Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 16 October 2022 (→‎Motion: Athaenara: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Athaenara Motions 11 October 2022 2/1/1
INVOLVED actions of TheresNoTime Motions 13 October 2022 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Athaenara

Initiated by EvergreenFir (talk) at 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by EvergreenFir

Athaenara used an RFA to air her transmisogynist views ([3]) that are incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, a violation of WP:UCOC, and the community trust granted to admins:

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

I request that Athaenara be desysopped per WP:LEVEL2. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury Misuse of tools per WP:ADMINACCT is not a necessary condition to revoke them. WP:ADMINCOND says, "However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools." (emphasis added). Both ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND are individually sufficient for revocation.
I want to publicly say that this whole affair saddens me and I wish there was no need for this request. I've conscientiously not participated further since the original filing. Both her colleagues mourning this betrayal and the targets of her hateful comments deserve grace and sympathy. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athaenara

Statement by LilianaUwU

As a trans woman (and filer of the original WP:ANI thread), I don't feel safe having an administrator so openly pushing transphobic views such as this one. Thus, I would like to see this whole situation resolved, preferably with a desysop. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker and Dennis Brown: to echo Black Kite, Moneytrees, etc., saying that the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic isn't a controversial opinion. It's hate speech. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Going against consensus and unblocking Athaenara when she expressed such a terrible opinion is a very bad decision. Please reconsider. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 08:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mitchazenia

There's a line that was crossed here. And yet, is somehow a product of society. But something does not make sense. Why, after 16 years, would you go out of your way to make a comment on an RFA this transphobic? The CheckUser did not come back with any sign of it being compromised. People are certainly open to hold their opinion, but this is a gross act by someone with the community's trust.

Transphobia is a giant no-no and with the problems we've faced through the 21 years of WP:BITE and the Gender Gap, this is a major smack in the face to have of all the effort we made on that regard. While the attacked party is certainly not a newbie, there is certainly a good reason to understand why the behavior of the accused here won't drive away other editors.

As someone who has been emergency desysopped for self-harm reasons, not only should ArbCom make sure the Admin powers are removed, but take the case and make sure that they do not return to the site. There is no place in the world for transphobia, let alone here.Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 01:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

Think I said all I needed to say at the ANI thread, but would like to note that I have checked Athaenara due to concerns about possible compromise. Based on technical data, I do not believe they are compromised. Happy to describe in more detail privately. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apparently do have more to say. To start off, I have in the past held similar beliefs to those expressed by Athaenara, so I think I am better suited than most to understand where she is coming from. I also tend to be pro-"free speech" on Wikipedia. I generally oppose blocking people for simply stating a controversial opinion, even if that opinion is distasteful, as long as it is not creating an unsafe environment. The line between "controversial opinion" and "controversial opinion that makes others feel unsafe" is a rather subjective one, and balancing the "freedom of speech" with creating a safe editing environment is no simple task. To do otherwise, though, risks us becoming an echo chamber where we only permit opinions that everyone else agrees with.
With all that out of the way: I have to strongly disagree with my colleagues Risker and Dennis. This was not a matter of slapping a userbox on one's userpage expressing their opposition to the concept of being transgender in general, nor an abstract comment made in a discussion (and for those keeping score at home - I am not saying those are not blockable either, but to me they are not bright-line violations like this case). This was a comment directed at a human being, in this case a human being going through one of the most stressful processes on Wikipedia, made in a very public space, worded cruelly and directed at a fundamental part of that candidate's identity. I have blocked LTAs without a second thought for making comments not far removed from what was said here. We would not be sitting here debating the merits of a block if someone had opposed a hypothetical RfA because "women are temperamentally unsuited to be administrators" or "black people lack the intelligence to use the admin toolkit" or some other attack on the candidate's identity.
What was said here was nothing less than a naked personal attack, one unbecoming of an administrator, and if it had been said by anyone besides an admin they'd have been indeffed without a second thought and we would all be going about our days without any of this discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some "jurisdictional" conflict here – some folks who think this is properly handled at ANI, others who want it handled by arbs. It looks pretty clear to me that Athaenara is headed for a ban, whether community- or ArbCom-imposed, but ArbCom is the only place that can remove the sysop bit for cause. I think the committee should be intentional about setting a precedent for how to deal with an indefinitely blocked and/or CBANned administrator, whether that is "handle it at AN/ANI and then committee desysops by motion," "whole thing should go through ArbCom," or something else. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of full case vs. motion, I think there are basically two things that would need a full case:
  • Athaenara's behavior earlier this week is not considered sufficient for a LEVEL2 and so past behavior needs deeper examination
  • The admin actions surrounding Athaenara's block, unblock, reblock, reblock with TPA revoked, reblock with TPA un-revoked are sufficiently complex to require a full evidence and workshop phase.
Otherwise, I think the situation is not complex enough to require a full case. I believe that neither of those thresholds have been met, that all the relevant evidence has been laid out on this case request, and that we don't need to do in-depth analyses of possible resolutions. Also, while the blocks were close to a wheel-war, I think this should be let off with a warning at most. I suggest passing a LEVEL2 by motion and, if desired, an admonishment (or similar) for any admin actions that the committee feels were inappropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: a number of people who have brought it up, Tamzin and I performed a test yesterday on testwiki to see what blocked admins could view. I was unable to view deleted pages or deleted revisions while blocked (instead getting a "you are blocked" message), but was able to view private filters during that time. If there are any other things that people want checked, just let me know (but it's Tamzin's turn to get blocked this time). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sarrail

Here's a question I want to ask here: Why? After nearly 16 years of editing and nearly 15 years of being an admin, Athaenara blatantly, carelessly uses transphobia in their statement. Not comfortable and not okay. And this proceeds violation of WP:NPA. Clearly, this admin wants to push transphobia, and actually, IMO, almost required to be desysopped. Sarrail (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by That Coptic Guy

Prefacing my comment by saying that I haven't interacted with Athaenara throughout my time here so far. However, I just refuse to believe someone would throw 16 years of quality editing out the window from 1 comment, never mind one that was so out of the blue. This is clearly someone who is privy to Wikipedia policy and conduct, not just because of their position as an administrator, but from years of experience. I truly think more investigation is needed prior to a desysop. The block they have already received should give them time to reflect on their conduct (if it truly is them commenting), or if not, then a matter of possible compromise or otherwise can be sorted out.

16 years of editing should not be negated based off of 1 comment. It is a mistake; we have all said or done things we aren't proud of, either on Wikipedia or off-wiki, and have been given chances to try and make amends. A chance should be given here before nullifying such a great track record. One would expect the same if they erred and wished to go back to the way things were before the incident. There is more than meets the eye here, I believe. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC) :Couldn’t agree more here. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 04:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC) (Obviously wasn't agreeing with my own comment.) — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

 Clerk note: above comment moved from GizzyCatBella's section. firefly ( t · c ) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

(on reflection, I suppose I might be a party? Since I blocked them? I hope not) While this is certainly no smoking gun, doing a ctrl-f for "Athaenara" in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour will show several comments that are consistent with this actually being Athaenara. Particularly "Another funny part of this to me is that I recall years ago checking the preferences thing about gender, because I'm a woman and don't care who knows it, and now find myself wondering if because of this some users will assume I'm really a guy pretending to be female because hormone issues, neurotic confusion, whatever, and it's just down a rabbit hole again. For the record: I'm not pretending to be anything." (emphasis added by me). I no longer believe this is a compromised account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone can give me a realistic example of something Athaenara could possibly say that would prevent a desysop? Considering what she said, how she said it, and how she reacted on her talk page, what could she possibly say now? Are Arbs hoping for a Road to Damascus moment? Or are there Arbs who would accept a "I still feel that way but won't say it out loud anymore"? This seems like either fairness theater, or like there's a chance ArbCom would be willing to give this a pass if she promises to keep her hate to herself in the future. Just propose the motion to desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: that might suffice for an unblock (not necessarily for me, but I can see how it might be enough for others), but the block is a community matter. I'm talking about why we're waiting before a desysop motion. I want to know what she could say to prevent a desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Statistics-wise, that data - even overall - is suggestive but IMHO not convincing. What would complete it is her support rate of all the other RFXs. If Athaenara nearly always opposes, then your observation is a false positive. If her support percentage in other RFXs is much higher, it's a much stronger case that there's a likely cause and effect going on. I have neither the time nor the skill to compile that info myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Thanks for the updated info. It certainly feels like something is going on there. But I guess I'm still concerned about the sample size. I'm sure someone with statistics skills could do some kind of Bayesian magic and figure out what the odds are that these opposes occurred naturally. Probably higher than our instinct would suggest. But there's really no need, because she was so 100% clear on Isabella's RFA. So theoretical me still has qualms about using these numbers, but realist me doesn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Please don't turn this into a full case; all of the typical WP dysfunction surrounding this is minor enough that there's no need for a full case in order to have the opportunity at the end to say "we wish Lourdes, Ritchie, and TNT hadn't done that". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned and Ritchie333: Athaenara's talk page access restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

There is no situation where I would defend Athaenara's comments but I'm just having a very hard time reconciling those comments with the admin that I know. Night after night, I encounter Athaenara as we patrol CSD categories and delete problematic comment. They are diligent and are dependably putting in time on unglamorous admin tasks. I can only imagine that something is happening in their off-wiki life. I understand that their account was checked and it doesn't appear to be compromised. But this one edit is out of character with the admin I've come to know and combing through tens of thousands of edits to find one or two questionable comments should not result in a permanent ban.

I know that editors are angry and asking for a desysop but I hope there won't be a rush to judgment. I'd like 24 hours to pass and hear from Athaenara after the situation has cooled. If they defend their comments and don't apologize, then I understand that action will likely be taken. But Athaenara is blocked, there will be no further violations and I think there is not an urgency to act to protect the project. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that over the years, I have had my share of abuse directed towards me, as many female editors have and as many admins and anti-vandal fighters have. I'm not unsympathetic to those who feel personally attacked by the comments. I just think there is more going on here than we know and I'd like to hear from Athaenara when some time has passed. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement GizzyCatBella

Echo Liz. The comment was shocking, but it would be wise to wait for statement, explanation, perhaps a cause of such bizarre behaviour and apology will arrive. Then you can take it from there. (assuming the account isn't compromised) People have nasty days, you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker - It's okay to have an opinion. What's stunning to me is the time, place and a choice of words used by Athaenara to express it. The fact that it has been directed at the specific editor also saddens me deeply.😔 Something must be going on.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Athaenara’ account is blocked site wide - no possibility to provide a statement. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

Administrators are allowed to have controversial opinions, provided that they do not allow those opinions to affect their administrator actions. There have been many successful RFAs where the candidates were known to hold controversial opinions, including some this calendar year. There's no administrator action involved in voting in an RFA. Athaenara has expressed what many would consider to be a controversial personal opinion. That is permitted, generally speaking. The question is whether it is appropriate to express that opinion in the middle of someone's RFA. I have little doubt that the closing bureaucrat(s) would assign very low weight to that oppose vote, just as they have in the past to other oppose votes that are essentially political statements. As best I can tell, no experienced editor has been blocked for expressing controversial opinions — some of which might also have "violated" the UCoC — as applied to an RFA candidate.

Think carefully about whether it is appropriate to strip administrator permissions from individuals because they are not right-thinking. Does it in any way affect their ability to block vandals, review CSDs, close AFDs? Do they show restraint in their admin roles by not carrying out administrator actions in the general topic area where they hold opinions that don't perfectly align with the current social climate? I wonder how many admins we'll have left if we desysop all the admins who have opinions that may be considered controversial. Heck, I doubt even Newyorkbrad would be able to pass the "no controversial opinions" test. Risker (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I'm going to disagree with Risker here, specifically on the phrase Athaenara has expressed what many would consider to be a controversial personal opinion. That is permitted, generally speaking. No - it isn't permitted at all. We routinely indef editors for hate speech such as racism or homophobia, and that edit was simple transphobia, which shouldn't be treated any differently. Having said that, I would agree with Liz that we should wait and see what Athaenara comes back with, if she does at all. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having read Athaenara's comment, I note that she says (a) it wasn't that bad (block should be 24-72 hrs), (b) doubles down on the original comment ("my own womanhood is not as defensible in this milieu as transwomanhood is"), (c) contains no hint of an apology to Isabelle, and (d) still blames some type of "cancel culture". Let's be clear on that last point, if you are an intelligent person and quite aware that a thing that you are about to type and post is going to land you in a pile of opprobrium from multiple people, it is not their fault that you still went ahead and did it. Having said all that, leaving this (and the ANI thread) open for much longer when the consensus is obvious is probably something that ArbCom should think about. Black Kite (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh good grief people, this does not need a full case, regardless of the daft unblock/reblock episode earlier. Motion, desysop, close. @Worm That Turned:; surely this sideshow does not need to drag this out for weeks, if not months. Apart from anything else, it's not fair to Athaenara. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I second Black kite– Risker, I'm disappointed to see you describe this as just "a controversial personal opinion." Ultimately, it's an excessive, inflammatory, and unnecessary attack on the candidate's identity, and therefore the candidate themselves. It's just mean. It's probably the most over-the-line personal attack I've seen on Wikipedia barring outright slurs. Compare it to an actual example of an LTA saying some nasty stuff at the RfA; the language is just nicer. I'm sure we have a few admins who agree with what Atheanara said and hold other offensive views- but where have these admins expressed these views?

Per Checkusers and Floquenbeam's posting above, it does not appear the account is compromised, and I don't really think the block is in question, so now the question is should Atheanara still be an admin? My view is that Atheanara has done generally good work in anti-spam and deletion areas over several years. This does make me question judgment and temperament though. The "cancel me" comment indicates she knew what she was saying would be considered inflammatory– but she said it anyways. It seems to be a preemptive attempt to deflect criticism. Saying something so controversial and then implying any resulting criticism or consequence is "cancel culture" is just immature and not the kind of approach I'd want in a sysop. This is all especially hard to take given Atheanara's oppose of Tamzin's RfA, in particular where she says, "Wikipedia adminship is not about joining political caucuses and ganging up on designated victims." How is that consistent with her behavior at Isabelle's RfA? Regardless of all that, I'd like to see if Atheanara has anything further to say before moving on with a desysop– it seems she is in contact with the committee right now, and she still has talk page access

I think this is sad to see given Atheanara's lengthy service and otherwise fine behavior as an admin. Why waste it on this? I feel bad for Isabelle Belato now having this oddness happening alongside their RfA. It's not fair. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Tamzin below, I'll note this early 2018 oppose at the GreenMeansGo RfA– "[...] We're not supposed to be here for the dramahz, we're supposed to be here for the encyclopedia. [...] To anyone tempted to badger me: knock yourself out, I'll probably give the same attention to it that Roseanne Barr does to those who object when she expresses an opinion", which has not aged well for some obvious reasons and has some unfortunate parallels to this current situation. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, I agree with Floquenbeam– please don't make this a full case (not an expedited one either), that will just drag this out further in an unnecessary way and make more of a mess. It'd be unfair to all involved. This should be solved with a simple desysop by motion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

Echoing those above, this is not a "controversial opinion", it is hate speech directed at the candidate in an RfA from an administrator. That is indefensible and, since it's becoming clear that Athaenara's account is not compromised, I'd suggest the committee deals with this with a Level II desysop motion rather than a case. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that WP:LEVEL2 simply describes the procedure by which the committee "expediently" desysops someone by motion. It doesn't matter if the motion is public or private. But whatever you call it, we need ArbCom to act now, to draw a line under this and to show the outside world that we take transphobia seriously. I kind of understand the initial instinct to wait—though, as others have said, what response could possibly be worth waiting for—but Athaenara has responded, and the ANI thread shows near-unanimous support for the indefinite block, a de facto community ban. The committee's built-in lethargy aside, what purpose does further delay serve? – Joe (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: (since you quoted me:) I wrote the above because, at that point, all the arbs that had commented said they were waiting for something to happen before acting, and because Izno specifically asked for input on whether "action should be quick, or slow, or no action at all". Obviously I realise that ArbCom is a slow-moving body. It was a request for the committee to stop "waiting", not to act immediately. I'm glad to hear that a motion is in the works. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SoWhy

I can somewhat understand where Risker is coming from since, generally speaking, having a lot of people with different backgrounds working together is in fact beneficial to the project and personal beliefs should usually not be relevant if there is no indication that said beliefs will impact the editor's approach to other users and content (speaking here as someone who experienced opposition at my own RFA because of my strong atheism). The question is thus not whether Athaenara is allowed to hold certain views, even if they are incredibly hate- and hurtful. The question is whether we can still trust someone who has expressed such views to treat other users fairly and lead by example as required by our policies. Here I do see a problem because Athaenara did not just spout transphobia, she explicitly attacked an adminship candidate for somehow being complicit in driving away users who she sees as "real" women (of course without any evidence whatsoever). And she did so willfully and knowingly ('Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care') just to hurt this editor and make some kind of political statement because she knew that an oppose !vote with that rationale at this point in the RfA would not alter the outcome in any way. This I don't see as compatible with how admins should behave themselves per WP:ADMINCOND ("Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others"). Regards SoWhy 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheresNoTime

I have nothing further to add to the above other than to call on ArbCom to accept this case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: With the utmost respect, I'm not sure what reply could be made which would make what was said any less of an issue, and require any less action... I know you well enough to understand that's certainly not what you're saying, and in real terms there is no major rush to process this — there is something to be said for swift action to ensure such behaviour is clearly shown to not be tolerated though — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much hemming and hawing here — I'd say it was "unbelievable" that we're debating the "pros and cons" of such a comment, but it is no longer unbelievable to me. It's par for the course, and it's exhausting. Some have suggested that the community can handle this, so I ask the following: if a RfA-comparable (>75%, well advertised, etc.) request for comment found consensus to desysop Athaenara, would ArbCom respect the result and make the request for the bit to be removed? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: precisely, thank you — ergo, the community can't handle it, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to reduce the severity of such a hateful comment — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Athaenara has been, without any discussion and flying in the face of consensus gained at ANI, unblocked by Lourdes. This is unacceptable. I have started an ANI thread to gain consensus to reinstate the block. Now that Athaenara is unblocked and free to use their admin tools, a more expedient desysop should take place. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: I'd appreciate a clarification on your most recent comment, as I take it to read as "I felt [it was similarly unhelpful] TNT being the one to re-block.". I'm certainly not aware of anything which would preclude me from making the (re)block, wheel warring concerns aside — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Thank you for the clarification. Rather than hash out if I'm involved here and derail this further, I'll await the separate case request — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sakura emad

there are sum of statements i must summarize here: Transphobia is gross and there Must not be any excuses to allow it, administrators are lead by example, community doesn't expect such thing from a trust-worthy user, our community is big and diverse we have variety of people here: and among them are LGBTQA+ community, we must make sure that they feel safe here, a long time of service should not be neglected based on one comment, but we have to make sure that such thing e.g racism does not repeat itself. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

A bit shocked. Having re-read Athaenara‘s RfA, it’s not completely shocking. The opinion expressed is not unusual in the wider world, but there can be no doubt that Athaenara knew that it would be shocking to drop it in an RfA. The opinion should be tolerated, accepted for personal discussion, in a quiet place. An RfA is not an appropriate place. For the known offensiveness of the strength of post in an inappropriate place, the Level II desysop seems appropriate. Athaenara should lose adminship, due to display indicating lack of trust, for the inappropriate posting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel concern for Athaenara. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The shutting down of discussions at ANI is procedural mistake. ArbCom is a forum of last resort. ArbCom is not supposed to act until all other avenues are exhausted. Perhaps ANI is a seriously flawed forum for it, especially due to the tendency of heavy-handed Big man fast closing of discussions there, and the community discussion (on the block, etc) should continue on a dedicated page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I agree with Worm; there is no need for Arbcom to get involved at this stage. I appreciate TheresNoTime's comments, but I am simply looking at this from the view that this isn't a dispute the community cannot handle at this time. Indeed, there seems to be a pretty solid consensus that the block was good. After all, a blocked administrator who nobody wants to unblock cannot do anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, Dennis Brown Consider Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump, where I was criticised for having strong opinions (in this case, hating Donald Trump) that were felt to be incompatible with an administrator. Notwithstanding my view in that MfD, I decided to delete it anyway because there's no real point in needlessly causing offence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam For what it's worth, I would consider something like, "I'm sorry for my outburst, I was going through a stressful time and lashed out in a completely unacceptable manner. The community is correct that such hate speech has no place on Wikipedia, and has clearly lost confidence in my ability to be an administrator. I would ask that I be unblocked in exchange for resigning the tools "under a cloud" and a topic ban on LGBTQ issues, broadly construed." If a majority at AN agreed with that, then unblock; if not, then Athaenara would be considered banned by the community. PS: I realise that's an argument for an unblock, so the answer to your actual question is "no". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a previously similar incident, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46, it was initiated on 30 March 2021, the motion to desysop and suspend was proposed on 1 April, the desysop was enacted on 9 April and made permanent in July. [4] I think it's a question of when, not if, Athaenara gets desysopped, and I think the relevant processes need to play themselves out. Things should shake out in the next day or two. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Floq, a breakdown of Athaenara's RfA voting record is here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should inform everyone that I have just disabled Athaenara's talk page access as they don't seem interested in appealing a block. I know that Worm had reservations and persuaded me not to follow through this when I suggested it yesterday, and indeed I would not have done so had Athaenara taken any obvious steps towards appealing the block. However, I note that every comment from Athaenara since the block has had a couple of heated responses from it, and so I think it's a good idea to put a lid on that discussion. As Primefac correctly says, there is no rush for Arbcom to make a decision - it is important, but not urgent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned If you feel my disabling talk page access was unconstructive, ill-advised or otherwise unhelpful, I'm happy to reverse it if that would help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks like Floq beat me to restoring talk page access. Yes, I'll always reverse any administrative actions if another admin opposes them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maxim that "hard cases make bad law" - to address Worm That Turned's complaint, the blocking policy states "Editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases ... when the user has engaged in serious ... accusations ... which needs to be prevented from reoccurring." and I consider remarks such as "the poisonous fury of those who descended upon me for doing so .... drawing comparisons to puritans whipping quakers out of town, being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, etc." and ":Wikipedia:Drama is not why I'm here." to be marginal cases. Furthermore, the policy states, "The protection policy has further details in cases where other users are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk pages of blocked users." However, I do not think full-protection of Athaenara's talk page (to stop rebukes) would have been the answer, as that would have likely litigated another discussion elsewhere, and doing nothing would have made them carry on regardless. In any case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree over this.
I also want to draw attention to the angry rebukes on Athaenara's talk page; I don't think they are helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

Speaking as someone whose views of sex transition (as a depersonalized subject matter) are probably broadly similar to Athaenara's, the way she chose to attack a specific editor is, frankly, disgusting. Given that she was deliberately turning Isabelle's person into a political flashpoint and was obviously aware of how this would be perceived, we should be considering to what extent WP:NOTHERE and related policies apply. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why ArbCom shouldn't resolve this by motion. A suspended case is unnecessary because 1) there isn't anything she could conceivably say (apart from maybe proving that her account was compromised) that would rescue her reputation enough to keep her tools, and 2) Athaenara's whole goal was apparently to be silenced and lynched, so she isn't going to contribute to this conversation, if only so she can continue pretending to be the victim here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I would simply say that Risker's comments 100% reflect my own. I don't like the comment, but there is a difference in holding unpopular opinions, and using those opinions in an administrative way, or in a way that suppresses others, which doesn't seem to be the case. Desysopping for this is a slippery slope that might have unforeseen ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, I have no issue with the block, but this is being handled at ANI. What I don't want to see is a knee jerk reaction by Arb before the community has had the opportunity to handle the situation. Arb actions, in any, should be based on what the community has demonstrated a consensus for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with shutting the ANI discussion down. Arb shouldn't be taking a case unless it is demonstrated that the community can't handle it as it is the venue of last resort. There are a few exceptions to this, but this case doesn't fall into that category. It seems a few are refusing to find out if the community can handle it, to force Arb's hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vermont

Risker, this isn't simply a "controversial personal opinion". Everyone has opinions that would be controversial somewhere, and this has nothing to do with enforcing some sort of "right-thinking". It's patently disingenuous to even state that a response to this blatant, wide-reaching personal attack this is some sort of "no controversial opinions" test.

The "opinion" expressed here is an attack on a defined group on the basis of their gender identity, with a clear aim (given the oppose vote and prior comments) to dissuade or prevent people from that group from contributing to Wikipedia. How can you possibly expect someone to remain in community trust when their stated view is that trans people should not be admins?

I'll summarize my general position on this topic as this: If someone believes queer people should not have rights, they should not have admin rights. I urge ArbCom to accept the case. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflicted with Dennis Brown above. Voting on a RfA saying that trans women shouldn't be editing most definitely suppresses others. How would you feel comfortable contributing to this proejct if people with power over you clearly and publicly stated they don't believe you should be part of their curated community, on the basis of immutable characteristics? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Katie

I live in an area of the United States where this 'controversial personal opinion' is not only tolerated, but is the norm. It's awful, but those people are certainly entitled to that opinion. But we're not talking about opinion. We're talking about safety. We're talking about an administrator who decided to go to an RFA and slap a trans woman in her face. It's not only an attack on the candidate. It's an attack on women, all women, because it implies that cis women editors are being somehow dominated by trans women editors, and those poor cis women need protection from 'them'. It sows division and hate and has no place here. I'm sorry if Athaenara feels threatened by the trans editors on this project. That's not an excuse for her to make an unprovoked assault on someone. How can we seriously tell ourselves that we're working on increasing women's participation in this project if we tolerate attacks like this one? Katietalk 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

I am surprised to see Risker and Dennis Brown, two well-established editors who I generally see as thoughtful and level-headed, suggesting that this discussion is about sanctioning Athaenara for holding "controversial opinions". Both in the discussion here and in the ANI thread, several people have explicitly criticised Athaenara's comment as a personal attack, including in this discussion at least one editor who says that they agree with her opinion on gender identity! WP:WIAPA is clear that "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [...] gender identity,[...] directed against another editor or a group of editors" is a personal attack, and that "Disagreement over what constitutes [...] gender identity [...] is not a legitimate excuse". Athaenara's initial framing of her comment ("Go ahead, 'cancel' me"), suggesting that she was well aware of how the comment would be taken, and the fact that her only response to the banning is this bit of political grandstanding suggest that her behaviour should also be examined with respect to WP:SOAPBOX. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

I’m frankly stunned to see editors I otherwise respect defending this garbage as merely a “controversial opinion.” “Oppose: Administrators should have at least 1 featured article” is a controversial opinion. What this administrator wrote was not only textbook hate speech, but had absolutely nothing to do with the RfA candidate’s qualifications and suitability for the position they were seeking, any more than “Oppose: Too many Jewish administrators currently” would be.

Athaenara did not participate in that RfA to start a good-faith discussion about the candidate, but to troll and soapbox and, it seems, go out in a blaze of “martyrdom” at the hands of the “woke mob,” as the comments about getting “cancelled” make clear. The indefinite block was entirely appropriate for such an outrageous abuse of the RfA process, the candidate, and indeed a whole category of people who’ve had to put up with way too much abuse already. I hope a desysop quickly follows. 28bytes (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors who have urged the committee to focus on the attack Athaenara made in the RfA (and her subsequent comments declining to apologize for it) rather than expand the case to encompass the various subsequent unblockings and reblockings. Hate speech should be dealt with promptly, and we simply cannot have administrators (even blocked administrators) who do such things. I've seen some comments referencing the UCoC and its enforcement, and I worry that if this straightforward desysop request morphs into a lengthy "kitchen sink" examination of tangential issues, the pressure will increase on the WMF to step in and act in the absence of prompt local action, since they likely also recognize that we simply cannot have administrators who do such things. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

This is not about an opinion at all. Saying "there are too many trans editors" would be an example of expressing a (horrible, bigoted) opinion. But expressing an opinion is not what Athaenara did. She opposed an RFA because the candidate was trans. That's not expressing an opinion, that's actively discriminating against someone because of their gender identity. That's a TOS violation. If she said "oppose because candidate is Black/Muslim/gay/a woman", we wouldn't even be talking about this, she'd be blocked, locked, desysoped, and forgotten, without any need for discussion. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an admin indef'd for very good cause, endorsed by the community. That alone is grounds for an immediate desysop (by motion). Ok, give her 24-48hrs to say something if you want to, but beyond that you're indulging an admin and doing the "supermario effect" thing: her editing privileges were immediately revoked; it doesn't make any sense to treat her admin privileges as requiring more consideration to remove than her editing privileges. Any admin who's indef'd needs to be desysopped asap. You can't let her keep having viewdeleted perms if she's not even trusted to make an edit. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW when the dust settles from this one, we should look at making a change to policy to clarify that indef'd/sitebanned admins should be desysopped immediately and automatically, probably by crats. If something like this were to happen again, I'd like to see it go down differently than it has. It's a little ridiculous to me that it takes more work to desysop an admin than to indef or siteban one. No one who is blocked should be able to view deleted edits while they're blocked. Levivich (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Athaenara knew exactly what she was doing. This is not an "oh gee gosh, I made a mistake, I'm sorry". This is someone who is doubling down on an opinion that is almost totally incompatible with the values of Wikipedia. And if this made its way to WMF Trust & Safety, they would have banned her as well. This cannot stand. Unfortunately, I do also worry that the widespread outrage this has generated will engender thoughts that we are somehow an angry mob or the "woke police". But WP:CIV doesn't take a holiday for political reasons.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I think Thryduulf is right. I applaud ArbCom for its deilberate caution in approaching this incident. As much as we might want for them to agree with the rest of the community and impose the stiffest possible sanctions, that isn't what we elect them to do.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I believe that a full case is necessary, in order to answer the questions as to whether or not the actions taken constituted wheel-warring or WP:INVOLVED, and in order to establish principles on how we should handle such cases in the future that involve widespread condemnation of a long-standing administrator.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GiantSnowman

Just popping here to state that I have closed the ANI thread whilst this ArbCom discussion is ongoing. If ArbCom does not take it on, then if needed we can go back to ANI. I am otherwise keeping my views on the potential desysop to myself so as not to be viewed as INVOLVED, other than to say our main concern here should be absolute solidarity with Isabelle Belato (and all other trans editors/people here and around the world). GiantSnowman 14:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: - I think Athaenara knew exactly what reaction her comment would have, which is why she said "Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care." GiantSnowman 12:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Echoing GiantSnowman, there's a whole person here, a person who was attacked in what may well be the most vulnerable place to attack them. This was not an expression of some political belief, this was purposely being hurtful to another human being, and the "oh its just an unpopular belief" idea ignores the hurt inflicted on that person, and indeed on all the other trans editors we have. You can be a TERF, you can hold whatever belief you want, but you cannot attack a person with your beliefs any more than you can with a rock. And I hope the editors who are if not quite dismissing but diminishing, editors I think highly of, what happened as "expressing controversial opinions" consider what effect that has on the person that was attacked. nableezy - 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think any ban on running for RFA needs to even be considered, and the only thing for you all to do is desysop by motion and leave the question as to whether or not Athaenara is blocked or unblocked to the community. All there is for you to consider is if this is conduct unbecoming an administrator and de-sysop for cause. If somehow Athaenara is able to convince the community that she should be unblocked and wants to see if the community believes that they should be an admin she should be able to do that. nableezy - 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maile66

Desysop, if for no other reason, the high possibility that this account is compromised. Besides the insulting nature of the statement, none of us really knows who is male or female, nor anything else about our personal lives, unless we choose to reveal the information. The offending statement presumes to know gender preferences of our admins. I don't even know what continent many of my fellow admins live on. — Maile (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

To oppose adminship (and possibly even to oppose someone's presence on Wikipedia) on the basis of the nominee's gender identity, claiming such editors are "highly toxic", is a clear violation of our code of conduct. Further statements reinforce that they are fully aware their comments are unacceptable. I add to the pile-on of dismay at the statements by Risker and Dennis Brown, who appear to be focusing only on the distasteful description of trans women, which is sadly not rare and probably would only earn a topic ban. I urge them both to reconsider. Possibly Evergreen's opening post about "transmisogynist views" is not clear enough about what was crossing the line, though the quote that follows makes things very clear. -- Colin°Talk 15:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

This is definitely grounds for prompt desysoping, for reasons already laid out by others above, and while I do agree that there is no imminent time pressure in the form of an unblocked Athaenaera potentially causing further disruption, there is frankly nothing that she could write at this point that would avoid the need for a desysop (since it seems we're no longer entertaining the idea that it may have been a compromised account, at least), and thus I don't think there's much reason for delay either. Otherwise, I think I agree with suggestions that the community can handle this without ArbCom: unblock requests can be evaluated as they come, and the community can also move to propose a site ban at ANI (timed or otherwise) if editors feel that is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Mythdon

Openly discriminating against a group of people should automatically result in a desysop at the very least. The benefit of discussing it with the community/ArbCom, however, is there'll be community/ArbCom sign-off, whatever sanctions are handed are handed down. The fact that she has administrative privileges and completely goes out of her to harass and target a specific group of people is alarming. Floquenbeam's swift action was sound, but with that said, discussing it with ArbCom is definitely the way to go as ArbCom's a much more contained way of handling it versus just the community continuing to go back and forth on it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nardog

Giving the accused an opportunity to have their say is fair and square, but I'd like the arbs to also consider what harm leaving this open alone could cause. The sheer knowledge that someone could come up here and make a roundabout point about a whole group of people at any moment, even if one can be reasonably confident it would be summarily dismissed or condemned, by itself makes this an unsafe place for them and thus harms the project as a whole. (I'm already uneasy about the strong reactions it's attracted even though I share many of them.) So unless Athaenara says she wants her privileges back, I suggest immediate suspension (like earlier this year) or some other remedy be explored to put this behind as quickly as possible, especially given the community seems fairly unanimous on whether she should still be an admin. Nardog (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a full case were to be opened, admonish the wheelwarring and clarify jurisdiction and admin CBAN by all means, but leave the desysopping of Athaenara out of it. Don't set a precedent for "filibuster by wheel war". Nardog (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

If your "controversial opinion" prevents you from treating your colleagues with the courtesy they are entitled to, it stops being just a controversial opinion. In such a large community, we're inevitably going to have a lot of opinions that some find troublesome. We can't, and shouldn't, regulate those; but we can and should regulate editor behavior, and this was beyond the pale. I'm rather concerned that some of my celebrated colleagues above can't see that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Just wanted to note, the corresponding ANI thread has now twice been closed, once by GiantSnowman [5], and the second time by El C [6]. Given that several arbitrators were waiting to see the conclusion of the ANI thread, and that two admins have closed the thread in good faith because it was being discussed here, would it be possible for the arbitrators to clarify if they are satisfied with those closes or if the ANI discussion should continue? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam and Tamzin: Legoktm created a rfa voting history tool over on toolforge. It has a couple of caveats per the notes, might misparse a couple and put them into the unknown category, doesn't parse courtesy blanked RfAs, and requires separate searches for renamed users, but it should provide the basics for this check. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned that today's unblock->ANI->reblock debacle is changing the scope of what ultimately is a very simple thing to resolve. Athaenara's comments are far below the standard expected of both admins and non-admins alike, and she has been blocked as a result. Whether or not Athaenara should be desysoped should be handled by a motion.
As for the unblock by Lourdes, that deserves a trouting because the block was clearly supported by the community. The subsequent reblock by TNT was carried out under unanimous consensus from the community, and was timely because less than an hour after the unblock by Lourdes, Athaenara had returned to regular editing actions. With regards to WP:INVOLVED, even if you believe TNT to be involved, this action is very much within the spirt of In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Can any editor, admin or otherwise, look at the state of that discussion either at the time of the reinstatement or Black Kite's subsequent close and see any other conclusion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

Desysop by motion and leave indefinitely blocked. I've indefinitely blocked plenty of people for less.

Risker and Dennis Brown, this isn't about "wrongthink". This is about flat-out hate speech, which is unacceptable. I understand where you're coming from—I hold some very controversial pro-life opinions—but I don't go out attacking women who have had abortions. I also hold some heavily socialist opinions, which is why I quietly steer clear of American politics or I'd probably mouth off at Republicans. If Athaenara had simply kept her views to herself and stayed away from gender identity topics, everything would have been fine. However, she chose to find a trans woman and attack her for it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Moved from Statement by Tamzin Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I also opposed all of these other than Amanda's RFB. I think this is just a case of sampling bias. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theleekycauldron's RFA was withdrawn before I could vote, and I didn't see EvergreenFir's or Wugapode's in time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I think that Levivich, above, hot the nail squarely on the head. Having an opinion is one thing. Expressing that opinion in a specific place is another thing, in which the context must be taken into account (the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument). Taking action based on that opinion is yet another thing, and that is where we are in this case. Calling for revolution is allowed, picking up a rifle and shooting it to foment or participate in a revolution is not. Athaenara has the right to think what they want, they may have the right to express that opinion on Wikipedia -- a private website with no guarantee of freedom of expression -- that's debatable, but once they voted against an RfA candidate on the basis of that prejudicial and discriminatory attitude, they crossed a line, and should be de-sysopped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravenswing

Oof. I have considerable sympathy for the premise that we should be free to express unpopular opinions on Wikipedia; I’m one of the handful of editors on record as opposing WP:NONAZIS, I believe that defining “safe spaces” as “You don’t ever have to encounter a view you don’t like” doesn’t sit well with WP:NOTCENSORED, and it’s deeply unsettling how very eager many people are to conflate misgivings over aspects of transgender as Proof! Proof! of bigotry.

However. I agree with many above in the principle that expressing a general opinion is a far different thing than weaponizing it into a crude, vicious personal attack on another editor. (And what the pluperfect hell: be your views ever so anti-trans extremist, what could there possibly be about being trans that disqualifies someone from being an admin??) Having been a productive editor and administrator for sixteen years does not immunize someone against an offense that would get a newbie indeffed twenty times over.

Beyond that, to address the many comments about this being a bolt from the blue ... as may be, but quite aside from that being a frequent sentiment (“Why, she’s always been a nice and quiet neighbor, I just can’t believe she set that building on fire”), that misses the point. The point is – and ironically enough, given the venue of the offense – that prospective admins must secure the overwhelming support of the community. No RfA would survive a personal attack half that vicious being discovered. Whatever provoked her to make the outburst, it is plain that Athaenara will never again enjoy the trust of the community. She could not now get the support to gain the tools from scratch. She does not now have the support to keep them. Ravenswing 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin -- thank you for your research below. It's quite the smoking gun, in rebuttal to those claiming this to be a (presumably excusable) one-off lapse in an otherwise long and honorable career as an editor and administrator. One can only wonder what cracks in the facade lurk in Athaenara's edit history. Ravenswing 12:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamreallygoodatcheckers -- regarding your belief that the block was excessive and premature, no. Indeed, blocks are supposed to prevent disruption. But in a single edit, Athaenara blew skyhigh any trust the community might have had in her. Especially given the subsequent findings of Tamzin and others, Athaenara has made biased decisions here based on a bigoted agenda. We routinely indef newbies with a fraction of the capacity for damage that an experienced admin has, and often with shakier cause. Given the distinct lack of contrition she's expressed on her own talk page, well. Ravenswing 14:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I want to express my disagreement with Risker and Dennis Brown. This was not at its core an expression of a controversial opinion, but rather it was an exceptionally cruel personal attack on a specific person in a particularly high visibility place. It was also an attack on all trans people active on this encyclopedia. The "either/or" thinking that concludes that welcoming trans women equals discouraging or excluding other women is deeply problematic. The going out in a blaze of glory rhetoric is creepy. Please act. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, thank you for your detailed analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the statement below by Aquillion. I know that many editors dislike the "pile on" aspects of some ANI discussions. But the emergence of consensus when dealing with productive editors who suddenly choose disruption can never be elegant nor pretty. I support clerking when editors step over the lines of incivility and personal attacks. But when an editor screws up big time, other editors should have the opportunity to be heard, within reason. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

While voting at an RfX is indeed not an administrative action—a point I've myself stressed in another context—it is worth noting that we appear to have a pattern of opposing permission requests by people who are openly trans, nonbinary, or request pronouns other than a simple "he/him" or "she/her". In addition to Isabelle's RfA, Athaenara has opposed my RfA (39th of 112 opposes), Wugapodes' RfB (14th of 39), Sdrqaz' RfA (5th of 5), theleekycauldron's RfA (2nd of 50), EvergreenFir's RfA (20th of 42), and AmandaNP's RfB (5th of 6). The only RfXes I'm aware of of such a person where Athaenara did not oppose are CaptainEek's and Rosguill's, which Athaenara did not vote in at all. Note also that these votes have tended to be rather weakly-reasoned, and are basically never cited by other users (see e.g. theleekycauldron's RfA, where Athaenara's vote of, essentially, "oppose per being good at what she wants to do", got a brief mention in one of 48 subsequent opposes).

N Other than the vote against Isabelle, none of these votes is individually that damning (least of all the one against me, which is probably the most unremarkable), but I think they overall paint a picture of a campaign to deny editors access to permissions on the basis of their gender, transgender status, or requested pronouns. That is not an administrative action, but it is leveraging the social influence of being a veteran user, and is further conduct unbecoming of an administator, in addition to that already identified above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Yes, was just about to do that. :) Gimme a few. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sideswipe9th (and by extension lego!) saved me some time there fucking around with insource. (That tool doesn't include RfB, but it appears Athaenara has not voted in any recent RfBs except Amanda's and Wug's.) In the timeframe since the oldest RfX considered above (AmandaNP's), there are 8 other opposes (RexxS, Daffy123, Floquenbeam2, AmericanAir88, Greenman, Money emoji, Shushugah, ScottishFinnishRadish) and 16 supports. So in other words, a 16⁄24 support rate in that timeframe for candidates who have not indicated that they are trans, nonbinary, or take pronouns other than just he/him or just she/her. And a 100% 7⁄7 oppose rate for candidates who do (still 3/4 7⁄9 oppose even if assuming non-votes were intentional). Contrasting this vote for Ashleyyoursmile (AFAIK a cis woman) with the vote against theleekycauldron may make for a good microcosm of the overall trend. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: You were neutral on me; did not vote on Wug, leek, or Evergreen; opposed Sdrqaz; and, as you note, supported Amanda. So that is in fact a 1⁄2 oppose rate, or 1⁄8 if counting neutrals and non-votes. Compare, again, to 6/6 and 6/8 7⁄7 and 7⁄9 respectively for Athaenara. If you think there's a sampling bias here, what's the sampling bias? What about these six candidates makes us unrelatedly more likely to merit opposition from Athaenara? That would be a pretty significant coincidence, given, again, her general 2/3 support rate and the fact that 4 of these 6 RfXs closed as successful. Consider also the matter of Athaenara's "turnout rate" at RfXs in this category: 6⁄8, compared to 24⁄58 for other candidates in the same time period (taken by adding year totals at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological), then subtracting Jan.–Feb. '19 and the 8 in question). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: Yes, missing the chance to vote in an RfA (or not feeling like it) is pretty common. It happens to me. It happens to Athaenara about 60% of the time... unless the candidate falls into one of these three groups, in which case it happens only a quarter of the time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erratum: Some statements and statistics above overlooked the obvious datapoint of the oppose at Isabelle's RfA. They have been amended where necessary. Without exception, the correction of this error strengthens, not weakens, the hypothesis advanced here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the matter of what ArbCom should do, may I suggest one approach? Something to the effect of This matter is referred back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for continued discussion of community sanctions. If that discussion ends in a consensus to siteban, this motion is considered authorization for a bureaucrat to desysop. If it ends in any manner other than that, the matter will be referred back to the Committee to be resolved by a motion or full case, as the Committee deems appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my intention here is to avoid a situation where a level-2 or by-motion desysop winds up undercutting efforts at community sanctions. I have no objection to a speedy desysop in itself. The community did manage a post-desysop ban in the case of Edgar181, so maybe I'm worrying too much. I do think ArbCom, if it does go with a speedy desysop, would do well to consider a TBAN or siteban at the same time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

W/re Tamzin's excellent accounting above, it's worth recognizing that some !voters, uneasy with gender nonconformance, may look (consciously or not) for a more acceptable reason to oppose. Age. An intemperate statement. In this case, there apparently being nothing like that, out it came.

Cabayi, that's the part that's so stupid about this sword-falling. Many women keep a low profile online for caution's sake. Those of us who don't may have a reason. In my case it's that I want people to see women working here. In the case of a trans woman it could totally be the same, and for reasons they find even more compelling. It could be that a trans woman willing to out herself is more likely than most people to think RfA is worth the stress. We can't assume that the simple fact many of those identifying themselves as women who've RfA'd recently also identify themselves as trans means that trans women are somehow disproportionately filling some "woman niche". There's no pie, here. A trans woman running RfA doesn't mean someone assigned female at birth gets shoved out.

Statement by Barkeep49

Many have already replied to Risker and Dennis but I feel there's an additional nuance that hasn't yet be touched. So I want to echo general those sentiments while expanding on a different point. Risker asked Does it in any way affect their ability to block vandals, review CSDs, close AFDs? And while I could answer "Maybe" to this question it's not actually the right question in my mind. We don't just expect admins to be proficient in their tool use. We expect that they ...lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. For me this action fails completely on that basis. And given the way the thought was stated, and the venue in which it was chosen to be expressed, it is for me disqualifying and enough to justify a fast desysop. But even if doesn't cross that brightline for everyone (though I notice it does for many others here) it's not like we're inventing some new unreasonable standard to hold Athaenara to.

And crucially, at least for me, this is specifically about her as an admin. I actually think a successful appeal of the indefinite block would be fairly easy to do with an appropriate appeal. And it should be that way. I think the standards we have for being part of this community are lower than the standards we should have for being an admin. Right now Athaenara isn't crossing either of those.

One of those is fixable by her, and one of these can only be fixed by ArbCom acting as the community has decided it and it alone my act on it. I note that several arbs have said they don't think this qualifies for Level 2 because it's being conducted publicly. That's fair. But I think acting with-in the Level 2 framework of concern, chance to respond, vote to desysop or not, followed by the chance to appeal through a full case if the choice is to desysop is the right format for ArbCom to use rather than that of a concern/case request, vote to accept/decline case, followed potentially by a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime I would hope ArbCom would not do that because the community has repeatedly declined to endorse such a process. Instead I hope ArbCom fulfills its responsibilities by desysopping, and doing so relatively quickly after waiting for Athaenara in the slim chance there's something mitigating, while allowing an appeal through both a full case and the chance for Athaenara to re-RfA. It'd be that re-RfA that would let the community weigh in if Athaenara so chose. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: What scope are you accepting for such a case? I'm not sure who you see as "complicating" this case but nearly all of my likely guesses suggest desysop of Athaenara in an expedited (motion) manner. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft the way I read ARBPOL does not suggest that ArbPol criteria 1 (which you quote) trumps 2-5. Instead it is 5 equal areas that ArbCom has for duties and responsibilities. As such ArbCom handling requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools is not only with-in policy, it's with-in community consensus because the community has explicitly rejected attempts to allow the community to handle removal of admin tools outside of activity. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft I don't think Athaenara has been community banned at this point. She explicitly didn't appeal to the community which is what it takes to turn a regular block into a defacto CBAN. The community absolutely still can CBAN her, just as the community did with Edgar following the arbcom desysop. Levivich has suggested clarifying policy that a CBAN would also result in a desysop which seems like a reasonable policy amendment as well going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

The RfA vote analysis presented by Tamzin is compelling, and really is the heart of the matter. As ugly and hurtful it may be to hurl insults in public, the real damage is what flies under the radar. We now know how they have been quietly trying to move the needle on RfAs. What we don't know is how many blocks, how many page protections, how many deletions they've performed in the past because of their personal opinion of an editor. Let's make sure that number is zero in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have noted that the community can handle this, or at least part of it (teasing apart the issues of banning and desysopping). To some extent I agree with that, but as a practical matter, the ANI thread has recently been closed, deferring to arbcom to take the next step. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I know that "per RoySmith" is not a terribly useful contribution to the discussion, but yes. Tamzin's analysis of Athaenara's voting patterns shows that Athaenara is unlikely to be able to regain the community trust required to be an admin here. We're not just discussing opinions, we're looking at actions -- and those actions are not acceptable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

At this point there doesn't appear to be much doubt that Athaenara will be desysopped. On the question of whether it shall be done by motion or by case, I think a central question is that of a ban. A case would be expected to decide whether Athaenara will be banned, while a LEVELII motion would leave that question open. Right now, I do not see a need to open a case, as there is a strong consensus to desysop Athaenara, and I know of no reason that a subsequent discussion regarding bans or other sanctions would be beyond the community's ability. There is no private evidence or overly large quantity of evidence, which would require an arbitration case. Therefore I currently think it is better for ArbCom to open a desysop motion under LEVELII rather than accepting this case. Madeline (part of me) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think questioning whether LEVELII is appropriate because it was requested publicly rather than privately veers into WP:NOTBURO territory. Involving the UCOC in this case would also be excessive; we can deal with hate speech just fine using local procedures. Athaenara has now had the chance to respond, so in my opinion the Committee should proceed with the motion. Unnecessarily protracting this affair would not be beneficial. Madeline (part of me) 06:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maxim and the rest on this. Any case about possible wheel-warring regarding the block of Athaenara should be kept separate from the one concerning Athaenara, especially as to not impede the timely resolution of this case request. I also agree that such a separate case would be unlikely to be worthwhile. Madeline (part of me) 15:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Red Phoenix and Amakuru with respect to a possible case against the involved administrators. Madeline (part of me) 10:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike1901

I've nothing really to add regarding my own views on the overall sitaution other than to say I agree with the majority of others that the trust of the community is surely lost at this point, and am just relieved that the RfA has seemingly continued as if the post wasn't made at all, but there's no getting over the fact that it was, and a personal attack of a similar nature by a non-admin user would almost certainly (and rightly) result in an indefinite block. My main reason for posting here is to pick up on Tamzin's suggestion on a way forward which I think is generally sound - but I don't think it needs to be as complex as that, bearing in mind there's already an indefinite block on the account. I think it could potentially be referred back to the community (via ANI), with no preconditions aside from two - that ArbCom would, exceptionally in this case, action a desysop by motion if that was the consensus of the community (be it standalone or as part of a siteban) and that if an agreement on an overall sanction couldn't be reached in a reasonably timely manner, a full case/ArbCom motion as appropriate could be opened without further consultation being needed. Just a thought on a possible way forward. Mike1901 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

Hate leveled at a trans editor (or perceived trans editor) is not a "controversial opinion" or "unpopular opinion", and shouldn't be minimized as such. From a policy perspective, the English Wikipedia and WMF projects both have clear expectations around egregious personal attacks and hate speech, and those should be enforced. I think Athaenara clearly recognized that, and that her behavior was contrary to it, given she wrote "Go ahead, 'cancel me'".

Far more importantly, we need to cultivate the community we strive to be: one where behavior like this is not tolerated. The idea that trans women are somehow threatening to "Wikipedia's woman niche" (whatever that's even supposed to be) is ridiculous. Trans women are women, and just as much a part of the contingent of women editors on Wikipedia as cis women. I hope that the community's response to this incident will make it clear that Athaenara's hateful statement is not reflective of the opinions of the general editing community, or the subset of it who are women. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

We simply can't have an administrator, a person in a position of power over other editors, who admits to prejudice against a subset of those editors because of who they are, rather than how they edit. That's not "cancel culture" any more than taking a felon's guns away. Having an opinion about whether trans women are or are not women for purposes of sports or bathrooms or many other issues is one thing, but thinking that makes them not qualified to stand for RfA is clearly just bigotry. We may or may not allow bigots on our encyclopedia, but we certainly shouldn't allow them to carry mops. Also, am I terribly immature by being amused by the phrase "woman niche"? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

I disagree that the level II removal-of-permissions procedure is precluded by the community making a request to the arbitration committee that advanced permissions be removed. The community should not be required to wait and see if the committee will initiate the level II procedure on its own initiative before making a request. Indeed, having a request in place with many supporters helps establish support for starting the level II procedure. Note that the level II procedure does not establish a fixed timeline. Following it does not mean the committee needs to come to swift judgement or rush its deliberations. Hearing from the user in question, and then deciding if a motion should be made, and what that motion should be, as some arbitrators and commenters have suggested is precisely in alignment with the level II procedure.

I feel the statement in question is needlessly divisive and contravenes principles enunciated by the arbitration committee in the past, such as "Decorum and civility", "Expectations and role of administrators", and "Administrator conduct". Accordingly, I believe that starting the level II procedure is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Among other errors of this administrator, if errors they are, and not gross personal and deliberate attack bordering on deliberate intimidation against the RfA candidate (which is what they appear to be), Anthaenara needs to take to heart fundamental policy that this website, including in particular WP:RFA, is not a free speech forum. If anyone is trying to "cancel", it is Anthaenara who is doing it, cancelling Wikipedia policies and other people. Also, yes, the Committee can Emergency Desysop, without hearing more, you just hear them later, if they wish -- that's clearly enough due process for these nothing but, voluntary permissions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Cline

If in fact the Arbitration Committee primarily exists to effect binding solutions for serious conduct disputes which the community has been unable to resolve, there is practically no reason what-so-ever for the Committee to accept this case. Not only has the community not been unable to resolve the matter of Athaenara's rather serious misconduct, it has achieved that resolution with a quickness and singular accord that I don't believe we have seen on Wikipedia until this day. There is no reason to suggest that we, as a community, can not achieve any of the other things that we want or deem appropriate regarding the matter at hand. Anything that Arbcom needs to do can be accomplished by motion, without the need for a case at all.--John Cline (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xeno that "Desysop of Athaenara" is a suboptimal title for this case request and have opened a thread on the corresponding talk page to allow further and fuller discussion. --John Cline (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pinguinn

I echo the statements made that this is not about a difference of opinion, but rather about harsh personal attacks. Athaenara's comment was not just about Isabelle Belato but about all trans women editors, and was intended to create an atmosphere of unwelcomeness and intimidation, which can be especially powerful since it came from an admin. As for what ArbCom ought to do about it, obviously the easiest solution would be to simply desysop by motion, perhaps in a suspended case if Athaenara refuses to comment further. However, the incident was not resolved in any manner at ANI, and editors both there and on this page have expressed a wide range of views not only on what they believe should be done, but what our policies actually require in these cases. For this reason I think ArbCom will set a big precedent with whatever outcome happens in this matter, and I urge them to consider if it might be better to do it in as clear a manner as possible, ie. with full principles and findings of fact. Pinguinn 🐧 22:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed with Rschen and CoffeeCrumbs that the case should proceed under our own rules, not the UCoC. Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the speed at which this has all been unfolding, and I fear it is making the situation worse, not better. Pinguinn 🐧 01:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OwenBlacker

That statement is hate-speech pure and simple.

Others have more eloquently said much of what I would, but remarks like this are far beyond the scope of creating a hostile environment for minoritised and under-represented editors that a desysopping seems the very least that should be done and a permanent ban feels appropriate. I hope we can rely on ArbCom supporting such action.

Frankly, I share TheresNoTime's lack of faith in the community's likelihood to do the right thing in the face of privileged users seeking additional rights, so I would also advocate a bar on RfA, for at least a year or so, if not permanently, were the permanent ban to be lifted. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Given the mention of being cancelled in Athaenara's comment, and the outrage the comment caused among those who are anti-transphobia (outrage which I share) there will be a lot of eyes (internal and external) on this matter from both ends of the spectrum. This means it is going to be very important for Arbcom to avoid knee-jerk reactions, to explicitly encourage Athaenara to explain their actions and give their perspective on the matter, to show its working to the fullest extent possible and to explain things in a way that avoids as much wiki jargon as you can. A few of whichever group(s) disagree with the eventual outcome will do their best to twist whatever can be twisted to paint Wikipedia in (what they perceive to be) a bad light. To my mind this calls for taking things slowly. If Athaenara gets in touch with ArbCom (and I encourage publicly (and privately) reaching out to them if you don't hear by the end of say Friday) then I think a full case with public evidence (actively moderated to keep it civil and ontopic) will be best. If they don't get in touch with arbcom with a week of the first message on their talk page asking them to do so, then I think a motion that opens and suspends (for 3-6 months) will be best. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbroken Chain

I do not support a desysop if this does not involve administrator action using the tools. Blocked for a personal attack, sure. I have trans family and as a CIS Gender male I don't pretend to understand what they are feeling or thinking but I still want them treated nicely and with basic respect. That's just common courtesy and just like a person should not say that outfit makes you look like shit sometimes people say really hurtful things. I think an arbcom case and the subsequent piling on is aggravating the issue. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my analogy which could trivialize the impact I was aiming for. Gender is a deeply personal facet of our identities and is undoubtedly more impactful then criticizing someone's attire. I mainly meant keep the snide stuff to yourself, no need to make others feel like shit for their difficulties or trials. I don't have a lot of basis understanding the issues transgender individuals experience internally and I don't want to add to those externally. My apologies to anyone I offended. Unbroken Chain (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

Athaenara has posted on their talk page: Special:Diff/1115539792.

Could this case request be retitled? The current title ("Desysop of Athaenara") gives the impression that it's about a de-sysopping that already happened, not a user requesting one. –xenotalk 00:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Acalamari

Athaenara has been on Wikipedia for as long as I have and has been an admin for slightly less than me; I even supported her RfA 15 years ago. An attack such as hers, against any demographic group, should be taken as hate speech and is in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies and terms of use; as such, Athaenara should be both desysopped and banned.

In the off chance her account isn't compromised, which seems unlikely at this point, then my statement can be disregarded. Acalamari 01:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Opinions are one thing, but making discriminatory personal attacks on a RFA is another. I hope that ArbCom makes that distinction clear as this is inevitably going to be spun (maybe by outside media) as a "bad opinion" rather than a "personal attack" and I think it would be better to get this right than rush to judgment.

But - I think basing a desysop or ban on the grounds of UCoC is going to add another lightning round of controversy given the controversy surrounding the approval, and lack of enforcement guidelines. I don't think it is necessary for ArbCom to be implicitly making a statement on the UCoC when there are local policies.

There was a semi-recent case on the Amharic Wikipedia that led to a community global ban, which was also endorsed by WMF. I think that ban was conducted a bit hastily, though I also had concerns about inflammatory language on race that tipped the balance towards supporting. --Rschen7754 01:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockstone35

The gender identity of any candidate has absolutely no relevance to whether they should be granted adminship, and therefore, it is not a valid reason to oppose. There was no reason for Athaenara to say what she said, unless she intended to be hurtful and to derail the request for adminiship. Now, she wants to play the victim by claiming "cancel culture". We should not entertain her. She should be desysoped for this appalling behavior, and banned for her refusal to apologize. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also like to point out that I agree with user:CoffeeCrumbs -- The UCoC should not be a factor here. Athaenara's actions violate enwiki's local rules, and we should follow our normal processes. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I have no position on whether here or ANI is the proper forum for these inappropriate remarks, but I want to second the notion that if there is an arbitration case here, that it should proceed under our local rules, and absolutely *not* under the UCoC. I feel this should always be the case, but it's especially important here because of the relative ease in which the UCoC could be invoked in this situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Athaenara)

When I saw so many statements filed in such a short time, I thought of saying that the editors are piling on, but then I saw that that is a red link, because it does not show its usage in American football, in which it is a form of unnecessary roughness. There is no need for a full evidentiary case. ArbCom should act by motion. They can see the redacted attack, so there is no need for an evidentiary phase. ArbCom should in particular decide whether the sanction should be a desysop, or a desysop and a ban, and should consider whether an apology (which we have not seen) would make the difference between a desysop and a ban. I agree with those editors who say that our local rules should govern, and we should avoid using the UCoC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

This is a project to build an encyclopedia written by the people who use it. The expression of views that demean and invalidate our fellow editors is inherently incompatible with that goal and is a violation of our fundamental principles. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clovermoss

I could say a lot about this, but I'm going to try to be concise because everyone else has already made substantial arguments here. I just wanted to say that I agree that this can be resolved by motion and that we don't really need a case for a blatant personal attack like this. Something else I think is important to reiterate is that Athaenara has been indefinitely blocked for hate speech/possible compromised account. I don't see how she's still a sysop right now. It's true she can't edit, but she can still view deleted ones. There's harm that can be done with that, there's a reason people elect admins based off of trust. Clovermoss (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm talking about this purely on a procedural level. I understand that information has come to light since that would make it less likely this is a compromised account situation. Beyond My Ken and Katie have brought up a lot of what I could say in regards to arguments made by others. I'm mindful that people do think like this, most of my family has a similar attitude for religious reasons. I could understand a case for a ban or whatever if we couldn't deal with this at ANI (which shows overwhelming support of the block)... but way back when this comment was first made, especially when it was so shocking that there was a genuine concern that Athaenara's account was compromised because of just how out of line this comment was, why wasn't there an emergency desysop done then and there? Clovermoss (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury: My understanding is that viewing deleted edits isn't logged anywhere so we wouldn't nessecarily know if she abused the admin tools? Please correct me if my concern is not valid. But if that is the case my opinion is that every second that goes by is concerning. If someone goes out of their way to attack someone specifically and is blocked for hate speech/possible compromised account, I really do not trust them to have access to deleted edits. It makes more sense for the argument to be the other way around - desysop first, discussion by the community/ArbCom of other sanctions later? Clovermoss (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers

The personal attack is as out of line as one based on race or ethnicity would be. I'm saddened and even a little bit surprised that we had someone with such prejudice among our admins. Tamzin makes an interesting point about the RFA voting pattern, I'd appreciate if the committee were to make it clear that covert prejudice can be displayed in such patterns as well as in such outbursts. We can't stop people having controversial opinions, but we can and should remove people from our community if they show prejudice against a group of their fellow editors on the basis of a protected characteristic. As for the UCOC, I have problems with what it says about linguistic competency and age, but my understanding is that in this area it is in accord with EN wiki norms. ϢereSpielChequers 07:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess re " 25% of the people running for RfA in 2022 happened to public identify as trans/non-binary". those four account for less than 1% of our active admins. Given the numbers of experienced editors watching the RFA process, we shouldn't be surprised if a successful RFA were followed by several more from people with a similar issue. Hopefully the community making it very clear that we are happy to be a safe space for trans and trans friendly people who want to write an encyclopaedia means that any other trans or trans friendly wikipedians will now feel reassured that all other things being equal, they are welcome to apply for adminship. I hope that if there are other groups of Wikipedians looking at the RFA process and wondering if they'd be treated fairly, they find it reassuring that we are insisting on trans and trans friendly people being treated fairly. ϢereSpielChequers 09:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

  • No, Kevin. I agree with FQ's block undertaken before gaining community's consent (FQ did not actually need community consensus to block). 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. Very unfortunate and unacceptable, the bent that Athaenara has taken. Let me know if you need any further clarification or support. I'm around... Warmly, Lourdes 12:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I have given a statement in the other case where I am a party. May I request you to consider that response in conjunction here? I appreciate your time to review this. Most warmly, Lourdes 05:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

It is not a common thing that I disagree with Risker, yet I find myself here. And I have, thus far, not had any issue with Athaenara—it is not uncommon, since we both patrol the G11 queue, that I go to delete an advertisement only to find that Athaenara has already done so.

However, I think Risker is wrong here. Athaenara did not just have a "controversial opinion". (If we blocked people for that, I suspect we'd all have to be indeffed, certainly me included.) Rather, she engaged in a personal attack against a particular other editor, for who they are. Attacking someone for being trans is absolutely no different than attacking someone for being black or Jewish. It is not acceptable in any case, and certainly not from an admin. That is not the occasional mildly intemperate comment we can all be forgiven for on a bad day or under provocation; it was totally gratuitous, unnecessary, and egregious.

Athaenara stated, in a comment on her talk page regarding this matter[7], ...that Wikipedia:Drama is not why I'm here. If she could not see that her comment on the RfA would lead to exactly that result, that leads me to seriously question her judgment as both an editor and administrator.

I will firmly agree that we should avoid any "UCoC" entanglements here. Our own rules on civility, personal attacks, and the conduct of administrators are already quite sufficient to handle the incident. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trainsandotherthings

I'll be brief. There's no reason for ArbCom to wait around for Athaenara to email the committee or otherwise try to respond to this like an adult. She knew exactly what she was doing, and this was a clear attempt at suicide by ArbCom. She has shown zero remorse for her actions or even recognized they were wrong and hurtful. Her motives are certainly a mystery to everyone but her, but it doesn't matter. Desysop her and call it a day. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iamreallygoodatcheckers

I don’t think there is much I can say that others haven’t, but I agree with nearly everyone this went beyond expressing a contentious opinion, which would normally fall under WP:SOAP, this was a personal attack against an individual and an editor group based on an arbitrary characteristic. No one’s abilities to perform a duty or contribute to Wikipedia should be judged on a trait such as race, sex, religion, political affiliation, or LGBT status.

To comment on what should be done in this case, I think the block was excessive and premature at this time. I see it as unlikely that Athaenara would continue to perform disruptive edits because they do have 16 year long record of making constructive contribution, and blocks are supposed to be to prevent disruption. I also believe Athaenara should be able to defend themselves here. Ultimately, I really don’t know if arbcom should accept this or not because I’m not super savvy on all the procedures here. I believe the community could resolve this through discussion at ANI, which would likely lead to a stripping of admin duties and possibly a site ban or indeff.

I’m don’t really have a strong opinion on what should be done to Athaenara. Their actions were inappropriate, no question, but it’s hard wanting someone with 16-years of good work to be shown the door after one comment that could have been typed in 16 seconds. That just doesn’t seem just in my humble opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 14:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluerasberry

I will speak as an active member and organizer for meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. For context, that organization is modest, has volunteer administration and no budget, but has been meeting and organizing projects since 2012. I say this as an explanation for why the organization itself is not presenting a statement here; it is a stateholder in this discussion, but it simply does not have capacity to give a statement.

We members of Wikimedia LGBT+ have routinely encountered and reported among ourselves hate speech, hatemongering, attacks, and threats. The statement that is being discussed is hate speech. Hate speech causes harm and is not a matter of opinion or controversy. As a person in the United States who has organized in person Wikipedia meetups, if I were hosting an event and came to learn that a potential attendee were saying such things, then I would ban the person saying those things and raise issue with the other planners that the speech is causing an increased risk for attracting gun violence and a mass shooting.

🔫🌈💀

The rule is no hate, no hatemongering, avoid targeting other people for discrimination, do not attack any demographic of people's right to exist. The one exception to this is that we do not tolerate the intolerant - paradox of tolerance. Anyone who has such views must go. Intolerant views are not debatable opinions - they are poison. The core of the transgender rights movement is the right of a demographic to exist peacefully in society. The speech here is contrary to that right to existence.

As to any user who has such views, they ought to know better, and they need to be told to quit, but if they explicitly renounce the views without equivocation, adopt the opposite, and apologize, then they are welcome back to Wikipedia. There is a lot of room for free thought and discussion, but one of our limits is openly joining hatemongering which is well established to be the start of real world physical violence. I support the Arbitration Committee in taking this case to confirm that such speech is forbidden. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

This case may warrant expanding to a possible WP:WHEEL situation as the original block was since undone, redone, then expanded upon. Normally I'd say this should be resolved at the admin noticeboard, however all threads there are being closed and referred to this case request now. — xaosflux Talk 14:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CaptainEek: regarding your statment that ...Administrators are entitled to hold controversial opinions. But they are not entitled to express them...., would you elaborate on this position as it may pertain to what other types of cases you would support accepting? — xaosflux Talk 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply below, in that it is specific to not being an excuse for personal attacks. — xaosflux Talk 00:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

Haven't people got better things to spend their fortnight over than a bout of transphobic bigotry? Enact a motion and close the circus, please. WTT proposes that a full case be opened; what will happen of it? Motions reprimanding TNT's or Lourdes' or Ritchie333's not-so-optimal actions — executed in the midst of a polarizing environment — do not have a snowball's chance in hell and the operating outcome will remain restricted to the desysop of Athaenara. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how was TNT's action sub-optimal? Daft me had TNT equated to Floquenbeam.

Your reblock after the comments you had made at this page, on ANI, and at other talk pages appear to me [WTT] that you were INVOLVED in the dispute

This is a patently nonsensical ILIKEIT interpretation of INVOLVED. People can have their idiosyncratic interpretations of wiki-policies (I am no exception) but such views shall not be the basis of deciding arbitration disputes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (Athaenara)

Given this morning's administrative wheel warring, a full case is compelled to examine the behaviour of those involved, Lourdes in particular.

The administrators policy reads under "Misuse of administrator tools - Reversing another administrator's action" (WP:RAAA): "...administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." Lourdes claims to have reversed Floquenbeam's community-endorsed hate speech block in order to give Athaenara an opportunity to respond, which was entirely unnecessary as the blocked admin (at the time) retained talk page access, and in fact had already responded; even without talk page access Athaenara is still free to email a statement to the Committee to be published here and had been invited to do so. Unblocking her was entirely unnecessary. Furthermore Lourdes ought to have known that her action would be likely to be objected to, yet did not attempt to discuss with the blocking administrator nor with the community prior to unblocking.

On the other hand TheresNoTime ought to be commended for taking Lourdes' action to the community before reversing it, even though the situation could easily have been construed as an emergency under the wheel warring policy or WP:LEVEL1.

As for the original incident, the comment was hate speech directed at a specific editor by an administrator, as well as hate speech towards a disadvantaged group generally, and ought to be dealt with as such. Our policy is no personal attacks, not "no personal attacks without a good reason", nor "no personal attacks except where a controversial opinion is genuinely held by the attacker", nor "no personal attacks except from administrators". If uttering hate speech is not conduct unbecoming an administrator, that section of the policy is meaningless and should be deleted. Whether or not Athaenara's behaviour compels desysopping is a matter for a full case with careful consideration of the evidence, not a knee-jerk desysop by motion, and desysoppings cannot be handled at ANI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the first part of my statement regarding possibly suboptimal admin actions, as it's a distraction from what should be the main issue here; also per my comments in the case request below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

There appears to be issues of scope and jurisdiction happening here. I previously pointed out at WP:AN/I that with WTT's comment wherein they said "We cannot leave an admin remain blocked indefinitely. - so if the community agrees the block should remain in place, we should remove the admin bit procedurally". that there was a bit of punting going on. The community likewise punted to ArbCom. The situation we were left with was some people think a community ban was put in place when it wasn't, and Athaenara was unblocked and then reblocked, generating another WP:AN/I thread.

Whether or not ArbCom has jurisdiction or not is, at best, unclear. The community does have jurisdiction to impose a WP:CBAN. Nobody has started such a discussion likely because they think ArbCom is handling this. It's not in ArbCom's purview to do so, since as John Cline points out above the policy controlling ArbCom's actions notes "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" and the community hasn't by any means exhausted all means to resolve the dispute. It is in ArbCom's purview due to, as Izno points out, the same policy which states "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools".

I don't think ArbCom should be handling this. What should happen is that ArbCom should by motion direct the community to come to a consensus on whether to CBAN Athaenara or not. This answers point 1 of the above policy. If the community achieves consensus to CBAN, then ArbCom can, by motion, desysop Athaenara, since as WTT notes below we can't leave an admin blocked indefinitely. That would answer point 3 of the above policy. That's the pathway through this, not ArbCom deciding to ban someone from the community on their own.

Even if ArbCom decides only to desysop, it would still leave the question of the indefinite block. Everyone seems to agree it's a good block (well, almost everyone). But, a block by a single admin can readily be overturned, as we just saw [8]. This needs to go back to the community first to resolve. If there's no consensus only then should ArbCom be involving itself. At this point, ArbCom acting would be premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Well we've created an interesting scenario then, haven't we? The community does have the power to WP:CBAN someone. If consensus were achieved to CBAN an admin, that's a de-adminning, isn't it? Or, do we really want an account laying around that's been banned from the community but retains admin rights? We've also created a scenario where we would desysop someone for making a single mistake. Administrators are not expected to be perfect, so WP:ADMIN policy says. Is this a case where that policy is voided? At what point is a single point of conduct so egregious that we set aside policy? I'm speaking in the abstract here. It's an interesting question. Whether or not ArbCom has jurisdiction or not, the pathway forward is to allow the community the opportunity to clarify its position. There's no reason to not allow this to happen, and every reason to avoid ArbCom desysopping and potentially banning an editor after one incident. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: You stated ...and a follow-up lasted a whopping three hours before being quickly closed by Hammersoft. This is inaccurate. I started the followup discussion, I did not close it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I'm making this comment to reply to Tamzin's usage of RfA !voting stats. While this may be meaningful in the context of Athaenara, proposing to generalize this to all RfA !voters by setting a precedent here would be a classic example of the prosecutor's fallacy and result in useless oppose-badgering.
More specifically, we can't just find the likehood that an individual would oppose all of these RfAs by chance, we need to find the likelihood that an individual that has opposed all of these RfAs is doing so based on transphobic motives. This is significantly more difficult, since we need to find the chance that someone would oppose all of these RfAs and be a transphobe and divide that by the rate of transphobia in the Wiki population (specifically likelihood to oppose based on gender identity in RfA voters, but that's really tough to find). That or do some statistical magic I wouldn't know about.
We don't know the rate of transphobia in the Wiki-population. We can't just impute stats from other countries since we have a global population. More importantly, the rate of transphobia in the Wiki-population could be significantly different than the outside world for the same or related reason that 25% of the people running for RfA in 2022 happened to public identify as trans/non-binary (see Wikipedia:2022 requests for adminship, Tamzin, Sdrqaz, theleekycauldron, and Isabelle form 4/16).
This is important because we have hundreds of people commenting at RfA and dozens of opposes at many of them. If we start checking RfA voters for opposition based on gender identity, we could very well start blocking or removing userrights based on innocuous reasons. Without knowing the conditional probability or having some other evidence of guilt, attempting to use statistical evidence of systemic opposes won't prove anything and so I stringently oppose using Tamzin's evidence without the caveat that this is a sui generis case and RfA vote histories shouldn't be the primary basis for blocking/banning/rights removal/etc. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trans-Neptunian Object

I have my own misgivings about a certain niche, minority section of the political trans community - but I have never felt the need to go and make a comment in the nature of what is being discussed here. Said comment being uttered by a non-Admin user or someone like myself who is just a casual editor would be an immediate indeff block, no questions asked. This is a question of integrity for the project, no doubt.--SinoDevonian (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trey Maturin

I am concerned that some people want to broaden out the simple and least dramatic option, desysoping by motion and referring back to the community about a ban, into a full-blown most dramatic case where the events on the edge (the unblock, the reblock, the talk page block, the talk page unblock, the weather in Tokyo last Monday, why people tailgate) become what is discussed to death, whilst the actual event – an unwarranted hate speech attack on an innocent third party in the middle of the most stressful event we put our editors through (RfA) – gets lost, maybe even treated as an afterthought. Perhaps the block/unblock cycle needs looking at. If so, the community can do that in the first instance – nobody has referred it to ArbCom directly yet – and, perhaps, ArbCom will then be asked to rule. But derailing the original case in order to go hunting for people to admonish at the edges is A Bad Thing. — Trey Maturin has spoken 17:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I am glad that there are administrators who have decided that they are OK with blocking people for making flagrant personal attacks at RfA, though I am saddened that the personal attacks were made against one of the most competent and kind editors that I have encountered on this site. I do think there are relatively simple ways for one to request an unblock, such as apologizing for making personal attacks, and I don't quite see evidence of an apology yet. That all being said, I do want to comment to correct one thing:

  1. There is no WP:CBAN in place, even if some people here claim that there is. Our blocking policy is clear that For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. The first discussion lasted all of 14 hours before it was re-closed by El C following an initial close by GiantSnowman, and a follow-up lasted a whopping three hours before being quickly closed by HammersoftGiantSnowman. The discussion about whether to re-impose the block following Athaenara's unblock lasted less than three hours before being closed by Black Kite. Very simply, none of these discussions could possibly have achieved consensus for a site ban in light of the relevant policy's built-in requirement for discussions to be open for a reasonable period of time before proclaiming a site ban that can only be appealed to the community. The community could choose to open a discussion and impose a CBAN, but that isn't something we have (at least yet).

For this reason, the administrative actions should be treated like ordinary admin (un)blocks, and could be reviewed by the arbitration committee as such for their appropriateness, including their compliance with guidance on involvement and compliance with community policies defining what constitutes an (un)acceptable unblock. If the committee decides to review the actions of administrators other than Athaenara, I would urge it to take a full case and also to retitle this to better reflect the involved parties. If ArbCom does not believe that it is within its remit to review the actions of other administrators, I don't really see this as requiring a full case; the evidence referred to here is plain and relatively simple and it is all publicly viewable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: My apologies for mixing the usernames up; I've corrected it above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I've added clarification above per your note on my talk page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think there are a few issues at play, some of which seems to be getting confused. 1. Can someone have a controversial opinion, that most others find abhorrent? 2. Can someone post about those opinions, and still be a member in good standing? 3. Can someone wish to not have members be promoted to admin based on those opinions? 4. Can someone note that those are the reasons for opposing? I think that for 1 & 3, it's clear that we can't judge someone based on their thinking. 2 isn't necessarily in play here, which leaves us with 4. Whatever the opinion is, if the community finds it lacking, then we ought not to let people vote based on those opinions. For all those reasons, and those of most above, I do think the edits crossed the line, especially since it personalized the opinion rather than make a generalized statement. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jackattack1597

Although the issue of the desysop has been resolved by motion, a full case still seems necessary in order to examine other administrative actions around this scenario, especially Lourde's out-of-process unblock. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Herostratus

Well, I mean I guess you should take the case, but the outcome should be give the person a lifetime "shut up about this stuff forever" (topic ban) with probably a one-strike activation.

It's not WP:LEVEL2 unless we can't trust the admin to be fair. Like, if the admin has been unfair to trans people, blocked them too easily etc, just for that reason. Has she? Is she going to, do you think? "Can't trust them with the tools" is not "don't like them". Different things.

I can't read the statement, which I doubt should have been oversighted. Oversighting is not for this. It's for doxing, personal attacks, vandalism. It worries me that it was done here. But I assume it was horrible. But, like it or not, it probably was controversial. If it didn't involve violence. If it was something like "trans people suck, I don't think they're real women, seems I hear more about trans needs than women's needs, they should shut up", well, probably about half our readership feels the same way I'd guess. It's not like "Hitler was right" etc which basically nobody believes. "Wish it wasn't controversial" is not the same as "Isn't controversial".

I'm not super on board for desysoping people for actions that don't involve misuse of the tools or implicit threat thereof. Sure there's a line, but let's make that bar as high as we can stand. I'm not super on board for expelling people (most people desysoped in these conditions retire I think) for one action in a 16 year career. Sure there's a line, but let's make that bar as high as we can stand.

Sixteen year career... you want to be conservative here. You are messing with people's lives, here, often enough, when you're possibly extinguishing a 16 year career. If the person had said for instance "Oppose, candidate is a Trump supporter and I think all Trump supporters should be dumped into a landfill", which is worse cos its actually violent, would we be here? We want to be super careful about not injecting our own culture and our own politics into this. Just tell her to shut up on that topic, mean it, and make it stick. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red Phoenix

I was not initially planning to comment though I've been following this case for the past two days, namely because I feel everything that I would say about Athaenara has already been said by others and I did not want to pile on. It's one thing to hold views akin to those of J.K. Rowling, but it's another to take it out on an RfA candidate in a manner that would or should be illegal for a hiring manager to take out on a prospective employee.

However, I felt I must comment to urge the Arbitration Committee to decline a broader case on administrative wheel warring. I understand how seriously we take wheel warring, with the Fred Bauder and Rama cases being ones I followed without commenting. In each of those cases, the wheel warring was clear-cut by admins who personally benefitted, i.e. Fred Bauder's unblocking of himself to comment. But that's not the case here, and the administrators in question as far as I can tell were simply doing what they felt was right, whether or not there was a WP:BRIGHTLINE. Lourdes admitted she thought Athaenara needed to be unblocked to respond here. There'sNoTime essentially did the same thing to right the mistake, and we can debate the WP:INVOLVED all we want but as an uninvolved administrator I would have done the same thing. Ritchie333 made an attempt to try and squash the drama on Athaenara's talk page. No one here was trying to step on anyone's toes or act in bad faith.

Quite frankly, a consideration has to be made that this is nearly an unprecedented situation. We've had plenty of admins act out before, but one who after 16 years of editing smoothly acted out in such an egregious manner presents a new situation and challenge that administrators have to figure out how to deal with. That there was some butting of heads and gaps in communication when the situation changed so rapidly and the comments are so great in number that following the conversations is becoming unwieldy, is to be expected.

If we open a case, one of two things will result: either we waste six weeks of the community's time for admonishments, or we desysop admins for trying to do the right thing and drive them off the project, and in doing so only make fewer people want to request the tools. Floquenbeam is right - this is in the context a minor situation, and surely if we want to administer the policy, WP:IAR can apply given the uniqueness of the situation. Red Phoenix talk 01:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

SoWhy already said what I was thinking, in short that this was much more than expressing an unpopular socio-political opinion. I'll add that 'Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.' should be taken as a de facto desysop request. Athaenara knew exactly what she was doing and what the probable consequences would be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky Caldron

The statement by @Herostratus, 3 above, is well balanced. It might represent the position many editors might associate with, if willing to risk potential opprobrium from some of the contributors to comment so far.

Statement by Amakuru

I won't add any more than what's already been said above re the core Athaenara issues, it looks like it's being dealt with appropriately, given the breach of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:NPA that took place. However, I would just like to echo Red Phoenix's point above and urge the committee not to pursue a case merely to examine the wider issue with the various blocks applied by Ritchie333, Floq, Lourdes and TNT - some of which were permitted and some of which were technically not. I usually take a dim view of wheel warring and blocking admins stepping on each other's toes, but in this case all concerned were acting with the best of good faith, on what they at the time thought was the correct course of action. Clearly in some of those cases the action was later shown to be suboptimal, but IMHO they've learned their lesson and that's water under the bridge now. Dragging the community through a full case on that basis alone, with all the attendant drama, will not be of any benefit here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I want to register my disapproval of the fact that the WP:ANI discussion was closed so rapidly in favor of this. ArbCom is meant to be a court of last resort and, while ArbCom is needed to desysop an administrator who otherwise remains an editor in good standing, it is not needed to community-ban an administrator indefinitely. As Wikipedia grows it's important that the community be able to handle things like this - a community ban would have been useful, could have happened relatively quickly based on the way discussions were trending, and would have made ArbCom's job much easier even if we later used a case to have ArbCom take over the desysop and ban. Automatically sending everything related to administrators to ArbCom immediately and near-instantly shutting down all discussions in other forums before they can reach a conclusion sets a terrible precedent and goes against ArbCom's reason for existence as the final venue for disputes. (Also, it seems to have resulted in a minor wheel war, which likely would have been averted if WP:ANI had been allowed to continue discussions and presumably affirm the block.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheSandDoctor

I am concerned to learn about this conduct by Athaenara, their response when concerns were raised, and concur with what was said by barkeep49, 28bytes, and Mz7. Administrators are expected to behave in a "respectful, civil manner" and "should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors." (WP:ADMINCOND) These actions were egregious and fundamentally "incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators". --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

This seems like an attempt at going out in a blaze of glory, and indeed, there was a rather large blaze. There was no glory. Should there be a going out?

What would constitute an apology, or a success at making amends, for the act in question?

If no action were taken here, and this user were to resign her tools voluntarily and open a new RfA, would it be likely to reach a consensus to promote? jp×g 14:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

My 2-cents:

  • The statement (at the RfA) from Athaenara was both cruel and stupid, IMO. Cruel; -that is self-evident (hopefully). Stupid; -is "Wikipedia's woman niche" children's literature? That is a very strange/silly opinion (IMO), (...I grew up on H. C. Andersen stories).
  • Some of the reactions to Athaenara's statement have been way over the top, at least to my ears. I cannot see that Athaenara's statement makes anyone "unsafe". Unwelcome, yes, definitely, but not "unsafe". (And I say this as possibly the non-admin female who has had the most death- and rape-threats on en.wp: they never made me feel unsafe).
  • Seeing that Athaenara has had 16 years of service to en.wp., I suggest that IF (and that's a big IF) she realise that statements such as she made are completely unacceptable on wp, AND apologise to Isabelle Belato, then I think she should be unblocked. Huldra (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Just to say that Huldra, from my point of view, has said everything that needs to be said. A breath of sanity. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {non-party}

Athaenara: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse - I commented in the discussion leading up to this and checkusered Athenaera to check whether they were compromised, so I think it would be best if I did not clerk this. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general reminder that editors should only make comments in their own section. This is also the case for directly replying to other editors. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case request was originally filed under the title "Desysop of Athaenara", but was renamed per Arbitrator request. firefly ( t · c ) 07:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse as INVOLVED given my nomination in the RfA which triggered this case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Committee is aware and is discussing the matter. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are entitled to hold controversial opinions. But they are not entitled to express them. Admins, better than anyone, should know that one of our core ideas is "focus on the content, not the contributor." To attack an editor based on a trait such as their race, religion, or sex is absolutely unacceptable. That Athaenara knew she was crossing the line, and simply ascribed that line to cancel culture (rather than to being a central policy of this Encyclopedia), entirely fails the administrative standard of leading by example. I'm certain we are going to take this on in some manner, though we've yet to figure out if we're going to do that by accepting this case, or rather resolving it by motion. I'm hoping Athaenara emails us in the next day or two. If she doesn't contact us, we'll probably do what we've done with several cases before which is open a suspended case by motion: she'll have the choice to return and participate, but if she doesn't by the end of the suspension period, she'll be desysopped for good.
I'll agree with my compatriots that this case is not urgent. It need not get resolved today, and I'd rather us do this slow and right, than fast and wrong. With regards to the close of the ANI thread, to me that indicates that the ball is now squarely in our court, and we will do something about as soon as we feel able (i.e. once Athenaera emails us, or it becomes apparent she won't be). In terms of continued feedback, the most helpful thing would be whether we should resolve this by motion, by case, or some other way (assuming either the presence or absence of Athenaera). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that I still expect us to be able to resolve this matter this week. We are down five Arbs here, so that will slow us a bit, y'alls patience is much appreciated. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I woke up to find that this case has gone from bad to fiasco. We now have multiple other admins who have now foolishly involved themselves in this, and have only created more drama by doing so. Also, my reading of the Arbitration Procedure means that in the aftermath of a LEVELII where we do not intend to return permissions, we must open a case. (See WT:ACN for full thoughts on that). We're working behind the scenes on some possible motions that could achieve a case/suspended case/variation on a case, thank y'all for the continued patience. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux To clarify, the statement there indicates that personal attacks are unacceptable. Any case in which an admin is attacking the contributor, rather than the content, is on the table. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't believe this is a compromised account, if a compromise did occur, it may have been much earlier than recent (per Floq's comment) and accordingly outside CheckUser discovery. Either way, if it was a compromise, that materially only changes whether the account should be locked rather than the other questions that either the community or ArbCom should answer (whether the account should be blocked or desysoped or both on the merits of the behavior). --Izno (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie, a pair of technicalities re. a blocked administrator who nobody wants to unblock cannot do anything: such an admin can block the user who blocked them, and such an admin can apparently see private filters. I expect the former would lead to a clear and obvious cause for desysopping, so while it is certainly in the realm of possible given the case at hand, I don't expect it to be an issue. The latter is somewhat an issue but perhaps more for phab: than this request.
    Others, just to quickly comment: this is conversation with the committee to understand if and how to deal with this request. Adding additional feedback on other particular users' comments should be limited, and expressed only if you believe earlier comments have not sufficiently provided context for those responses. Pointing to evidence that indicates that our action should be quick, or slow, or no action at all, or providing other rationale for a certain position, would be more helpful. Izno (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    John, we have scope to act here per WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities item 3. IznoPublic (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, one thing I confirmed before my comment at 17:55 yesterday is that a blocked admin does not have access to deleted content. I am of course happy to be corrected, but I generally trust the admins who wanted to go play on test wiki that they did sufficient due diligence on the point.
    Hammersoft, I agree with Barkeep that ArbCom's scope is not "you must satisfy all criteria" but instead "any criteria". All criteria would clearly see us acting only for long term abuse by admins, among some other silly propositions.
    Regarding leaving admins blocked indefinitely, my memory says that a few otherwise good faith admins (and ex admins) have suffered indefinite blocks, usually along the PA line. (In fact, given the admins of interest, I would be surprised if we had genuinely swung that far that direction.) I would not want any precedent to stem from what is generally going to be a set of rare cases needing a sensitive treatment.
    Regarding whether we will ban, my read of our discussions has been that we will not be taking steps to ban Athaenara, as the block does seem more or less well in community hands, even with this early morning's back and forth. This case request will likely be resolved solely on the question of whether Athaenara should retain the toolset. IznoPublic (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, this is not a Level 2 matter, simply because we have a case request. We might desysop by motion, if we feel that there is no need to hold a case, but I'd like to hear from the subject before we do that.
    Otherwise, I will explain where I currently stand, my opinion may change as the case develops. Fundamentally - Admins can have controversial opinions, even radical ones, as long as they do not affect their work as an admin. As a counterpoint, publicising those radical opinions may cause the trust that the community holds in them to be re-assessed, especially if expressing those opinions tends towards hate speech, which this does. There is no mechanism to remove an admin for "loss of trust", except general Arbcom "catchall".
    Beyond that, these are the facts as I see them:
  • Athaenara has made a statement on an RfA that is radically at odds with the general culture of Wikipedians, and can be viewed as hate speech (i.e. abusive and targeted at a group of individuals)
  • The location and nature of the comments breach the inclusionary values of Wikipedia, the UCoC, and can certainly be seen as a Personal Attack on the RfA subject - so breaches a clear local policy too.
  • She is currently indefinitely blocked, by an individual administrator and the review of that is playing out at ANI.
  • We cannot leave an admin remain blocked indefinitely. - so if the community agrees the block should remain in place, we should remove the admin bit procedurally.
So that leaves the question of how should the committee handle this. Well, I believe we should wait until the ANI thread reaches it's conclusion. Athaenara has been requested to contact the Arbitration Committee. She may do so by email, or she may request comments be transferred over to the case to respond to us here. I would like to also wait until she has had some opportunity to answer these issues. WormTT(talk) 08:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime I understand what you're saying, but I also take my role seriously and want to offer fairness to the subject. I cannot suggest that there is nothing she could say that would affect my thinking, because I don't know what she will say. I can certainly think of things that she could say that would make it not an Arbcom problem, for example. The community has already taken swift action to show that it was unacceptable, by indefinitely blocking her. It's important that we follow our procedures so that the community can have trust that we will get the right decision and fairly. WormTT(talk) 09:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @GiantSnowman. Acknowledged that my first "wait" is complete. I'd certainly like to hear from Athaenara before progressing any further, though we will not wait forever. WormTT(talk) 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes I see that you have unblocked Athaenara to participate in this ARC. That was not necessary - as I mentioned on both her talk page and here, she can request comments be copied over. I don't believe any arbitrator has requested this, so if your only reason was to allow participation here, please can you reverse your action? If, on the other hand, you believe she should be unblocked generally - well, that's a different matter. WormTT(talk) 08:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped this to be a simple motion, the committee was discussing the same. However, with the subsequent unblock / block, this recent removal of talk page access, and other issues I've seen, I'm struggling to see how we anything short of a full case is appropriate. I do accept a case here, and will consider a motion if it meets my concerns. WormTT(talk) 14:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Ritchie333, I do think it was unhelpful. I appreciate what you were trying to do, but I did ask that her talk page would remain open within reason. Removal of talk page access simply "because they are not appealing the block" is not actually backed by policy in my opinion and other factors should be taken into account. I felt similarly about Lourdes unblocking, and also about TNT being the one to re-block. @Barkeep49, I do not feel that a motion would resolve all the issues and feel that giving the some principles and findings would be helpful. I believe the scope would be the administrative actions around the Athaenara account. WormTT(talk) 14:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should clarify my position. This morning, I was a hair's breadth from poroposing a motion to desysop motion, when Lourdes unblocked. I absolutely think that Athaenara 's desysop could be handled by motion as it was a brightline violation. I feel that the the wider potential wheelwar and behaviour of admins around the situation might need a case.
@TheresNoTime Your reblock after the comments you had made at this page, on ANI, and at other talk pages appear to me that you were INVOLVED in the dispute, and therefore actions you have taken have me concerned. WormTT(talk) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with WTT; while the conduct is serious and could potentially result in a desysop-by-motion or a full case, any damage has already been done, and the Committee are obligated to not rush into this. Personally, I am waiting for a reply from Athaenara about this situation before I make any firm decision on how to proceed, though obviously not receiving a reply is telling in and of itself. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue gets raised at seemingly every ARC request, and so for the record I will again state it: we are working on it. We are a deliberative body, and we are not designed to hand down fast judgement in all but the most extreme cases. It has been less than 48 hours since this request was filed, the editor in question is blocked, and so there is no "need [for] ArbCom to act now" (or even, as some have called for, "immediate action"). There should be at least one motion put forward later today, so please be patient. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline. Now that we have passed a Level 2 motion to desysop, the inciting incident has been dealt with and I genuinely do not see any reason for a full case. I do recognise that there was a fair amount of back-and-forth with the blocks and unblocks, but if someone wants to have us formally look into that I feel a new request will be necessary; of course, Athaenara is welcome to request a full case be opened per WP:RETURN, assuming she decides to pursue an unblock and return to some measure of good standing within the community. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with WTT & Prime in waiting.
Curious about "Wikipedia's woman niche". Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No gender based exclusion. No race based exclusion. No orientation based exclusion. We make no effort to verify anybody's personal claims. We have no business in policing or doxxing this stuff. Where, Athaenara, is this niche of which you speak? Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also concur with WTT and with Cabayi. As the others say, I will wait a bit, but not too long. - Donald Albury 19:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking only as an editor and admin, I will note that Athaenara has not been accused of misusing the admin tools. She was quickly blocked, and while there was initial concern that the account had been compromised, evidence was presented that the account had probably not been compromised, so any grounds for an emegency desysopping were not clear. Donald Albury 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Clerk note: above comment moved from #Statement by Clovermoss per request. firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been inactive for awhile due to real life business, had a look through my inbox this morning and found this - as the only person publicly identifying as a woman on the current committee, I thought I'd better catch up on the "woman niche". I am not going to vote yet, but the only response so far falls short for me of taking responsibility for the harm caused or attempting to repair it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lourdes: It would be helpful for me to know whether your unblock was intended to overrule the community's decision that the indefinite block was appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Lourdes. One of the outstanding issues is whether your reversal of the block was contrary to consensus or policy. I would be grateful if you could further address this in your statement. To telegraph my thinking a bit, I will likely support some kind of admonishment in relation to the reversal of the block. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect to accept the case request or a motion in lieu of one, and am only holding off on bolding it pending some time to digest subsequent developments. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the inclination to open a full case; I envision that the scope of such a case would be to examine less-than-ideal conduct that occurred following Athaenara's comment more so than the comment itself. That said, I wouldn't particularly expect the outcome of such a case to be anything other than "please don't do this again", and for that reason, I'm not particularly in favour of such a route. In terms of the policy questions regarding an indeffed admin, I would suggest that the maxim hard cases make bad law applies. We have an administrator who remains indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, so I would argue that it may be inferred that grounds for desysop exist, regardless of the specific wording of our written policies. While it would be nice to have a response from Athaenara as to her willingness to participate, at this point I would support a motion to suspend the case and remove the +sysop bit in the interim, as has been done for several cases in the near past. Maxim(talk) 15:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Athaenara

This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:
Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Donald Albury 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Izno (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments

INVOLVED actions of TheresNoTime

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
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 involved in some admin/CU actions relating to the (re)block of Athaenara. 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]
@Genericusername57: 1) I don't need to name a master, 2) I am permitted to blank enquiries. I certainly didn't take that to be an 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]
@BilledMammal: I maintain that I am not involved per the 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.[9] Pbritti says that CalderRC contacted him off-wiki to ask about the block. In June, Pbritti raised the issue with TheresNoTime[10]. TNT first blanked Pbritti's question, with the edit summary zero interest in interacting with anyone who considers someone like that an "acquaintance"[11], then declined CalderRC's unblock request, out of process[12], then blanked a second inquiry from Pbritti[13].

  • 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 WP:INVOLVED, in relation to EdTestCommons02.

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 the block of ABorba (WMF), who was blocked for operating what appeared to be an undisclosed 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. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:WHEEL and TNT for WP:INVOLVED. I suppose one could debate whether TNT breached WP:INVOLVED using the clause "on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", which applied to the reblock of Atheanara. But it would have been vastly more prudent to await an independent admin to do the reblocking, and I don't see evidence that an emergency was in place in which Atheanara might do serious harm to the project. But both Lourdes and TNT made their admin actions in very good faith, they don't need any further warnings or admonishments and a lengthy Arbcom case would be extreme overreaction.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:INVOLVED, I don't know what is. Your co-nom had already recused themselves as INVOLVED. There were dozens of other admins watching this case closely. Even assuming any immediate action was necessary, any of them could have handled it. But no immediate action was necessary. WP:BLOCKP says we block accounts to prevent ongoing disruption. With all those eyes on this case, even if Athaenara remained unblocked for a while, with that much attention focused on her, there's no chance she was going to do anything disruptive which wouldn't immediately be noticed. 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 WP:IAR is still a policy. There's no evidence here of a pattern of administrative misconduct, just a disagreement from months ago and a troll comment from a (probable) sockpuppet. There's no grounds for Arbcom to do anything here, other than make a bad decision out of a desire to look busy. Please don't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (2)

To gnu57: Looking at the texts of WP:ADMINACCT, WP:CUBL, and Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_blocks, I do not believe CU blocks are are considered admin actions, and so subject to ADMINACCT. Instead CU actions are subject to the WP:CHECK policy. There are two notes linked at CheckUser blocks (Note 1, Note 2), the first of which makes it clear that because CU blocks almost always involve private information a CU might not tell you the why a block was made. In the case of CalderRC, it was pretty clear that it was a CU block, both per the entry in the block log and the use of the checkuserblock-account template when informing Calder of the block. While it can be frustrating to be CU blocked without knowing why, given that exact knowledge of the details for why a block is in place is both subject to NDA and could be used to circumvent future blocks, there is no way to discuss the issue with a non CU or member of ArbCom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Pawnkingthree here: Lourdes is barely active as an editor, though she does admin work. Still, randomly coming in and unblocking Athaenara was a bit odd. However, TNT is WP:INVOLVED, but with the severity of Ath's comments, I'll once again quote Pawnkingthree: just issue trouts, reminders, admonishments or whatever the correct terminology is, and move on. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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 WP:INVOLVED, 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@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 No harm, no foul 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 WP:IAR 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 WP:INVOLVED with respect to (w/r/t) all actions surrounding Athaenara. If you nominate someone for RfA, taking administrative actions against someone else because of their RfA vote is clearly WP:INVOLVED 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 WP:INVOLVED can be disregarded. Based on what I can see, that standard doesn't appear to have been met with the WP:CHECKUSER 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 WP:INVOLVED, the Arbs will have to decide what the sanctions will have to be. I can understand the inclination to say that this was a rare, difficult situation and do nothing, but frankly the entire reason why we gate advanced permissions is because we need admins with the temperament to make the right decisions in complex cases. Any shmuck can handle 90% of WP:ANI cases that amount to "User:Example is being racist/sexist/[A-Za-z0-9]+ist on a talk page" but we select admins for their ability to handle cases like Athaenara's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:ANI#Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes was concurrent, and it's reasonable to say it would have been sufficient explanation for the delay even if there was an extra hour before the CU logs and the reblock. —Cryptic 02:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs: Are you able to disclose whether the [redacted IP address] in the logs below was Lourdes' or Athaenara's? —Cryptic 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:INVOLVED and did not violate the checkuser policy) should be addressed. Whether or not they were acting in good faith is kind of irrelevant to the point, if we're holding admins (and stewards and WMF employees) to a somewhat higher standard than regular editors. But I agree with GeneralNotability that if the scope is not TNT's conduct in general but this specific CU, there's no point to a case. We can't see any further evidence than what is presented, and I don't see any major particulars in dispute. Even an abbreviated case is pointless: what exactly are you expecting as evidence? This can be resolved by a motion, the same way that you didn't need a full case to do it for Athaenara; did TNT's involved block and misuse of checkuser rise to the level of sanction: yes/no. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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. WormTT(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. WormTT(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 this note, I do not think any arb believes that because TNT is queer or has made their queerness known on Wikipedia, they're considered involved in all things surrounding queerness for 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:INVOLVE I feel it worthwhile to lay-out why I am not recusing here despite having recused in the Athaenara case request above. 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

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
  • The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
  • There will be no workshop phase.
  • Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
  • Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.

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

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. WormTT(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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1116499056"