Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder

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

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)

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

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.

• Eggishorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jonathunder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Righanred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin has removed my account's extended confirmed user rights
• User talk:Jonathunder#Removed extended confirmed user rights
• User talk:Jonathunder#Adminship requires accountability

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

• Eggishorn is granted a word limit extension to 1,000 words. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
      • Accept Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 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. Worm^TT(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. Worm^TT(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

  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. Worm^TT(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]
  • @
    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]

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstentions by motion at 21:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)