Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder/Preliminary statements

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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.

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Eggishorn[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jonathunder[edit]

Statement by Righanred[edit]

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

Statement by ToBeFree[edit]

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

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

Statement by OID[edit]

"simple and rather easily-explainable admin activity"

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

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

Statement by Deepfriedokra (re: Jonathunder)[edit]

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

Statement by RoySmith[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Timtrent[edit]

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

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

Serial[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by GeneralNotability[edit]

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

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

Statement by Robert McClenon (Jonathunder)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum on Waiting for Statement[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Paul August[edit]

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

Statement by Pawnkingthree[edit]

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

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

Statement by Valereee[edit]

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

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

Statement by NightWolf1223[edit]

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

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

Statement by Dennis Brown[edit]

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

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

Statement by Kudpung[edit]

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

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

Statement by Floq[edit]

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

Statement by Xaosflux[edit]

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

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

Statement by WaltCip[edit]

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

Statement by QEDK[edit]

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

Statement by Swarm[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder/Preliminary_statements&oldid=1074179837"