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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

Case opened on 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Involved parties

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

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Clerk notes

• 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]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/3/0)

• 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]

• 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.

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

]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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
    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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstentions at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Lourdes: warned

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

Passed 10 to 1 with 1 abstentions at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstentions at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 4 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime: admonished

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

Passed 9 to 1 at 22:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Actions by parties to a proceeding

1) The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

Passed 10 to 1 at 22:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.