Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

Original announcement

• A case that will be cited for years to come as how not to handle cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: This was nowhere near GamerGate (2015) which barely makes its way into the top-10 worst managed cases -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, we know with every single case that somebody will say it was a terrible decision by the worst committee ever, so this is not unexpected, it's just wrongheaded. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Don't put words up my mouth. I said it was poorly handled; I made no comments on the character of the members of the committee. That you chose to interpret my comments in such a manner is entirely your choice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously you did not say exactly that. It's just 100% predictable that no matter what we do, no matter how many chances a case subject has to walk away unsanctioned, it still happens that someone immediately comes along the second the case is closed to tell us how bad of a job we did. Since you've offered nothing specific it's hard to see what the point even is. I don't even know why I commented on it to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings at the proposed decision talk page you wrote A standard operating procedure for publicly handling cases involving CheckUser and Oversight should be agreed upon by the committee to ensure this disaster of a case does not happen again. In particular, consideration of whether skipping the workshop phase made things better or worse. Your observation that we didn't have an SOP for publicly handling cases involving CUOS is correct because in most instances it would be impossible to do publicly and there has been no desire from the functionary for it to be public. So trying to figure out if there could be structural improvements in any future situations is something productive I think this committee should do. Besides the workshop thought, do you have other ideas about what the SOP should look like in this situation? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, looking back on the events here, I think that the SOP should be "CUOS cases will be handled privately". In a normal case, the community has full view of the events leading up to the case and can freely view any and all evidence. Not so with CUOS. And I think that contributed to the heat in this case (hell, I am partially to blame myself, literally just above I said some things I shouldn't have). I can understand the committee wanting to respect TNT's request for the case to be held publicly, but I think it did more harm than good, and that blame falls as much on TNT as it does anyone else, I'm afraid. I still maintain this ended extremely poorly, but upon reflection I think the committee tried to handle the poor situation they'd been given as best as they could.

  For a public case involving advanced permissions, I think it's pertinent that the committee promptly agree upon on and publicly post a full and complete timeline of all events involving advanced permissions (use of CU/OS, etc) that are not freely visible to non-functionaries and are pertinent to the case. Rather than the timeline being first revealed in the proposed decision, that should be placed prominently at the very top of the evidence section as soon as a public case involving CU/OS use is accepted. Everyone should be referring to the same set of facts as a neutral starting point. For this case, TNT's uses of the CU tool were posted in the case request, but not the pertinent information that other CUs had performed checks previously. I'm not remembering the entirety of the timeline, as I sat most of the case out due to my existing relationship with TNT (someone I'd consider a wikifriend) making it pretty impossible for me to contribute to the evidence in a neutral manner), but I'm not sure it was definitively established by the committee that previous checks were made, prior to the proposed decision. Correct me if I am wrong.

  I also think the week of silence between closing of the evidence phase and the posting of the proposed decision left time for things to escalate, without any new information and with the community collectively holding its breath waiting for the proposed decision to arrive. I'm sure we can all imagine the pressure TNT and Lourdes must have felt during this time. What's the solution to this? I'm not certain. But I hope what I've posted here gives the arbs something to think about. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Let me give some thoughts I have about your suggestions and analysis. I'm going to go ahead and hat this beause it's quite long and I don't want to clog the page.

Extended content

I think it's reasonable to say "CUOS cases will be handled privately", I just don't agree. For me the default of all committee actions is public. In CUOS situations there are very good reasons to do it privately. Once TNT asked for a public case there was no good reason I can think of to have this case be private. Normally we wouldn't be able to release pertinent information publicly. In this case, once TNT agreed we could release the CU logs (minus the specific IP address of course) it felt like all major evidence could be disclosed publicly. Beyond the fact that I think the committee needs to default to public proceedings, overruling TNT's wishes strikes me as saying that we knew better than TNT. But by definition we should be trusting functionaries to make difficult decisions including about themselves. So if we honestly thought that we knew better than TNT we shouldn't trust them to be a functionary. And that's not where I was at when we had to make that decision. That said, this could be an interesting question to ask candidates at ACE because I would anticipate some candidates will agree with your thinking. In this particular situation GN's check of Athaenara was definitely known but you are correct that I do not believe the other two checks had been publicly revealed before the PD. The committee has set the precedent this year of posting as evidence some on-wiki diffs it receives as part of evidence that has to be submitted privately due to WP:OUTING. But it's not the committee compiling that evidence it's other editors and the committee is just making the evidence suitable for public consideration. The first time the committee establishes something is during the PD. So the idea of a committee established timeline would be a huge departure from other cases and not one I'm sure would be well received by the community as a whole or by future parties who might feel the committee was prejudging the situation. There is also the element of arb workload. Putting together a timeline takes real effort and time. This is also the reason for the week between the close of the community phases (evidence/workshop - which I'll discuss in a moment). The committee considered shortening that time given the limited scope of this case but abandoned that idea after learning TNT would have been unavailable. It strikes me that it would have been incredibly unfair to post a decision and vote on it without offering TNT any opportunity for a timely reply, so we stuck to the week. Truthfully if we had done a shorter PD writing period I expect we'd have missed the deadline and that would have been its own stress. As for no workshop the committee has routinely received feedback that in editor conduct cases with 1 or 2 parties (like this case) that the Workshop feels awful for those parties. That it ends up being a lot of editors getting very heated with each other and, because drafting is hard, the committee doesn't even end up using many/any of the suggestions. That is it produces a lot of heat and virtually zero light. I feel like the community did provide us the kind of feedback that would have normally happened at a Workshop through the evidence and talk pages. And by getting rid of the workshop the case was able to run for 1 week less than in a typical case timeline and a fast resolution was a priority here. I really do want to thank you for your thoughts. I definitely think next year's committee should consider an ArbCom procedure that all CUOS misconduct cases are private. I wouldn't support but a majority of arbs might. I think your observation about making as much private information public in policy compliant ways is good; while the privacy policy prevents public disclosure of who ran checks with-out the CU's permission the committee could have disclosed the three checks prior to TNT's before the PD. And yes the committee should continue to look for ways to shorten the timeline of cases even if there are some practical limitations to that.

Thanks again,Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Well, if Athaenara's intent was to throw a grenade into our midst and take up a ton of everyone's time and energy, they succeeded beyond wildest expectations. We're down two admins (not counting Athaenara) and probably another dozen good users have been pushed closer to the breaking point. A shame all around. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  The real shame of it to me is how utterly unnecessary all of it was, from Athaenara's initial comment right up to poorly thought out accusations and attacks made as recently as yesterday. We could've just gotten rid of one bigoted user and moved on, and everyone would be happier for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely; as a result of this mess, one of the most trusted (Based on user rights) users has been driven off of. the project, and may lose their steward status in February as well. ( I have a hard time seeing them pass confirmation given that they had local CU and OS removed for cause.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  To say TNT was "driven off" is to ignore pretty much all the key aspects of how this case developed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I guess I'm probably one of the very few here who still consider Athaenara a Wikipedia friend, despite that completely inappropriate comment that they made. I think they had no intention of throwing "a grenade into our midst" and did not foresee the ramification of their actions. I don't know their state of mind at the time that they posted that remark but I think something snapped and they lashed out. If they had known it would lead to their desysop and indefinite block, I don't think they would have said it. There is something to be said to counting to 10 (or 100? 1000?) before posting a personal opinion on this project, especially one that might lead to the conclusion by others that one is a hateful bigot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  If they had known it would lead to their desysop and indefinite block, I don't think they would have said it. Not to relitigate the situation, but she bloody well knew there would be consequences, given that she appended "Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care." to her inflammatory remark. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• While I fully respect TNT's to be left alone in this, I would would like to urge the incoming ArbCom to conduct an internal review of this case, with a particular focus on how it was handled on and off-wiki. There are so many things that went wrong in this case, that ultimately lead to an outcome that I suspect Athaenara would not be dissatisfied with, based on her comment made in the RfA. I find it particularly perverse that on the one hand members of the committee remarked on temperature raising comments made by TNT, while on the other allowing an arbitrator to make a temperature rasing comment without any public rebuke. And then, to add further insult, TNT's response to the provocation by that arbitrator was as further evidence against them. I would like every committee member, including those who recused, and particularly the one who made the temperature rasing comment, to ask themselves a simple question. If that comment had not been made, if TNT had not been provoked by that comment, which accused the restating of their apology as desperation, would this case have had a different outcome? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  We already had that discussion on the same page as the diffs you have posted. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think this assessment denies TNT any agency. Beeblebrox chose to say what he said. TNT chose to respond how they responded. We shouldn't infantilize TNT by acting like a single negative comment left them with no choice but to reply in kind. They're an adult. Can we please just let this case die? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree that this denies agency. I don't see this as a a single negative comment left them with no choice but to reply in kind, I see it more as "final straw" in a very tense and stressful situation. While it is true that TNT is ultimately responsible for how they acted and responded, it is also true that committee is responsible for how they responded, both as individual members and as a whole. Given the circumstances, I think it is sensible that the committee and its members should ask themselves "did we make this worse? And if so, how can we prevent this from happening again?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Many people, when sanctioned by ArbCom, choose to leave Wikipedia, for a time or forever. I probably would if in the same position. I don't think that's a problem for ArbCom to fix. It's just human nature. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think those admins/editors who stick around after an arbitration case are more the exception than the rule. But there are some notable examples of individuals who have continued to be productive editors even after a sanction, desysop or adminishment. I'm sure it's humbling beyond imagination but it is possible to continue to be active here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest it would have been helpful to narrow the scope of evidence phase, given that this was not a standard arbitration case, but a review of checkuser usage being held in public. The committee could have presented the equivalent of the timeline history it would have gathered in private, leaving participants to propose additions. I also think it would have been helpful to explicitly state if the arbitration committee wanted to hear arguments on interpreting checkuser policy. As per Wikipedia:CheckUser § Complaints and misuse (and the associated m:CheckUser policy § Removal of access), the arbitration committee has the authority to decide on the appropriate course of action on its own, but of course it can choose to consult with the community. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, Tamzin, and Sideswipe9th:, I concur with Beeblebrox (but then, I mostly do and have done for over a decade - there are some people whom one meets in real life and takes an instant liking to. There are other people who may seem friendly enough but who will throw you under a bus). I think Arbcom sometimes deserves all the criticism it gets especially when it comes from hardworking and highly respected members of the community. I am greatly saddened by the turmoil the Committee has caused - again. Despite my own feelings about Arbcom, I have always believed that the Committee's remit - on paper at least - was to be fair, defuse, and encourage, rather than going out of its way to seek the most contentious 'solutions' within its powers and punish people. Now we've lost another valuable member of our community and scolded another admin who will now probably withdraw their support for Wikipedia. Ultimately, the Committee does just as much to harm Wikipedia as any of the issues it tries to resolve.

TNT's valedictory is no worse than any of the others by admins who have felt they were unfairly treated or excessively punished for just doing their voluntary job in what they clearly believed to be in the interests of Wikipedia. Arbcom committees and the peanut gallery that populates ANI just love rubbing salt into wounds and causing character assassinations. The thing that has escaped the notice of ever single past and present member of Arbcom is that the very nature of the community is to pile on with drama. Arbcom as a body wouldn't be allowed to exist in RL - they would be run out of town. As I said already on this issue, it's time to give it a rest. It's time to give TNT a warm hug and thank her for everything she's done for Wikipedia and wish her well - she's worth more than ten of people like any of us; removing rights without any chance of appeal and suggesting the peanut gallery decide on their future is almost medieaval in its concept. It's time to disband Arbcom and its tedious and complex bureaucracy and replace it with something else. 04:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) Sorry, @Liz, Tamzin, and Sideswipe9th:, I type a tilde too few. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree this case had problems, but my read of what those problems appears to be different from other people so far. It appears to me from ArbCom's initial reluctance to take the case, and from the relative speed and unanimity of ArbCom's votes on the various parts of the case, that ArbCom had decided very early on that TNT was WP:INVOLVED. (And to be clear, I think this was a very reasonable call by itself.) Because of this, TNT really didn't have any options available to them that would satisfy ArbCom but to apologize. But TNT didn't know this until the proposed decision was actually handed down. So TNT committed to an ultimately counterproductive strategy of arguing that they were, technically speaking, not WP:INVOLVED, or at least that they fell into an exception to the normal rules for involved admins. I think that this was unfair to TNT and amounts to ArbCom tricking someone into publicly embarrassing themselves (and also into completely wasting their opportunity to argue their own case until after the evidence phase closed and it was too late). My read for how to avoid this in future is for ArbCom to not try to be coy about their conclusions if they've made conclusions in the early parts of a case. Loki (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple points:

• The committee first attempted to have a private, collegial conversation with TNT about whether these actions violated the involved admin policy. They declined to do this and insisted on a full public case.
• Early in the case, 12 days before the PD was voted on, Kevin asked them directly if they still considered them to be so. They responded with a firm "no."
• Nearly every single case of admin misconduct this committee has ever taken had IMVOLVED at its core.

There was no trickery, INVOLVED was clearly a core aspect of this case before it even was a case. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand that TNT is the one who insisted on a case. My contention here is not that that it was unclear that WP:INVOLVED was a part of the case, it's that it was unclear that ArbCom had already made up their mind that TNT was INVOLVED from the start. You did ask TNT if they considered themselves to be INVOLVED several times, and they said "no" several times, but at no point did you say "don't bother arguing that you're not INVOLVED because we think you obviously were". (Or alternatively you could have just refused the case: if you don't need further evidence, there's no point in having an evidence phase, and a case without an evidence phase or a workshop phase isn't a case.) Loki (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I knew where I stood and knew where a couple of other arbs stood and I suspected it was a majority opinion. But I didn't know if it was unanimous and I only suspected but I didn't know where the committee as a whole stood. We hadn't reached that point in our discussions before the case went public and once that happened the kinds of substantive discussion we have in private changes. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll quote a minor essay I wrote a few years ago:

When a high profile user leaves for what appears to be good, for whatever reason, it is important to first and foremost remember that they are a person with feelings equally as valid as your own. If they have left on bad terms, do not grave dance. If there's a template that could be placed on their userpage and the blocking administrator did not place it, do not feel like it is your place to do so. It isn't. Let them leave in peace, even if the conduct was less than ideal. If they return and evade their block, they will be dealt with, but that can wait until it happens.

If the circumstances are sudden and the retirement is announced in a noticeable way, it's often worth considering whether or not there are circumstances that led to it, and if there's a right way to respond to it on-wiki. Often times there are good reasons why people leave: they could be facing harassment, their mental health could be suffering because of the project, they could have a lot of things going on in real life and Wikipedia just adds frustration to it, or they even could have decided they hate all of us here. In each of these circumstances, making a big deal of the situation is less than ideal. An important part of respecting the person in these circumstances is letting them leave in peace.

Might I suggest that in this case, perhaps the best way to let someone leave in peace is not to draw even more attention for longer to the manner of their leaving by debating the process. I've certainly been critical of the committee in the past, but it just isn't helpful in this circumstance. There's an election in a few weeks that people can vote in or run in if they feel there's a very strong need for reform. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Tony's point above. We elect the committee to take these difficult decisions for us, and the close is a reasonable one under the circumstances. It would be unusual if everyone agreed with a particular decision, but it's best if sticks can be dropped once the case is closed, and if you really want systemic change and think the community will agree with you, then proposing new ways of working via RFC and electing new Arbs are your ways forward. Finally, I do hope TNT returns to editing; obviously that's up to them and where their head is at, I can understand the hurt that an Arbcom rebuke might cause, but their contributions are valued despite this decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have a lot of thoughts about this case, have gone over it with a fine tooth comb in my mind. I can see a couple of things I would have done differently in hindsight, but I do not believe they would have changed the course of the case, nor the outcome. I'm terrifically saddened by the whole ordeal, as I have a lot of respect for TNT on many levels, but Tony is right, further discussion here only serves to exacerbate things. My email is open to any community member who wants to debrief in confidence, offer suggestions on how the committee could improve or vent about how awful the committee is. Or, indeed, anything else. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I know this post is full of the usual aggrieved whingers every noticeboard post gets after ArbCom makes a decision that they don't like, but I'd like to congratulate ArbCom for making a difficult but fair decision given the unfortunate circumstances that led to the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I appreciate everyone involved with this discussion being as calm and rational as possible. I am sorry for TheresNoTime, But im glad that their punishment was not more than what was necessary. I do wish the best for everyone involved. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

At least nobody is calling for a recall this time, as I've seen in the previous years. I do think this is one of the saddest cases I've seen in a while, but I don't believe at all that the case was incompetently handled. I do think perhaps the evidence phase got a bit out-of-hand because incidents were being brought up that was out of the case's scope. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It is claimed that sanctions against editors should be preventative and not punitive. How true this is depends on anyone's personal opinion, but the final judgement of the Arbitration Committee - in all its past and present compositions - rarely adheres to this construct. To be lenient or forgiving does not mean IAR, because there are no policies that oblige the Committee to accept a case or enact a sentence if they do. However, amateur jurists on the Committee enjoy their power as policy police, they do not weigh the cost/benefit of their decisions: the cost of assassination of a volunteer's character and its human toll and the resulting loss of the benefits their participation on Wikipedia.

Most cases of this kind are closed with a punishment because it's what the Committee can, and wants to do. It's interesting to note that PerryPerryD describes the outcome of this case as a punishment, for there is indeed no other portrait for it. It may not have been incompetently handled, but no court of law in a civilised democracy is generally incompetent, but the Committee is inept and is composed of amateur jurists, juries, and executioners, and enfranchised communities will get what they vote for. The real guilty parties in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block vs. Wikipedia are those who voted to open the case. This paper should be compulsory set reading for every Committee aspirant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'll be blunt. You need to get a grip. You seem to view this 10x one-sidedness as iron, but it is actually mush. And worse still, it's pouring gasoline on the flame, just as it is dying down — to what end? And I say that as someone who both supported TNT throughout some of this ordeal (like here and here), but also offered a fair critique (like here). The fact is that TNT requested for this case to be opened. You say that the Committee is inept — your comment is inept. Inept in its tunnel vision and in its failure to be grounded. In its failure to de-escalate.

I value TNT, I continue to value them. We've had laughs together and we've collaborated in making the project a safer place for marginalized people. But they made some serious mistakes — driven by a dark undertone of persecution of trans people that shocked many of us (beyond the RfA's disgraceful TERF impetus), yes, but mistakes nonetheless. You are not helping them and you are not helping the project by this misdirected sowing of discord. So please stop with the legalese; stop with the attacks (Committee members are persons, too); stop with hyperbole. Just stop. El_C 03:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I don't think that's unique to this committee. NOTPUNITIVE can be aspirational, if not outright euphemistic or Orwellian, because it's a fine line. Virtually any sanction will feel punitive to whoever it's applied to, and I think we'd all be rightly upset if someone were sanctioned "preventatively" before doing anything wrong. Perhaps we are too quick to raise the specter of "likelihood of repetition" as justification for a facially preventative block; on the other hand, higher privileges always come with greater scrutiny. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• I thank the committee for their work in this case. I occasionally comment in these post closes but rarely participate in cases, most of the time I barely even look at them. To the extent some may know I didn't look to see if the evidence phase was still open before commenting so that my close comment was rightly removed. In this case I only commented because I felt some editors were missing the important point, in a such profile case like this, there is almost no chance we can put the genie back in the bottle. While I believe no harm was intended and TNT thought they were doing something for the best of the project, a decision taken when involved and this cannot not be reversed. The fact that the wrong decision was made is a good example of why editors should not make a decision when involved, the same reason why in so many other examples in the world the same principle is followed. No matter how good someone is and how well intentioned they are, and how much they try, people often cannot properly put their conflict of interest aside. Which means they make decisions they wouldn't have otherwise. An important point I tried to make in that deleted comment is that even if it was found that an uninvolved CU may have made the same decision, quite a few editors would likely not be convinced or would still think it's wrong, fairly IMO. As is turns out the committee didn't find this so that point is largely moot although if you feel they're wrong and an uninvolved CU would have made the same decision, well that just seem to further prove the point of the harm from someone doing something when involved. As others have said, while the situation was very stressful, it's imperative that good decisions are made even then, especially when it involves something like our privacy policy hence why CUs are such a trusted position. I don't really know Athaenara other than what I've seen of their views which I despise, but they too are entitled to fairness especially when it comes to our strong privacy policy. Otherwise we might as well endorse unfairness for every editor since for good reason there is nothing in our privacy policy which says if an editor is likely to be removed from the community or has unacceptable views, you do not need to follow this policy. Of course it wasn't just them who was affected anyway, and while from what I've read before, perhaps Lourdes doesn't doesn't care that much, this also doesn't make it okay since it's entirely reasonable some other editor may care and the only way we can ensure they aren't affected is be ensuring it's always upheld. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Original announcement

Nominations now open for the 2022 ArbCom elections

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates in the 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations must be transcluded by 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Please note that there is a change to the process this year: per WP:ACERFC2022, questions may only be asked on the official questions pages after the nomination period is over. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Level II desysop of Stephen

Original announcement

• From watching recent events at ITN I think I can make an educated guess at who the harassed user was. This is just so disappointing. Stephen was one the most dedicated admins working at ITN. I'm really shocked.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Say it ain't so, Joe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• You've got to be kidding me!!! As PK3 stated, I think I can guess as well what was going on -- but you'd just never know by the way he let on. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• What a shame. --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• If I'm reading the situation correctly, the desysop was appropriate. However, if a non-admin had engaged in the same behavior -- using IPs to harass another editor -- they would certainly have been blocked, at least temporarily. Was that considered in this instance, especially considering that the harassment may have included attempted log-ins to the victim editor's account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  The Level 2 desysop does not preclude further action being taken against Stephen, but a Level 2 desysop is also only for removal of administrative permissions and does not consider further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. Building on what Primefac said, I will say that the discussion about blocking was raised and briefly discussed but the priority was on acting on the Level 2 desysop which only ArbCom could do. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  <hat type="CU">I do not see technical evidence indicating that Stephen is related to the failed login attempts.</hat>

  <hat type="been doing this too long">Quarterly reminder that repeated failed login attempts like this are generally intended to intimidate rather than to actually log in. Also, they're frequently done by a third party to stir up trouble and make people suspicious of each other, a favorite during arbcom cases.</hat>

  GeneralNotability (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  @GeneralNotability what are you talking about? I don't see anything about "failed login attempts" in the announcement or otherwise mentioned in this section. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  xaosflux, sorry, clarifying - it was mentioned in another thread that a harass-ee had received several failed login attempts, BMK alluded to it above at the end of their statement. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

GN, I presume that to be usually the case, but I can't help but think that you've just spilled the WP:BEANS about CUs being able to review login attempts. I didn't know that and I doubt many others did. Oh well, I guess the out of the bag now. As for Stephen, I'm saddened to learn about this. What a drag. In regards to blocking (or lack thereof, rather), I don't think it's a WP:SUPERMARIO so much as their self-destruction being an extension of them previously spearheading (and persevering) against the ethnocentric shit. If he were on the side of the ethnocentrism rather than being against it, I highly doubt ArbCom (or any Floq-esque admin, for that matter) would have held off on insta-blocking him, like with the admin in the TERF incident that shall not be named. Which is perhaps understandable, in so far as that sort of harassment goes. That is to say, the hate speech and the non-hate speech variety. El_C 23:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thinking back on it, there have been a few drive-by IP edits against users who eventually were blocked from ITN, such as this one here. I can't help but wonder if the rabbit hole ran deeper than just the superficial trolling mentioned above. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@El C: the ability to check logins (and all other technical aspects of the tool) is documented on mw:Extension:CheckUser, so it's not really something that only CUs would know. ansh.666 00:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been around for a while. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. El_C 00:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That is actually me Walt, you better have some more than me just being an IP. We have interacted after that as well. Is is policy compliant to wildly speculate, paint people badly and all of that without a shred of evidence? 85.16.47.145 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no evidence, and have struck the remark. I'm only trying to make sense of a trusted admin suddenly doing this. I also understand if this is a blockable offense, and I apologize. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, situation resolved. Talked about it, sorted it. Almost as if we were adults... Does that sound right to you? Has a funny sound to me lol. 85.16.46.255 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)