wash(ing) my (his) hands for good of Wikipedia" seems tantamount to an affirmative acceptance of voluntary permanent resignation of adminship as well.

• When the RfA case was accepted, the subject Admin's response was instead to formally "retire" from WP thus indicating that it is his intent to never respond to either the Arb case or to the community, and that being the case WP:ADMINACCT seems to require that at a minimum the subject Admin's administrative "tools" be withdrawn forthwith (and with prejudice) by the community with no possibility of their being reinstated unless he either: A) both responds to the Arb case and is exonerated, or; B) if the desysopping has been made permanent because of the lack of his making a timely response (i.e. within three months of its filing on December 17, 2012) that he must reapply and go through the normal open process to again achieve the trust of the community to serve as an Admin on WP. Indeed there is precedent for this very procedure which has happened at least six times before. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Would a clerk please ensure that SchuminWeb is notified of this Request for Arbitration via "email this user" in addition to the notice that has already been placed on his talk page? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y Email sent. Lord Roem (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: I would really like to hear from SchuminWeb but this edit over two weeks ago, is his last edit. If he is burnt out, it would be good if he could communicate to the committee that he's taking some time out. Otherwise, awaiting further statements,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mangoe. Don't worry; we're not just going to let this float away on the ether but we don't normally desysop immediately and automatically under such circumstances.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting statements, but inclined to accept, the admin's response to the RFC/U is concerning, so I fully understand why we are here. Courcelles 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and, if SchuminWeb doesn't return to editing, simply temporary desysop and hold the case in limbo, but open so this issue doesn't get lost --perhaps with a clause that makes the temp desysop permanent if he hasn't returned within, say, 180 days. If he returns soon, though, such measures will be unnecessary, and the case can proceed as normal. Courcelles 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have asked that a clerk ensure SchuminWeb is notified of this RFAR via email as well as the notice that has been placed on his talk page. I would hope that he responds within a few days. If not, I think the Committee may consider a temporary desysop until such time as SchuminWeb returns to address the issues, as has been done in other situations. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. Risker (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to look at SchuminWeb's communication and action as an administrator, and likely to look at the larger issue of NFCC#8, which seems to be informing his decisions. Risker (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to accept and hold until Schumin returns, per Elen. I think that NFCC is another matter that can't be addressed here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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). AGK [•] 22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote to accept remains in place, no matter if a motion passes. AGK [•] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. 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.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. First Second preference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second preference. Still rewards bad behavior, but not as much as doing nothing would. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Minor copyedit (inserted "either of"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. 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. Equal first choice with Motion 4, though leaning toward first choice, as the option for SchuminWeb to resign is useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Equal preference to motion above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kirill ^[talk] 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. 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. Courcelles 22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]

Other

Arbitrator comments

• 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. SirFozzie (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @ 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 ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case.

Alexandr Dmitri gave notice of injunction restriction and 3 mos. show cause remedy (desysop), at 19:17, on 27 December 2012 (UTC) see, [1]

• SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) desysopped by 28bytes; 03:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]