Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Proposed decision

Arb discussion about the case (with a reply by TNT)
So when TNT was initially emailed suggesting concerns both around the validity of the checks and their being the wrong person to have performed them because they were INVOLVED, I had hoped that we'd have had an acknowledgement of error in one of these two areas because my experience with TNT had found them very open to feedback. Then ArbCom would say "thanks for admitting that don't do it again" and we'd go on our way. When TNT sought public comment about it and the overwhelming majority of the comments by editors not already friendly with TNT came in suggesting concerns with one or both of these during the case request and then the evidence, it felt like a second chance for TNT to act as they traditionally had by taking in the feedback and admit error in one or both of these areas so the outcome could still be "thanks for admitting that don't do it again". But TNT has so far continued to insist both that the checks were good and that they were not INVOLVED and so I feel pushed towards making a decision I don't want to make because if they genuinely think they did nothing wrong then there is nothing to suggest that a similar situation can't occur again in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to my colleague CaptainEek for pointing out in their oppose of removing CU that TNT has expressed remorse (. For a regular admin this would be sufficient for me. I will think some more about whether this is sufficient for a functionary. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you require something more concrete than the repeated apologies, remorse and understanding that I was incorrect in my judgement, please accept this; — I am sorry. I regret my actions. I was mistaken in my assessment of the situation. I've hoped that my "evidence" made clear that although I considered myself, at the time, correct in my actions in retrospect I was wrong. I know that. I have been reflecting on that since this happened. People have highlighted this to me in stunning clarity. If I end up maintaining these permissions I will stick to SPI (which I think I mentioned in an email?) and incredibly obvious socks. This is not a repeatable action, nor is it a pattern of behaviour. You've asked me to defend these actions, and all I've managed to do is explain the course of events which led to my mistakes. I should have walked away and asked someone else to help. I disagreed with your assessment of involved at the start of this, but I no longer disagree with it, and will apply that to my actions moving forwards. I'm not sure how much more I need to say to the committee, what precise words I need to utter, for this to be understood. I thought it was, but clearly I am mistaken in that as well. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheresNoTime - My view of the situation mirrors Barkeep's. Until this comment, your comments appeared to me (at least) as "non-apology apologies". That is, you seemed to be saying "I was definitely right, but I see that community doesn't agree". If I focused on the latter part of the statement, that would be fine, but I can't get past the first half. This comment, however, does help. I'll mull. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Worm. Crucially TNT Arbcom wasn't asking you to defend it was asking you to explain. Your feeling a need to defend is perhaps how we got statements like which had led me to believe that you felt you'd done nothing incorrectly while acknowledging the community felt differently. But as worm said this comment does help. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If a comment like this had come earlier, I think it really would have been persuasive. That it took this long, this much un-needed drama and combative behavior, makes it significantly less compelling for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand that line of thinking. Reading TNT's response to L235's question during the case in light of this current response suggests that maybe TNT didn't express themselves clearly but that they were already admitting they were wrong. That is maybe they didn't say the magic words but they were trying to express that idea? At least I think that's a reasonable read of this. Against that I need to weigh all that Worm mentions in that TNT raised the drama level at several points and do I have confidence and trust that this won't happen again with the CUOS tools. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, TNT was asked very directly if they thought these actions violated INVOLVED, and the answer was a clear "no" right up until FoFs contradicting that stance were strongly supported by this committee. Now that the writing is on the wall, they somehow suddenly get that they did in fact violate the involved admin policy, which they were completely unable to see twelve days ago. TNT had so many chances to not arrive at this point, and now that they have, through nobody's fault but their own, their position suddenly changed. That's desperation, not some kind of sudden breakthrough in their understanding of the involved admin policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (moved — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC))

HouseBlaster's comment
I have half a mind to mark this with peanut. Could principle 4 read editors, including administrators, must accept... (or even All? editors and administrators must accept...)? Holding a mop does not affect how consensus applies to you. Or at least, it shouldn't. I guess that's why they are called principles... HouseBlastertalk 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that read poorly. I've changed it since admins are just a subset of editors and not some crowned elites. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted it because only arbs (and clerks) can edit the page and two arbs have already voted on it. I would hope one of the drafting arbs would consider the change and either wway reply here. Also a gentle reminder that only arbs and clerks get to do threaded discussions. I know Arb space is intimidating and it's this kind of situation which makes it that way. Please know that both of these comments are made with the utmost kindness and respect. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed Hawk's comment
I am a bit confused by proposed FoF 6's notion that 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, where information is provided to third parties before being made public, or where the CheckUser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out, do not meet these requirements (emphasis mine). It is my understanding that CheckUsers generally operate as if they are allowed to share information with certain qualified third parties (such as other CheckUsers, the Ombuds, and/or the Arbitration Committee) without making privacy policy-protected information public, but the FoF (as written) would seem to imply that this sort of behavior is not. Was this meant to read, or is this truly meant to be a sweeping prohibition on sharing CheckUser information with qualified third parties unless the information is first made public? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought this wording was weird when I read the pre-wiki draft. @L235, @Enterprisey, you may wish to review RTH's comment. Izno (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for writing. As linked below the principle, the language comes from a previously-adopted principle, and as used there, "third parties" does not include (in the words of ANPDP . However, since it's not very relevant to this case, it can be removed. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz's comment
This is not a core point in this case but I found #4 in the Principles section very vague:

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

I know that when writing case decisions like this, the arbitrators writing proposed decisions and final results search for the proper words so that outcome is not misunderstood but what seems "reasonable" to one admin might seem "unreasonable" to another. For example, Athaenara's block was seen as reasonable to some (many?) editors but at least one admin saw it as unreasonable enough that they reversed it. We see edit wars daily, even among veteran editors, because they think consensus decisions regarding a questionable edit or issue are unreasonable and think that they know better because they might be subject matter experts. Personally, I've seen consensus decisions at ANI, especially overly quick discussions that lead to indefinite blocks, that seemed unreasonable to me because of the mob factor of justice that can sometimes occur on noticeboards. I think what editors/admins think is "reasonable", and even what is "consensus", is completely subjective. The consensus that appears after 30 minutes of an open AN discussion can be completely different from the consensus that exists after a 3 day discussion on a subject under dispute.

However, I struggle to come up with a better word to replace "reasonable" and "consensus". So I think a second sentence could added here to clarify what you mean by a "reasonable decision arrived at by consensus". I'm not going to make a suggestion here because I think the language should come from a discussion among arbitrators, not bystanders like myself. I just wanted to point out a possible source of ambiguity in your Proposed Decision. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the imprecision of reasonable is a reasonable concern and implore you to make suggestions if you can think of some... (though I opposed for other reasons). Izno (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think isaacl might have the right idea here and just drop "reasonable" from the statement...after all, editors are expected to abide by community consensus whether or not they find that consensus reasonable or not. For example, I don't think editors are let off the hook from edit warring if they don't find 3R policy "reasonable" in light of bad edits that they see being made. We still have some ambiguity about whether or not "consensus" is always clear but I think the majority of editors on the project would agree that established policies and guidelines have the community's consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Pontification from GeneralNotability
I think there's something deeper in this case that isn't quite touched on in the FoF - I'll call it "emotionally INVOLVED". WP:INVOLVED brushes up against it with disputes...about which they have strong feelings, though it's omitted from the prohibition in the first sentence and then the second para frames everything in terms of on-wiki behavior rather than opinions. What I'm thinking is roughly this: it is possible for an admin to have strong but private feelings on something, strong enough that they cannot act neutrally but not visible to other editors. Admins should be able to recognize these situations and their impact on one's judgment and stay away from admin action even if they do not meet the on-wiki definition of INVOLVED. It's not a bright line like the rest of INVOLVED since it's all about self-policing. Maybe this is redundant to general expectations of administrator maturity? Like the section title says, pontificating, not necessarily a call for specific action. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * To provide a more concrete idea of what I'm trying to say: if TNT had chosen to not publicly express their hurt at Athaenara, I think this would not have been as clear-cut a violation of INVOLVED (yes, I know they'd still have been nominator). And yet - the emotions, the hurt, and the impact to judgment would have still been there, just not something everyone could see, and that's when we most need admins to self-police. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I almost made my comment about emotional compromise in FOF#4. I ultimately didn't use that phrasing because what was onwiki on the point was indeed sufficient to meet the wiki's threshold for involvement. Izno (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse 's summary of the relationship between the CU and OS perms, though I would add "need" to the list or combine it with competence - see, for example, ArbCom's recent reluctance to appoint OSers. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , with respect...what? Your statement suggests that the committee is acting out of discrimination or lack of empathy toward LGBTQ+ folks, and I ask that you retract that; a lot went wrong here and this whole case was disastrous (I genuinely do not think that anybody went into this case wanting it to end how it has), but I do not think that any of it was because of TNT's gender identity. That kind of accusation is not appropriate and I don't think it is going to do anything to help TNT or anyone in a similar position.
 * I'm probably one of the folks here who is most pro-TNT (and I recused as clerk specifically because I feel that they're a friend and so I can't act neutrally...at least, I hope they're still a friend), and even I think that this wasn't a case of perhaps just crossed WP:INVOLVED slightly as you cast it, this was a major no-no on TNT's part. No comment on the Lourdes aspect – I have no knowledge of what's going on there beyond the vague statement by Lourdes, but if anyone on ArbCom has been helping Lourdes with the case, that was also a major no-no. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Guerillero
It looks like I am not going to need to clerk here, so I have some comments: -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the ", see foo" construction of principles to be painful. Just inline link the policy
 * Linking the removal of the OS right due to the abuse of the CU tool first appeared in Sockpuppet investigation block (2015). I strongly suggest arbs read our discussions about the trust of one permission effects the community's trust in other permissions and let it inform the current decision. The information found via OS is more dangerous and less controlled than the information from CU.
 * That case was also the last time the committee removed CU/OS from someone for a single action. But even then, there was a pattern of CU misuse
 * I agree with GN, above, about the more ethereal side of INVOLVED. If anything, that is more important than the technical side because it is more likely to involved poor decisions.
 * Lego's evidence of past compromised accounts should be informing this decision.
 * This whole situation just confirmed to the Continental Europeans that their much more controlled way of using the CU tool is correct. From their POV, our lax culture of CU tool usage opened the door to this event to take place. Something for everyone with CU should mull over is if TNT's pledge (If I end up maintaining these permissions I will stick to SPI (which I think I mentioned in an email?) and incredibly obvious socks.) is something that we all should do as well.
 * I am curious if the CUs on IRC at 08:44 12 October 2022 attempted to dissuade the use of the CU tool or not. If another steward or CU thought the checks were a good idea, that is a large lapse in judgement for them
 * I think that TNT's apology at 08:52, 31 October 2022 is sincere and complete. They understand where they went wrong. Admitting that you fucked up is something that you rarely see in functionary cases and I think doing so requires courage. As someone who was unhappy when I saw the checks in the log, I have extended extra grace to TNT because of this and I think the committee should as well.

Patterns of behaviour (comment from Joe Roe)
So two arbs and several people on this talk page have already brought up the question of whether TNT's actions were part of a 'pattern of behaviour'. This is usually what a remedy to revoke permissions hinges on, but usually the permission in question is sysop, where the community can investigate by itself and provide the evidence that could establish such a pattern. With checkuser or oversight, that obviously can't happen; ArbCom would have to do the investigating proactively, which is one reason why this kind of thing is usually handled off-wiki. When the committee announced an expedited case with a very limited scope, I assumed it was because they'd spotted that conundrum and weren't considering anything more than a slap on the wrist. But here we are with a PD containing four motions to remove advanced permissions and no findings of fact that would indicate that a proactive investigation was conducted.

It seems to me that this puts the committee in tricky situation. Whether this is there is a pattern of behaviour (of misuse of CUOS) simply hasn't been established either way. So I cannot follow the logic of, for example, opposing the motion to remove CU because other de-CUing cases [...] involved a pattern of bad checks and this one doesn't. At the same time, it would be very unfair to derive any sanctions from an absence of evidence. WTT is ahead of me as usual, suggesting you cut the knot by ignoring precedents and just asking whether TNT retains the trust of the committee (and community) to remain a CU... but there's no getting around the fact that, whatever decision you reach here, it's going to be less grounded in fact that most desysops/de-CUs. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime's section
should be in their own section, it seems. Apologies. I have moved my most recent (below), but have left my initial comment as it has been responded to. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you are mistaken in your read of the situation, ? Or perhaps you are choosing to ignore the multiple instances of regret, remorse, and apology? Do not accuse me of desperation because of the "writing on the wall" when I have held this position well before we arrived here. You're of course welcome to whatever opinion you want of me and my actions, but don't push your own point of view and attribute malice to my words. It's unbecoming, and I expect better of you. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving this comment TNT. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could someone uninvolved make a judgement call on if the above baseless accusations by Beeblebrox constitute an aspersion please? I'm not entirely sure what I've done to deserve that level of vitriol sans evidence (from a sitting, unrecused arbitrator no less!). I've had a lot of people point out Beeblebrox's very public anti-WMF position (ex. Special:Diff/1078484133) to me, but I personally hold them in much higher regards than to think they'd use this as a platform to "get back" at a member of staff (and a member of staff who very publicly supports the UCoC at that).. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TNT, you are assigning motive to Beeblebrox comment, motive that I find to be unlikely. I have expressed similar thoughts on the main page, suggesting this was too little too late, he is simply pointing out that it came after the involved finding was passing unanimously. That is not "getting back" at the WMF, that is simply expressing an opinion on the case.
 * I have to say, I'm disappointed that, yet again, you are going on the offensive - indeed you are the one casting aspersions. I understand this is stressful, but you chose this route at every turn. WormTT(talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And motive is being assigned to my sincere comments, yet I don't see you calling them out on that — that is disappointing. And no, sorry, I'm not going to roll over and take that from anyone, arb or not. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This case is about you. At your request, TNT.
 * You chose to have your motivation questioned, your words looked at. You have constantly been on the attack, accusing committee members of aspersions, not following policy, even bigotry. I'm exasperated with your actions and if that leads to you being disappointed in me, well, so be it. WormTT(talk</b>) 19:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware this case is about me. And that it was started at my request. I chose to have my motivations for making the actions in question examined publicly, not the motive relating to apologies and acknowledgement of a fuckup. By that logic, what point is there in apologising at all if someone can, with no evidence, attribute malice to my words? What point is there in engaging further with you if it's entirely permissible for any arbitrator to decide the intent of my words? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ( would have been a more artful phrasing that keeps the focus on your actions rather than speculating on motive. I agree with you there but you're right I'm not going to call someone out for an inartful comment. In fact in the discussion above I'm trying to give you maximum credit for an inartful comment rather than calling you out for it. Further it was not as aspersion - there is literally an evidence page (some of which I linked to in the comment Beeblebrox was replying to) to justify it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Above struck. None of this makes any fucking sense. Can someone just please tell me what you want from me, I'm begging you. I'm so close to giving up — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point TNT, I don't believe we are asking any more of you. We need to deliberate based upon what we have seen.
 * And I will reiterate - there is a place for you, even if it's not the one you are currently in. There are few who can speak their minds so well and stand up for those in need, and Wikipedia needs those people to do so. Hell, so does the rest of the world. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * please see CheckUser, which explicitly states "CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to [...] disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project" (emphasis own). Your assessment that such a check is "not what the CU tool was designed for" is demonstrably incorrect — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, I have no personal animus toward you, at all. I often go back over my comments several times before I save them, removing parts of what I'd written or re-writing them, but I made that comment while I was getting ready for work this morning and didn't take the time to really reflect on that last sentence. I stand by the point I was making but acknowledge that Barkeep's wording is clearly less inflammatory. (and for the record, I am not "anti-WMF" I am anti-the-UCOC-Enforcement-Guidelines) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Before I go, permit me a closing remark: The loss of these permissions has been expected, it was a fuckup, plain and simple. I let my emotions get the better of me and made poor choices, and that's disappointing because I've managed to not let that happen for a long time, and in the face of significant other mental health challenges. These are mental health conditions in which I explicitly waive any consideration which would potentially be granted to me — everyone is correct to hold me to the highest possible standard. I hold the belief that in the vast majority of cases we must be responsible for our actions irrespective of our mental state.

Functionaries and above should be held to the highest standard our policies call for — including that of involvement. When in doubt, the correct thing to do would be to step aside and allow others to take action impartially. I failed to do so.

Yet, the irony of this case being about elements of involvement, whilst also being presided over by at least one arbitrator with whom I consider myself heavily involved, is not lost on me. I've called for to recuse due to their aggressive emails to the stewards when I challenged them over ArbCom's overreach into the realms of trying to control global locks. I've been waiting for to recuse themselves given this fiasco where they continued to lie about my calling for their recall. Neither has happened, yet committee members have seen fit to push back at me for daring to raise these concerns.

I unfortunately expect the committee to deflect and close ranks on this again. That's okay, it makes no difference now, nor would it have made a difference to begin with.

Please do understand that my anger at the committee is not directed at individuals, nor is it because a loss of permissions is the result. The arbitration committee is our last bastion of justice on a project which needs level-heads and neutrality. I'm really not sure if you've managed that today. I've resigned my permissions in advance (yes, in protest of the above) and will shortly do the same with my IA/admin bits here. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I never said you requested my recall. I said that you accused me of acting in bad faith and for me that is the equivalent of requesting a recall because it's someone I respect saying I acted in a way that was incompatible with my standards to be an admin. That came from a place of respect and taking your feedback seriously. Our most recent sustained interaction had been in supporting Isabelle and there wasn't any ill will I could see. Further you requested my private feedback as an arb early on and did not request my recusal when you did Maxims so I took this as a further indication of lack of ongoing issue with us. Clearly you felt differently and I am sorry I didn't know because I absolutely would have given serious consideration to a recusal request from you, and likely done so. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond that I am deeply sad to lose you as an administrator. I urge you to reconsider that decision before filing the request. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would I stick around after you've all dragged me though this. With respect, leave me the hell alone. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @TheresNoTime. It's unclear to me the extent to which you want a substantive response, but I'm happy to talk in more detail about any of the things you've raised here if you'd like. In any event, I do want to say that I'm sorry to see your resignation as a sysop. One thing that may be under discussion is a remedy (pursuant to our arguable authority under the under-a-cloud procedure to "direct[]" "otherwise") saying your sysop resignation was not under a cloud; if you'd like us to consider such a remedy, it would be helpful to know that fairly soon. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 12:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * TheresNoTime, if you're going to fling mud at me, then I wish you'd stick to the facts a bit better. I count exactly one email that I did send to the stewards. The email wasn't to you directly, but in response to an email sent by another steward. Only afterwards did you email us on that specific matter. What you call "overreach" is also us following a previous agreement signed "for the Wikimedia stewards". I did carefully consider your request for recusal, and while sitting out a drama did sound nice in many ways, it would not have a set a good example for the future for an arbitrator to recuse, based on a party's request, in a situation which the arbitrator did not have "significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties" per relevant policy. As I have never interacted with you prior to August—and the sum of interactions since then is your reply to an email that I had sent to your colleague/the stewards as a whole, followed by an email I sent as an arbitrator you when we were still discussing the CU matter in camera—then it cannot be considered "significant personal involvement" with either the dispute or the party.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   13:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I expected nothing less — deflection and defensiveness. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support initiating a discussion for this as there was already emerging consensus in opposition to removing sysop. I do not know if TNT would like to start a discussion for this or if they are going to to respond to any further messages, but I believe deciding whether it was "under-a-cloud" would be the best course of action here. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider it however you want. I am tired of giving validity to this farce. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from RAN1
The issue I saw here was that off-wiki coordination is not what the CU tool was designed for; using that as a reason to CU is an abuse of access, and yet to the contrary TNT has expressed that such a check is within policy. That was egregious, and regardless of whether or not that would happen again, this decision will go to the standard functionaries are held to. RAN1 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Trainsandotherthings: I think it needs to be said that the SOP for publicly handling CU/OS cases is to handle them privately. RAN1 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Moneytrees' comment
@Worm That Turned (or any other Arb who might have an answer) You say "...if there had been evidence of previous poor decision making, I may have been voting differently" at #Lourdes:_desysopped. I was under the impression that the scope of this case was just this specific incident, so evidence relating to past actions by Lourdes and TNT would be ignored. Am I missing something? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You are not. The scope was intentionally kept narrow and so if someone was going to be desysopped it was going to be for what happened in the scope of this case. If someone feels there has been a pattern of poor decision making by Lourdes they can file a case request that could have a broader scope. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. I think I was trying to point out Lourdes was on thin ice here, but this case was not the case to remove her rights. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 18:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes more sense. I'm not really interested in filing an arbcase or anything, I was just wondering. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Floq
Can we ... can we just get though this, please? Beeb, please don't theorize about TNT's state of mind. TNT, please don't theorize about Beeb's motivations (especially the back-door Trumpian "I'm just saying what I've heard others say" kind of plausibly deniable accusation). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, fuck. Yet another “dispute resolution” that spiraled much further out of control than necessary, resulting in a loss to the project and damaged karma to everyone involved. Floquenbeam (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Sideswipe9th
I think TNT has reason to express frustration at Beeblebrox'. Though I'm more than likely involved because of the comments I've made here, I'm of the opinion that the speculation on TNT's state of mind; That's desperation, not some kind of sudden breakthrough in their understanding of the involved admin policy crosses the line into an aspersion. I would politely request that Beeblebrox retracts that part of that statement. While I think that by TNT could have been phrased differently, as it is quite aggressive, I also think that within the context of the aspersion made by Beeblebrox and the broader stresses brought on by an ArbCom case it is at least understandable.

As for comment by TNT, the initial question is fair. However I'm not really sure as to the relevance of Beeblebrox's position against the UCoC with regards to this case, TNT's work life aside. I'd also politely request that TNT retracts everything bar the first question in that statement, as it does not seem helpful to the situation at hand and seems to be inflaming the situation, to put mildly.

I disagree with Barkeep though that is a "more artful phrasing". That is to me begging the question as to whether or not it was a desperate action. I'm not sure there is an artful way to ask or state what Beeblebrox said, without questioning the motive behind apologies made by TNT at several junctions, including today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by LokiTheLiar
I haven't been commenting much on this, but I have been following it, and I basically second all of Sideswipe's comment. I do think there's been a general failure to WP:AGF here. Loki (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I appear to have missed an apology...
, you each mention that TheresNoTime has thoroughly apologized, but I can't seem to locate the apology you're referencing. There's a general apology to the community at the Evidence page, and today's here on this talk page, but I don't see anything on User Talk:Lourdes (at least not since this) or User talk:Athaenara. Am I missing apologies to the users whose data was accessed? If so, can someone please show me? Call me a sentimental old fool, but I'd consider an apology to the specific persons who were wronged more compelling than an apology to a community, and more essential if such an apology is going to be considered thorough. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The others can correct me if I am wrong,, but I believe is what is being referred to. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that additional link. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me I should clarify: I don't fault TheresNoTime for not apologizing to the individuals affected: no one benefits from insincere apologies, and TheresNoTime had been quite consistent in stating a belief that the actions taken, while not standing up to after-the-fact scrutiny, had been taken in good faith.
 * Rather, I am puzzled by the apparent acceptance of this level of apology by said members of the community as sufficient to influence this process. Everyone is sorry when they do something that lands them in trouble; that level of contrition is entirely natural and unavoidable for decent people. I know I've felt it plenty of times on-wiki and off. There is a deeper level of contrition, a "My goodness, what have I done?!" level of contrition where a person looks on the situation with opened eyes and is horrified by what they did. I was hoping that I had missed this level of apology somewhere, but it looks rather others have treated the existing (and, again, perfectly fine) level of apology as if it were abject and unconditional contrition. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Legoktm
I +1 most of what Guerillero said.

I am surprised to see no real mention/acknowledgement of the underlying issue, which is that the situation revolves around the issue of a compromised administrator account. This was highlighted in multiple evidence submissions that discussed whether this was an "urgent issue" (Reaper Eternal, TNT, Levivich, David Fuchs, RAN1). I think it is well understood that a compromised admin account is a "big deal" that should be dealt with urgently.

I am also curious as to why the use of the checkuser tool on Lourdes was not justified by the available evidence does not also include Athaenara's account. Legoktm (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Legoktm: Thank you for your question. I believe FOF 5 covers the substantive justifiability of the checks: Regarding the check on Athaenara, while I would not have run that check, it is not implausible that a reasonable uninvolved checkuser could have a reasonable explanation for that check. If TNT had been uninvolved, and the Athaenara check had been the only one that had been run, I don't think we'd be issuing any kind of public finding about it. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To build on what L235 said, I did some digging in the logs and while a 4th CU running a check in a concentrated period of time is unusual it is not unheard of. That said I do note in my comments that I found the use of the check on Lourdes to be insufficient and incorrect rational to justify a check on Athaenara. But I'm not sure how many other arbs agree with me there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by isaacl
Regarding proposed principle 4 and Liz's comments: I suggest dropping "reasonable", since by English Wikipedia tradition, what the community decides by consensus defines what community members are expected to follow. I'm finding it tricky to suggest concise wording that can cover the easy case of when a discussion is formally summarized, and the more frequent case when discussion just ends as it fades out. Perhaps the heavy lifting can be carried by a link to, such as: Editors must respect decisions that have been determined through community consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Yngvadottir
I am surprised by the disjunction between, on the one hand, the large amount of support at present for FOF 3, TheresNoTime: involvement in a dispute with Athaenara, and FOF 5, TheresNoTime: use of checkuser, and, on the other hand, the small amount of support at present for R4, TheresNoTime: CheckUser removed (and by extension R5, TheresNoTime: Oversight removed). It is my understanding that use of the CheckUser tool while INVOLVED constitutes serious abuse that requires removal of the tool under policy—see P6, Use of CheckUser—an a priori violation of community expectations rendering it unnecessary to argue whether TNT retains the trust of the committee (and community). I understand that the case is intentionally narrowly focused; considering whether there is a pattern of behavior is therefore excluded. Otherwise, the case would have had to be full-scale, and TNT's interactions with, for example, Hammersoft during Tamzin's RfA would have been germane evidence. However, given this narrow focus, a reminder may be appropriate that policy sets strict requirements for functionary actions because they expose private identifying information, and this reflects a real, well-founded fear on the part of community members that does not have to be established in particular cases by the committee. It is policy and an important condition of participation here. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon
It appears to me that there is one action that is not listed in the Timeline, and a future editor who is trying to see what happened in this case might wonder. That is that the personal attack, which started this whole flap, was either suppressed or redacted. That is just a minor point, but it is why a future editor won't be able to find the personal attack. It no longer exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon The original personal attack is currently publicly visible and is linked in FOF 1 in the first sub-bullet point of "11 October 2022". Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, well. It appears that the personal attack has now been erased without redaction, so that it can be viewed in the history, but not viewed in the project page.  An interesting compromise.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than that, this whole matter has been extremely unfortunate and sad. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Rschen7754
I was a SPI clerk for a year and a half, and a steward for a year, albeit a while ago. I would say that I have an above average understanding of how CU is generally used, but not as much as someone who is currently using the tool on a regular basis. All that to say - I am unaware of CU ever being used on the grounds of determining "collusion". Is it regularly used in this way on this project, or really on any Wikimedia project?

I have to concur with GN's comments above which to me seem to be the crux of the issue. I will say - given the exchange above in the context of similar ones I trust TNT as an administrator but I have significant concerns about their remaining a functionary - both about the effects of additional controversy on the Wikimedia community as a whole (given the steward hat) as well as the added stress on TNT. I say this as one who was a steward for a year and who resigned in part due to not being able to handle the extra mental burden of being a functionary. And I say this with regret. Rschen7754 01:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not the most active CU, but I have never seen a check for "collusion" in the past. I also appreciate your further comments, which has highlighted something I had forgotten. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Cryptic
@Robert McClenon and L235: Just pointing out that Robert McClenon is half-right, in that the original attack was rev-deleted for the better part of two days. —Cryptic 03:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Maddy from Celeste
I may expand on this later, but briefly, it does not feel entirely appropriate to me for arbcom to condemn someone for escalating a situation when the relevant statements were in response to that very same arbcom. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 05:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Maddy from Celeste, I agree with you - there's a reason that we expect our arbitrators to have a fairly thick skin. Were it a single incident, it would not have affected my opinion. However, I count half a dozen times over the past two weeks where TNT has ascribed malice or ulterior motives to committee members, rather than simply looking at their own actions. Arbcom is where the buck stops and we need to make tough decisions, but we can only do that with the community's trust - if people believe that committee members are acting in bad faith, please, vote for people you trust in the upcoming elections. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Welp, this is moot now, but for what it's worth, I don't think this is a problem of any individual's trustworthiness. As a law of nature, in conflicts it is always the other party who is needlessly escalating. That also applies to arbitrators voting based on a party's temperature raising statements, when arbcom's actions may contribute just as much to the drama. Obviously you should cite relevant statements, but drama raising and temperature raising are simply not assesments that can ever be fairly made by the object of the comments. ■ ∃ <b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Usedtobecool
It may be helpful to view CU and OS requirements separately as of (a) trust and (b) competence. One could not have the competence for all the tools but retain the trust if one knows well one's own limitations. In other permutations, the two can not be separated. If one loses trust, competence does not matter, and if one does not have the competence to know one does not have the competence, one can not be trusted.If you can't trust someone to access, and use responsibly, private information obtainable from CU, you can't trust them to do it with private information that's been suppressed. On the other hand, if the problem is that a CU is misinterpreting results and issuing erroneous blocks, you could remove CU without it having any bearing on their OS perms.To me, the most worrying aspect of this case was that an editor accessed personally identifying private information (potentially home, travel, work addresses etc. and possibly even a rough schedule derivable from that information) of "other parties" in a dispute they were involved in (and disputes are, at their worst, known to get people worked up enough to try and exact real life damage, even violence on the "enemies"). I am highlighting the worst case, deliberately, because the worst case is what we all maintain our internet privacy around, and is what CUOS policies are based around.Athaenara was getting checked left, right and centre anyway (and TNT could see those results without generating a log, one assumes) but surely we've let Lourdes down enough at this point? The most controversial areas are suffering because they receive participation from only a few dedicated contributors as it is. A precedent establishing that, just once or twice, you could, without consequence, access personally identifying information of "other parties", will surely make this problem worse, if not by empowering abuse, by increasing hesitation in the editor-base due to a perceived possibility of such abuse.To be clear, I do not believe TNT had nefarious reasons for performing those checks. I am just not sure if I would be completely confident in that belief were it I, who had been checked. Ultimately, it's not about TNT; it's about the rest of us. If we were raising a barn, and someone dropped a beam from the roof, it would not matter whether they were trying to kill someone. We would thank them for their participation and ask respectfully that they do some other tasks that don't require them to handle heavy objects over other people's heads, not because they're criminal, but because someone could accidentally die, and because nobody will volunteer to work at ground level with someone like that on the roof even if it's exceedingly unlikely that they'd make the same mistake again. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz's section
I hoped that TheresNoTime would say so here themself (perhaps they've emailed the Committee or functionaries instead), but half an hour ago they announced their resignation of CheckUser and Oversight "in protest & with extreme disappointment in the committee's inability to handle this fairly". Sdrqaz (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know, @Sdrqaz. Much appreciated. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 11:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm saddened. But thanks for pointing it out. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime was removed from those user groups and there's no need for a "formal removal of the permission" because it's already occurred. Regardless of whether the CU/OS is "under a cloud", requests for granting will have to go through the Committee anyway as that is standard procedure; see this in April. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Thingofme
@Sdrqaz TheresNoTime has resigned her checkuser and oversight status but I think the resign is itself "under a cloud" and the removal by ArbCom may mean a formal removal of the permission. Thingofme (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Xaosflux
Just to head off all the "cloud" questions, as far as sysop goes (following TNT's resignation): determination of if there is a cloud for the purposes of summary reinstatement at WP:BN goes, that would be a debate that would occur only at such time as a restoration request was actually made. Regarding functionary access, as there is no summary restoration process it isn't really relevant. (Currently any +CU/+OS change requires active consent of the sitting arbcom at the time such request is made). — xaosflux  Talk 14:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @28bytes I think a motion/ruling/finding/whatnot saying the editor is ...entitled to a return of the tools upon request at BN at any time... would exceed the authority of arbcom. However something ruling that this specific case closed without serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation would result in the idea that I think you are proposing? — xaosflux  Talk 17:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Firefly
I want to thank for bringing up a point I had meant to here earlier this morning in their vote on closing the case. The ArbCom principle they linked to reads to me as bright-line - TheresNoTime wouldn't be eligible for resysop-on-request as they have resigned their tools while a case to which they are a party is ongoing. very reasonably asked TNT whether they'd like to ask the Committee to consider a "notwithstanding motion" that sets the principle aside for TNT's case. TNT understandably didn't want to engage with the possibility.

However, I can't find anywhere that says such a finding requires the party's consent. Therefore I would like to gently request that the Committee do it anyway, if they view it as appropriate. Otherwise I fear this loose end may cause further drama down the road. (It is of course not for me to prejudge what the outcome of a vote on a 'no clouds' finding would be, but I can infer what is likely from the fact the desysop remedy is failing unanimously, which is why I raised this.) firefly  ( t · c ) 15:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have said, off-wiki, that I don't think that is a good idea. We're at the end of this case, and we should be shutting it down, it serves no good to anyone here and only serves to hurt TNT. If TNT would like to return to adminship and is concerned about the weather in the future, then I expect that committee to make a statement at that point. Otherwise, we're holding things up and causing pain for a hypothetical situation. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Worm That Turned I can absolutely understand that position - I suppose my thoughts are that a small amount of additional work now may save a whole bunch of drama later, and that the additional hurt of keeping the case open for an extra day or two is worth heading that off. To borrow a strained analogy from your username (apologies!), it might be better to cram a few extra worms into the can now, given we already have it open, than have to re-open the can later.
 * That said, I do realise I'm weighing a hypothetical against current reality, which is always slightly shaky ground. I've said my piece, and will leave it with you all. :) firefly  ( t · c ) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I agree with both of these sentiments. I do understand the idea of explicitly declaring a non-cloud now, but technically speaking ArbCom can make that motion at any time; it does not require an open case. Best to close this now while there is a reasonable window for it. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
I have stayed away from commenting on any part of this whole situation, but as the person who (about 15 years ago) first drafted what has evolved into the current "resignation during a case" policy, I can confidently state that neither I nor anyone else was contemplating a situation in which the arbitrators had already voted against desysopping before the administrator resigned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Trainsandotherthings
The severity of the misuse of CheckUser in question did not and does not merit a full removal of not only CU, but OS as well, even though nobody has raised any concerns with TNT's use of OS. If the two permissions really require the same amount of trust, why are they assigned separately, and appointed separately? The committee, with the exception of Eek, have apparently decided that they need their pound of flesh, and they've convinced an admin in good standing to resign and quit the project. I find Beeblebrox's and especially Maxim's conduct here very poor, and certainly far below the standard I expect of sitting ArbCom members. I am disappointed and saddened by TNT's conduct in this case as well, but only one party has been put under immense scrutiny for a single lapse in judgement. Complaining about ArbCom is as old as ArbCom itself, but I am seriously disappointed in the outcome of this case and in the committee writ large.

A standard operating procedure for publicly handling cases involving CheckUser and Oversight should be agreed upon by the committee to ensure this disaster of a case does not happen again. In particular, consideration of whether skipping the workshop phase made things better or worse. Above all, I believe the committee has by and large forgotten that TNT is not just a username on a screen, but a real human with emotions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by 28bytes
It might helpful in forestalling future arguments at the Bureaucrats’ Noticeboard if the committee explicitly specified (via a motion of otherwise) that TNT is entitled to a return of the tools upon request at BN at any time. (Assuming, of course, that’s what the committee intends.) 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact wording is above my pay grade, but any formal statement from the committee that could offer concrete guidance to the bureaucrats on this one would be appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Mike1901
I also just want to put on record how I feel this has been handled by ArbCom. Let's not forget here, this all started due to a user making a personal comment within a RFA about what a large number of developed countries regard as a protected characteristic. I'm not defending TNT's actions following this, but they have to viewed in the context of the emotion following the initial comment that started it.

Whilst I'm obviously not privy to the private conversation that happened before the public case request was opened, I can't help but feel from what has worked its way through into the public case that ArbCom could possibly have done more here to understand the underlying concerns, and work with TNT such that they felt supported on a personal/emotional level, before then working through the practical issues. Even if the outcome was the same in terms of permissions, I do strongly feel that had this been handled more sensitively, we might not have had the dramafest which has been this ArbCom case, but more importantly also not entirely lost the goodwill of a valued editor on this project who also has given their time up to support the project's inner workings on a technical level. Mike1901 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Now isn't the time, but @Mike1901, I'd be very interested in any specific ways we could have changed, or specific things that you feel should or shouldn't have happened. My email is open, as is my talk page - but here isn't the place for that debrief. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're onto something. I would agree that it's intuitive that more could be done. However, I think it would've been a difficult thing to coordinate, and I also am having a hard time thinking of specific changes. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Lourdes
With all respects to the arbitrators, may I request you to stop engaging TNT here? Give leeway to TNT's antagonised state here. I am not opposing your decisions; I have heard and read all the comments and to be honest accept all those (of course, except one line by Izno, for which I have emailed them, with no response – possibly they might be busy). I would just hope you consider taking it easy on TNT for now and let TNT be for some time. Also, on another note, my personal thanks to one Arb...... they know why..... Lourdes 07:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Trey Maturin
A bigot attempting to drive an LGBT+ person off Wikipedia has led to ArbCom… driving an LGBT+ person off Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the person who misused their tools to unblock the original bigot against ArbCom and community wishes and without engaging (nor, since then being able to explain their behaviour) has had their knuckles rapped very very lightly with a feather and, if the above comment is accurate, is being offered pastoral support through their ordeal by members of ArbCom.

Wikipedia is a far less safe place for LGBT+ editors today than it was a month ago. To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 10:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So those two arbs, directly noted by TNT as people they felt should recuse, are allowed to vote because technically and with a very careful reading of the rules, that's fine and dandy. And an LGBT+ person, who has technically and with a very careful reading of the rules, perhaps just crossed WP:INVOLVED slightly, must be hounded off here? And an admin who has very much directly and with a cursory glance at the rules broken them in support of a bigot gets extra, off-wiki pastoral care from ArbCom to help them through the terrible trauma they put themselves through?


 * Can straight people not even hear what they're saying any more? This stinks. Sheesh. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 18:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , I stand by what I said. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">Trey Maturin has spoken 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Note re: recusals from L235
Before this case closes, because there have been a few comments about recusal for Barkeep49 and Maxim specifically, I wanted to share that: From my vantage point, both Barkeep49 and Maxim acted perfectly properly in regards to recusal. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of Barkeep49 being asked to recuse at any point prior to yesterday, after the voting was well underway.
 * Maxim was asked by TheresNoTime to recuse on October 13. Based on that request, I urged Maxim not to recuse as it was clear to me that Maxim did not have a "significant conflict of interest" with either party as defined in the arbitration policy. No party in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration policy, but had it been so referred, I would have voted not to recuse Maxim.


 * I abstained from some remedies in this case while being quite sure I could have opined on them without malice or bias. I am very much a "hawk" when it comes to recusals, and I agree with Kevin. There was no need, and it would not have changed the case outcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)