User:Twitbookspacetube/Arbcomprepsandbox

Case Draft

Winhunter and WP:ADMINACCT

Initiated by Twitbook space tube at 03:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Winhunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Winhunter]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1
Link 2

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 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. Twitbook space tube 03:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Winhunter

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.