Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 21:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Case suspended by motion on 21:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.


Case information

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Prior dispute resolution

[edit]

Preliminary statements

[edit]

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder/Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0)

[edit]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Discussion on motions.

Motion: Accept and suspend

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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
  • @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]

Motion (February 2022)

[edit]

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.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstentions by motion at 21:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder&oldid=1122318259"