Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts WP:ARC WP:A/R/C Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide . Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section ( more information ). Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning. Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page. Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Initiated by — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) at 11:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• TheresNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Lourdes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1115825143

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• N/A

Statement by TheresNoTime

I have been accused by ArbCom, in private, of being

. Some elements of this accusation are well-founded and contain private information, so require a private case — these are not the elements I wish to litigate here, and such discussions should continue in private.

I do however wholly dispute the concept that I am involved in my (re)block of Athaenara — my passionate standing up against bigotry does not mean I am unable to act impartially. I took steps to gain emergent consensus before reinstating a block which has now been proven to have been one any administrator may have made.

I dislike ArbCom's penchant for trying to handle things which should be public in private. I believe the community has not only a right to know that I have made (alleged) mistakes, but also which arbitrators believe that standing up against hatred makes an administrator involved.

I've listed Lourdes as a party as I think that's the correct thing to do, but I am not calling for any action against them — it's my opinion that it was a bad unblock, but we've discussed this via email. People make mistakes.

Funny how something which was made into a huge deal privately, has given me anxiety to the point of sickness and had me contemplating every single edit I've made, now gets dismissed so easily when made public. Folks, this is ArbCom — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One benefit here I suppose is not having to wait six hours to get even an acknowledgement — if ArbCom thinks this is an appropriate way of handling these situations, with the mental anguish this is causing, then we seriously need to fix things. Or perhaps the committee just doesn't care much for attempting to make reasonable adjustments — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ADMINACCT request & would not be permitted to discuss under NDA regardless, 3) CU blocks are appealable to CUs or ArbCom only. The unblock rationale here was merely a question asking why they hadn't seen the technical results. I responded. I probably shouldn't have also declined the unblock request in my response. 4) see 2 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

letter of the policy with every single one of the 100s of WMF employees. However, I thank you for bringing it up for review, it's certainly the right thing to do — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@OwenBlacker: Thank you. I'll reiterate, there are some elements of the ArbCom (private) case which are well-meaning and founded. I've certainly made some mistakes surrounding this which I regret, and have apologised as such. The waters are still muddied with the question of involvement — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the note of an OC report, I've already self-referred. I offered to do so in my first discussion with ArbCom. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

ola and may I offer my apologies with no qualifications to the community for my action which got this case opened? Let me put forward that TNT is not in the wrong here at all and it is really sad to see some of the comments left against TNT. Most of the comments against me are not off the mark. The block by Flo was before community consensus was reached. 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. My view of Ath's comment is clear -- there is no place for such comments on or off Wikipedia (it's appalling, to say the least). I will surely stand by the community's and the arbcom's guidance and directions on this matter -- my apologies again.

I would hope that no directions are brought against TNT as almost everything they did should have been done as they did it.

Rest, on my activity, my past edits haven't been that resplendent and I have faced quite some regional media flack that I had to control. So I try to stay off the grid, yet contribute administratively to support my fellow colleagues, friends and editors as much as I can.

This place is a place of friendly and warm people. I would strive hard with my actions to keep it that way. Let me know if you might want me to clarify anything more.

Love, Lourdes 05:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Genericusername57

I ask that ArbCom also consider an incident from this past spring. In March TheresNoTime CU-blocked CalderRC without naming a master or sock account.[1] Pbritti says that CalderRC contacted him off-wiki to ask about the block. In June, Pbritti raised the issue with TheresNoTime[2]. TNT first blanked Pbritti's question, with the edit summary zero interest in interacting with anyone who considers someone like that an "acquaintance"[3], then declined CalderRC's unblock request, out of process[4], then blanked a second inquiry from Pbritti[5].

• In response to TNT's points:
  • 1. Yes, but if you sock-block an established editor without naming a master, it's natural that other people might ask about it.
  • 2. Pbritti asked you twice to explain an admin action. Clearly
    WP:ADMINACCT
    does apply here. If the block involved private information, you could have said so at the time.
  • 3. It's generally inappropriate for an admin to block a user, then decline that same user's unblock request. A single person shouldn't be wikt:judge, jury and executioner.
• Regarding Pbritti's comment: I know nothing about any off-wiki interactions between CalderRC and TheresNoTime. Of course I don't condone any sort of profane language. gnu57 16:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I don't know the details of this case, but I have had previous concerns about TNT violating

.

At the time, their response I was alluding to the fact that I could only ever (un)block an account in the role of a volunteer, which (and this is something we disagree on) means I'll only ever evaluate the situation from the point of view of a volunteer was very concerning to me; if I have read it correctly it means that they believe an external relationship can never cause them to become involved.

To explain, EdTestCommons02 is an account used by Edward Tadros, a WMF employee, for testing purposes. It was blocked for sock puppetry by Guerillero, in relation to an ongoing discussion about

vandalism-only sock

.

Six hours later the account was unblocked by TNT, an action that I believe was an involved violation because of their relation to the blocked employee, because of their employment by the WMF, and because of their strong feelings on the block.

• TNT and Edward Tadros are both employed by the WMF; TNT works in Community Tech, while Tadros works in Test Engineering Support. There is significant crossover between these teams with two employees, Dom Walden and George Mikesell, sitting on both; it is likely that TNT and Tadros have interacted, and continue to interact, outside of enwiki.
• A WMF employee unblocking another WMF employee who was blocked in relation to their work duties is problematic independent of any relation between the two employees due to external motivations; having such influence and using it for the benefit of the company will be seen positively by their colleagues and managers which can be reflected in performance reviews - it's no different to an admin employed by Amazon unblocking an account used by another Amazon employee to edit Amazon (company).
  I don't believe that TNT was considering such external motivations when they unblocked the account but that is the issue; they don't properly consider whether they are involved before acting.
• They also had strong feelings on the block, seeing it as a part of a "witch hunt", that made it inappropriate for them to act as administrator in relation to it. Their comments on Guerillero's talk page are also relevant.

I hope that the arbitration committee will consider whether TNT has violated

WP:INVOLVED beyond their CU and reblock of Athaenara, because as I have outlined there appears to be a relevant pattern of behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by OwenBlacker

Both TheresNoTime and Lourdes were clearly acting in good faith and it's a stretch to describe it as a wheel-war, especially that it all happened pretty quickly during a very contentious and rapidly-moving event.

Frankly, I found the calls for censure of TheresNoTime disappointing, I find their summons disconcerting and the rapid dismissals of any case to be heartening.

Many LGBTQ+ users have found these recent events to be distressing and stressful. That some users feel it appropriate to increase the amount of stress and distress this admin is experiencing is, to be honest, pretty distasteful. —

]

Statement by Amakuru

As I said above, this case should be declined. Both Lourdes and TheresNoTime were IMHO in the wrong in what they did - Lourdes for

]

Statement by RoySmith

Sigh. Both of these actions were disappointing. This was already being handled by arbcom. Regardless of the outcome, there was no need for any action by anybody else. But, really, I'm more disappointed by TNT's reblock. If "(re)blocking the user who insulted my RfA nominee" isn't

And from a steward?

Trout both of you.

Statement by Leaky Caldron

In order to reassure the community at large that Admins SELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY have exercised their extremely powerful rights appropriately REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE, PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT OR WHAT THEY EARNESTLY BELIEVE TO BE THE CORRECT ACTION, there needs to be some formal action of investigation. Such action would be entirely consistent with previous instances. I see no reason to make this set of exceptional circumstances any more "exceptional" than previous cases involving contentious, exceptional circumstances. No justification for "privacy", the circumstances do not involve anonymity. To quote, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

Statement by Botto

I wasn't involved with Athaenara's arbitration case, nor the community ban request at the administrators' noticeboard. However, I did provide input shortly after Athaenara made her personal attack and the continued conversation after the initial discussion closure, which prompted a slew of drama and unwelcome attention to not only the site, but Wikimedia itself. At this point, I feel like this is an unnecessary step and that the stick should be dropped, so far as arbitration is concerned. The community was prompt with denouncing & condemning the offending editor, as well as the committee. The basis of this complaint seems to be an argument about what should be handled privately vs. publicly -- I mean that in a very non-aphorical sense, as it sounds like concerns were raised via email that TheresNoTime doesn't wish to be too specific about, while also hoping for lines of communication to be more open. While being sympathetic to the emotional damage inflicted by Athaenara, it seems like this confrontation cannot be constructive. BOTTO _(T•C) 14:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Pbritti

Not entirely sure how the heck it got all the way to me but I can verify that 1.) Genericusername57's account is correct as far as it involves me and that 2.) I have private evidence that heavily suggests TNT's actions were the result of personal disdain for an editor off-site. Of course, the same private evidence has led me to have some disdain for editor who was blocked in that interaction due to his use of profane slurs against TNT in an off-wiki discussion. Will provide evidence if requested in a formal manner. Good luck to ArbCom in sorting this mess. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Sideswipe9th's point below: I saw the CU log CU-blocklog when the issue was first raised with me but the evidence I was given by CalderRC initially and then later the same day suggests the CU was an attempt to falsely legitimize an indeff based on personal animosity. This is further suggested by TNT's edit summaries when blanking my questions. Those with CU rights have a lot of leeway, though, and I have no clue if this is somehow against policy. Simply building off other comments as I really don't care that Calder caught a block perhaps out of procedure; he was potentially engaged in off-wiki harassing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Arbcom has expedited the Athenara issue cleanly and efficiently. This should not be an opening for a witchunt on other admins whatever gender they might be, for simply acting in good faith. TheresNoTime and Lourdes have served Wikipedia and/or the entire 'movememt' without a blemish, let this not be a ruse to tarnish their good work,. I realise Arbcom sometimes finds it hard to let a case request go without imposing at least some mark of their authority, but even an admonishment for just doing their job in good faith as admins would be just as out of place as a trout delivered by a peanut gallery at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: no one's accusing Arbcom of conducting a witch-hunt. Quite to the contrary, they rarely do any investigation of their own. OTOH, once opened at a noticeboard of any kind, including elections (especially RfA), it is characteristic of the community to use the opportunity to trawl a user's history to drag up any dirt they can find beyond the case in question and bay for more blood. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (TheresNoCase)

I considered writing {{facepalm}} as my entire statement, but that would be unhelpful. As unhelpful as this case would be.

The Athaenara situation is highly polarizing, and everyone (admins, anyway) seems to be acting and to have acted in what they believe to be the best interest of Wikipedia, and

]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (2)

To gnu57: Looking at the texts of

]

Statement by WaltCip

How much more blood do people really want? --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Yes, and I commend her for nominating it preemptively. But I'm a bit agitated by people (even if just two users) digging up her prior actions as if there were an actual real case here beyond just the wrist-slap. I'm certainly not directing any ire at ArbCom; they do what they have to do. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq (TNT)

I don't really understand what is going on with the private something or other (which I suppose is a feature not a bug). If I squint, I can maybe see what TNT is trying to do here, but I don't think it's an effective use of time. I agree w/ the Arbs who have posted so far that a wrist slap might be in order - not because of TNT's "passionate standing up against bigotry", but because they were a nominator of the victim of the personal attack. As long as there is no sanction for this public issue during whatever private stuff is happening, I think this could be wrapped up quickly. I obviously have no comment on the other stuff I have no clue about.

Oh, and I don't get the ArbCom-slamming going on here ("...out of a desire to look busy"? "how much more blood do people want"? "witchhunt"?); TNT opened the case request, not any Arbs. They're all saying so far they won't take the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

Lourdes is barely active as an editor, making a grand total of one edit in the preceding 12 months (although she has performed a number of speedy deletions and spam blocks during that time) so for her to come in and unblock without consulting anyone, not the blocking admin or the community, or even post on Athaenara's talk page, is definitely suboptimal. It had already been made clear that Athaenara could post a statement on her talk page or email the committee so the unblock was totally unnecessary. TheresNoTime did go to ANI before reversing Lourdes' reversal of Floq's block, so that may not technically be wheelwarring, but they waited only half an hour and should not have been the one to do it anyway, as it was their RfA candidate and this post was clearly that of an editor, not an admin, making them INVOLVED. But there is no need for a case. Just issue trouts, reminders, admonishments or whatever the correct terminology is, and move on. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that the reveal of the CheckUser logs doesn't change my opinion that this is behavior unlikely to be repeated and that having a case seems unnecessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU (TNT)

I'll echo

]

@Valereee: Amended my statement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

LilianaUwU, Lourdes is active in administrative actions. She doesn't show up in contributions history, but in the logs, she's quite active. She's here working. Valereee (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sdrqaz, regarding TheresNoTime

I take issue with the characterisation that a CheckUser block is not an administrative action, and am alarmed by that position. CheckUser blocks are simultaneously subject to our administrative and blocking policies, as well as the CheckUser one. They are not mutually exclusive. Non-administrator CheckUsers (if they ever exist on the English Wikipedia – I'm not referring to quirks in resignation times and whatnot) cannot block. While CheckUser blocks are quite obviously privileged in that the people who can undo them are greatly limited, other facets are not exempt from administrative policy – they are still subject to accountability and conduct and fairness expectations. While those who have signed the confidentiality agreement are limited in what they can explain, enquiries about blocks should not be brushed under the carpet, but instead justified within the bounds of what is permissible.

Nor should an administrator decline unblock requests arising from blocks one has carried out. While said declining administrator has now said that they "probably shouldn't have" declined it, that does not strike me as a reaction that fully recognises that the action was not the right one. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iamreallygoodatcheckers

Ultimately, TheresNoTime violated

, and their unblock was a bad move. This is not a situation where an admin action was urgently needed; it's not like Athaenara was actively causing severe disruption. Furthermore, the seriousness of the INVOLVED violation is mitigated by the fact that the (re)block was likely inevitable.

I don't think there is enough substance here to have a case, and I'd urge you to reject this case, as many of you have already done. Moreover, TheresNoTime should reflect on their poor decision and be a little more careful next time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Looks like the Arbs are already set to do the right thing but I'll chime in just in case. The RfA oppose was maybe the most distressing edit Ive seen in my 15 years on Wikipedia. So if TNT felt moved to make over liberal use of CU or whatever, this should merit only a reminder not the normal tool loss as it was such an in extremis situation.

As for Lourdes, the initial reversal of an admin action is explicitly exempt from WP:Wheel. It could be argued it was pointless to unblock Athaenara to participate in the Arb case, as her RfA oppose had been so disruptive there was nothing she could possibly say to escape the dsysop. But that overlooks the possibility she might have wished to publicly apologise or defend her reputation. Many seem sure that Athaenara meant the RfA oppose as a vicious personal attack. It's more likely she saw the oppose as standing up to Woke orthodoxy, and was so occupied by that dimension she overlooked how hurtful her words were. In the generally case some admins seem way too quick to silence editors who have got into trouble, so in principle it's to be applauded that someone like Lourdes is trying to help the accused have their say. In this particular case though, the oppose vote was so extreme that just letting Athaenara have tp access might have been better. Anyway declining the case & letting the what's been said by Arbs & community members serve as informal reminders for the two admins may be the way to go. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon ( TNT and Lourdes)

First, there is no need for a second case. Second, there is no need to review the administrative actions of Lourdes and TheresNoTime in any Athaenera case. Editors besides Athaenera acted in good faith in the haste of an unpleasant situation, and the principle of

applies. Do not open a separate case, and do not review the conduct of other admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I dont think the waters are muddied at all. TNT made clear their view of Athaenara in this edit. TNT made clear their view that Athaenara should be blocked by bringing the unblock to ANI in the first place. If you are the one asking for a user to be (re-)blocked, then how can you seriously claim to be uninvolved in doing the (re-)block? Beyond the fact that an Arb had already recused from the case above for the very same level of involvement they had as TNT just as a result of having nominated the target of the attack. No, this shouldnt be a demotion from admin, but cmon how can you seriously contest that you are not involved? You cant tell somebody "if you feel like you are being run out of town, keep running", ask that they be blocked at AN/I, and then block them. nableezy - 21:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I find the CU actions, including the words used as the summary, troubling. I hope this is further explained. --Rschen7754 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add from the global CU policy - The tool should not be used for political control and a check like this with this particular rationale really gives off that implication that this was for political control (amend: even if it was not intended for that purpose). While I am not happy with the admin actions, I think that was borderline at worst - however, this changes everything and I am also concerned about the implications globally as TNT is also a steward. (I am also wondering why this matter is not being referred to the OC and/or if this matter has been disclosed to stewards). --Rschen7754 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vermont's comment, I do not think that this was intended for "political control" but it gives off that appearance. I am also troubled by the word "collusion" - is that a standard message of the interface or a custom summary? --Rschen7754 01:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also - my memory on the CU tool is fuzzy, but the log excerpt show that Lourdes was the first user CUed. Wouldn't the recent log actions of Lourdes have come up in the results of the query? (which would call into question proceeding to do at least check #3 of the IP address, if check #2 wasn't done in another tab) --Rschen7754 01:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck part of my comment). --Rschen7754 16:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

Commenting now that the details have been made public – I had a pretty good guess as to what the private aspect was about, since I can see the CU logs. TNT ran a check that they should not have, both from a general CU perspective (evidence did not support the check) and an INVOLVEment perspective (if this were an appropriate check to run, it should have been run by somebody else). I do not think this is a sustained pattern of behavior, and instead was an impulsive and emotional action that is not representative of their behavior. I think they should retain the CU bit, but they need to do some serious reflecting about their actions here.

While I applaud the Committee's efforts at transparency, I do not like the checkuser actions being part of the proposed case scope. The facts of the check in question have been made public, but there is little else that the general editing public can add due to the non-public nature of the CU tool, and so I just do not see public participation bringing any meaningful evidence or commentary that the Committee has not seen for itself. Further, this is the sort of case that brings out everyone who has disagreed with one of the parties, and if use of the CU tool is in scope, I would expect people to bring up past CU blocks by TNT that they disagree with (as seen in the Pbritti/Genericusername57 sections above). If those are brought up, how does the committee intend to handle them? Will they be opening up more of the CU record, or will those concerns be deemed "out of scope" and waved away? I believe a motion to remind/admonish/warn/etc. would be sufficient to deal with the CU aspects, and the case should focus soley on the public administrative actions. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that TNT's check was in part based on a mistaken belief that Lourdes wasn't actively editing (a mistake that several folks have made in this case request, in fact!) - other than one page protection a couple weeks ago, there were no edits for about a year in her contribution history, and yet suddenly she appears to come back from inactivity to unblock. That turns out to be wrong - Lourdes is very active in deletions - but most of us go to the Contributions page to check someone's activity, not their logs. I think the concern about compromise was genuine, just based on an incorrect set of facts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbroken Chain, everything you just said is completely incorrect. Bbb23 had the CU bit revoked for a long-term pattern of behavior and failing to address concerns about their CU use from the committee, and was not desysopped. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trainsandotherthings (TNT case request)

This is rapidly becoming a fishing expedition. TNT's actions were less than optimal during the whole Athaenara affair, but do not even come close to meriting an entire ArbCom case. The issues with TNT's conduct have already been made clear by ArbCom, and there's no way this rises to the level of actually meriting sanctions against TNT beyond a trout or admonishment. Therefore this should not become a case. Again, it is already turning into a fishing expedition / airing of grievances. Can anyone really say that TNT has not been sufficiently talked to about this? I'm thoroughly disappointed to see support for a motion to start a case here. What will such a case even reveal that we don't already know and can be publicly discussed? And can any arb really argue that Athaenara wasn't headed for a swift re-block, regardless of who pulled the trigger? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vermont

Now that the checks are public, it's pertinent to note that there are a multitude of complexities to this case that make it likely that TNT was acting in good faith. That is not to say these checks were justified; rather, that the culmination of concerns (at the time) with Ath's potential compromise, the 1 year+ of no editing from Lourdes preceding the controversial unblock, and the very odd comments from Lourdes sorrounding it, could have made the check seem justified even though it is clearly not in hindsight. I do not believe there is any indication that the checks were made in bad faith.

Regarding Rschen7754's comment, the stewards were informed of this quite early. TNT has been diligent in responding to this. Similarly, to imply that this was an attempt at political control is false. Nothing happened as a result of the check.

I do not believe that a single bad incident, especially when recognized and understood to be so (and where there is strong possibility it was done in good faith), should disrupt years of exemplary functionary service on Wikipedia. I don't think the CheckUser aspect of this case requires anything more than an admonishment. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I know TNT through the Oversight process and my personal experience in that context is that they're willing to make difficult decisions and can

when it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. That's an attitude we need from admins and oversighters, because many problems require fast and decisive action to resolve unclear situations.
That being said, TNT was obviously as nominating someone for adminship creates a strong interest in minimizing oppose voting.
If TNT was involved w/r/t Athaenara, then the question the arbs need to resolve is whether the situation was serious/obvious enough that queries. In my first paragraph I left out checkusers because checkusers have no need to act immediately. With all advanced permissions, you're expected in many cases to err on the side of caution. As an admin or oversighter, that can mean taking action as it's easy to undo an erroneous protection or to unhide a questionable revision. If you're a checkuser, erring on the side of caution means not taking action. There's no way to undo a bad check―the CU now has knowledge they shouldn't and ArbCom can't erase memories. I'd ask that ArbCom apply greater scrutiny to TNT's actions w/r/t use of the CheckUser tool in light of that.
If ArbCom decides that TNT was ]

Statement by Jclemens

Please correct me if I have this timeline wrong, but combining the block log and published extract of CU log below, and adjusting for offsets, it looks to me like...

Wrong timeline collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
00:37 Lourdes' unblock 00:46 TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Lourdes (Compromise/collusion) 00:47 TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Athaenara (Compromise/collusion) 00:47 TheresNoTime got edits for [redacted IP address] (Compromise/collusion) 02:02 TheresNoTime's reblock

My sincerest apologies if I've gotten the timezone adjustments off by an hour; I note the published extract of CU evidence posted below does not contain a TZ designation. I'm assuming that there was no point in TheresNoTime running a CU after the reblock, so I believe TheresNoTime's CU actions logically begin either at 00:46 or 01:46 relative to the timestamps I see in the logs.

One of the principles of medical care is that you don't run a test unless the results will change your treatment plan. It appears that a presumably negative test (the only logical reason why TNT would not have CU blocked both accounts immediately) merely delayed TheresNoTime's implementation of their decision to reblock Athaenara by 0:15 or 1:15 (again, depending on actual timezone offset). In my mind, that is enough time for the calm, detached deliberation expected of a steward, checkuser, and oversighter to have kicked in.

Can someone confirm that I do or do not have the timeline correct?

As I understand it, TheresNoTime maintains full access to all global steward and en.wiki advanced functions while this inquiry is conducted, is that also correct? Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the correction below--thank you L235 for the speedy response--the correct timing (relative to my TZ) is:

00:37 Lourdes' unblock

01:46 TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Lourdes (Compromise/collusion)

01:47 TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Athaenara (Compromise/collusion)

01:47 TheresNoTime got edits for [redacted IP address] (Compromise/collusion)

02:02 TheresNoTime's reblock

... thus leaving an offset of 15 minutes between last check and reblock. My sincere apologies to all for the error. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Nableezy's above statement and quote, You cant tell somebody "if you feel like you are being run out of town, keep running", ask that they be blocked at AN/I, and then block them. doesn't cover the egregiousness of TheresNoTime both making the statement, and then later using the checkuser tool to obtain that editor's IP address information, which, per m:Privacy_policy, "could be used to infer your geographical location." "Keep running" is an implied threat that I do not believe to be ideal or acceptable from an administrator in any circumstance, but coupled with TheresNoTime looking up private information that can disclose Athaenara's location, is entirely unacceptable and unconscionable, even without the subsequent INVOLVED block. I am struggling to think of any justification that would allow TheresNoTime to maintain any advanced tools given such a staggeringly egregious violation of community trust. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AntiCompositeNumber

I would suggest that the Committee take into consideration the comments made in #wikimedia-checkuser before and after the checks were made (2022-10-12 03:26Z - 2022-10-12 13:21Z). I can provide logs if required, but I assume that will not be necessary given that several members of ArbCom sit in the channel with bouncers. Based on that discussion, I believe that TheresNoTime made the checks based on a good-faith (but mistaken) belief that the Lourdes account had returned from a long period inactivity for the sole purpose of overturning the block, and that compromised accounts had not been fully ruled out.

Regarding Rschen7754's question about what information TNT would or would not have seen, the checkuser actions against both accounts were "get IP addresses" actions. The "get IP addresses" action displays only the IP addresses used by a user, and does not show the edits or logged actions taken, and does not include user agent information (sample). A "get edits" check would have shown that information, but the "get edits" action was used only for the final check against the IP.

I do not think TNT would make this check again. It is an isolated incident, and I am unaware of any other incidents relating to their use of CheckUser, Oversight, Steward, VRT, Security, or production logging tools. This incident has not diminished my trust in TNT, and I do not think that the removal of tools would be appropriate. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

W/r/t Jclemens' timeline, the discussion at

]

@Arbs: Are you able to disclose whether the [redacted IP address] in the logs below was Lourdes' or Athaenara's? —

]

Statement by David Fuchs

This is a situation where the committee stripped the admin ship of a user for violation of norms, but no tool abuse; it follows that actual tool abuse (because I don't see anyone arguing TNT did not violate

]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

No, keep running in this case is not a threat. It refers to the saying to be run out of town, as you can tell by the rest of the sentence. TNT is telling Athaenara that they should feel unwelcome on Wikipedia. That is not a threat of harm. Exaggerating this will do no good. Madeline (part of me) 21:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Jackattack1597}

Noting that there is a previous incident of TheresNoTime acting prematurely in a discussion before waiting for full consensus to develop, two months ago. . While the block was endorsed at XRV, there was a consensus at that venue that the block may not have been the best course of action at the time, because TNT blocked Bedford indefinitely while a community discussion of an indefinite block was ongoing, and for less than 24 hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1103430478&diffmode=visual). The discussion continued, while TNT's indefinite block was imposed, and a community ban was ultimately imposed, but after a large amount of discussion, and about ten days after the initial block.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

The case has already been accepted, but might I request that the committee reconsider – there is absolutely nothing good that will come of litigating this as a case. The account was not compromised (nothing I know as a CU, but its pretty obvious.) Lourdes unblocked on those grounds. TNT re-blocked assuming community consensus, which is an explicit override to the wheel warring policy.

This case will end with an admonishment to Lourdes for not talking to Floquenbeam before unblocking and a generic reminder to all admins that no admin will remember in 1 month not to wheel war with a finding of fact that TheresNoTime didn't wheel war. All accepting this accomplishes letting people get angrier about the other side until it reaches a conclusion similar to what I just wrote. I'll add that the CU bit is pertinent, but a good faith action here that wouldn't lead to removal if it went to OC and while the committee is typically stricter than ombuds (to be clear, not complaining, I know I've complained about it before...), removal here is unlikely. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbroken Chain

This is what actual tool abuse looks like. Remove the mop and CU ability. You took it from Bbb23 for less. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeneralNotability I meant CU only, they are still admin. IMO they did one of the best jobs I've seen on that board. I am not privy to the "abuses" but I saw in them a reasoned restrained approach. Thanks for pointing out my error in expression. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Faendalimas on behalf of the OC

@Barkeep49: The case has been reported to the OC by several users and taken up and assigned, I cannot comment on this at this point but thought you should know. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion (TNT)

At the very least, all else aside, this didn't and doesn't require a separate case. The actions of everyone involved in the situation should be considered in their proper context as part of the broader Athaenara case above. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

INVOLVED actions of TheresNoTime: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse from this one too. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. firefly ( t · c ) 08:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INVOLVED actions of TheresNoTime: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline. We will handle the private matters in private, but as far as the re-block goes, I do not see anything more than an admonishment being necessary here. Consensus was solidly being formed at the ANI thread in question, and it would have been carried out eventually. There are many who would see TNT nominating the RfA candidate who received the Oppose !vote that kicked off this whole thing as being "involved" in the situation (ALLCAPS or not). I do not think anyone is doubting that they acted in good faith, and tensions were (and still are) extremely high, and where we draw the line with "purely administrative actions" when it comes to being involved in a situation is always a bit of a grey area. It was not the best course of action, but I hardly find this rises to the level where a case is necessary, as I only see "admonishment" as the outcome. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion matches Primefac's, and so I too, decline this public case request. I concur that TNT took a good faith step towards getting consensus to the reblock by posting at ANI, and whilst I don't think she needed to be the one who took the action, the decision to reblock was clearly headed that way. I see it unlikely that anything more than an admonishment or reminder would happen here with regards to her administrator tools and administrator actions. Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Cryptic, no, I do not believe we can or should. It is sufficient to note that the IP check is related to the checks of the parties. Worm^TT(talk) 09:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• @Ever Grounded: your request is out of scope. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to briefly mention: contra

  WP:INVOLVED purposes. If that has been unclear, I apologize. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Rschen7754: I am aware that several arbitrators (including myself) intend to refer this matter to the Ombuds Commission for their review. TheresNoTime has also offered to self-refer the matter to the Ombuds Commission. Given the Ombuds Commission's process tends to take some time, the referral was a lower priority and I have not personally sent the email yet. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: Your timeline is indeed off by an hour; times below are in UTC. The unblock occurred at 07:37 UTC; the first checkuser action was taken at 08:46 UTC. As for your second question, that is correct, but I note that TheresNoTime has agreed by email (on Oct 12) to refrain from using the tools (presumably on enwiki only) pending ArbCom's decision. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline Private issues are handled privately. Regarding the block, I agree that it was INVOLVED, and borderline wheel warring. However the most I see coming out of this is an admonishment. So, TNT: consider yourself trouted. I understand it was an upsetting and stressful time, but that's exactly when you should *not* be making administrative actions. Still, you are a valued admin and I trust your ability to learn from this moment. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in general agreement with the commentary offered here by the community that what happened with Lourdes and TNT does not require a large examination. Were I to give it deeper thought I suspect I would land on one of "meh", "trout", or "learn from this and please don't do it again" for each of them. However, TNT's use of the checkuser tool in this series of events does trouble me. TNT has agreed that, within the confines of the privacy policy, we can release some more details about all this which I thank them for as the ability to be transparent and get additional community feedback on that element of this case will be helpful in my decision making. Exactly how that will happen is still TBD so I'll hold off further comments until that has occurred. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49: Why I'm not recusing

Because a main issue of this case is WP:ARBPOL says we recuse when an arb has a significant conflict of interest. For me the conflict of interest with Athaenara was my obligation and relationship with the target of Athaenara's comments - Isabelle Belato. I've commented elsewhere on my feelings about those actions and those feelings, and my desire to look out for Isabelle, were clearly such that I would not have been able to give Athaenara a fair hearing. This, however, is a step further removed from the person that spurred my conflict and now that it has been separated from the original request that gives me an opportunity to participate without complicating my previous recusal. As such I think I will be able to approach this situation in the manner that the community expected and trusted me to do when they elected me and do not fit the criterial laid out in ARBPOL for recusal for this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

• Re GN's statement, I have voted to support the motion below but it is not the only acceptable method for me to deal with this situation. That said it does have some advantages, namely I think it gives a reasonable organization to the deliberations and decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rschen7754: this is not an either/or situation in regards to the OC. At least two arbs, including myself, have noted that this needs to be reported to the OC. If the committee does not do so (including private information that isn't disclosed here) I plan to do so as an individual. I have not yet done so because I believe both that it is better to do so as a committee than an individual and given how slow the OC is that having the resolution locally is useful information to report to the OC. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed. The Arbitration Committee is vested with responsibility for reviewing checkuser actions on the English Wikipedia, and the actions referenced below warrant review. TheresNoTime has expressed a preference to handle the checkuser portions of this (described below) in public to the extent possible. An expedited public case with a public PD (with private evidence only when required) will hopefully allow us to reach a decision transparently and relatively quickly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with @Worm That Turned that I don't want this to be a free-for-all, but if there is some kind of long term pattern (which I haven't seen here), I do want to know about that as that is important context. I think the best path – which is also the default – is for the drafters to hear requests to expand the scope but only to do so with a fairly compelling proffer of evidence. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. It's rare that we can handle a review of a checkuser in public and I'm very pleased that the circumstances aligned to allow us to do so in this case. To be clear - and as I noted above - I don't think there's a lot to say about the other elements here and so my support is overwhelmingly about the CU. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Donald Albury 00:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it would have been better for the committee to have conducted this case in private, closing with a motion, if necessary. However, TheresNoTime requested a public case. Donald Albury 14:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Cabayi (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   per the three abstentions, I don't consider this a "good" option, just the least worst. Cabayi (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. I support this with some hesitance. I would much rather we had simply dealt with the CU aspect here in private, as GN notes the non-public nature of the CU tool lends itself to a non-public way of working. However, given the suggestions that have been levied towards the committee, the best way to handle things is by attempting to be as transparent as possible. I do not intend to expand the scope to any CU block that TNT has made either - I don't want this to be a free for all against a CU. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. While the first part of my earlier comment still applies, TheresNoTime did request a public case, which on the balance lands me in support of this motion. Maxim_(talk) 13:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I cannot bring myself to support this motion, primarily because I believe we already have all of the pertinent evidence and information, and even with an expedited time frame will undoubtedly bring an unnecessary amount of dirt-digging to the fore. However, TheresNoTime has requested a public case, and I cannot in good faith oppose such a request. Additionally, I do recognise that there may be additional information that could be useful to creating a resolution to this issue. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would generally prefer to have CU cases in private, so that we can have a frank discussion of those private matters. However, TNT wants this to be public. I think that's probably a bad choice, but I respect the decision. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Eek and Primefac. --Izno (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

For context, the checkuser actions referred to in the motion are primarily the following: TheresNoTime used the

checkuser tool to obtain the IP addresses of Athaenara and Lourdes, as recorded in the following log entries:

• 08:46, 12 October 2022, TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Lourdes (Compromise/collusion)
• 08:47, 12 October 2022, TheresNoTime got IP addresses for Athaenara (Compromise/collusion)
• 08:47, 12 October 2022, TheresNoTime got edits for [redacted IP address] (Compromise/collusion)

TheresNoTime agreed by email to publicly discuss these checkuser actions to the extent allowed by relevant policy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]