User:Centpacrr/sandbox2

Full SchuminWeb RfA Statement by Centpacrr

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, and 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.

It is not my position that this user should be banned from editing on WP, but I think that he has so extensively and widely violated the confidence of the community by blatantly misusing the tools of adminship that were entrusted to him that he has forever forfeited holding any such rights on WP. This Admin's utter silence in explaining his actions both in the current process and on earlier occasions (such as in December, 2011) in my view only serves as another clear violation of community trust. This user is free to take as many "Wikibreaks" from normal editing as he wants to, but no Admin should be permitted to take such a "break" as a means to escape being desysoped for cause.

Silence is not a defense in this case, especially in that the Admin has acknowledged that he is fully aware of this process and thus not a legitimate excuse for not responding.

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)

• CLARIFYING & ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: It should be noted that the issues of misconduct, misapplication of WP policy and guidelines, and "gaming" the system by the subject Admin go far beyond simple "mass deletions" of fair use images (often by unilaterally "orphaning" and removing their rationales) as referred to by Kww below. (As recently as November 19 this Admin unilaterally changed the criteria for fair use rationales on dozens of fully protected non-free image templates without seeking any discussion or consensus to do so.) Kww's raising of the defective NFCC#8 standard is a good one, however, because it is so broad and ambiguous as to be virtually meaningless and thus invites misuse to delete virtually any fair use image that any Admin wants to irrespective of community consensus. I don't see any image guideline or policy stating that images can't be used if some editor decides they are merely "decorative" (another reason often given by this Admin to delete them), and even if there were such a standard that would also seem to suffer the same fault of ambiguity as NFCC#8. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that NFCC#8 is ancillary to this RfA and should be dealt with elsewhere. The real issue for arbitration is long term misuse of Admin tools in a variety of areas (not just fair use images), using inappropriate techniques (such as unilateral "orphaning" etc) to "game" the system, and unwillingness to be accountable or responsive to the community for these actions (see here for another example of a comment he deleted from his talk page), etc, by the subject Admin as noted in the various statements here and elsewhere. (I also concur with Mangoe's statement above at "On NFCC".)

Another issue that I neglected to mention earlier is that after my run ins 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 overturned, in 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. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• @ Hahc21 I have not been adding detail to my statement over the past two days since this RfA was filed for the purpose of "piling on", but instead because it has taken me that long to compile it. All of my interactions with the subject Admin happened more than a year ago in the late summer and Fall of 2011 and thus I no longer had many of the details requested immediately at hand. Since being asked on Monday to comment for this process, I thus have been searching through dozens of archived discussions involved with in the large number of administrative actions the Admin initiated against my image files and other contributions, those on the dozens of Perry images and other mass deletions, the "Leena.png" case, a number of deletion reviews and overturns of his actions, various user and project talk pages, etc, in order to refresh my memory and be able to supply appropriate links to the ArbCom for their consideration as I presume that it is the Statements of all those who have made them in this RfA that constitutes the evidence on which they will base their findings and actions. Also as others have posted statements in here these have reminded me of additional incidents in which I may have been a participant and for which I could supply corroborating material.

This is the first one RfA processes that I have ever participated in during my six plus years contributing to WP, and in fact was not even aware that this particular process even existed until asked two days ago by Mangoe, its filer, to post a statement in it. As I have access to probably more detailed documentary evidence relating to the issues under discussion here than most if not all of the other twenty or so users who have posted statements since Monday, I am trying to make as much of it that I can find available to the ArbCom while it is still possible to submit it.

While I presume that the current 8/0/0/4 vote indicates that the case is likely to be accepted, the template at the top of the page only indicates that it is still in the "Request" phase for which statements are still being requested while under "Open Cases" the only thing that appears is "No current arbitration cases". I have no idea what the process is if and when a formal case is opened by the Committee, nor do I know if further evidence can be accepted then. That being the case, I have been posting this additional relevant documented evidence in my statement section as I find it in order to provide as complete a picture as I can before the submission of further material is closed. Centpacrr (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)