Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 26 February 2022 (→‎Motion: Accept and suspend (2): enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Jonathunder Motions 20 February 2022 7/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Jonathunder

Initiated by Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) at 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Eggishorn

Preface: The great majority of this request is timeline and diffs that resist reduction so I beg forgiveness for going slightly long. Jonathunder has been an administrator since January 7, 2006. I am increasingly concerned about their lack of response to concerns raised at their user talk and at the Admin Noticeboard thread. The change to Righanred's user rights immediately prior to reverting their edit combined with subsequent silence is extremely difficult to interpret as anything other than administrative involvement in a content dispute.

Jonathunder hasn't taken any admin actions or posted anywhere since the 7th. It is now over two weeks since Jonathunder's unexplained use of the admin tools to gain advantage in a content dispute. It has been ten days since their actions were questioned at AN and over a week since ToBeFree reminded Jonathunder about accountability. Jonathunder does not contribute through a mobile device so they would have undoubtedly seen at least Righanred's user talk message. They have failed to post any response to these concerns voiced by the community including multiple fellow admins.

Jonathunder has also performed other instances of unexplained, poorly explained, or out-of-process changes to user rights (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&user=Jonathunder&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=) including:

  • 17:53, October 16, 2018 removed extended confirmed from Darcourse with no explanation or log entry. Jonathunder and Darcourse were both among the many editing the Paul Allen article at the time after Allen's death. The change was after Darcourse's changes and before Jonathunder's last edit. Jonathunder's possible use of the tools to gain advantage in a content dispute escaped notice at the time and was only restored by ONUnicorn during the course of the AN discussion.
  • 14:22, October 31, 2019 Jonathunder removed extended confirmed from BC1278. The log entry was "Best to have edits watched more closely". There had been a COIN thread about BC1278 but that was on May 24, 2018 and there was no action taken. The only indication of why Jonathunder felt it necessary to take this step nearly a year and a half later was after the rights change when BC1278 asked at Jonathunder's user talk.
  • 20:54, July 1, 2020 Jonathunder added extended confirmed for MamaTeeth with the log entry "Assisting new user". MamaTeeth's only ever edit was on 21:36, July 1, 2020 to change the image on a low-traffic insect stub which has never been protected.

As Jonathunder has already been reminded, administrator accountability states: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions... Administrators should justify their actions when requested. Their silence after a considerable period of time seems like avoidance of accountability.

If a regular user's actions are brought up at AN or at ANI and they don't respond, often an indefinite block is placed citing WP:ENGAGE. Despite Jonathunder's relative lack of participation with the project, both prongs of WP:LEVELII appear to be happening here: ...the account's behavior is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and ...no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. Although it can be argued that this same lack of activity poses little harm of ongoing damage to the project, it appears reasonably certain they are evading scrutiny. Jonathunder posted 19 times in the 20 days preceding their actions concerning Righanred and only 4 times since then, for example. As can be seen above, Jonathunder has not engaged with the previous attempts to resolve this short of ArbCom. I request that the Committee therefore open a Level II case and resolve by motion to suspend Jonathunder's admin bit until they provide a substantial and satisfactory explanation for these actions. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder's user page gives the strong impression that they edit from Minnesota and it is currently a three-day weekend for much of the US. Their time card on XTools is consistent with editing weekdays from 9:00am to 10:00pm MN time. I would submit that it is reasonable to expect some sort of response by 10:00pm CST Tuesday. After that point, I suggest temporary removal of admin tools pending a response becomes advisable while the Committee decides if desysoping for cause, including lack of accountability/response, is necessary. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jonathunder

Statement by Righanred

Hi all, I have nothing else to contribute to this matter other than that Eggishorn's post is an accurate retelling of what took place. --Righanred (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToBeFree

All I personally am looking for is accountability. If people voice concerns about my usage of admin tools before I go to work, I take a part of the lunch break to explain, and sometimes undo, the criticized action. When I'm back home, I clean up the mess. That may be a bit extreme, but two weeks of silence in response to concerns about tool usage are rather undesirable. Accountability within two weeks is usually compatible with having a life outside Wikipedia. Whenever it isn't, taking administrative action on Wikipedia is incompatible with the community's reasonable expectation of accountability, and the solution is not to take such action. Removing an experienced contributor's EC group membership is almost guaranteed to generate discussions that can only be avoided by not removing the EC group membership in the first place, not by burying one's head in the sand afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description of what happened at User talk:MeganKalene31, Special:UserRights/MeganKalene31 and their block log is (if relevant at all) technically not accurate as of now. Jonathunder was the blocking administrator and has unblocked 21 hours after an independent decline. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm having trouble with imagining how an ability to make the following edits: 1, 2... can reasonably coexist with a purely health-based inability to provide a short explanation, apology or even just a silent action undo in response to this simple question after over 45 hours. I'd say there was at least one bad choice involved that led to an AN thread and that can be learned from.
Regarding case suspension, "suspending with an instruction not to use the user-right generally" in response to a failure to comply with instructions about when not to use the user-right generally sounds suboptimal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

"simple and rather easily-explainable admin activity"

Removing someone's EC rights is neither simple nor easily explainable. The only time it has been done is as a result of blatant gaming to hit the limit - in order to participate (usually disruptively) at ECP/restricted topic areas (I/P for example). Any explanation short of 'person has gamed eligibility' would almost certainly be viewed at AN as not valid, as can be seen from the linked discussion (and past ones).

And as a side note, can members of ARBCOM please stop whining that problems with admin abuse of advanced permissions end up in front of them. You are on ARBCOM precisely because editors expect you to deal with these issues. ARBCOM itself has over the years made it very clear that it, as a body, is the only place where any real recourse to admin abuse can take place. So it's getting very tiresome to hear complaints about what it considers minor issues. Tough. If you dont like that minor issues of admin accountability end up in front of ARBCOM, there are a number of ways you could get rid of it, not least in actively supporting reformation of the Admin process (both in granting and taking away permissions). Rather than has previously been the case, actively working against any sort of constructive reformation. (Beeblebrox excluded). It is extremely disrespectful to people, who know full well that ARBCOM cases are opening a world of potential pain and stress, to hear that you dont want to do the thing you are specifically here to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra (re: Jonathunder)

  • FWIW, I emailed Jonathunder and requested a response. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What RoySmith said, only with more "ugh". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralNotability: Why, yes. It is. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back during my hiatus, I had notifications set to email me if someone left me a talk page message. It was the responsible thing to do. I really feel the inactivity justification for lack of response pales in this light. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with Beeblebrox taking part in this case despite his reversal of one of Jonathunder's admin actions. It was the right thing to do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second email sent. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralNotability: As with any user who has gone astray, admission of wrong doing and a plausible assurance of being "more kingly hereafter' (-Henry IV, Part 1 Act III) would go a long way toward assuaging concerns, at least mine. Of course, the likelihood of that happening is inversely exponential (or is it exponentially inverse) to time to response. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now time to response is becoming proportional to hole depth. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be more than happy to keep an eye on Timwi and Jonathunder. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Ugh. This is just like the Timwi case, except worse. This sure looks like deliberate abuse of admin tools to get the upper hand in a content dispute, which has been forbidden since day one. I don't see any way Arbcom could legitimately decline to get involved. As with Timwi, a quick apology and revert would have ended this with a trout. Digging in and refusing to discuss the issue demands a stronger response. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightWolf1223: actually, they were given EC when they had zero edits. Their first edit came 42 minutes later. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MeganKalene31 is another weird example. User admitted to gaming WP:AUTOCONFIRM upon instruction of their employer, but was blocked for copyright violations before getting there. Jonathunder unblocked over the objection of the original blocking admin, and then went ahead and granted confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timtrent

I wish to trust all admininstrators as a matter of course. I dont mind disagreeing with them, but I must be able to trust them. Since thsi is a matter of trust of an admin I recommend that Arbs take this case on. It does appear to be use of the toolkit to gain advantage. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with Beeblebrox taking part, and thank them for their caution in offering to stand aside FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

The Doctor Is In: and he diagnoses the 'flu. As noted, this is not the sole example of tool misuse, only other most recent and visible. It's a double whammy breach of policy: using the tools while INVOLVED in an editing dispute, and then a failure of ACCOUNTABILITY when called out.

Since there's evidence that this is not the only occasion of misuse, what could have been accidental becomes pervasive. Suggest the committee accepts, decides by motion and desysops pending Jonathunder's return to editing.

Should he return, and post here, that may well demonstrate (a belated) accountability; it may not address the involved tool use though. SN54129 16:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: It is now  :) SN54129 18:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

Since the current and previous case requests involved ADMINCOND relating to removal of ECP, I hacked together a quarry to report on removals of ECP since the start of 2018. I've done my best to exclude removals due to rights consolidation (e.g. removal of ECP upon promotion to sysop or bot flag granting) and due to vanishing, since those were straightforward to filter and presumed uncontroversial, but the report does include removals from deceased users, blocked/banned users, and self-requested removals. No comment on the merits of the case itself, I just thought this might be useful data to someone.

Opabinia regalis, that was my bad, I messed up the interwiki link - it was linking to a nonexistent user #62554 instead of query #62554. Fixed by SN54129. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what? I will comment on the merits of the case itself. We are here (again) to request ArbCom intervene with regards to an admin who's had the bit for a decade and a half (again). We're here because the community has no other way to remove the bit from an admin who is out of touch with community norms and is not meeting modern expectations for administrative behavior and accountability. I cannot imagine any explanation from Jonahthunder that would justify their actions to date (perhaps they can justify their failure to reply - life does happen - but not the actions in the first place). Yank the bit by motion and spare us some drama; if Jonahthunder thinks that they really do meet community expectations, they can re-RfA. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek (and other arbs awaiting a statement, but you specifically mentioned a timeline and commented the most recently), exactly what sort of statement are you imagining Jonathunder making that would justify their actions? An apology would be nice, but isn't going to change anything. There's no need for a week of the "fun" involved in an arbitration case request. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Jonathunder)

When there is a Request for Arbitration concerning one user, either an administrator or a contentious editor, neither the ArbCom nor the editors filing statements should try to judge the case in advance. Acceptance should not be based on a pre-assessment as to whether there has been abuse (either administrator abuse or disruptive editing), but on whether there is enough evidence to warrant a more complete evidentiary hearing. There is clearly enough evidence to warrant opening a case. There may be enough evidence to warrant resolving the matter by motion, but that is a secondary issue. ArbCom should open a case.

In this case, however, a review of the record provided by Eggishorn appears to indicate that the subject administrator has not been so much using admin tools to gain advantage in content disputes, as playing with admin tools, as well as playing with redirects. Jonathunder appears to edit sporadically, and occasionally removes the extended-confirmed privilege from another editor for no obvious reason. They seem to be playing with the tools. If that is the case, that is a different sort of abuse of administrative tools. It doesn't appear to be a matter of gaining advantage so much as playing around. That is a distinction without a difference.

Jonathunder takes long breaks from editing, but has edited after being asked by Righanred why their privilege was removed, and did not answer the question. It isn't a case of not having edited after being asked.

There is more than enough evidence to warrant and require opening a case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum on Waiting for Statement

I see that some arbitrators are waiting for a statement by Jonathunder before deciding whether to accept a case. The arbitrators similarly waited for a statement from Timwi before deciding whether to accept a case. Although it superficially seems reasonable to wait for a statement before accepting a case, there are two stronger reasons why waiting for a statement is unnecessary and unwise. First, as I have said more than once before, ArbCom should accept a case if there is sufficient cause to open a case, not only when the case is proved. The case should be accepted, and Jonathunder should be again asked to make a statement.

Second, and more seriously, the ArbCom is sending a signal, whether or not they intend it, to rank-and-file editors, that the administrative subcommunity will circle its wagons and protect its own members. Maybe the ArbCom is concerned, as User:Barkeep49 said, about the gradual loss of administrators, and is seeking to slow that erosion. However, a perceived policy of trying to retain rogue legacy administrators will have the opposite effect, long-term continued loss of administrators, by increasing distrust of administrators and so increasing the toxicity of Requests for Administrator Status.

ArbCom is sending the wrong message by continuing to wait for a statement to decide whether to take this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Clearly this case should be accepted. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This case should be accepted, as it is not acceptable for an admin to remove a user's rights for no apparent reason, not even give them the courtesy of informing them, and then disappear when challenged about it. Jonathunder has had ample time to respond and has not done so either at the ANI thread or his talk page. Arbcom is the next logical step. Also I don't believe Beeblebrox is involved in regards to the MamaTeeth incident as reversing such an egregious and inexplicable action surely falls under the any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion exception. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out on my talk page that INVOLVED isn't actually applicable here. I should have just said, I have no issue with Beeblebrox taking part in this case despite his reversal of one of Jonathunder's admin actions.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

Beeblebrox's reversion of an admin action by Jonathunder seems to me to fall into the 'any admin would have done that' category. valereee (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to life handing you a surprise that unexpectedly takes you offline for two weeks, but that's one of the very good reasons an admin shouldn't take unexplained highly controversial actions: because if life kicks you offline for an extended time immediately afterward, you don't get a chance to make the explanation you should have made in the first place. That is one of the facts of life for someone with advanced permissions.
I do understand (and appreciate) that this is an intentionally deliberate process. This editor has actually had over two weeks to explain. Should a case request really restart the clock? valereee (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, I'm fine with giving the editor a chance to see this, and the suggestion of 10am their time Tuesday seems reasonable. But the suggestion of a week, after being nonresponsive for 16 days now, seems like a long time to put the community through the drama. (As a related issue, it's kind of depressing that by giving this editor even a couple of days to respond after two weeks of nonresponsiveness, we seem to be acknowledging that it takes an arbcom case to actually put teeth into admin accountability.) valereee (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightWolf1223

I would like to draw attention to the user Beeblebrox took EC from. The admin in question gave EC to a user with 1 edit0 edits. That is nowhere near enough edits to judge if they were trustworthy enough. Plus, what if that account were to be compromised by an editor who wanted to disrupt ARBPIA and related areas. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 23:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith Thank you for correcting me. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statement has been correctedNW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 00:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Just a couple of points: Flipping the EC bit manually is unusual for users with one account. Flipping that bit is almost always going to come with questions about WHY you did it, because it is so unusual and controversial, in most circumstances. Any and every admin knows this, and knows that if they decide that flipping that bit is needed, it is likely going to a board and s/he will have to explain, even when it is 100% the right action. Because of this, every admin knows they must be available to answer if they take this action. If you aren't going to be available in the next few days, you don't flip the bit, you take it to WP:AN and get another admin to do it. Unless some disaster happened in Jonathunder's world directly after the bit flipping, they are acting irresponsibly regarding their accountability. Then there is the issue of whether the bit flipping was even proper to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do like the use of suspend and motion in this case. Unfortunate situation, but still have to be dealt with, just not today. Perhaps a more positive use of the new, useful tool/motion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Having followed the case request (and it's prequel) closely, I find that Dennis Brown and Robert McClenon sum the situation up well both regarding Jonathunder and the Arbitrators' hesitancy. What certainly appears to be a blatant misuse of admin tools, and then without ADMINACCT, is one of the gravest abuses of the trust accorded to the admin right. An apology for a misclick would have been one thing but 'The 15 days since he was first asked for an explanation is more than adequate' , and clearly a case should be accepted and handled promptly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: You may well be a tad out of touch and misled by memories. The list of admin actions for such a long tenure of the right: is probably one of the lowest on record for a legacy admin. For better or worse, RfA has come a long way in the last 16 years since Jonathunder's and it wouldn't pass nowadays. In recent years Arbcom has never been shy of desyoping with a possibly measurable loss of valuable contributors to the project both on and off-Wiki.
  • Motion: Accept and suspend (2)? Effectively therefore there is only one obvious solution in this case: wrap up with a quick motion –still to be drafted–that will impact neither on the backlogs waiting for admin interventions nor on the stats for truly active admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Jonathunder has posted a short comment at their user talk page. Firefangledfeathers 05:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I guess I'm out of touch. It's pretty obvious to me that even at this stage, the third motion is the way to go, but no one seems to agree. I guess I do understand the desire to discourage this type of "perform admin action then disappear" behavior, and I guess I recognize the widespread community annoyance with legacy admins who would probably not pass RFA today. But I don't really see this as a pattern of gross misuse of tools, so much as an easily-rectified long-term fundamental misunderstanding of what EC is. If Jonathunder had been around, it probably could have been dealt with using one short paragraph on their talk page. Maybe I'm misled by my memories of Jonathunder being an active and clueful admin back in the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

Suggest that this is accepted and suspended - with a desysop motion pending a future case, assuming Jonathunder continues to be absent. I see Barkeep49's opposition to Motion 1, and Cabayi's indication that interim removal may be prudent - but am notably surprised that there is no motion the same as #1, that includes interim desysoping. So, would like to see one of the opposing committee members propose such a motion, at the very least it will put the other committee members on the record that they oppose such a removal, perhaps with some reasoning. Community desysop proposals often fail that arbcom can deal with such issues sufficiently, but here it seems to not even be a consideration. — xaosflux Talk 19:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: regarding Motion#1, what are the mechanics of this supposed to be? Will the community will be charged with monitoring Jonathunder's account continuously for 6 months to see if there is activity - and then petition arbcom again if there is any activity? If there is not any activity, is the community charged with maintaining the count-down timer to action? Will an expired timer require someone to petition arbcom at such time? — xaosflux Talk 20:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Accepting and suspending is really only the compassionate thing to do at this point.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

Per Primefac, I think we are all really aware there is no *such* thing as a temporary desysop, it is incredibly rare for anyone desysoped once to return (either in terms of activity, or level of rights), and in this case, what is really happening is a soft perma-desysop. I think my colleagues on ArbCom are (or should be) aware of the same. I should add that I am not really arguing merits of a desysop, it's just that it's not at all equivalent to accept and suspend. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

I know this is resolved, but I just want to counter Floquenbeam's point that a gentle finger wagging can resolve this. From a practical perspective, this is no different than an admin going completely off the rails and partially blocking a user from thousands of articles, randomly, for literally no reason, with no log entry and no explanation. The technical implementation is less dramatic, that's the only difference. And it's happened multiple times. Considering ArbCom precedents, this behavior easily goes far beyond the level of misconduct that would warrant an uncontentious desysop. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Jonathunder: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Eggishorn is granted a word limit extension to 1,000 words. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • While this is not the absolute longest stretch in the last year or so that Jonathunder has gone without editing, it is very close to it, and somewhat unusual based on their more-recent editing habits. I am once again concerned that a simple and rather easily-explainable admin activity has resulted in said admin disappearing and the matter ending on on ArbCom's doorstep. I plan on waiting for a few more opinions before making a decision as to whether this requires a full case. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two thoughts regarding OID's comments: first, the explanation can be simple, for example "I used my tools [out-of-process] because I felt that it was the right thing to do"; that does not justify the action, but it is a straight-forward reason. Like with Timwi, the primary issue here is that Jonathunder has performed improper administrative actions and then failed to respond when questioned on said actions. If they had done so, there is a chance that a case would not be filed, assuming the subsequent discussion had a result of "I am not going to do it again" or similar.
      Second, I am not sure which part of my comments implied that I was whining that these cases come up; ArbCom is absolutely the proper place to deal with these cases, and I have zero issue looking at requests and taking them on; I am just somewhat disheartened that two of them have been filed in a relatively short time frame. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: valereee and Should a case request really restart the clock? - no, but we should at least give them a few days to respond. In addition, from a procedural standpoint, a case request must be open for at least 48 hours before we can proceed to arbitration; we are barely over 24 hours at this point in time and I see no intent from the Arbs to fast-track the process. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Aye, that's fair; I will not speak for the other Arbs but I know for myself I was not planning on waiting a week. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also been watching this. The use of tools in this case are more troubling to me than with Timwi. Given the length of time that has already elapsed I am willing to wait only a short while more for a response before I would move to accept and suspend. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A few editors who I respect have been left what boils down to "what are you waiting for ArbCom just do it already" statements today. First I'll note that when I didn't have the actual responsibility of being an arb, I sometimes had these thoughts myself. Having the actual responsibility changed me a bit. And a reason I've changed is a I've gained more appreciation that ArbCom for better, and worse, is a deliberate process. That's baked into the cake. I don't know what Jonathunder would write that might change my mind from the initial reaction I noted above. Quite possibly nothing will change my initial thinking. But he's owed the chance anyway. And not because he's an admin, but because he's being brought before ArbCom. In our current case all the parties save one are not admin. But we have endeavored just as hard to respect them and give them the chance to present their point of view. And we are going to be deliberate and give people, all people, the chance to contribute to the request in a structured way but especially the parties to the case.
    Now, where I was willing to wait a week before I posted the motions to accept and suspend Timwi's case, Jonathunder has already had far more time to respond so I'm not going to want to wait anywhere that long. But this request hasn't even been open a day yet. Out of the same respect I would show any editor, I'm not willing to just move to the next step just yet and I'm glad that my fellow arbs share this outlook. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have been following closely and like everyone else here would much like to hear from Jonathunder. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: Regarding There's no need for a week of the "fun" involved in an arbitration case request – I completely understand where you're coming from; participating in a case request isn't fun. Personally, I would advise community members that they aren't missing out on much if they choose not to participate. Chances are that if nobody but the filer in this case request had submitted a statement, we would be in exactly the same place as we are now. As many community members have noted, this is so far a pretty straightforward case. So if this case request is stressful or unpleasant, non-parties should please not feel an obligation to submit a statement. Personally, the trend of every case request seeing a dozen-plus uninvolved statements no matter how straightforward baffles me a bit. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like a lot of people, I figured this was on its way here when I saw the AN thread, though I haven't been following the matter closely. Although he hasn't responded there, I think we can give it a little bit of time for Jonathunder to respond here before deciding on next steps, though I'm with Barkeep on finding this use of tools more problematic than other recent issues. GeneralNotability, thanks for adding some data to the conversation, but I'm getting a "user not found" error following that link despite being logged into Quarry via OAuth - is that the right link? Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks GeneralNotability, works now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, worrying about possible drama is a little like complaining about being stuck in traffic. You are traffic. Someone not editing is pretty much by definition not an emergency, and can't cause drama except through the actions of people who are editing. I don't know where Jonathunder is located, but it's a long weekend in the US, and there's no reason this can't wait till at least tomorrow. In the absence of a response from Jonathunder I'd think we can resolve this by motion as with past similar cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept and suspend, per motion below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspected when I saw the ANI thread that this might be coming our way, but one of those admin actions was such an obvious error that I undid it myself. I am not of the opinion that that makes me too involved to be impartial but if others disagree now would be the time to say so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding how long we wait before voting to accept or decline: there is no rule about this, nor should there be, but we do usually wait at least a few days if the case subject has not responded and is otherwise inactive. My personal opinion is that a few days is more than enough, since they were made aware there was an issue with their use of admin tools fifteen days ago and declined to respond in any way at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robert McClenon@ I don't think "circling the wagons" is at all a reasonable interpretation of the long-standing informal policy of giving anyone who is the subject of a case a chance to respond. It's a common courtesy, not an admin-only privilege. Frankly it's surprising to me that someone who seems compelled to comment on every single case request wouldn't have noticed how common it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with Timwi, I think we should give Jonathunder a week to answer. If at the end of a week no answer is forthcoming, then I imagine I'll vote for a suspended case with autodesysop after three months. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability Well I don't know what Jonah might say, which is what makes it valuable. If I knew what he'd say, I might not be so keen to hear it. Since the matter isn't urgent, I don't see any need for us to rush. ArbCom's role is to be deliberative, which frequently means being patient and taking our time, even if we must be as slow as the Ents in Lord of the Rings. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the user rights of someone you are in a dispute with is a massive red flag for me, combine with a few historical issues and the fact that no answer has been forthcoming on this for a reasonable period of time, despite Jonathunder editing. This needs a case and while I can think of things that would change my mind, I believe we should accept. WormTT(talk) 12:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I am not personally concerned about granting confirmed early. I have done training a number of times in real life and can imagine similar circumstances leading to granting it. Admittedly, an explanation would be helpful on that.
    I'm far more concerned about the removal of the user right, out of process, against a user he is in dispute with, and with no explanation. WormTT(talk) 19:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting Jonathunder's response on his talk page - I wish him all the best and have responded there. I'd like to remind Wikipedians that Arbcom cases are very stressful for the subject, and not what someone in those circumstances needs. I am happy to wait to see if he is better tomorrow, but I'd like to move to accepting the case and suspending by motion. As I have explained elsewhere, I favour suspending with an instruction not to use the user-right generally, but I believe this committee and the encyclopedia in general has moved to a more formal approach - so I have explained that any desysop that would happen with suspension would be temporary until either Jonathunder is well enough to focus on a case, or sufficient time has passed. I would suggest a longer period in this situation, 6 months or even a year.
    The other option would Jonathunder voluntarily reliquishing his user-right - as I said in the Timwi case, just a few weeks ago one of our main policies for administrators these days is Adminship Accountablity. As you can see there, it is required that you monitor subsequent discussions and respond regarding your actions - you should be notified of any such discussions on your talk page, and I can see you were. If you do not believe you can hold yourself to this standard, I do request that you go to the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and request that your administrator right is removed. I'm sorry to say that the years of power imbalance between administrators and non-administrators has meant that there is a responsibility inherent in the role. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - I agree Jonathunder should have adequate time to respond. The 15 days since he was first asked for an explanation is more than adequate. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Jonathunder's response on his user talk I'll support (with a caveat) the accept & suspend motion below. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, or rather, "don't decline". As things stand, a motion will probably suffice. While I can imagine a scenario where we move to a full case (almost certainly following a statement from Jonathunder), I can't reasonably imagine one where no action is needed on this committee's part. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have proposed three motions from the Timwi case request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also note, for the record, that I strongly agree with Robert McClennon's and Valereee's statements, and disagree with how some arbitrators are conflating "deliberative" with "slow". If we want to move slowly, we should say that. If we want to be deliberative, then let's deliberate.
      Our decision criterion for a case request is whether the community has presented facially plausible evidence of a dispute which only arbitration can resolve (see Guide to Arbitration). These are at our sole discretion and are not bound by case statements (see ARbitration Policy 2.2). Legitimate concerns of long-term administrator tool misuse are a quintessential example of a dispute only arbitrators can resolve (see Arbitration Policy 2.1). If we have reviewed the request, discussed the evidence amongst ourselves, and come to an agreement that the case request presents legitimate concerns of tool use and communication, then acting on that is completely in line with being a deliberative body as defined by our community-ratified policies.
      The primary reason for delay is to give Jonathunder an opportunity to respond. There are multiple responses to this line of thinking. First, a full case provides ample opportunity to respond to specific factual allegations. Second, Jonathunder has already had over two-weeks to respond in other venues. Third, and most importantly for me, is that a response is only required if it is likely to rebut the need for arbitration.
      I would agree to (further) delay if I could imagine a statement which would make the need for arbitration disappear. Some people may believe such a statement exists, that we should wait longer for one, etc. Those individual justifications are why we delay, not the deliberative nature of Arbcom; in fact, a deliberative body would discuss these conflicting beliefs and ideally come to a synthesis. For me, given the evidence and concerns presented in the filing, the only sufficient statement that would convince me to do nothing is evidence that the filing is factually incorrect or misleading. That seems highly unlikely, and even if there were substantial factual disputes, that would only make arbitration more appropriate because a case is the main vehicle for resolving factual disputes.
      Slowness is not a feature or inherent property of the committee; excepting the requirement that case requests be open a minimum of 48 hours (see Arbitration Procedures 2.2), delays are specifically caused by arbitrator's own beliefs and actions. Arbitrators have diverse reasons to delay, but unless specific citations to arbitration policy can be made, individual beliefs should not be projected onto the committee as a whole. A deliberative body does not arbitrarily delay proceedings and should move slowly when facts or issues are unclear. Deliberating on the most likely outcomes given the evidence available, and taking into consideration our institutional norms around what makes for a successful case request, I see no practical benefit in further delaying acting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "most importantly for me, is that a response is only required if it is likely to rebut the need for arbitration." One possible response was for the case subject to go to WP:BN and voluntarily turn in their tools, and then we'd be done here, just like that. I agree that there was basically nothing I can think of that would excuse the behavior that led to this request and we were obviously always going to take it, but the matter simply isn't so urgent that giving them a few days to either face the music or turn in the tools risked any real harm to the project. It didn't work out but it was worth giving it a shot and I'd do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's a valid position. I agree that it's worth giving it a shot, but I also think we should keep in mind the need for someone to be responsive when there are long periods of non-response. The reality of an arbitration case can certainly go far in getting editors to understand the gravity of a situation, but I think that's most effective when we simply go about our business. If voluntary desysop is going to be a way to avoid arbitration, I think it should be done before it gets to this point. If an administrator wants to roll the dice on whether the community is serious or whether we will actually take a case, the consequence is that the process starts and moves forward. At that point, I view voluntary tool removal as an option to stop, not avoid, arbitration. For better or worse, this is the only community-initiated desysop procedure available, and I think we have a responsibility to be prompt in carrying out that process once it is started (see justice delayed is justice denied). That's not to say I think we should be hasty or mechanical. For example, I think the 48 hour delay is a good tool to let reality sink in before we get too far along in the process, the use of suspended cases gives editors a check on our timing and speed, and in cases like Timwi it can be a good idea to wait longer when the community quickly goes from AN thread to arbitration. That's what I'm trying to get at with the idea that "deliberate" does not equal "slow". We can be prompt in going about our business while still leaving open the ability for parties to opt-out or choose the timing; we can be efficient without needing to steamroll people. On the whole I think that effectively balances the needs of the community, administrators, and the committee's own limited time resources. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xaosflux: I proposed only the one version because it seemed the least controversial last time around. I appreciate your point about how proposing both would "put the other committee members on the record that they oppose such a removal"; that didn't cross my mind when considering what to propose but I will keep it in mind should this come up again. I agree with Barkeep's decision that, at this point, proposing such a motion wouldn't be useful (with one passing, Arbs could largely ignore it). I'll say that, like in the Timwi request, I personally think the version with a preliminary desysop is better, but given how that discussion went, I took a more pragmatic approach here.
      As for your specific procedural concerns, yes, the community would need to bring concerns to the committee, likely through WP:AE. Alternatively, the committee could take notice on its own and make a motion to desysop at WP:ARM or WP:AE. Should no case be opened within 6 months, it will be the committee's responsibility to initiate a motion to desysop. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wugapodes and Xaosflux: And just to clarify, I believe "motion to desysop" in this context means we will have one of the clerks close the case and ask the bureaucrats to desysop. We won't need another ArbCom majority to desysop; the motion is self-executing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - Donald Albury 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I need to go inactive, and won't be able to participate in this phase of the case. - Donald Albury 20:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and suspend per motion. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Accept and suspend

The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of six months.

If Jonathunder should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Jonathunder is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for immediate removal of his administrator userrights.

If such a request is not made within six months of this motion or if Jonathunder resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Jonathunder shall be desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Jonathunder may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Second choice to version with desysop First choice. I believe there's sufficient evidence to warrant a case, but there's no need to have it right now. We should give Jonathunder latitude to determine when he would be available for it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize now my previous "first choice" statement maybe didn't make much sense. I got distracted while posting these and forgot to include a !vote on the warning motion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Jonathunder's very limited engagement with the case I question whether it's sound to leave Jonathunder's sysop rights intact & prohibiting his use of them. It has the possibility of unintentional misuse & desysopping. Supportive of the extended case suspension upto 6 months given Jonathunder's situation. Of the current options, this is my first second choice. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I accepted a case, but it doesn't have to be now. This is the right way to go. WormTT(talk) 10:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Enterprisey (talk!) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this model is best when a case subject is either unwilling or unable to engage with the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now second choice to the new motion. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't understand what is accomplished by leaving the toolset with them but telling them not to use it. By doing it that way we have two outcomes: they don't use the toolset while the case is suspended or they do use the toolset. If they do use the toolset we now have further drama and uproar. If they don't use the toolset, that is no different than them not having the toolset while a case is suspended against them. I don't want to pressure Jonathunder to open a case that their health might not permit, but also we need to recognize that there already was tool use, followed by subsequent editing, at a time when they couldn't satisfy ADMINACCT. This strikes me as a motion with limited upside for Jonathunder and a larger downside for the community and so I cannot support it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the more I think about this the less I do like it. I like the basic model of accepting but suspending, but I have to agree about the risk vs benefit of leaving the tools in place and simply saying they are not to be used for the next six months. I'll be proposing an alternate motion forthwith. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Mostly for record's sake. While I preferred this version in Timwi rather than the early-desysop, what's clear to me now is that we should consider some sort of 'standard' motion in response to absent administrators (after some longer discussion), since I've now felt the flip-flop of wanting to !vote oppose along with Barkeep. --Izno (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I need to go inactive. As I will not be available for a while I have removed my earlier acceptance above. - Donald Albury 20:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: expedited case

The "Jonathunder" arbitration case request is accepted, and an arbitration case shall be opened on an expedited basis. The following timeline shall govern the case, subject to change by the drafting arbitrators:

  • A combined evidence/workshop phase shall close one week after enactment of this motion.
  • The target release date for the proposed decision shall be ten days after enactment of this motion.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. Despite proposing, I don't think starting the case immediately is the best course of action, and I'm not sure an expedited case will be useful given Jonathunder's activity levels. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There's no imminent crisis requiring urgency. Cabayi (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maye we will do this if we open a case, but we don't need a motion to do so, and I oppose opening a case at this time given Jonathunder's comments. WormTT(talk) 10:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If we end up doing a full case the case structure can be decided upon by the drafting arbs as usual, there's no need for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not opposed to this if a case is opened but agree with Beeblebrox that it's a decision best left for drafters if/when a case is opened. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't think we should open a case now, per above. I also think we should sort out what an "expedited case" would look like in general, rather than trying to do it on the fly for a specific incident. (I said this in the Timwi request too, but then didn't follow up - will try to get to this.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It seems the practicalities of the specific situation make an expedited case worse than the usual length. Izno (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Motion: Jonathunder warned

The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is resolved as follows:

The Committee recognizes Jonathunder's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Jonathunder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening level 2 de-sysop proceedings.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. This was appropriate in the Timwi case due to the level of actions and the response (albeit slow) from Timwi. I don't believe it's appropriate at this point in time. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient given the lack of an actual case process behind it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not a sufficient response to the evidence presented in this case request. There is enough tool use questions over a long period of time, to warrant a case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: the evidence presented merits a full examination, in a case. Per OR below, no determination of what an appropriate outcome of that examination would be. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There hasn't been enough engagement to make this the right outcome. Of course it still might be the outcome of a case if we un-suspend it, but we don't have enough evidence to decide that now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per others. --Izno (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maybe, after a case or some engagement from Jonathunder, but not now. Cabayi (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Formally put the nail in this coffin, per the others. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Motion: Accept and suspend (2)

The "Jonathunder" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of six months.

If Jonathunder (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Jonathunder is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within six months of this motion or if Jonathunder resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Jonathunder shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Jonathunder may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Enacted: KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. This is the exact same motion that is already passing, except that the admin rights are temporarily removed for the duration. The more I thought about this and heard arguments from others the more convinced I have become that this is the more appropriate course of action. Jonathunder used their tools to directly damage other users' ability to edit this project, without good reason. He has also indicated they may not even have read the messages on their own talk page, let alone this entire arbitration request. This has created a situation where they may come back and take some otherwise reasonable admin action, and there will be an uproar, and we'll be back to square one. Taking the tools formally out of play eliminates any such possibility. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice, as discussed. Cabayi (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I thought I had written this down with my previous note, but I guess not. My concern there was that while it seemed like the best option available, I didn't want to create any "gotcha" moments where Jonathunder makes an honest mistake and is permanently desysopped over it. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments elsewhere opposing the first version of accept and suspend. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice per my comments here and here as well as Barkeep's and Xaosflux's comments on the practical problems of the alternate motions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For the future, I would prefer Jonathunder is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case. be adjusted to return the tools while the case is open and active (unsuspended). --Izno (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal first choice with other accept and suspend motion. I generally prefer "requires editor to not use their tools" for the suspension rather than "temporary desysop", but not so much that I feel it's worth making a stand over. For anyone who wants to moot the differences, you know where I am. WormTT(talk) 09:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Equal first choice for counting purposes. But I did prefer the first motion. The difference of course is that if there is a case, under the first motion, we'll be deciding to desysop or not to desysop. In the case of the second motion we'll instead be deciding whether to resysop by motion or make the suspension permanent. Given the rarity in resysops by motion I worry that this path is a bit more prejudicial than the other in normal circumstances. I would align with Izno's suggestion in future cases. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I concur with Opabinia regalis on this one; I understand the concern over "gotchas" – and clearly my colleagues are of the opinion this is more likely to happen than assuming Jonathunder has the restraint and wherewithal to recognise what is being asked of them – but I think doing this will turn any case into a foregone conclusion over a chance for Jonathunder to explain themselves and potentially keep their administrative privileges. After all, why would someone ask for a case when they have already received the worst outcome? Doing nothing now does not preclude action later, and still allows Jonathunder to make a statement about the matter, be it an admission of guilt, handing in their mop, or defending their position. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I don't want to be a roadblock because I don't think these are substantively different, but my first choice is the original. While there's no practical difference, there is a psychological difference, and I don't think this has enough benefit to be worth the downsides. As for Worm's gotcha concern, I take that point but if he did take a minor admin action in error, I'd probably just oppose the inevitable "ZOMG bright line violation!!!" desysop motion when the time came. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion
  • One of my concerns with the motion in Timwi was that "desysop proceedings" was unclear. To remedy that I have added a link to the level 2 procedures, though I'm open to suggestions for other mechanisms. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the motion "accept and suspend" 3 months in one spot and 6 in the other? --Izno (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barkeep49:, I understand your point on the currently passing motion and basically agree with it, but I'm supporting the motion anyway because the distinction is largely academic, in that every time the committee has done this, the admin in question has not come back to request we open the case or taken other actions that would trigger it and I expect that the same will happen here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For me it only takes one time for someone to do otherwise for it all to not have been worth it. I thought about proposing it as Xaosflux suggests above but decided that since it already had a near majority (and actual majority minutes later) it wasn't worth it. But that is the motion I think we should be passing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't agree with Beeblebrox that the distinction is academic. If Jonathunder returns, the state-of-play should leave it easier for him to do the right thing than the wrong thing, especially when the wrong thing will result in a permanent desysop. While this motion is passing, motions in future such cases ought to include a temporary no-fault desysop for the case's duration. Cabayi (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi I should clarify that I mean it only in the practical sense, in that in the end it has never been a distinction that actually affected the eventual outcome, I would personally support exactly what you propose in such cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "instruction to not use tool" vs "temporary desysop", I would rather we simply got something passed here and then had a discussion with community buy in on what to do on the general case. WormTT(talk) 09:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; the circumstances of the past few admin conduct cases have all been different, but we do keep circling the same arguments about how to best phrase motions. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1074178639"