Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee Proceedings
[edit] Case Requests
Request name Link Date
Winhunter and WP:ADMINACCT  (link) 22 Aug 2017
[edit] Open Cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Magioladitis 2 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 13 Aug 2017 27 Aug 2017
Arthur Rubin (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 13 Sep 2017 04 Oct 2017
[edit] Recently Closed Cases (Past Cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
[edit] Clarification and Amendment Requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: The Rambling Man Motion (orig. case) 25 Jul 2017
Amendment request: Eastern Europe none (orig. case) 26 Aug 2017


[edit] Arbitrator Motions
No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Winhunter and WP:ADMINACCT

Initiated by Twitbookspacetube at 03:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Twitbookspacetube

"Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong."—Fram

Hi, Arbcom. I have another WP:ADMINACCT case for you today - and this one is a doozy! It all started with Winhunter deciding to get into an edit war with an IP editor - cumulating in said IP editor getting a heavily WP:INVOLVED 72 hour block from Winhunter. Later evidence would show that said IP editor was block evasion from a Long Term Abuse case under a community ban, but, at the time of the block, the connection had not been made. After a few days, the IP editor opened an ANI thread where the connection between the IP and the CBanned user was made - however the community expressed ALARMINGLY strong support for Winhunter to head over to WP:BN or here and hand over their admin privileges - however it would seem that Winhunter has decided to try the old trick of 'Hide until the heat dies down' and has been inactive for 12 days and counting, their last edit being a thinly veiled attempt to hold on to power. Since then, the community has made a strong recommendation for desysopping Winhunter. As this is the only venue available for this to occur, I am bringing this here on behalf of the broader community.

I also notice that it took Winhunter two RfA's to initially gain the Admin status, with the success being almost 11 years ago - and the first RfA raising significant behavioural concerns which have obviously resurfaced.

I understand you've already recieved an email to review the ANI discussion, and you would know that this case was coming eventually - I feel that having this in an "Open courtroom" will, according to how I interpret the community's wishes on this matter, send a strong message that admins who abuse their power and/or fail to meet policy and community standards will face consequences.

P.S. If you're noticing a pattern in my arbcom submission titles, there's probably a good reason behind it.

@Mkdw: - I would like to refer you to Winhunter's contributions leading up to and shortly after the block showing a hell of a lot more than one revert. Twitbookspacetube 00:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Winhunter

Statement by BU Rob13

I see a bad block. I don't see an ADMINACCT violation, even in the slightest. As soon as Winhunter was emailed by Berean Hunter, they returned to explain themselves, making four comments about their action. They stated at the ANI thread that they should have had further conversation with the editor before the block, which is valid, as it presumably would have led to the admin realizing the edits were valid. They also promised to review the relevant policies again to ensure future actions were more in line with expectations. This is an editor who's inactive for long stretches of time, so the inactivity after giving multiple responses to concerns isn't unusual. Has anyone even bothered emailing them again to ask that they return to explain further?

An admin has a responsibility to explain why they took their actions. Winhunter has done this and so satisfies ADMINACCT. An admin also has a duty to stay up-to-date on relevant policies. Winhunter has promised to do this before taking further admin actions. An admin has a duty to avoid a pattern of poor judgement (WP:ADMINCOND), but no such pattern has been shown. There is nothing worth the Committee looking at here. And all this over an admin blocking an LTA who was evading a community ban. If the desire is for stricter activity standards for admins or higher standards for remaining an admin, hold an RfC. I likely would support. The proper venue isn't ArbCom.

The real issue here is an editor who seems to wish to make a point. A blockquote of someone asking the admin to voluntarily step down? Quotes like "and this one is a doozy!" in the case request? Calling an admission that they made a mistake and a promise to review relevant policies "a thinly veiled attempt to hold on to power"? Referring to ArbCom as an "open courtroom"? Transparently claiming a larger agenda to their ArbCom submissions by saying there's "a good reason" for "a pattern in [their] arbcom submission titles"? Creating a sandbox for ArbCom prep with the edit summary "'I'll probably be doing more of these", professing the desire to start more cases even before any problematic behavior occurs. This is drama-seeking behavior and needs to stop. See also the Arthur Rubin request above, which I'm confident you'll find is much ado over nothing as the case proceeds.

  • @Newyorkbrad: If the Committee has not already done so, you will want to email Winhunter, as he is unlikely to return unprompted. He returned promptly when last emailed. ~ Rob13Talk 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: That's more than a little misleading. The admin hasn't edited anywhere since their last post in the ANI thread, and those periods of inactivity are not abnormal for them. Have you emailed him prompting an additional reply? Has anyone? I've still yet to see someone say "I emailed him a week ago and he didn't respond." Last time he was emailed he came running. ~ Rob13Talk 21:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not the one trying to string him up. I'm glad for the confirmation that editors haven't bothered even trying to get a response. My outlook would have changed had this not been the case. ~ Rob13Talk 22:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Blackmane: Surely your comment is satire. Being in the middle of severe weather is usually reason to be concerned about your family and safety, not reason to have extra time free to participate in an ArbCom case! We should allow extra time for a response given the circumstances. ~ Rob13Talk 12:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Toddst1's case is a good precedent on how to handle an admin who is not active at the time a case is brought against them. ~ Rob13Talk 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EEng

Take the case. Winhunter's vague mea culpa – I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning – only shows how completely he's failed to grasp the inappropriateness of his actions. What warning? – the one 2 minutes before he blocked? Rubbish. Winhunter has said I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future, but when the community clearly expressed its wishes, he simply disappeared (again), pretending nothing what happening. As someone said: It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. This guy didn't have the experience to be an admin when he became one, and he certainly doesn't have it now. EEng 07:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hasteur@: Wikipedia's dispute processes aren't about remedying hurt to editors, but keeping the project running as smoothly as possible, so talk of torts and hurts is misplaced. If we must draw a legal parallel, it should be not to civil law, which concerns itself with hurts to individuals, but to criminal law, which concerns itself with the damage done to society. EEng 20:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
BU_Rob12@: The admin hasn't edited anywhere since their last post in the ANI thread, and those periods of inactivity are not abnormal for them. Have you emailed him prompting an additional reply? – Oh please. He has a clear case of ANI flu. Here were his last interactions [1] after which he went suddenly silent. If he didn't understand that he'd be expected to continue participating, that's just further evidence he's incapable of acting as a competent admin. EEng 21:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Everyone: Can we just desysop the guy and get back to work? He obviously doesn't have enough interest in remaining an admin, or in the community's concerns, to even bother to check in, storm or no storm. It's been, like, two weeks. What a collossal waste of time on someone who cares about Wikipedia less than anyone on this page. EEng 13:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mkdw@: Further to my comment immediately above, I find incomprehensible the hoops being jumped through to keep this situation on an indefinite knife edge in order to preserve some meaningless procedural ideal. [2] Everyone knows Winhunter knows this case is ongoing, and that he's simply choosing to ignore it. Now more than ever it's obvious he has no respect for the Committee's time, not to mention that of the community at large. That alone is grounds for his losing his admin status now, under a cloud, and if he wants it back later he can apply for it back de novo. Of course, if it turns out he's been adrift in a liferaft somewhere for two weeks with no WiFi, I'll be happy to eat my words. EEng 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Mkdw@: Seriously, what???? [3] EEng 01:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) OK, mixup solved [4]. 05:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Endorse BU Rob's comments and suggest that the committee reconsider a previous proposal they had (or one that I dreampt up) that a case request must be from someone who has been subject to a "remediable hurt" much in the same way that United States litigants must demonstrate a tort in order to have legal standing. This will allow the committee to dispose of quickly "Tempest in a Teapot" scenarios that have been brought by schadenfreude seeking faux-parties. Hasteur (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

As the admin who later identified and blocked the LTA after Winhunter's block had been reviewed and overturned, and who closed the discussion at ANI (more than once), I wish to correct some errors in the filing statement by presenting a rough timeline of events:

  • 23:41, 28 July 2017: IP 2.25.45.251 (talk · contribs) begins a series of rapid edits reorganizing information in galaxy articles, all of which reduce the size of the articles, nearly all of which include edit summaries similar to "removed nonsense" and nearly all of which trigger the "removed references" edit tag.
  • 00:06, 29 July: Winhunter places a Twinkle {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on the IP's talk page, referring to this series of edits.
  • 00:07: Winhunter blocks the IP; at the same timestamp the IP replies to the warning on their talk page. It is not clear which occurred first, but it is clear that the IP did not make any article edits in between being level-3 warned and being blocked.
  • 11:59, 30 July: Berean Hunter lengthens the IP's block an additional week for personal attacks in an unblock request.
  • 12:03, 6 August: immediately after block expiry, the IP begins rapidly and indiscriminately reverting Winhunter's recent edits on multiple articles, earning a 3-month block with talk page access revoked by Berean Hunter. After a discussion among uninvolved administrators on the IP's talk page, a new block appeal is allowed and the IP is unblocked on 9 August.
  • 21:24, 9 August: IP begins a discussion of Winhunter's block at ANI (link provided elsewhere on this page). Most commenters agree that the IP's edits did not constitute vandalism, that Winhunter's warning was thus inappropriate, and that in any case the course of warnings was grossly insufficient to justify Winhunter's block.
  • 00:42, 10 August: users Arianewiki1 and Tarage exchange the first suspicions of sockpuppetry.
  • 16:48: with the consensus apparent in the discussion, Berean Hunter starts a sub-thread and emails Winhunter seeking their explanation for their bad block.
  • 19:19: after noticing Arianewiki1 and Tarage's comments, I conduct my own investigation and conclude that the IP is the user behind Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP and block the IP for 3 months to enforce that user's community ban. Ritchie333 revoked talk page access a few hours later.
  • 05:10, 11 August: Winhunter responds, their first edit anywhere since reverting the IP's edits on 29 July, responding to questions and offering an explanation for their actions. Although several users have indicated they are not satisfied by the responses, Winhunter has not edited since.

There does not seem to have been any interaction between Winhunter and the IP prior to Winhunter's warning; there was no edit war as suggested by the filer, and nothing violating WP:INVOLVED. But please also note the unlikelihood that Winhunter was aware of the long-term abuse case, as this was not suggested by anyone until 12 days after the initial block.

I have no recommendation to the Committee whether to accept or decline this case, but respectfully remind the Committee that there is no community mechanism for review of a user's advanced permissions, and Snow Rise's proposal and its strong endorsement by the community indicate that such a review of Winhunter's adminship is desired.

-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Tarage

This case, like the other one presented here, is a two-pronged issue. The first relates to both Winhunter's bad block and subsequent refusal to be accountable for any of his actions, but the other is far more important to me. As of now, the only way that the community can act on a rogue administrator in any capacity is to vote to block them. I don't have to explain why this is a horrible thing. The community needs a method to recall administrators who lose the confidence of the community. I don't know how we can reach a point where that is possible, and so far no one has been able to tell me the place where such a plea can be made, but there needs to be something done. Far too many administrators, either through being grandfathered into the system, or through egregious breaches of the community's trust. There HAS to be a way for the community to act on such issues. --Tarage (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur that is nonsense. If you need "remediable hurt", it is the community's faith in Winhunter. --Tarage (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Everyone We have an issue here. The person who brought this case forward has been indef blocked. While I still feel there is a valid case here, someone else is going to have to take up the reigns. I don't know how that works. --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

  • (Edited for length. Former full statement can be found here.)

My concern is not that an admin made a mistake - they're human, and it happens - even a rather egregious one, but that Winhunter specifically left his fate to the community, with the implicit understanding that if there was sufficient support for his turning in the bit, he would do so. (It was implicit, because the community can't on its own desysop an admin, due to the shameful lack of a community desysop procedure, so if the community spoke in favor, Winhunter would have to act accordingly.) Well, there was, in my view, sufficient support for Winhunter turning in the bit, and they did not do so. It is on that basis, the loss of the trust of the community, and not the one error, or any extensive pattern of errors (that I am aware of), that the Committee should take the case. Admins are trusted users, that's the entire point of an RfA: do we trust this person, and the loss of the community's trust due to not following through with their placing their fate in the community's hands, should be the basis for this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • In all fairness, it has been pointed out to me that what Winhunter wrote in this edit was:

    I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find [my] next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future. (emphasis added)

    which is different from putting their fate in the community's hands as a result of the current error. On the other hand, while they apologized for "all the trouble as the result of [their] action" and said they were "open for suggestions for improvement", I don't believe they ever actually indicated that they understood why their action had caused a furor, and why it was a bad idea to block someone making improvement only minutes after warning them, without intervening edits. They really do need to come here and make a statement thoroughly explaining themselves and their action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Concerning Winhunter and the typhoon, has anyone who e-mailed him received a response? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

Winhunter committed an abusive action with their administrative permissions, drawing overwhelming outrage and condemnation, as well as a widespread and very strong sentiment from the community that he should be desysopped. In spite of the firestorm of controversy they created, and were well aware of, Winhunter made virtually no sincere attempt at clarifying his good intentions, which were strongly in doubt, and has hid behind disingenuous, vague statements and the thin veil of "inactivity". I urge Committee members to examine the facts within the context of the clear community consensus to desysop. This case is not being brought to ARBCOM hash out the controversy, or to decide who's right, and what should be done about it, as is normally the case. This is being brought because we as a community have already identified an abusive administrator and have decided that they should not retain their privileges. The Committee should verify that this is indeed the community's decision, not whether they agree with it.

Statement by The Rambling Man

Arbcom should take the case. Abuse of admin tools is serious and because the community is utterly impotent to do something about it, it is beholdent on the Arbs to find a way to ensure the community still has confidence in their admins. Or else find a different method of community-based desysop, which now seems necessary. Certain admins commenting here seem keen to keep the kind of transgressions we're seeing quiet, hushing them up to an extent, to allow the empowered to continue on their dodgy path. ADMINACCT has never looked so shaky, and this is just another instance where it needs application. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Some statements above exceed 500 words, could the clerks please do the job of templating the admins who are falling foul of the limitation, level playing field and all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad try again. What was in excess of the regulation 500 words in even more so now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

All admins make mistakes at times none of us are perfect however you don't warn someone and then 1-2 minutes later block them, That aside they've not really taken any responsibility for their actions - They've more or less brushed it off as "concluded" and then buggered off for a few weeks in the hope it'll all die down,
Somewhat off-topic but this editor wouldn't stand a chance at the "new" RFA because they're mostly inactive here and If I'm being absolutely honest one wonders how they became an admin in the first place .....,
Anyway they abused the mop and their answers/replies were insufficient and as such they should be held accountable for their actions. –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Arianewiki1

As one of the initial instigators of the issues between IP and Winhunter here, I feel the main cause of Winhunter's actions against the IP can be summed up here.[5]

  • "...your open hostility and combativeness towards other editors is not welcomed and unhelpful, regardless of being right or wrong. Saying things like "Don't be stupid." [6] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [7] (then delete it to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith."

Whilst the complaint by Winhunter of "vandalism" is plainly wrong, their response was likely due to these insults and confronting behaviour of the IP.

I was also the one who suspected the IP was a sock, simply by the IP's knowledge of edit policy, whose exchange appears on my own talkpage here [8] under "Unexplained reverts."

I also admit I have made mistakes here too, but I was totally unaware of IP and Winhunter interactions prior to this. (especially as the IP had removed these exchanges from their own talkpage) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane

This comment isn't entirely case related but more of a FYI. Winhunter statest that they're from Hong Kong which is currently being lashed by Typhoon Hato. So they may be contactable by email as they are likely to be home, like the vast majority of sensible Hong Kongers. --Blackmane (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:It's part satire, part truth. Hong Kongers are unnaturally attached to the internet and will often respond as soon as something pings them whether it be by email or other form of communication. They also hold an enormous amount trust in the construction of their homes to hold out against storms like Hato, so they have plenty of time to indulge in the internet to while away the hours until the storm passes. You would be surprised. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Fixing ping Blackmane (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I am writing to suggest that the Committee accept this case as it is a matter falling within the Committee's exclusive jurisdiction—that is, the revocation of administrative rights—and which, for better or worse, the community has been historically impotent to address in any constructive way. Because sanctions should be both relevant and proportionate, the ability of the community to block or ban administrators, even in a limited fashion, should not be considered appropriate for misuse of the administrative tools. Rather, the preventive remedy of desysopping should be available, and for that we must go to the Committee.

Frankly, because this falls within the Committee's exclusive jurisdiction, this is a matter that should not be subject to any "exhaustion of remedies" requirement that the Committee might impose. Similarly, this case should not be rejected on prudential grounds for the same reason: the community is unable to resolve it in an appropriate, proportionate, and relevant manner. While I will not go so far as to say this falls within the Committee's mandatory jurisdiction, it is a matter that comes close to it. Administrators who misuse the tools are a problem, and long-inactive old guard administrators are particularly prone to misuse of the tools or having their accounts compromised. These policy considerations, which undergird WP:INACTIVITY, appear to be well-integrated into our community's values. This is not a complex case, and it is not one that will be a drain on Committee resources. These factors strongly militate against rejection.

As The Rambling Man states above, the Committee should make use of its jurisdiction or expect to see it stripped by the community. I believe this latter option would be unfortunate, because it would certainly take on the circus-like atmosphere that some attribute to RfA and ANI. Our administrators are, after all, volunteers, and put a lot of heart into their roles. Where they do wrong, they should be given the benefit of process, and not simply punished with ANI's theatrics.

I urge the Committee to take a more proactive role in accepting cases alleging administrator misconduct. Please accept this case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I think we would be putting the cart before the horse if we jumped straight to deciding appropriate remedies. This is the case request phase, and its purpose is to inform the Committee as to the general dimensions of the dispute, and what forms of dispute resolution have been tried. As I argue above, because this case implicates administrative actions, desysopping should be available, but it need not be the sole option. Thus, the availability, and not the likelihood, of desysopping for WP:ADMINACCT violations should be the focus of this phase. Or, alternatively, whether the promise to step down could be enforced. I would say the answer to both is "Yes". The remedy, if any, should be decided in the case, not here. Process, rather than a handful of dueling statements, should decide this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Power~enwiki

I find it implausible that ARBCOM would de-admin a user for blocking a previously-banned user. No other possible action justifies discussing this any further.

As far as the initial edits by Best Known For before the first block (such as [9]), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#CMG_-_.22Catalogue_of_One_Thousand_Named_Galaxies.22 shows a consensus against including this material, but using "removed nonsense" as an edit comment is not good editing behavior.

As far as the merits of Winhunter's original block: it seems to have been in response to this diff: [10]. A short-term block there (considering his hostile responses to two separate warnings) seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

I suggest declining. This case really highlights the worst of the Wikipedia community and really should be forgotten. We have an administrator who makes a bad block, acknowledges it's a bad block, and says if the community finds his / her next admin action unsatisfactory, they can decide to desysop. Given that Winhunter is not currently making bad administrative actions and there's no evidence that long-term pattern of bad actions, that's more than enough for me. In fact I'm hard pressed to see what more the community could possibly want.

Proposed solution: do nothing, drop the stick, and if Winhunter makes another bad administrative action + refuses to acknowledge it's a bad action, or makes multiple bad administrative actions with no sign of improvement, then we can have an Arbcom case. Banedon (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: Somewhere, the long-term-abuser is laughing. "Ha! Look at all the disruption I managed to cause, all the way up to an Arbcom case request. All we need now is for someone to involve Jimbo ... Banedon (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Snow Rise

As the community member who first put forward the proposal to kick to ArbCom the matter of Winhunter's actions and capacities as an admin, my impressions about the meaning of the ensuing conversation are not really any (or at least not much) more relevant than those of any one other contributor who participated in said discussion. Afterall, any one responding party may have misinterpreted what it was I suggesting. Nevertheless, the Arbs may find my perspectives at the time I put the proposal forward to be of some small use.

For the record, I did not make the proposal while aware of any accusation of improper WP:INVOLVEment on Winhunter's part, when they blocked the IP. Nor do I recall any other community members suggesting such involvement, until Twitbookspacetube's filing here. Similarly, I did not mean the discussion to be a platform to make calls to curtail the actions of a (supposed) class of admins run amok. Nor did I intend for the discussion to become a forum to raise the issue of a non-ArbCom-oriented alternative to de-sysopping. In fact, I tried to structure the proposal to avoid such generalized topics and keep the matter focused on Winhunter in particular. I also did not notice hand-wringing about supposedly frequent administrative abuses as a common feature of the responses. To be sure, a handful contributors did take it in that direction. But for most part, respondents approached their comments in a manner consistent with my proposal; that is, by considering a particularly problematic combination of particularly problematic behaviours by Winhunter, in his capacity as an admin. The issues I felt were most emphasized by those who responded to the proposal (and the discussion which preceded it) include:

  • The manner in which Winhunter defined the IP's behaviour and the approach they took to the block;
  • The exceptionally long period of disengagement from be project and apparent lack of familiarity with even the basics of the community's blocking policies and expectations from admins in the use of privileges, matters that would arguably each be cause for concern even if there hadn't been a highly problematic approach to a block after that prolonged absence;
  • As suggested in edit summaries and in the user's two RfAs, an attitude towards "vandalism" which was, to put it charitably, cavalier. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the comments in the original RfA reflect a borderline crusade-like mentality for Winhunter with regard to the very reason they were requesting tools and I agree with others who have noted that neither request would be likely to result in a successful bid at the mop in most of the years since those discussions took place;
  • As concerning as any possible abuse/misuse in itself, Winhunter's complete failure to adequately (or even really minimally) address the community's concerns, which have been either ignored or missed altogether for weeks now.

So, though it should come as no surprise given my proposal, I do urge ArbCom to continue their inquiry, ideally with an open case here, if that is what they also feel is the best approach. I say this in spite of Twitbookspacetube shooting holes in their own filing (and catching their own feet a few times while they were at it). Personally, I join others who have commented here and in the related discussions in asserting that I think most admins conduct themselves to a standard mostly consistent with the community's expectations. As such, I would not have made the community proposal I did, except for the fact that I thought the particular combination of factors in Winhunter's case demanded review by a body at least theoretically capable of de-sysoping, as it did not seem that Winhunter was going to follow through on their offer to turn back their tools any time soon. Snow let's rap 06:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

I see that the WP:BKFIP is involved here. I've been aware of that editor for at least 8 years and been the subject of their abuse more than once eg Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster".

I have observed that this behaviour often has the tendency to invoke editors into behaving uncharacteristically. A good friend of mine who otherwise had a clean block record ended up being blocked for edit warring. Sometimes their edit summaries, combined with their abusive responses can lead to the erroneous presumption of vandalism, which combined with their rapid fire edit warring can trip people up. WP:AGF would tend suggest to me that is precisely what has happened with Winhunter.

As such I would commend to arbcom that they decline this case. WCMemail 16:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

As reflected in our policies and practice, there is no ANI process dyssyop that has consensus. So no, this committee should not convene itself as a rubber stamp of ANI, which is after-all a self-selected group, not an elected group. As for other issues, it looks like some will be disappointed that the committee will have a hard-time ignoring, unclean hands, and the un-restrictiveness of our inactivity policy (and recently, we have gotten nowhere on it.[11] And I recall another recent discussion, perhaps at VPP, where there seemed to be strong opposition but I cannot find that, at the moment (I generally supported, tightening, if I recall correctly, in both discussions)). Moreover, according to our vandalism policy, creating and using an account or IP address "abusively", which in the context it is used, means something different than the content of edits themselves, appears to make banned/blocked account's use, alone, vandalism. I can't predict the future, but just advise some above that they might not get what they want, here, and may have to consider living with an unofficial (already delivered) or official instruction to the admin (also, already delivered by the ANI, but could be again by the ctte.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not see that the filer of this case has also been blocked, before I wrote the above. It's a poor case - good luck. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

We all make mistakes but this case goes a step beyond. What we've seen is an admin whose absence demonstrates, to some, a lack of interest which in and of itself is disconcerting. Add to that, an admin who is ?motivated? to take action regarding a particular issue, and we see what appears to be a lack of understanding about our evolving community; the latter of which obviously results from a lack of interest and participation. So why did this admin awaken from dormancy and decide to show up for this particular case? Therein the problem lies for an evolving community that invests its trust and confidence in the people they elect to hold positions of authority. I trust ArbCom to do what is necessary to properly investigate this case, and make a final determination. I don't consider the latter too much to ask. Atsme📞📧 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Arbs please note that Twitbookspacetube has been indeffed and so will not be responding further here. There is also discussion of a community-imposed site ban ongoing at AN. GoldenRing (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Winhunter and WP:ADMINACCT: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Awaiting a statement from Winhunter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I have checked and none of the statements thus far materially exceed 500 words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I have e-mailed Winhunter to make sure he is aware of the case request and that he should provide a statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with Mkdw below that the edit-warring and administrator-involvement are allegations are unsupported and, unless new evidence were to arise, do not need further attention. The crux of the issue is the concerns expressed in the ANI thread and those are the issues that I ask Winhunter to address in his statement, as well as any response to the other editors who have commented above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: The word limits exist to ensure that statements are reasonably succinct, focused, and useful to the arbitrators and other editors who may be interested in a case, not as ends in themselves. At the time you posted your concern about statement lengths the other day, the statements were all under 500 words except for one that was 503 words and another of 532 words. That is substantial compliance with the length requirement and did not require any action or discussion; it would be absurd to require someone to cut his or her statement by 3 words or even 32 words. The more recent statement from Snow Rise comes to 630 words, which is modestly over the limit and has correctly been flagged by the Clerk as such. However, the statement is reasonably succinct and useful as it stands, and the editor posting states he has made an effort to be concise, so I construe this edit summary as an application to exceed the word limit to the extent indicated, and I grant the application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Twitbookspacetube: Could you further expand on why you believe Winhunter was "heavily WP:INVOLVED" with the situation before they issued the block and why their single revert (at the time) constituted edit warring? A lot has been read into whether Best Known for IP's edits and comments on their talk page meets the definitions of vandalism and disruptive editing. It seems only equitable that we also as closely examine the definitions of involved and edit warring in this request. Doing so will help determine the extent of any wrongdoing and what is an appropriate outcome. Mkdw talk 22:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Best Known for IP was blocked at 00:07, 29 July 2017. In the dif provided by Twitbookspacetube here, only two edits occurred before the block: one revert and one user talk warning. I see very little substance and evidence to support that INVOLVED and edit warring are factors in this matter. This seems to almost entirely centre around the block and their response once identified and followed up. Mkdw talk 15:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for a reply from Winhunter, though we should do something with this request in the next few days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that we are not making much progress in our secret cabal with this case; until we do mark me down as accepting this. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline as first choice; second choice below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Winhunter: Motion

The "Winhunter" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Winhunter returns to active status as an administrator. If Winhunter resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Winhunter is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. I think this case would struggle without the participation of both the original filer (who has been indefinitely community banned) and the immediate named party (who has been unreachable). Claims of administrative [misconduct] should be investigated. To reconcile these two aspects, I support the motion that accepts the case but puts in place a safeguard to ensure the well-being of the community, in the interim. Consideration for this motion includes the fact that they may continue editing with minimal impact, as their administrative presence previously had been quite low. Mkdw talk 17:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    I've added WP:CLOUD to the word resigns, as doing so at this point in time would be under a cloud. Mkdw talk 18:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm not willing to hold a case where the single subject of the case is not active onwiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Only practical course at this time. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Sorry for being slow on this one. I can live with this, but it's a distant second choice to just declining the case outright as a big buffet of troll food. The case, filed by a troll, originates from Winhunter's being successfully trolled by a different long-term nuisance who has made it their business to bait vandal-fighters and admins into making exactly the mistake Winhunter did. Hammering him for the crime of indifference to ANI - an entirely understandable state of mind - when the underlying conduct is neither unique nor particularly bad in the scheme of things seems disproportionate. Of course it would be much better if vandal-fighters stopped reverting and admins stopped blocking when IPs make arguably correct edits in an aggressive way, but that particular community pathology isn't Winhunter's fault. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain/Recuse
Comments
  • I think this is good, however I think clarifying the sky conditions for the purpose of soft path regaining of Adminnistrative privileges. Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be a good idea to instruct Winhunter not to edit in any way until he has responded here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of any 'desysopped for inactivity' paths anywhere. Is this actually a thing? I don't have direct quotes, but I seem to recall somewhere hearing that this was not grounds for removal of tools. --Tarage (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Tarage: What you may have heard is that admins can't be procedurally desysopped for not editing Wikipedia, only for not performing admin tasks. Thus the procedure can be gamed to a certain extent, by doing nothing to right before the time limit and then doing a couple of admin actions - although I believe that the 'crats may be cracking down on that (I'm not certain). I'm in favor of desysopping as well for non-participation in the usual purpose that we are all here for, to improve the encyclopedia - we really don't need the dead weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There has been a great emphasis about process, or lack thereof, regarding administrative conduct. In fact, it has been the most substantive aspect of quantitative evidence against Arthur Rubin [Winhunter]. Principally, participation in this very case request is a matter of fundamental procedural expectation. Any authority or substance with respect to these expectations suddenly fail if they abandon or minimize the importance of procedure when it becomes obstructive or conflicts with a desired outcome. Rhetorically, would the importance of process or procedure have been reinstated if the motion had been to merely trout Arthur Rubin [Winhunter]? Basing a final decision on the assumptions or speculations about Arthur Rubin [Winhunter's] absence not only injures the very purpose of arbitration, and the protections placed by the community to protect newcomers and editors, it is contentious against the values reflected on Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mkdw: I don't understand what these comments about Arthur Rubin have to do with this case, about Winhunter. Did you by chance put them at the bottom of the wrong case request? (Which would be a perfectly understandable mistake.) Or are you making a point about the Winhunter case by comparing it to the Arthur Rubin case? -- in which case I don't really understand the point you're making. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry everyone. I meant Winhunter. I've been reviewing Arthur Rubin pages all evening so it was at the tip of my fingers. Winhunter has been absent from these proceedings (and not Arthur Rubin in their respective case). Essentially, I'm pointing out that a major factor in the Winhunter request has been procedure, specifically adherence to administrative procedure regarding blocking and ADMINACCT. The substance of complaints about a lack of procedure becomes diminished when now calls are being made to forego procedure in the very process used to investigate administrative misconduct. My second point was that unsubstantiated speculation about Winhunter's absence cannot and should not be used to determine a means of recourse against them. Mkdw talk 04:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to highlight again that the original complaint leading to this case came from Best Known For, a community banned long term vandal. The community considered the complaint from the vandal and the (lack of) response from Winhunter substantial enough to discuss desysopping and agreed by straw poll that this case should be filed. The editor who took the initiative to type out the filing statement is only one of a number of editors who participated in that discussion (most also have statements on this page); Twitbookspacetube earning a ban and being unable to participate shouldn't hold up this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd like to suggest that the Toddst1 case is a poor precedent for this situation. Toddst1 was a very active administrator who responded to a discussion about their actions by leaving the project for most of a year, and I believe that case was primarily about a history of questionable decisions (I have not read in detail), not unresponsiveness. An administrator who, like Winhunter, made some questionable actions but only had a case raised because they responded poorly or not at all is SchuminWeb (case), which was suspended with a motion containing a shorter window for the administrator to respond. I suggest such a clause would be appropriate here, given the similarities between the two cases. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I, for one, applaud this motion. The Committee's jurisdiction over administrators must be effective, and unless there is a means of issuing process to compel participation, that jurisdiction would be hollow. While I agree with Ivanvector that a shorter response window, as in the SchuminWeb case, might be more appropriate, I believe at this point the period is entirely to the Committee's discretion. It may be worth holding a policy discussion later, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I second Ivanvector's suggestion that theSchuminWeb motion be used as a model here. I think it would be easier for all parties involved: a short time frame by which the case can be heard, and it means that we might avoid losing an editor for a year like we did in Toddst1 (and yes, I get its an inactive editor, but still). Time limited suspension of the case with a default option is simpler and better for the community in a number of ways. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The SchuminWeb case largely benefitted from participation by several involved parties with only the absence of SchuminWeb. The Winhunter case, if proceeded with now, would include none of the involved parties. This would be extremely irregular, and then need to be suspended regardless. Mkdw talk 15:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think that's a mischaracterization of the situation here. There are numerous involved parties who are not named parties. See the ANI thread, for instance. Holding the case in abeyance for three months is charitable in the first place. The Committee could just as easily hold that Winhunter has defaulted due to failure to communicate any response to the Committee, cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Communication (holding that there are minimum standards of communication), but permit a petition to vacate that default on good cause. Even if all interested—not merely involved—parties were inactive, the Committee's conclusions of policy would be valuable guidance to interpreting and applying WP:ADMINACCT. I see nothing irregular here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (edited to clarify the citation to the Betacommand case 20:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
    • Mkdw, I think the point above that there are non-named parties who could take part in the case is like with SchuminWeb is significant (basically anyone who commented on the ANI post). I have no intention of taking part in this case, and to my knowledge this is actually the first time I've made a comment at Arbcom, but as a completely uninvolved to this point party, I think a shorter time frame and a "default" option would work better here. It would also show that the committee recognizes that ANI/Arbcom flu is a thing, and that admins shouldn't be able to disappear with the affect of avoiding scrutiny. If they returned 10 months from now virtually everyone would have forgotten what the case was about, we'd have a new Arbcom, and the ensuing case would only serve to stir the pot on the contentious issue of questionable decisions by barely active admins. Following the SchuminWeb model effectively sets a cap on the potential for future drama, which I think on balance is a net positive for the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe some comments from other Arbitrators would be helpful. Winhunter's editing history goes back to 2013 in reviewing the last 100 edits. There's more to support that this absence is a standard gap, and not a deviation, than it does to support the speculation that they have ArbCom flu. ArbCom flu definitely exists. It's noticeable when there's a clear behavioural deviation and much more difficult to assess if both routine inactive and ArbCom flu are happening. It's been one month since the incident; one week since the case was opened; relatively speaking, not much time has elapsed. I have not been as concerned about having to review the case later on because the incident was not very complex and fairly isolated (meaning not having a lengthy drawn out history to parse). The quality of the statements in this case request are thorough and easy to quickly review. I wouldn't expect a case, even opened now, to reveal any new critical information. I'm certainly open to hearing more opinions from the community and my fellow arbitrators alike. Mkdw talk 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. I think one of the larger concerns I have is that they make an edit in 10 months to put off desysoping for inactivity as their history does show, the case "reopens" they disappear, there is more drama about whether or not the case should proceed, and we end up with a repeat of this exact conversation when they return to their pattern of not editing. Time limiting this case saves time both for the community and the committee. I probably won't comment further on this, but did want to raise the point as a community member that normally stays away from ArbCom related matters that the alternate option raised by Ivanvector seems like the most commonsense way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Um, I think this section is for comments by arbs. At least, that's the way I remember it always being previously. We may need to increase the clerk pay by 50% to get them to police this more actively. (Or, if I'm wrong, increase my pay by 50% to get me to try harder not be wrong so often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
    • Floquenbeam: You're probably right, but I also remember that many motions had sections for comments by non-Arbitrators. Probably the sections should be explicitly labelled "Comments by Arbitrators" and "Comments by others". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken: that's my recollection too, although mainly (only?) for motions that do not arise out of a current case or amendment request. A section "Comments by others" in all cases with a "please comment in <other location>" when that is desired (for whatever reason) would remove any ambiguity at the cost of the drafting arbitrator needing to decide where they would like comments (as a former arb I can say that this should not be a significant burden, although a lot of what I did behind the scenes was badger people to actually make decisions...). Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
        • In the future, let's have a section called "comments by arbs" and then one for "community comments" or "comments by others" (since the latter are also welcome), as BMK suggests. Not sure if it's too late to sort out this thread or not. Substantively, I am giving Winhunter a couple more days—until this weekend, say—before commenting or voting on the motion. I should also mention, as I have consistently since 2006, that I dislike the "under a cloud" terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Isn't the "comments by others" just the statements? ~ Rob13Talk 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Comments down here specifically on the proposed motion, as opposed to the overall case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Since it's a comments fest, Opibina captures the gist of my thoughts, and I think it is wrong to try to take out the dissatisfaction with our lax activity rule on one admin -- fix the rule. The only thing I might add to a dismissal is 'you've been warned, follow the manual.'-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=798283757"