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

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Barkeep49's comments about the case that could maybe go on the case page but don't fit nicely in any given section so here we are

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

Thanks to my colleague CaptainEek for pointing out in their oppose of removing CU that TNT has expressed remorse (This was a significant lapse in judgement for which I have, and will continue to, reflect deeply on. I am disappointed in my actions.... For a regular admin this would be sufficient for me. I will think some more about whether this is sufficient for a functionary. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If you require something more concrete than the repeated apologies, remorse and understanding that I was incorrect in my judgement, please accept this; — I am sorry. I regret my actions. I was mistaken in my assessment of the situation. I've hoped that my "evidence" made clear that although I considered myself, at the time, correct in my actions in retrospect I was wrong. I know that. I have been reflecting on that since this happened. People have highlighted this to me in stunning clarity. If I end up maintaining these permissions I will stick to SPI (which I think I mentioned in an email?) and incredibly obvious socks. This is not a repeatable action, nor is it a pattern of behaviour. You've asked me to defend these actions, and all I've managed to do is explain the course of events which led to my mistakes. I should have walked away and asked someone else to help. I disagreed with your assessment of involved at the start of this, but I no longer disagree with it, and will apply that to my actions moving forwards. I'm not sure how much more I need to say to the committee, what precise words I need to utter, for this to be understood. I thought it was, but clearly I am mistaken in that as well. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime - My view of the situation mirrors Barkeep's. Until this comment, your comments appeared to me (at least) as "non-apology apologies". That is, you seemed to be saying "I was definitely right, but I see that community doesn't agree". If I focused on the latter part of the statement, that would be fine, but I can't get past the first half. This comment, however, does help. I'll mull. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Worm. Crucially TNT Arbcom wasn't asking you to defend it was asking you to explain. Your feeling a need to defend is perhaps how we got statements like Although I believe I am just within policy, I am clearly not within the community expectations, and for that I apologise. which had led me to believe that you felt you'd done nothing incorrectly while acknowledging the community felt differently. But as worm said this comment does help. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If a comment like this had come earlier, I think it really would have been persuasive. That it took this long, this much un-needed drama and combative behavior, makes it significantly less compelling for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I certainly understand that line of thinking. Reading TNT's response to L235's question during the case in light of this current response suggests that maybe TNT didn't express themselves clearly but that they were already admitting they were wrong. That is maybe they didn't say the magic words but they were trying to express that idea? At least I think that's a reasonable read of this. Against that I need to weigh all that Worm mentions in that TNT raised the drama level at several points and do I have confidence and trust that this won't happen again with the CUOS tools. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing, TNT was asked very directly if they thought these actions violated INVOLVED, and the answer was a clear "no" right up until FoFs contradicting that stance were strongly supported by this committee. Now that the writing is on the wall, they somehow suddenly get that they did in fact violate the involved admin policy, which they were completely unable to see twelve days ago. TNT had so many chances to not arrive at this point, and now that they have, through nobody's fault but their own, their position suddenly changed. That's desperation, not some kind of sudden breakthrough in their understanding of the involved admin policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

HouseBlaster's comment

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

Yeah, that read poorly. I've changed it since admins are just a subset of editors and not some crowned elites. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And I've reverted it because only arbs (and clerks) can edit the page and two arbs have already voted on it. I would hope one of the drafting arbs would consider the change and either wway reply here. Also a gentle reminder that only arbs and clerks get to do threaded discussions. I know Arb space is intimidating and it's this kind of situation which makes it that way. Please know that both of these comments are made with the utmost kindness and respect. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed Hawk's comment

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

Yeah, I thought this wording was weird when I read the pre-wiki draft. @L235, @Enterprisey, you may wish to review RTH's comment. Izno (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for writing. As linked below the principle, the language comes from a previously-adopted principle, and as used there, "third parties" does not include (in the words of m:ANPDP other Designated Community Members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same Nonpublic Personal Data, to fulfill the duties outlined in the applicable policy for the access tool used. However, since it's not very relevant to this case, it can be removed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz's comment

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

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

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

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

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

Pontification from GeneralNotability

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

To provide a more concrete idea of what I'm trying to say: if TNT had chosen to not publicly express their hurt at Athaenara, I think this would not have been as clear-cut a violation of INVOLVED (yes, I know they'd still have been nominator). And yet - the emotions, the hurt, and the impact to judgment would have still been there, just not something everyone could see, and that's when we most need admins to self-police. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Guerillero

It looks like I am not going to need to clerk here, so I have some comments:

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

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Patterns of behaviour (comment from Joe Roe)

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

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