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
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Expression error: Unexpected mod operator

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given).

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors#Administrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think there is a reasonable application of this principle for both of the parties named in the set of remedies that have been proposed. It is, at worst, a reminder that editors, administrators, and functionaries are human. --Izno (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Donald Albury 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Per comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While true I don't think this ultimately will matter to any FoF or remedy and so I will be either abstaining or opposing. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a solid principle and applies equally to functionaries and arbs too, so I do think it's an important point. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing actions by other administrators

2) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear.

Support:

1. Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Wheel-warring. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. This has important value when considering both Lourdes' and TheresNoTime's actions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Unblocking users

3) Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

Support:

1. Verbatim from Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd like to add that if there has already been a discussion on AN in favor of a block, then an unblocking administrator is probably not going to be looked upon favorably for performing an unblock, even if they are not required to consult the community (see WP:CBAN). Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. I note Floquenbeam states has effectively waived that on their userpage, but this is still a relevant principle. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. per WTT. Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

I would add that unblocking someone so they can participate in an ArbCom case is a decision best left to the committee itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or the clerks on their behalf, of course. Izno (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go further - don't do something in the committee's name, if the committee has not asked for it. Especially, if committee members had asked for it not to be so (I had made it clear that Athaenara could contact us either by email or on her talk page, and specifically asked that her talk page not be locked for that purpose) Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

4) Editors and administrators must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus.

Support:

1. Excerpted and edited from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Consensus. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I dunno. I think it's worth stating explicitly. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I've added a comment in my support for #3 which I think gets to why this principle is relevant more directly. must is also a pretty strong word to use; we aren't required to accept a consensus so long as in rejecting that consensus we are seeking to change it (without disrupting Wikipedia by e.g. forum shopping, canvassing, widespread or slow edit warring, or other disagreeable behaviors). --Izno (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. I can't accept this as written - by excerpting, it does remove all context. One glaring problem with this statement is that there's no difference between local and global consensus, and the risk of walled gardens. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. With similar reasons as Worm That Turned; I find such a blanket statement lacks the necessary nuance. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Izno's comments here. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per comments below by Beeblebrox and Primefac. - Donald Albury 12:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure I like this principle, mostly due to the words "must accept" which I find rather vague. "Must respect" may be better wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above, as well as the issue with excerpting pointed out by Worm That Turned. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that a number of arbs (including me) aren't quite there on this principle. Do we need a separate principle on consensus or do principles 2 and 3 say all that we need to for the facts in this case? I'm genuinely not sure and don't think any of the principles here hit the mark. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I don't think we need one here; 2 and 3 are pretty close to the minimum. Izno (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK ditching this principle, though I still think a version of it would be helpful. It's true that we don't strictly need it for the Lourdes remedies to make sense, especially without a desysop passing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser and Oversight permissions

5) The Arbitration Committee has the primary responsibility for approving and removing access to the CheckUser and Oversight tools on the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy.

Support:

1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Use of CheckUser

6) The CheckUser tool must be used in ways which are, and appear to be, neutral and responsible. Use of the CheckUser tool in situations where there is an apparent conflict of interest or where the CheckUser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out, do not meet these requirements.

Support:

1. Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block#Use_of_CheckUser. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

@Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Izno, and Beeblebrox: Per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Proposed decision#Red-tailed Hawk's comment I've made the minor change of removing "where information is provided to third parties before being made public" which was a holdover from a previous case and not relevant to this case, and was causing confusion. Pinging as you've already voted on this – I'll revert if there's any objection. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me. Izno (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator involvement

7) Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins.

Support:

1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are some points I'd like to clarify here though. If you are expressing strong feelings about a topic, you should be considered INVOLVED - don't be using your admin tools there, get involved in consensus building instead, where your strong feelings have a use. Admins are not super users and should be (where possible) dispassionate about the area they are working. Secondly, the exception to INVOLVED is obvious cases - that is, where no admin would disagree with your action. Think vandalism blocks, or hiding harassment. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Functionary status

8) Functionaries (users holding checkuser or oversight permissions) are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. Users who demonstrate a lack of judgment in an area related to their special access may have their status as functionaries revoked, whether or not an explicit abuse of their privileged access has occurred. See Wikipedia:Functionaries.

Support:

1. Verbatim from Wikipedia:Functionaries. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Donald Albury 12:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

I agree with Guerillero's comment on the talkpage about the "see foo" bit at the end being really awkward. I changed the principle to link Wikipedia:Functionaries in the first word. L235, Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Izno, Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Primefac, Donald Albury, any objections? Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the "See foo" phrasing. But if we're going to change it (and we should perhaps do so consistently throughout this case) I'd prefer According to Functionaries... to make clear we're quoting it not just linking to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as this isn't as uncontroversial as I thought it'd be, I've reverted to the earlier version that was voted on. I don't feel nearly strong enough to change it. Maxim_(talk) 20:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of events

1)

• 7 October 2022
  • TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) and Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) nominate Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) for adminship.
• 11 October 2022
  • 00:44: Athaenara (talk · contribs) posts personal attacks on Isabelle Belato's request for adminship.
  • 00:52: A user opens a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) about Athaenara's post.
  • 01:21: Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocks Athaenara with the reason hate speech or compromised account.
  • 01:32: EvergreenFir opens an arbitration case request, requesting that Athaenara be desysopped.
  • 15:04: The ANI discussion is closed with a statement that "no warning is needed for blocking users who direct such bigoted attacks against other contributors" after nearly all participants endorse the initial block.
  • 18:25: TheresNoTime (talk · contribs) writes on Athaenara's talk page: I recognise your username Athaenara, but I do not recognise your words. To hold such a belief is one thing, but to say it so plain when it did not need to be said... I'm disappointed. I'm hurt for my candidate to whom we'd already explained RfA can be a nasty experience, but we never expected comments like this. I'm hurt for those who read your remarks and have internalised them. I'm hurting for you, who must have such hatred in your own heart to feel and believe such things, where people are merely trying to live their lives. Simply — how dare you?
• 12 October 2022
  • 00:21: TheresNoTime writes on Athaenara's talk page: The fact you think a "24 to 72 hour block" is a suitable response to such a comment demonstrates how wholly unsuited you are to being an admin. Honestly, if you feel like you're being run out of town, keep running.
  • 07:37: Lourdes (talk · contribs) unblocks Athaenara with the log summary Not compromised account. The case is in Arbcom to assess whether this is hate speech or not. In my opinion, this is absolute hate speech and there is no place like this on Wikipedia or anywhere. At the same time, you need to allow the case to have representation from Ath... Unblocking likewise.
  • 08:16 - 08:17: TheresNoTime and another user ask Lourdes to reverse the unblock.
  • 08:24 - 08:37: After being asked by TheresNoTime on IRC, an English Wikipedia checkuser privately shares their assessment based on checkuser data that Athaenara's account was not compromised and that a global lock was not warranted by concerns about account compromise.
  • 08:31: TheresNoTime opens a discussion at ANI requesting that Athaenara's block be reinstated.
  • 08:44: TheresNoTime privately shares on IRC, with other checkusers, their belief that Lourdes and Athaenara were coordinating off-wiki.
  • 08:46 - 08:47: TheresNoTime uses the checkuser tool on Lourdes and Athaenara, both times with the log summary Compromise/collusion.
  • 09:02: TheresNoTime reinstates Athaenara's indefinite block, citing the ANI discussion that opened at 08:31.
  • 12:07: In response to the arbitration case request, Lourdes writes: I agree with TNT's actions post my unblock and their reblock after taking community consensus. My unblock was a good faith attempt to provide an opportunity to Athaenara to respond to the Arbcom case.
  • 17:16: The Arbitration Committee asks TheresNoTime to email the Committee.
  • 17:17: TheresNoTime emails the Arbitration Committee.
  • 17:31: An arbitrator responds to TheresNoTime and begins correspondence regarding TheresNoTime's use of the Checkuser tool. 15 emails are sent between TheresNoTime and the Committee.
  • 18:30: The Arbitration Committee directs the removal of Athaenara's administrative access.
• 13 October 2022
  • 11:42: TheresNoTime files a case request asking for a public examination of the post-block actions of themselves and Lourdes.

Support:

1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Helpful timeline. Noting for myself that TNT's re-block includes a permalink to the state of ANI when they re-blocked, and that I (as an arb) requested Lourdes re-block on her talk page at 08:32. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Lourdes: reversal of Athaenara's block

2) Lourdes reversed Athaenara's block contrary to community consensus. Lourdes failed to contact the blocking administrator or initiate a community discussion before doing so. Following the reversal of the block, Athaenara resumed administrative actions without responding to the arbitration case request. While carried out in good faith, the reversal of the block escalated the controversy and demonstrated poor judgment.

Support:

1. The reversal of the block was incorrect both in substance (because it went against consensus and because Athaenara did not have to be unblocked to participate at ArbCom) and procedurally (the blocking administrator should have been consulted and, in the face of disagreement, a community discussion conducted). The failure to consult with the blocking administrator exacerbated the misunderstanding about Athaenara needing to be unblocked to participate. Had Lourdes consulted Floq, Floq surely could have told Lourdes that ArbCom could receive information by email if required. Both of these failures were but-for causes of everything else that happened here. It was also not a good look to jump into a controversial admin action after having made no edits for a year. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The banning policy explicitly notes that the kind of community consensus found in that discussion is not considered a community ban. So while an individual administrator could reverse it, without crossing a bright line, the failure to respect that consensus escalated the controversy and demonstrated poor judgment. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. This entire fiasco was a story of unnecessary escalation. Lourdes's block reversal was ill-advised and unnecessary. Lourdes suggested that the block was that so Athaenara could participate in the case request. While I understand the sentiment, if ArbCom had wanted Athaenara to directly participate, we could have arranged for some sort of conditional unblock. But to make that action without asking ArbCom if that is what we wanted was especially foolish. Not to mention that it went against emerging consensus. There was no urgency required re:unblocking, but Lourdes took urgent action anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. In addition to the points made in the previous votes I'd note that the purpose of the unblock was not communicated to Athaenara. As such the unblock did not achieve its own stated objective. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. While mindful of Worm's concerns below, support. Donald Albury 12:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Insufficient. Lourdes was quiet (as in, not active in community discussions) for a year prior to this action, the unblock reason (to participate in the case) went against precedent and against specific statements by the committee (that Athaenara could email or respond on their talk page). There was a clear consensus from the community that Athaenara should remain blocked at that point (i.e. at least until they addressed their comments). The worst part about Lourdes action though, in my opinion, is that after making the controversial unblock, they then made no attempt at communication for over four hours. They ignored talk page messages, pings, an ANI and an ongoing Arbcom case. I support everything said, but feel more is needed - so abstain at this point Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

TheresNoTime: involvement in a dispute with Athaenara

3) TheresNoTime was the co-nominator at the request for adminship at which Athaenara opposed. TheresNoTime subsequently sent two strongly-worded talk page messages to Athaenara, writing if you feel like you're being run out of town, keep running and I'm hurt for my candidate. TheresNoTime was therefore involved in a dispute with Athaenara at all relevant times.

Support:

1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a key issue that I don't think TNT adequately recognizes. When you're involved, you don't make good decisions. Which is why we require that admins not operate when they're involved. But TNT did it anyway, and made a bad decision, thus proving the value of the involved policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. The involved admin policy is a core issue in nearly every single case regarding advanced permission holders. It is a bedrock policy that all users of advanced permissions are expected to be familiar with and to consistently follow. It was not followed here, and TNT seemingly cannot or will not see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think even without the talk page messages TNT was involved. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. We talk about being involved like it's a bad thing. TNT's first message was passionate and eloquent to Athaenara and expressed very well the hurt that many in the community were feeling. I want our editors to be able to explain why there is a problem - it is so important to our collaborative atmosphere to be able to get our point across well. Being involved is not a bad thing - it just means you should keep away from using your tools. And for the record, this was one of the most clear breaches of INVOLVED I have seen in a long time. Worm^TT(talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 12:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

TheresNoTime: reinstatement of Athaenara's block

4) TheresNoTime reinstated Athaenara's block following a 31-minute community discussion at which seven users supported immediately reinstating the block and one user opposed immediately reinstating the block. The reinstatement of Athaenara's block was not taken in a straightforward case and was not an obvious action that any administrator would have taken. TheresNoTime's reinstatement of Athaenara's block was therefore prohibited by the policy on involved administrator actions.

Support:

1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To expand on my vote: It is hard for me to imagine any case where reinstating a reversed administrator action (especially the block of another administrator) constitutes an "obvious action" in a "straightforward case[]". In this case, that reinstatement occurred after a 31-minute discussion. We must distinguish between actions that are correct (if done by an uninvolved admin) and those that are so obvious that every reasonable admin would have taken the action. Would some reasonable administrators have reinstated the block after 31 minutes? Sure. Would any administrator have done so? No – I would not have, and I don't imagine I'm alone. If INVOLVED is to mean something, we cannot let the exception swallow the rule. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Athaenara would have been reblocked anyway, which also means there was no reason at all for TNT to rush into doing it themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think I land here for the use of straightforward and less for any (reasonable) administrator (see comment below). This was not a straightforward case given how little time had passed and TNT's own clear lack of detachment. Izno (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. After considerable discussion with some Arbs, I realize my logic was faulty here. I still do not support a desysop. But I see that the action to reblock Athaenara was INVOLVED because there just wasn't a sensible exception on the grounds that this case was not straight forward: it was the Biggest Drama in months. I echo what I said earlier: being INVOLVED leads to bad decisions. As much as I think Lourde's unblock was bad, did it have to be TNT that did the reblock? It only escalated the drama, and led to the oh-so-ill-advised check that is the center of this unsavory sandwich. Discretion is the better part of valor, and that was lacking here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Even in the most trivial situation closing your own discussion is poor form. Acting while INVOLVED is poor form. It was reasonable for anyone other than TNT to reinstate the block. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Donald Albury 12:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. There's been some chatter about "WP:WHEEL" regarding this action. As I've expounded above, Lourdes unblock was clearly against community sentiment (the previous ANI and the open case) - the reason given (to participate in the Arbcom case) was not required by Arbcom, and Athaenara did not participate but instead went back to editing. An uninvolved admin re-instating this block, especially after getting a bit of feedback at ANI would have been reasonable - and not wheelwarring, and therefore we are correctly not focussing on that. However, as explained above, this was an INVOLVED action and therefore problematic. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Meh. I think Lourdes's unblock was pretty obviously bad. The rationale was faulty, it was taken urgently without proper consideration. There was emerging consensus that the block should be reinstated. Now, I do think the issue was not that urgent that it had to be done only half an hour later. Do I think any reasonable admin would have done it? I lean yes, but I'm not sure, which is why I land here I'll also note that the block and the CU-ing are different issues. Even if the re-block was obvious, that does not make the CU-ing an obvious action anyone would have taken. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to support. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As an aside, I am uncomfortable with WP:INVOLVED's flip-flop from any administrator to any reasonable administrator in obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. --Izno (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, "any administrator" is the actor (the involved admin whose action we are examining) and "any reasonable administrator" is the test of the action – i.e., the yardstick by which we measure the action. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention in the principle, the key word is "obvious". Obvious means absolutely certainly non-controversial. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think INVOLVED's wording needs a little changing at some point. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime: use of checkuser

5) TheresNoTime used the checkuser tool on Athaenara and Lourdes after forming an apparent belief that Lourdes and Athaenara may have been coordinating their actions off-wiki. TheresNoTime's use of the checkuser tool was not taken in a straightforward case and was not an obvious action that any checkuser would have taken. TheresNoTime's use of the checkuser tool was therefore prohibited by the policy on involved administrator actions. Even if TheresNoTime had not been an involved administrator, the use of the checkuser tool on Lourdes was not justified by the available evidence and demonstrated poor judgment.

Support:

1. What happened in this case is the biggest reason, in my opinion, while WP:INVOLVED is policy. It's not just to keep faith and trust in actions - though it most definitely is that. The reason we don't want to have an INVOLVED admin (or in this case checkuser) taking action is to keep people from performing bad actions because they're too close to the situation to apply good judgement. Not knowing that Lourdes had been active because of how little editing she'd done is a mistaken I can see many, including myself, making. So I would characterize that as a mistaken check rather than a bad check. But to then check Athaenara shows, I feel, TheresNoTime's compromised decision making. The idea that it was necessary to check Athaenara against Lourdes means ThereNoTime was, as far as I can tell from their statements both in the public evidence (ancillary to the check of Lourdes and to the committee privately, considering that either some third party had compromised two admin accounts, Athaenara had compromised Lourdes account, or that there would be proof of some email being sent which would suggest, at most, the potential of Athaenara failing to follow the WP:UNBLOCK guideline. Alternatively TheresNoTime gave more weight to the suggestion of compromoise, repeated statements by editors that they believe the account to be compromised} by editors in no position to know than the 3 checkusers who had already performed a check. And I will note one of the users who suggested a possible compromise (Floq) had withdrawn that suggestion following their study of Athaenara's previous behavior, which is of course standard in checkuser investigations. TLDR the check of Athaenara was a bad check on its on and made worse and (in my opinion) caused by TNT being INVOLVED. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. The crux of poor decision making here. As I wrote earlier, and as Barkeep astutely points out, this is why the INVOLVED policy exists. When you're involved, you make dumb decisions. I think TNT acted in good faith. But being involved clouded TNT's decision making. There is just no world in which it made sense that Lourdes was compromised. I understand suspicion that Athaenara was compromised, and that is supported by the fact that two other CU's did checks at the time, and ArbCom asked one of said CUs for the results. But to check Lourdes? That was an utter failure and a very foolish move. I also think that checking Athaenara was not particularly necessary by that point. TNT and the CU I referred to earlier actually had a discussion on IRC about the first check, before TNT made what was by then the third check. The idea that somehow, improbably, Athaenara had been compromised between the first and third check was not supported by any possible reality. Ultimately, being INVOLVED led TNT to make a series of very foolish decisions, and I expect TNT to learn from that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Izno (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. These checks were entirely unjustifiable for TNT to make. It would make no difference whatsoever if they had found the evidence of collusion they were looking for. Functionaries (and stewards for that matter) are supposed to have the policy knowledge and judgement not to do things like this. CUs are a team, if you run into something you shouldn't personally pursue, you ask another member of the team to look into it and take whatever action they deem appropriate. We've pretty much all done this at some point, and yes, sometimes they don't do what you would have done. That's actually the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support the Finding and all the comments above. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Donald Albury 13:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support this and the comments from the other committee members. This was poor decision making from TNT, likely because they were too close to the subject. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. I find the checks here to be quite poor regardless of involvement. The fact that TNT is involved makes these checks over-the-top poor. Maxim_(talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Concur with above. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Lourdes: desysopped

1) For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is desysopped. She may regain the administrative tools at any time only through a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Oppose:

1. As I noted in the FoF this was not a brightline violation and so the facts in this case do not, on their own, justify removal of the tool. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Izno (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lourdes's decision was bad, but not desysop worthy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Too far. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per those above me. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. I believe that Lourdes' action was incendiary, and any reasonable individual would have considered it such. Taking such an action and then not communicating with anyone for over 4 hours, despite multiple direct requests is concerning. As is the link Kevin points out. However, when considered together, I cannot reach a "this person should be desysopped" view. It is significantly problematic and if there had been evidence of previous poor decision making, I may have been voting differently. Worm^TT(talk) 16:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Donald Albury 21:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Not the right answer. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The community has the right to expect the highest standards of conduct and judgment from its administrators, and I think it's fair to say that those expectations very much not met. Lourdes's actions here dramatically escalated the situation, and without them we would not be here right now. Lourdes has expressed regret for her actions, but has also expressed that It is my administrative opinion that post-hoc block endorsement over a limited time by a limited number of editors may fall in the grey area of personal judgement, that there is reasonable good faith opportunity that may be given to the blocked party. (and has not since retracted that view). My view is that administrators are bound not to act against consensus even when they disagree, and that "personal judgment" cannot overrule a consensus decision absent extraordinary circumstances (on which the admin better be correct). However, I recognize the difficult circumstances and absent a change in circumstances will keep my vote at an abstain. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would consider supporting this, largely due to Lourdes' lack of communication per ADMINCOND. At present, though, we do not have a finding that reaches desysop, so I will think about whether I feel I should create a new finding. Noting, I'll hold off voting for any Lourdes remedy while I think about this. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lourdes has more than met the expectation of ADMINCOND following the reblock and during this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that Lourdes has been accessible throughout this case, but I'm still not happy about her unblocking in such controversial circumstances and then ignoring all requests for discussion or reinstatement for over 4 hours. This was the flashpoint and was obviously going to be, and to take that sort of action and then not respond for a noticeable period - that is crossing a line. Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single bad unblock and not being accessible for four hours feels short of the standard (at least for me) to support a desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that point of view - which is the reason I've not immediately supported this remedy, nor am I certain it's worth expanding the finding that I'm abstaining on above - since it's already passing in it's current form. Worm^TT(talk) 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes: admonished

2) For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is admonished.

Support:

1. First choice over Remedy 3. Per my comments in Remedy 1, I don't think this overstates the issue. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed with L235 here, I think, but only weakly in preference to remedy 3. --Izno (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't care about the word "admonished" vs "warned", I've not cared about the levels of warning for as long as I can remember. The reason I'm here, is that I believe these breaches of administrative norms were serious. Lourdes is aware of our processes, she follows arbcom (Her last 250 edits goes back 18 months and 124 edits are to Arbcom pages) - so I'm not happy with the unblock to participate. Yet, she claims that the wider block was correct on these arbcom pages. Combined with her inactivity for the following 4 hours after taking an action which would act as a catalyst, I struggle to see it as a good faith action. It may not rise to a desysop, but it is a serious breach. A line was crossed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice over Remedy 3. Donald Albury 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Overstates the seriousness of the breach. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer 3 CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 3. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prefer 3. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lourdes: warned

3) For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.

Support:

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lourdes, as a practical matter, I think you should have given more consideration to community consensus and the consequences of your actions. It was foreseeable that reversing a brightline block soon after its implementation would be poorly received. Unblocking was not urgent, yet you took urgent action anyway. Blocking is often urgent, unblocking is almost never urgent. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. To be blunt, it was pretty dumb to unblock when we had already invited Athaenara to comment on the case request via email, which was the stated reason for unblocking. A warning as a minimum while I contemplate the admonishment. Izno (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. A distant second choice to Remedy 2. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cabayi (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. At a minimum. Still thinking about stronger sanction.Second choice after Remedy 2. Donald Albury 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Edited 21:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. The locus of the Lourdes-specific parts of the findings is one less-than-ideal unblock that escalated an already inflamed situation. I think that the main reason that we are even considering it is because of the events prior and after this specific unblock, so I am content to leave things with a warning. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Insufficient - serious breach. Worm^TT(talk) 16:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

TheresNoTime: CheckUser removed

4) For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.

Support:

1. We all make mistakes. It is what we do after the mistakes are evident that is the true test, and TNT's utter unwillingness to consider that they were involved makes me have no trust whatsoever in their judgement, and that is something we have to have with the functionaries as they have access to our most powerful and potentially harmful tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. My hope, when we had initiated a dialogue with TheresNoTime, was to end up on the same page regarding involved actions. While it's not common that the Arbitration Committee will reach out to a functionary over an action, it does happen from time to time, and it generally gets amicably resolved, with a mutual understanding. Here, it is not the case. I am not satisfied with an offer to "SPI [...] and incredibly obvious socks", because we need to have trust in a checkuser's judgement as a whole. For a user right that involves handling editors' non-public data, such an arrangement would not be acceptable. I am also unhappy about the constant escalation shown over the course of the matter (particularly well-summarized by Worm That Turned on the PD talk as "[you] have constantly been on the attack, accusing committee members of aspersions, not following policy, even bigotry."), which also falls short of the high standards of behaviour expected of functionaries. To summarize, I am voting to remove CU, first because I do not believe that TheresNoTime and the committee are on the same page whatsoever regarding WP:INVOLVED, and second because of the ongoing escalation related to the matter. Together, both fall well short of what is expected of functionaries. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. KrakatoaKatie used to regularly remark during CUOS appointments that being appointed a functionary is not some "good admin" badge. I take seriously the idea that functionaries (users holding checkuser or oversight permissions) are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. I expect functionaries to be able to be expert not only on policy but to have the self-awareness to know when not to act and to otherwise remove themselves from a situation. TheresNoTime clearly failed to have that self-awareness in this case. However, I had been fairly persuaded by TNT that this would be a one off failing not likely to happen again. Truthfully, and I don't think I hid this, I wanted to be persuaded. I also expect functionaries to be able to handle difficult situations in a way that hopefully lowers the temperature (passion) of the situation but at least doesn't make it worse. In fact I explicitly noted this as the reason why I hadn't yet cast my vote against this remedy. I count at least 4 times in the course of this case where TheresNoTime did not meet this standard.
   Those times are: when they reblocked Athaenara (after 31 minutes) after a comment which itself was temperature raising, in an email during their private correspondence with the committee recieved by ArbCom at 9:53 UTC on October 13 (and while I wouldn't equate it with this email, other arbs have noted concern over two other emails), in the way they chose to comment at the case request (and to be clear I think there's a version of this that lowers rather than raises the temperature so it's not TNT exercising their right to have this held in public that I find troubling because I would defend that choice), and in today's comments on the talk page which started off in the realm of heated but to be expected at a stressful case (17:50) and then were escalated or held firm rather than finding a diplomatic solution multiple times (18:00, 18:26, and 19:07) before striking one of the comments (19:37).
   I understand that some would characterize this as one incident rather than four but the reason I don't is that each complicated and increased the drama of the situation in its own way. I know some would say that Arbs volunteer to handle some difficult situations with grace and aplomb to which I would respond so do functionaries. As I don't, to my great regret (and admittedly a degree of nervousness as I come to the end of this rationale for the vote), have trust in TNT to meet the high standard of being a functionary going forward I find myself voting for removal while also echoing everything Worm said here. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Functionary appointments reflect the high trust placed in the holder and are contingent on ArbCom's continuing "high trust", and for good reason – functionaries exercise critical grey-zone functions behind closed doors and with limited day-to-day oversight. ArbCom withdraws functionary appointments when it lose[s] confidence in an editor's ability to serve as a functionary or when the functionary has abused their privileges (such as by performing checks [...] that do not qualify under the criteria) (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight § Removals). TheresNoTime's reinstatement of Athaenara's block and their use of the checkuser tool on Athaenara and Lourdes were unambiguously prohibited by policy – it wasn't a close question. Despite having several opportunities to acknowledge this, TheresNoTime on 19 October (a week after the initial actions) instead reaffirmed their belief that my current stance is that no, my actions were not prohibited by the letter of WP:INVOLVED, due to the listed exception. For these reasons and those given by my colleagues, I lack confidence in [the] editor's ability to serve as a functionary and reluctantly support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Like Barkeep, I echo Worm That Turned's thoughts. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Reading back over my last few comments regarding TNT, I think I'd made up my mind a while ago, but I wanted to sleep on it. I don't want to go into too much detail here, because I don't think there's much left to be said. I believe that TNT's actions with the CU was wrong, on multiple fronts (involved and not appropriate even if not involved) - but as I've said in the comments section, I would have preferred this handled off wiki as a learning exercise. The manner in which TNT has approached everything over the past 2-3 weeks, appears to be combative and not open to feedback (Barkeep, above, summarises many of the areas, though I believe there were more). I therefore no longer trust them to hold the advanced user rights on en.wp. Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. TNT's decisions were decidedly dumb. But I remain unconvinced that this rises to the level of removing permissions altogether. Looking back at other de-CUing cases, they involved a pattern of bad checks, or a single egregious violation. I see the check as a violation. But egregious? It pales compared to say the Alex Shih case. Ultimately, I think that TNT made a foolish decision under the considerable strain of the situation. I counsel TNT that ArbCom's view of INVOLVED is tighter than theirs, and would suggest they be overcautious rather than under cautious. But I don't think this issue will re-occur. TNT expressed regret, and apologized. We don't need case participants to grovel before us until we've had our pound of flesh. The Arbitration process is stressful and TNT is entitled to defend themselves and explain their actions. Going forward, I expect TNT to learn from their mistakes. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments

We have removed CU "for cause" twice in my recent memory, and both situations included a pattern of poor behaviour and multiple attempts to handle elsewhere. As such, I do not believe we can or should be comparing them. What we need to decide here is whether TNT retains the trust of the committee (and community) to remain a CU - was this event egregious enough to remove the CU? Had this played out behind the scenes, as I would have preferred, TNT would have been given some strong feedback, and we could have all been on our way. Instead, they appeared to double down, cited rules that didn't make sense, threw accusations at the committee and insisted on an open case - making for a lot of "drama" that wasn't needed. I'm heartened by their comments on this PD talk page, but I'm not sure it's enough. Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For editors who might not look at the talk page, I would like to note this discussion among a few arbs and TNT. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page, TheresNoTime has requested the removal of their CU/OS permissions at meta. Given the advanced stage of the voting here, I think it would be logistically easiest to complete voting on these remedies as if the resignation had not occurred. I think that's better than the somewhat bureaucratic thing we've done in the past, which is to scrap these remedies and write a new FOF and remedy confirming that the user is not eligible for routine reinstatement of permissions (e.g. FOF and Remedy). I recognize this has been a hard case and wish TheresNoTime all the best in their future endeavors. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime: Oversight removed

5) For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.

Support:

1. Being a functionary is a position of the utmost trust, and I simply do not trust their judgement anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Removal of one functionary permission for cause is reason to remove the second one, because of the higher level of trust required for functionary status. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision § Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Oversight removed, arbitrators made the convincing case that the lack of confidence in a functionary's judgment should result in removal of both functionary permissions if applicable. I have voted to support Remedy 4 and therefore support this remedy. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per my comments at CU and Maxim here. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I no longer sufficiently trust TNT to hold these user-rights. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. For one, this wasn't about OS. For two, I don't think we should remove the CU bit anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments

• I want to note that I intend to vote on Remedy 4 and Remedy 5 in tandem – I can't see myself supporting de-CU but not de-OS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was hoping you would provide some rationale for why you believe they must stay or go together. I can conceive a reason for it, but having the drafters' comments on it would be valuable. Izno (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if they have to go together for others, but they go together for me because of Principle 8. A functionary who warrants removal of one functionary tool has in my view lost the trust required for the other too. Both functionary roles are only granted to exceedingly few users and after a high level of scrutiny and review by the community, and after review and the support of Arbitration Committee (WP:UAL). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, just a single level, which is the same level, required for both, for you. Ok. I think there are multiple facets to how the tools can be (ab)used, and the use of a CU as in this case (as explained by TNT) does not equate to how OS could be (ab)used for me. Izno (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime: desysopped

6) For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is desysopped. They may regain the administrative tools at any time only through a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Oppose:

1. While I am yet undecided (to my great regret) about TheresNoTime as a functionary, it's precisely because of Functionaries... are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. that I am undecided. The conduct in this case is insufficient to merit a desysopping. The best argument would be around WP:WHEEL but I don't think that happened and as of this vote there isn't even a proposed FoF suggesting it did. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Barkeep. Izno (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. The issue was chiefly a functionary one, not an admin one. As far as the reblock goes, I think it was subpar, but not the worst decision made in this fiasco. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I do not believe TNT's actions from an admins perspective with regards to this case reach the level of a desysop, nor that they have lost the wider trust of the community that this is needed. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. In light of TNT's new talk page statements here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. While I find that TheresNoTime's actions fall below what is expected of an administrator, I don't believe that they rise to the level that requires a desysop at this point, and as the level of trust required for administrators is not quite the same as for functionaries, I am comfortable trying the route of an admonishment first. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Donald Albury 21:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Clearly, this has already failed, but I'd like to register my opinion anyway. I was holding off voting on this while considering the WP:SUPERMARIO aspect of this. In this case, it is Super-super Mario, in that the TNT has user rights "above" adminship. I therefore held the concern that we might just be kicking the can down the road, a mistake this committee, historically, has made many, many times. The key difference here, to me anyway, is that it is easy to block and unblock, there are a few thousand of us able to do so, and mistakes get made sometimes. It is literally impossible to undo a user check, once it is done it is done. The re-block and the bad user checks are part of the same nexus of poor decisions that TNT was very slow to acknowledge were in clear violation of the involved admin policy, but the checks are clearly a far more egregious error in judgement than one involved block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. This doesn't feel like the correct remedy. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments

TheresNoTime: admonished

7) For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.

Support:

1. My comments on the other issues lay out the concerns I have. TNT made a very dumb decision. I expect TNT to learn from their mistakes going forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. At a minimum, while I contemplate the others. --Izno (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. From an admin perspective, certainly, and at a minimum for functionary perspective. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. At minimum with thanks to Worm for noting that there was admin actions that were also short of standard even if the focus of this, for me, is on CU. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Assuming Remedy 6 doesn't pass. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Donald Albury 21:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. At the point where this was being contemplated as an ArbCom motion rather than a case this remedy looked to me to be the high-water-mark. TNT's continued doubling-down and the delay before any realistic self-reflection set in have made this remedy a low-water-mark. Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We always hope a remedy like this is enough, but TNT's behavior since the events that prompted this case make it clear that this is not a sufficient response. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments

An idea which has occurred to me. If the committee decides not to de-CU(OS) TNT, I think I would like to propose an alt (or perhaps two ALTs). The alt would admonish for admin actions (alt 1?) and admonish and warn that future CUOS breaches could result in immediate removal of the tool(s) (alt 2?). While this second half is already implicit in the remedy above, I think there's value in making it explicit to everyone that it is the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC) by L235.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrators	10	0	1		·
2	Reversing actions by other administrators	11	0	0		·
3	Unblocking users	11	0	0		·
4	Consensus	3	4	1		·
5	CheckUser and Oversight permissions	11	0	0		·
6	Use of CheckUser	11	0	0		·
7	Administrator involvement	11	0	0		·
8	Functionary status	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Timeline of events	10	0	0		·
2	Lourdes: reversal of Athaenara's block	10	0	1		·
3	TheresNoTime: involvement in a dispute with Athaenara	11	0	0		·
4	TheresNoTime: reinstatement of Athaenara's block	10	0	0		·
5	TheresNoTime: use of checkuser	11	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Lourdes: desysopped	0	9	2		·
2	Lourdes: admonished	4	3	3		·	Three are first choice to 3
3	Lourdes: warned	9	1	1		·	Three are second choice to 2
4	TheresNoTime: CheckUser removed	5	1	0		·
5	TheresNoTime: Oversight removed	5	1	0		·
6	TheresNoTime: desysopped	0	11	0		Cannot pass
7	TheresNoTime: admonished	8	1	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments