Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Winhunter

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Case opened on 11:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Case suspended on 11:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:33, 6 September 2018 (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. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also 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.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Winhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

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. Twitbook space tube 00:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words.

Preliminary decision

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)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/1/0)

(case opened by motion, passed as 9/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting a statement from Winhunter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked and none of the statements thus far materially exceed 500 words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Decline as first choice; second choice below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. Only practical course at this time. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Opabinia. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mkdw and Opabinia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - @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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Isn't the "comments by others" just the statements? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Comments down here specifically on the proposed motion, as opposed to the overall case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm pleased that this is being approached in this way. Given the lack of another way to review admin conduct, the bar should be set pretty low for having ArbCom examine cases where there is widespread community discontent with an administrative action. Although this case was brought by an LTA, it was clear from the dramaboard discussion that some established editors found the block problematic (even though I personally thought it was fine). That being said, it's also unacceptable to try someone in absentia, so keeping this case pending is the way to go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Winhunter: Final Motion

Because Winhunter has been desysopped for inactivity, this case is closed pursuant to the previously adopted motion. Because the automatic desysopping occurred while Winhunter was the subject of a pending arbitration case, he may regain administrator status only by passing a new request for adminship.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Proposed. Although the motion may not be strictly necessary, it is intended to eliminate any questions as to the status of Winhunter's adminship, as several people suggested on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. The outcome may be unfortunate, as an outcome short of desysopping might have been reached if Winhunter had remained active and participated in the case, but at this point I see no alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the comments by Newyorkbrad. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 04:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With a note that I would greatly prefer a wider motion that addresses the recent inability of bureaucrats to make an independent determination of a cloud. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 06:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Callanecc (per mailing list) Katie^talk 20:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Arbitrator comments

Community comments

(from the thread at User talk:Newyorkbrad) At this point, a clean close of the case (with a requirement for a new RFA in the unlikely situation Winhunter wants to take administrative actions again) is clearly the best outcome available. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5