Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Comments

What, no sanctions on Slimvirgin for wasting everyone's time and falsely accusing someone? Jtrainor (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like her accusation will be found to be without merit, and she will be reminded. There is an embarrassing finding that she did not respond to ArbCom. Isn't that enough? ... I guess she could have been "cautioned" or "admonished" but there is no real difference in effect. And anything more serious? Desysopping? No. The problem did not involve use of tools. Temporary block? To prevent... what exactly? The incident is over. What could be done in addition? Some sort of punishment is the only option I can think of. And WP does not do punishment; ArbCom does not do punishment. Jd2718 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous and uninvolved user agrees that blocking and such would serve no purpose, but still thinks something a little more strongly worded seems to be in order. Say: "Slimvirgin is reprimanded for bringing serious accusations against other users which were probably false, and which she has in any case failed to substantiate; for doing so in an inappropriate forum, and in so doing, avoidably endangering the privacy of other users; and for failing to co-operate with the Committee in investigating matters she herself had originally brought up." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.238.85 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No sanctions is right, but the point of her not providing any evidence will haunt her forever, because this is exactly what she does, over and over again against everybody she dislikes. Together with the line in the sand, maybe we are now getting to the point where those that have been chased away by her can come back and actually do their job of creating an encyclopaedia instead of dealing with the numerous baseless accusations of SlimVirgin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with kimvdl. I don't think a sanction is appropriate here, but perhaps a remedy that the findings of this case should be prominently linked to on here user/user talk page for some period of time? I'm sure the folks at the Board of outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, are up in arms over this, and furiously trying to decide who else might be a sockpuppet of sv (with a similar amount of evidence it appears). It's really to bad she didn't just email the committee with some explaination, even an irrational one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear, making repeated accusations everywhere without evidence is a form of harassment, and I am sure that as soon as this happens again, things will look much more grave for SV. But, the ruling in the parallel case came after this incident and you cannot fit those remedies retroactively to her/him. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 09:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything from the omnibus waste of time case should be used here. Only that perhaps remedies from this case might be linked from the sv userpages. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but it just came to me. What the committee does in the future based on future activities, is unknowable by me, and I hope no one ever has to think about it again. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the community would've preferred a more aggressive caution, but whether it is a reminder or caution, it's effect is likely to be the same in this case - I do hope and would be glad if (a) these cases aren't treated indifferently by SV, and (b) her conduct is no longer a problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Informally

With all due respect, does this committee even know what "informally" means? (word games aside, I think it's important that you specify exactly what you're accusing him of if this proposal is allowed to stand) --Random832 (contribs) 13:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the use of "informally" in this proposal is simply meant to contrast with the use of the word "formal" in proposed principle 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Breach of privacy?

"...a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred..." Did this breach happen spontaneously, without human involvement? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a well known technique of journalists who are sympathetic to a particular side to use the passive without mentioning the agent, when referring to an action that might show the party in a bad light ("Shots were fired"), but to use active when it's someone that they're happy to have criticized. So, for example, they could have said "Lar breached the privacy policy", "Some unhelpful remarks were made on the mailing list", or better still, "Some unhelpful remarks may have been made on the mailing list." But they chose not to. The question is - why? Wikitumnus (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If Lar did something to compromise the Privacy Policy (and if ArbCom sees its role as to evaluate this), then most likely he should be admonished, or reminded to be more careful. If his actions were mitigated, that might be considered as well (for instance, by limits on data isolation, apparent good faith, or if any breach was limited and acknowledged). However, I think it's worth noting that the issue of privacy does not appear to relate to SlimVirgin, or for that matter to have been raised by anyone who was affected. The claim relating to SV, that Lar had misused checkuser, appears to have been unsupported. I think this distinction is also important since any claimed "bad faith" presumably could not be tied to the alleged privacy violation with a non-party to this case. This could be a reason not to address the privacy issue here at all, but I think should at least be pointed out. Mackan79 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"May have" is not a finding. If there is no evidence that Lar compromised the policy, the insinuation should be removed. That said, Wikitumnus seems to provide clear evidence that he did compromise the policy. We need a clear statement one way or the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Other evidence?

• WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 33, Sun Jul 20 18:30:08 UTC 2008
• Sun Jul 20 23:16:51 UTC 2008
• Mon Jul 21 00:28:38 UTC 2008
• Mon Jul 21 12:33:16 UTC 2008

In the emails linked above, SlimVirgin and Lar directly contradict each other, on matters involving Lar's wife and a third editor. Has this third editor submitted evidence? If so, does his evidence support Lar's account of events, or SlimVirgins? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the e-mails Tom links to, Lar states that his wife had had a prior involvement in the case, and had been offering advice and counsel to me, based on statements that I had made to the two of them, while SlimVirgin states that this is false, that Lar's wife and I do not know each other and have never had any interaction.

As I have repeatedly stated to the Arbitration Committee, SlimVirgin's account is accurate. I do not know Lar's wife. We have never communicated with each other, on wiki, or off wiki. As she is an active Wikipedian, I have seen her around, but would not have consented to Lar's revealing my identity to her. On ONE occasion (a few months before the usercheck) Lar mentioned to me that his wife did not understand why I didn't leave Wikipedia. (This opinion of hers was based on information that was fairly publicly known, and her opinion was not passed on to me as "advice" from his wife, or even as a question from her, but simply as a comment that she didn't understand my wish to stay.) I replied to HIM (I have never sent e-mails to both of them, and if she read what I sent to him, it was certainly without my knowledge or consent) that she was right, but explained why I did not wish to leave. I stopped communicating with him around that time.

Furthermore, I stated to the committee that I had e-mailed Lar shortly after the usercheck, admitting that this edit (the ostensible reason for the check, though since Lar proceeded to obtain and check Crum375's IPs after he discovered who I was, it's hard to believe that this was anything more than a pretext) was foolish, as it would lead trolls to speculate on my identity, but adding that it had not occurred to me that a checkuser would even look at it, as I had seen CU requests rejected with a  CheckUser is not for fishing template when the evidence was a lot stronger, and my understanding was that there had to be a valid suspicion of some wrongdoing, and there was none. It wouldn't have mattered if I had been Crum. There would have been no action to take in the event of a "confirmed" result. I never supported Crum, never edited his articles, never commented on him, voted with or for him. Apart from reverting userspace trolling (when the account was five weeks old and had about 200 edits), I never went near him. Crum375 had no record of sockpuppetry, and was an established administrator in good standing (subjected to a lot of scrutiny at Wikipedia Review). There is no policy that says it's forbidden to use an alternative account to revert vandalism from your own userpage. Lar was not using the tools to protect the project from disruption. There was no suspected disruption.

Yet within two weeks of receiving that e-mail (and that was the only e-mail in which I had referred to my opinion on the usercheck, and the committee has seen that e-mail), Lar apparently posted on the private CU mailing list (which he knew I didn't have access to so couldn't contradict him) that I had acknowledged to him that the usercheck was justified. The link is here, but I do not have access to the contents. Any checkuser will be able to confirm if Lar really said there what I believe he said. (The link comes from an e-mail sent by a checkuser to Jimbo, and copied to me, so I presume it's accurate.)

SlimVirgin has been criticized for not submitting evidence. Originally she had some real life commitments and asked for an extension. Around the same time, I was ill, and asked individual arbs was there a hurry in submitting evidence. I received a one-liner from one of them saying that they weren't rushing anything. Less then a week later, I understand SlimVirgin received an e-mail from Charles Matthews, saying that she had 48 hours to submit, and then voting would start. Nobody contacted me although they knew that I categorically denied even knowing Lar's wife (and this case should hang on the integrity of Lar, with regard to the statements he made when his conduct as CU was queried), and that I wished and intended to submit evidence. It turned out that the case was delayed, for other reasons, but I think I could be forgiven for believing that some members did not want me to submit evidence, especially as the evidence has been completely ignored in the proposed decision.

When Lar contacted me to ask permission to release my e-mails to ArbCom, I requested that he would copy me when doing so, as I was so astonished at his inaccurate claims on the enwiki mailing list, and wanted to be in a position to contradict him if he misquoted me. He agreed to my request, and I promised I would do the same. I kept faithfully to my side of the bargain. Lar sent me an e-mail telling me what he WAS GOING TO SEND to the committee. I naively assumed that he would later cc me, when actually submitting, but he never did. I have no way of knowing if he misquoted me again.

SlimVirgin made two allegations on the mailing list, one that Lar carried out a fishing check, and two, that he revealed my identity to his wife — an active Wikipedian not entrusted with the right to view sensitive information — and then invented a "prior involvement" that his wife supposedly had in the case. (Even if there had been a prior involvement, that would not have justified leaking my identity without my consent.) Regarding the first allegation, when the commitments which had delayed SlimVirgin were over, she asked to see Lar's evidence, so that she could know what claims he was making regarding the decision to carry out the check, and could base her own statements and evidence on that. She was refused, and as I have pointed out, Lar conveniently "misunderstood" my request that he would copy me when submitting evidence. Neither of us knows what claims he made privately to the ArbCom; we only know that he had previously made blatantly false claims. It is not possible for SlimVirgin to "prove" that Lar was "fishing", since it seems that any checkuser (despite the contradiction to the wording on the policy page) can carry out a check on someone he dislikes (see the emotional hostility under Oppose Vote #22 here and the unstewardlike gratuitous little dig here) and can then talk himself out of it by claiming that he sincerely believed this might be an abusive sock; nobody can prove that he didn't, though several checkusers have indicated grave discomfort with the whole incident, and I hope that if the community examine my contributions they will agree that this check was very "iffy". Regarding the second accusation, that Lar made outrageously false claims on the CU mailing list and the enwiki mailing list, SlimVirgin's (accurate) beliefs that I don't know Lar's wife and that I did not admit to Lar that the CU was justified (in fact, that I said the exact opposite to him) come from statements I made to her. She is also fully aware of the statements and evidence that I submitted to the ArbCom (and of the fact that they seem to want to pass it over entirely). She can hardly be expected to offer additional evidence of me not knowing Lar's wife. Why should the committee criticize her for not offering evidence that Lar lied about his wife "counselling" me, when they surely know that she knows of my evidence, and that she knows they chose to ignore that evidence?

For the record, I state that every claim that SlimVirgin has made about my lack of acquaintance with Lar's wife and about my statements to Lar came directly from me. If the committee members find any to be inaccurate, they must admonish me and clear her. If, on the other hand, they accept that I never interacted with Lar's wife, that I was horrified when he passed on my identity to her, that I abandoned my account as a result, and that I told him two weeks before he made this post that I did not see how the check could be justified, then they need to address these issues in their final decision.

Some committee members, for reasons best known to themselves, have been willing to ignore all this, and to leave SlimVirgin with the stigma of having made baseless allegations. Of course it is possible (though very unlikely) that they believe that I am lying, but in that case, they need to admonish me for deceiving SlimVirgin and attempting to deceive them. I requested several days ago that any member who doubted the truthfulness of my account would inform me of that, but have not received any replies. I had VERY much hoped that Kirill and James would have been willing to spare me the stress and anguish of having to go public in order to prevent this injustice from continuing. (I had told the arbitrators that I would be morally obliged to go public if they chose to leave SlimVirgin under this cloud of suspicion — a suspicion that they know to be unjust.) Their decision to allow SlimVirgin to be criticized for her frustrated reaction to outrageous untruths, while entirely passing over those untruths, endangers my privacy and brings disgrace upon them, though in fairness to James, I must acknowledge that he has not edited since I sent that appeal to the committee, and may not yet be aware of it. Wikitumnus (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Briefly touching on two points here, it is true that at one point the committee emailed Slim notifying her that she had not presented evidence and they wanted to begin voting in 48 hours; Slim replied that she would be busy until a certain date, and the committee was unsympathetic (I believe their response can be fairly characterized as such) as the case had already been open some time. However, actual voting did not begin until at least 8 weeks after that communication, and 5 weeks after the end date of Slim's stated busy period. I do not know what evidence she did or did not submit during those 5 weeks, but I don't believe the committee can be characterized as rushing this case. Also, I am aware that Wikitumnus did submit several emails to the committee for their consideration, as I was copied on them, so I do not want the impression to be created that Wikitumnus did not have a full opportunity to submit statements and evidence. I have no knowledge of whether or not he was specifically invited to make a submission, but ultimately he certainly did. Thatcher 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify something. After I posted the above, Lar contacted me privately about this paragraph:

When Lar contacted me to ask permission to release my e-mails to ArbCom, I requested that he would copy me when doing so, as I was so astonished at his inaccurate claims on the enwiki mailing list, and wanted to be in a position to contradict him if he misquoted me. He agreed to my request, and I promised I would do the same. I kept faithfully to my side of the bargain. Lar sent me an e-mail telling me what he WAS GOING TO SEND to the committee. I naively assumed that he would later cc me, when actually submitting, but he never did. I have no way of knowing if he misquoted me again.

He asked me had I not received a copy of his evidence. He said that he copied me, or thought he did, on the PDF file he submitted as evidence. If I had not received it, he would happily resend.

Unfortunately (and this is painful to say because I once trusted Lar), I did not feel that an e-mail from him telling me what he HAD SAID would be proof that my words had not been misquoted or taken out of context. I'm still stunned at reading that his wife had had a role in offering me advice and counsel, that I had previously made statements to both of them, and that I had admitted to him that the check was justified. So the only way I could be reassured would be if I had received it at the time, with my address in the cc. field and an arb's address in the "To" field, OR if an arb who had received it were to send it to me. Lar consented to my obtaining it from an arb, on 14 October, but I had health problems and did not write to the committee to inform them of that until today (copied to Lar). I have now been told by Paul August that Lar submitted the evidence to him and Kirill Lokshin for circulation to other sitting arbs, and that once Lar gives permission to forward a copy to me, he (Paul) will do so.

My statement above reflects my personal belief that Lar conveniently misunderstood the agreement. If I am mistaken, I certainly want him to be publicly cleared of that particular accusation. Perhaps Paul or Kirill could confirm here whether or not I was included in the cc. field in the actual e-mail that Lar submitted as evidence? Or, if they're not around, perhaps another arb, who received the forwarded message could state whether or not I was cc'd on the original? While I stand by my statement that Lar invented a friendship between me and his wife, and that he invented an admission from me that the usercheck was justified, and while I'm appalled that senior Wikipedians have chosen not to address this but to leave SlimVirgin tainted with the slur of having made wild, unfounded allegations, I still do not want Lar to be accused of one single thing that he is not actually guilty of.

At the moment, I am waiting to see the evidence, and hope that Lar will confirm quickly to the committee members that he consented to it being shown to me, and that the members will act quickly in forwarding it. Wikitumnus (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with wording

Since ArbCom is not authorized to make policy, it is important the the wording of principles and proposed actions be worded carefully to suit the fundamental issues of the particular case. With this in mind I have some concerns with how some of the elements of this page are worded - I am not faulting ArbCom procedures or decisions, I am just trying toi alert the committee to issues that seem to have gotten lost;

• The small compromise of editor privacy that the use of this tool represents is weighed against the central role CheckUser has assumed in preserving Wikipedia's traditional way of functioning.

I have two problems. First, why on earth should the use of checkuser compromise an editor's privacy, as long as the editor is not editing in inappropriate ways? Obviously checkuser is intended to "compromise" the identity of an editor when the editor is abusing Wikipedia. The issue of privacy is only salient when the editor turns out not to be abusing Wikipedia. this distinction ought to be clear in the wording. Second, maybe this is true, but this phrasing misses the salient point for this case, which is that not all violations of privacy are equal. In some cases, compromising the privacy of an editor will cause no harm to the editor; in other cases, tremendous harm. This proposition is, frankly, useless unless if takes this distinction into account. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Making a formal determination as to whether a breach of the privacy policy has taken place is the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the Committee.

maybe so, but the issue is not simply one of remit, it is also this: what knowledge does ArbCom need in order to make a fair ruling? If it needs to know whether the privacy policy has been breached to make a fair decision, then it needs to find out before it deliberates. If it is the WOC's remit, then ArbCom must request and wait for a finding by the WOC before deliberating. Without including this point, the present wording manages to be both accurate and counter-productive. it misses the ultimate issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• An essential element of the judgment and discretion that CheckUsers must exercise consists of balancing, each time a check is requested, the compromise of editor privacy that "running a CheckUser" necessarily represents, against the evidence of abuse of multiple accounts or other serious user misconduct. As with any discretionary decision, there are circumstances in which reasonable CheckUsers operating in good faith could disagree as to whether a given check was warranted.

I suggest that this is a test-case for revising what constitutes "probably cause" for checkuser. perhaps we can come up with a clearer algorithm for when Checkuser is necessary. I think the guidelines here could be more specific and clear about two obvious conditions: probably cause to believe an editor is using multiple accounts, AND probable cause that the user is doing so specifically and deliberately to violate Wikipedia policies. I think probably cause in both cases needs to be established before authorizing checkuser. I leave it to members of ArbCom to discuss what evidence suffices to demonstrate probable cause. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin made a series of allegations of impropriety in a large number of emails sent to the wikien-l mailing list—a public list that is archived on the web—in the third and fourth week of July. These allegations presented a negative view of the conduct of Lar and one of the Ombudsmen, Mackensen, and are part of a threaded discussion, wide-ranging and lacking in consistency.

I am curious to see how this "finding of fact" will be used. As i read it it makes two very non-controversial claims. The first is that allegations were made on the list-serve. Is the issue that she should have made the allegations on a Wikipedia talk page? Tat in my mind would have been the ideal course of action, because the fundamental virtue of Wikipedia is transparency, meaning, virtually all deliberations occur in public. But while the list-serve is less public, I think it is still transparent enough for this case, so I don't see what kind of recommendation this fact would have any bearing on. The second is that the discussion lacked consistency. But this is the nature of most dialogues or discusions. As people discuss issues, they may come to feel more or less comfortable sharing certain private matters. or they may remember something they forgot. Or they conversation itself may lead them to a new insight, or to change their mind. Discussions, whether on article talk pages or on list-serves, are not meant to be consistent arguments, they are meant to be open fora for working out evolving views. So tu summarize, this finding of fact seems redundant. Simply by saying it was discussed on the list-serve, we can infer that over time inconsistent or contradictory statements were produced, reflected on, reconsidered ... Slrubenstein | Talk 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties.

This profoundly concerns me because i conside the general point dangerous. Wikipedia will thrive through transparency. Virtually every abuse and scandal at Wikipedia that I know of involved some degree of a lack of transparency. The only question is, did Slim Virgin violate anything confidential or private? I am of course refering to private, personal matters. one cannot violate the privacy of the Wikipedia community which by definition is public. Frankly, I wonder whether ArbCom is projecting. Because ArbCom is in a position of power (like people authorized to use checkuser, and the Ombudsman), they do have a burden to protect people's privacy. Wikipedia editors, it seems to me, do not have any such obligation (unless it verges on illegal behavior). I certainly see an irony here in that one principle suggested is that the needs of checkuser may outweigh the privacy concerns of editors - while in this point Slim Virgin seems to be being held to a higher standard. editors should not be held to higher standards than ArbCom members or bureaucrats. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Despite repeated requests from the Committee, as well as several extensions of the submission deadline, SlimVirgin has failed to provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint in this matter.

The question is, why? Has she been asked and been given an opportunity to answer this question? has any other editor provided ArbCom with evidence that explains why SlimVirgin may not have given a complete sentence? If, as ArbCom has already suggested, editors may have obligations to protect the confidentiality or privacy of others, this may constrain them in the nature of statements they give to ArbCom. For ArbCom to make a fair ruling, it needs to know whethe this is the case or not. Otherwise, ArbCom risks turning into Wikipedia's version of the HUAC. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• In sum, SlimVirgin has been quick to make statements potentially damaging to other editors, but tardy in matters of clarification, mediation, and resolution of the points that she has raised.

I find this odd given that the first proposed principle here as much as admits that someone (Lar?) violated privacy in using checkuser. If ArbCom itself admits that checkuser was abused in this way, how much more clarificaion does SlimVirgin need to provide? Again, I see a kind of projection: since someone with CheckUser violated someone's privacy, Arbom now asks an editor to do the same. But two wrongs do not make a right. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion.

This is surely misworded. Surely, ArbCom means to say, "Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, and having considered evidence presented by other interested parties about the check at issue, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion." Right? The fundamental issue here is the question of Lar's alleged abuse of power. Certainly a man has the right to defend himself. But when a person in power is accused of abusing authority, a finding of fact cannot be made solely on the basis of the person in power's statement. This only compounds any abuse of power. The findings of fact must be based on evidence gathered from a variety of sources. I know that others besides Slim Virgin have presented evidence. Even if SV's own statement was incomplete, Arbcom has to take into account evidence provided by others. This ought to be rephrased to make it clear that ArbCom's finding of fact is not based solely on Lar's say-so. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present.

Inadequately worded. ArbCom needs to explain the difference between a "technical breach of privacy" and "a breach of privacy." Also, "reasonable" is a function of "proportional" but the wording of this statement provides only one half of the equation, the operating environment. the other half is the potential harm caused by the breach of privacy. Without knowing the potential harm it is inmpossible to say what is reasonable or unreasonable - costs must be the benefits must be measured against the costs, which includes potential for harm. Also, I again note that ArbCom is admitting that Lar abused his trust. To fault SV for refusing the betray a trust is hypocracy. Or did you guys mean to say something else? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

Um, I think ArbCom needs to distinguish between "dispute resolution," which ought to take place in public and be transparent, and other kinds of investigations which need to be in private. I am not denying that some matters should be handled privately, but "dispute resolution" is not one of them. Again, transparency is the greatest virtue of Wikipedia, and the guarsanteur of freedom from abuse of power and of integrity. We should sacrifice transparency only under the most compelling of circumstances. The finding, that Lar's abuse of checkuser and violation of privacy is somehow tolerable, but SV's complaints are intolerable, I find hard to square. You know, this page is available to the general public. Any journalist or skeptic who reads it and sees this apparent double standard might leave with a very jaundiced view of Wikipedia. We need to avoid scandal, and double-standards like the one that aat least appears to be going on here risk scandal. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have one final issue I would like to raise, because I am very troubled by a thought I have and if I am wrong I would appreciate someone explaining to me why i am wrong. This is my thought: based on the public ArbCom record, the basic facts are the following:

• SV and Lar entered into a conflict on the list-serve
• another editor opened an ArbCom case
• SV never participated in the ArbCom case
• SV is faulted for entering into the conflict on the listserve
• SV is faulted for not making a statement to ArbCom.

What disturbs me is that IF the first three facts are accurate, THEN the two conclusions are in conflict. I can see ArbCom taking one of two positions, but I cannot see it taking both. One position is: this was a conflict between SV and Lar; SV did not want to involve ArbCom, and that is fine - but if SV wanted to handle this dispute between herself and Lar, she should have approahed Lar via e-mail and handled it privately. The second position is, this kind of conflict must be handled by ArbCom and should not be left to two adults to try to resolve on their own. IF ArbCom takes the first position, then it CAN fault SV for having gone public on the list-serve, but CANNOT fault SV for not making a statement to ArbCom. IF ArbCom takes the second position, it can fault SV for not having given a statement, but cannot fault her for having aired her views on the list-serve - an ArbCom proceeding is public, and if arbCom insists on SV making her statement public, it is in no position to censor her at the list-serve where I do not think it has any jurisdiction.

It is clear that SV wished to hash out this conflict with Lar, and did not wish to take it to ArbCom. I see nothing wrong with this. I do not think it is right for people in a dispute to go to ArbCom unless both parties agree; ArbCom should be a recourse of last resort when other attempts at dispute settlement have failed. But surely the first attempt should be informal and between two people. Why do we need some authority to step in? We are adults and ought to be supported when we try to resolve disputes among ourselves, without seeking any authority. With this in mind, it seems to me that ArbCom wishes to punish SV NOT for her behavior towards Lar, but rather because she ignored ArbCom. This is the thought that really disturbs me. Wikipedia is an open society. We created ArbCom to deal with certain kinds of violations of personal behavior policies on talk pages of articles, and articles. Slim Virgin is not accused of violating a personal behavior policy relating to the editing of an article. ArbCom's jurisdiction here is not clear cut in my mind and I do not see what basis it has especially when Wikipedia is a voluntary association for forcing Slim Virgin to take her case to ArbCom. We all created ArbCom with mixed feelings. I know that ll of the members of the ArbCom work very hard: I do not envy you; I admire the work you do and appreciate it. But we also know that however necessary ArbCom is, it was very risky creating an authority and the implied hierarchy in what should be an open society, an anarchic community. So I admire and appreciate the work you do in mediating disputes involving the violation of personal behavior policies in the course of editing or discussing articles. But I am very wary about attempts to expand ArbCom's power over editors. I think it is a vey dangerous precedent for ArbCom to seek to punish SV because she chose not to involve ArbCom in her dispute. So this is the thought that disturbs me. it is premised on the five facts i list above. I would LOVE it if someone told me I am wrong, that I am mistaken in one of the facts, or am ignorant of some of the circumstances. Please, someone tell me this is the case.

There is another contradiction that disturbs me. SV is faulted for making incomplete and unsupported statements on the list-serve, AND is faulted for "going public." My first question would be: is it possible tht the stuff SlimVirgin did not disclose on the list-serve is precisely stuff she felt had to remain confidential? Is it possible she reproted things to Jimbo that she did not report on the list Serve precisely to protect people's privacy? Or perhaps she told no one? I just do not see how SV can be told that she should not have gone public AND be faulted for not having revealed all in public. This is a double-bind, it is an impossible demand and unfair.

But even if someone can explain to me that I am wrong about ArbCom, as I hope someone can, I still do not think ArbCom has a right to criticize SV for anything she said at the listserve. i say this for two reasons. First, I was not aware ArbCom had any jurisdiction over the listserve. i thought it was only the moderator who could and should police inapporpriate use of the listserve. Second, as I said, I think now more than ever we should be fighting to make Wikipedia as transparent as possible. let people at the listserve criticize SV, and let SV criticize others. That's the "market-place of ideas" where things whould play out in the open.

It really does disturb me that ArbCom has in effect declared that Lar abused his position of power, yet exhonorates him and castigates SV. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't all off-wiki. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"ArbCom has in effect declared that Lar abused his position of power" - where? --NE2 07:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred in this case" - what else could this possibly refer to? Specifically? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Lar the only checkuser involved in all this? If not (presumably Mackensen is one, at least?), you're making a pretty big assumption that you know all the facts. --NE2 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, from what I have read the only one who was accused of a breach of confidentiality was Lar. I must have missed the accusation that Mackensen breached the privacy policy. Would you mind telling me where it is? I would then stand corrected. (Of course, if you are saying ArbCom has ruled that Mackensen violated Wikipedia's privacy policy, that is indeed a big charge! What sanction is ArbCom going to impose on Mackensen? This is of course if your suggestion that Mackensen violated policy is correct. I just haven't seen any accusations except against Lar; Thatcher brought this charge agint Lar so I assumed that ArbCom is making rulings concerning the accusation against lar, I didn't think this was such a big leap. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove a negative. It is probable that nobody except ArbCom knows all the facts they have, which may include accusations of privacy violations. (By the way, you're making another big leap - from "may have occurred" to "in effect declared".) Unless more comes out, any attempt to tie this to Lar is simply poisoning the well. --NE2 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it at this (I am acknowledging your points): I am uncomfortble with ArbCom - the principal authority in an otherwise quasi-anarchic environment - making vague hypothetical rulings. They should stick to findings of fact and whatever actions they deem appropriate given those facts. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm loath in involve myself here, but Slrubenstein, you're effectively taking the position that a person may repeatedly allege improper use of checkuser without actually taking that up with the only bodies which may police such activity. I find this absurd. Checkuser abuse is a serious matter which deserves investigation, an investigation SlimVirgin appeared unwilling to initiate. I don't find it acceptable in the least for an accusation of checkuser abuse to hang in the air with no investigation or resolution. SlimVirgin, according to these findings, submitted no evidence. If she submitted no evidence, what was she basing her accusations on? Evidence so secret and private that no one may actually see it? If so, why did SlimVirgin go public at all, when she must have known that she could not support her allegations in those forums? Why didn't she make a private complaint to the Arbitration Committee, which could have actually reviewed same and taken action? Why didn't she make a formal complaint to the Ombudsman Commission, which has a mandate to investigate breaches of the privacy policy? Lobbying individual members doesn't count--at no time were any official mechanisms engaged until Thatcher brought the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher can do what Thatcher wants. But Slim Virgin did not. Am I saying anyone can make accusations as much as they want? Of course!!! It is a free country! And Lar and anyone else is fre to ignore anything Slim Virgin says. That is life, right? Freedom of speech? The point is this: ArbCom does not moderate the List Serve. If anyone things Slim Virgin acted inappropriately on the List Serve, they should go to the List Serve moderater who can either say "free speech - yes!" or "inappropriate behavior - no!" But ArbCom has no authority over what anyone thinks or says off Wikipedia. ArbCom mediates disputes on article pages and talk pages. I didn't catch any evidence of Slim Virgin involved in a dispute on an article or article talk page. So what does this case have to do with Slim Virgin? Why didn't she make a complaint to ArbCom? You will have to ask her. But since she did not make a complaint to ArbCom, ArbCom has nothing to do with this. But I repeat what i wrote before: if I have missed the evidence tht was presented that Slim Virgin violated a Wikipedia policy here at Wikipedia i.e. at an article or talk page, by all means, please correct my oversight and point me to the evidence. Otherwise, ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Slim Virgin's behaviors. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a free country. SlimVirgin can make whatever accusations she wants. However, the committee has an obligation, imposed upon it by the Foundation, to investigate misuse of checkuser. It was entirely appropriate for members of the checkuser community to demand such an investigation to clear the air. Why SlimVirgin would make such accusations with no intention of pursuing them is quite beyond me. Given that SlimVirgin made the accusations, it was necessary and proper that the committee asked her to submit evidence. Why SlimVirgin did not is again, quite beyond me. I can only assume that the committee has reached the conclusion that SlimVirgin had no evidence and made baseless accusations. It does not seem to me that freedom of speech grants one leave to make repeated accusations in this manner, the effect of which is to sully the reputation of another. Certainly no one should be surprised when those slandered take offense. The committee may not have jurisdiction of SlimVirgin's behavior (I find this a debatable point, given that she made many statements on-wiki), but it certainly has jurisdiction over checkuser, and it is well within its remit to state whether abuse has occured, or not, or whether the accusations made are with or without foundation. I see no issue here. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me again ask my question - In the emails linked above, SlimVirgin and Lar directly contradict each other, on matters involving Lar's wife and a third editor. Has this third editor submitted evidence? If so, does his evidence support Lar's account of events, or SlimVirgin's? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no jurisdiction over e-mails or the list-serve. Slim Virgin never brought a complaint to ArbCom. Thatcher brought a complaint to ArbCom concerning Lar. If ArbCom has no jurisdiction over abuse of checkuser, it should simply have rejected the case. If ArbCom has jurisdiction over abuse of checkuser, it was right to accept the case. And it needs ot make a decision based on evience presented. If evidence was presented through direct contact ith the ArbCom or Jimbo by a third party, and not presented at the ArbCom site, for reasons of privacy, it is for ArbCom to weigh that evidence. I do think it is a valid question to ask, has anyone presented ArbCom with additional evidence. But this does not mean that ArbCom can criticize anyone for not presenting evidence. I did not present evidence - is ArbCom going to sanction me? Be tht s it may, what is clear is that having accepted the case and thus jurisdiction over checkuser abuse, all it can say is that there is or is not evidence of a violation of privacy/confidentility by Lar, and if there was, impose a sanction aginst lar.

But since Slim Virgin did not present any complaint to ArbCom, I do not see why she was named as a party or why ArbCom is making any decisions concerning her. She chose not to file a complaint aginst Lar at ArbCom. ArbCom has no authority to compell anyone to file a complaint at ArbCom. So Slim Virgin is simply uninvolved.

If someone has a conflict with Slim Virgin, and wants to file a complaint against Slim Virgin, they can. But let me remind everyone that ArbCom is the last resort for dispute resolution. Before ArbCom, one must follow the other steps in dispute resolution. These are: (1) discuss the matter on the talk page, (2) truce, (3), turn to others: editor assistance, wikiproject, policy talk page, noticeboard, RFC, informal mediation, formal mediation, survey. If someone is in a dispute with Slim Virgin, they should have gone through these steps prior to ArbCom. Starting with discussing it on the talk page ... oh wait, there is no talk page for the list-serve. That is because our dispute-recolution process is for conflicts concerning articles. Is anyone in a conflict ith Slim Virgin over an article? If so, follow all the correct steps for dispute resolution, and remember, ArbCom is the remedy of last resort. But it is also the remedy of last resort for conflict concerning personal behavior at articles and article tk pages. Not the list-serve, not e-mails. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein can attempt to spin this however he wants. To a disinterested observer (like me), who has no axe to grind with any party, the conclusions are pretty transparent and pretty damning. They spin themselves. Now, let's move on, wiser.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Yeah, not helpful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say "spin" unless you can show that Slrubenstein is deliberately mischaracterizing the case instead of simply voicing his perspective. I have not known Slrubenstein to be less than forthright in his views, so I'd urge a less accusatory tone in the comment above.

That said, my feelings on Slrubenstein's questions above are essentially those that Mackensen has written above. SV was willing to make public accusations that could not be refuted publicly; when the matter was brought to a body capable of investigating the accusations, she did not make an effort to help resolve the investigation by providing evidence for her allegations. The mailing list postings fall under Arbcom jurisdiction because they materially affected the community's trust in Lar as a checkuser, and without such jurisdiction, no checkuser accused on the mailing list of abuse would be able to be exonerated and the community could never be certain that the abuse did not occur. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alanyst, for acknowledging tht i am acting in good faith. Based on your comment it is clear to me that the crucial issue is: does ArbCom have jurisdiction over behavior on the list-serve. It is my impression that it does not. I acknowledge I may well be wrong. Alanyst thinks it does and I take his views seriously. That said, this cannot be a matte of opinion. it must be a matter of policy. In every known dispute-resolution arena or process or mechanism, jurisdiction must be clearly states. in some places, jurisdiction depends on th mutual consent of parties (for example voluntary arbitration). In other cases jurisdiction is estalished by the appropriate authority - stte courts have jurisdiction ove x, federal courts have jurisdiction over y. The question is, who has jurisdiction over the list-serve? I believe that there must be a formal statement by the moderator of the list-serve informing members that in joining the list-serve they fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, and there must b a policy at Wikipedi that states that ArbCom has jurisdiction over the list-serve. this seems to me to be eminently reasonabl: the list-serve has its policies, and ArbCom has its policies. These policies must exist in writing, somewhere. If Alanyst is correct it should not be hard to find the relevant list-seve policy and relevnt ArbCom policy. I now admit that I am holding to a belief that may be wrong. I know of no such policies, for the list-serve and for the ArbCom. If i am mistken I would be grateful to be corrected. Can someone please direct me to the list-serve policy that relates to the ArbCom, and to the ArbCom policy that relates to the listserve? I looked and couldn't find them, but I admit I have missed things in the past. So I really would appreciate someone giving me the links to the policies tht make these declarations of jurisdiction. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My main response is above. SlimVirgin made numerous statements on-wiki which most assuredly fall within the committee's jurisdiction. The function of checkuser, of course, lies entirely within its jurisdiction regardless of venue. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Mackensen.) I regard the following as true statements:

• Arbcom does not have jurisdiction over disputes/behavior that occur exclusively on the mailing list.
• Arbcom does have jurisdiction over disputes about use of checkuser privileges, as the only body capable of investigating and adjudicating the dispute without violating the privacy policy.
• SlimVirgin did not make her allegations only on the mailing list, but on-wiki as well, as Tombomp has pointed out above.
• Arbcom did not assert any authority over the mailing list, but simply found as a fact that SlimVirgin's use of that forum for her allegations was "unhelpful".

If Arbcom could not issue a finding of fact about anything off-wiki because it lacks jurisdiction, then it could not find, hypothetically, that an editor had been harassed off-wiki, had posted another editor's private information on a critical site, or any other similar statement that might shed light on mitigating or aggravating factors. I think that would be an absurd conclusion, so I disagree with the premise that Arbcom needs to have some sort of jurisdiction spelled out in policy for it to have proposed what we've seen so far. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Alanyst and Tombomp, all I can ask in direct response to your point is to bear in mind the context in whcih Slim Virgin made that statement: a heated discussion in which Lar was laready questioning Slim Virgin's good faith. As Grace Note pointed out in that very discussion, "My view, Lar, is that if you want to put forward ideas on how to fix Wikipedia, you could easily do so on a site that doesn't have as one of its main purposes "outing" and harassing editors. It's my belief that you implicitly endorse that behaviour by taking part in that forum and should cease to do so."

The context is (1) the discussion of Wikipedia Review's outing and harassing of some wikipedia editors, to the point of physical stalking that required police action; (2) the attempts by Slim Virgin and others to address this with the "badsites" proposal, and (3) Lar's scoffing at Slim Virgin and others for proposing the "badsites policy."

Since there is a connection between this case and the debates surrounding bdsites, i cannot help but to recall how the discussion of Badsites played out.

Frankly I am profoundly concerned bout a double-standard at Wikipedia. This came up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Workshop. At that time, several editors, mostly women, had been harassed and stalked, in person and at other websites, because their private identities had been revealed. At that time the general attitude of other Wikipedians, mostly men, was to pooh-pooh them. When women complained of being stalked, they were whiney complainers. Now we have Lar complaining about having been criticized. I do not know if this is about gender, but once again the oman who complains ends up being attacked, and the man who may have acted inappropriately is defended almost hysterically so. Or maybe this is about power: when a regular editor's privacy is violated that's life, but when a member of ArbCom or someone with ChechUser authority is challenged, watch out!

All I can say is this: during the attack sites discussion I was a double-standard, and I am seeing it here.

I hope I am wrong. Let's see. It depends on how seriously ArbCom takes Wikitutmus's evidence, and how they respond to the evidence that Slim Virgin was being truthful and Lar was at least being disingenuous about an abuse of power.

I seriously hope Alanyst and Mackensen and others will reconsider their views in like of Wikitumnus's revelation. It is disturbing that ArbCom seens to have ignored his evidence. And Arbcom has to consider his evidence which supports Slim Virgen and contradicts Lar.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I feel no need to reconsider my views since I've been aware of Wikitumnus' "revelation" almost from the beginning of the affair. I'm not comfortable discussing the matter publicly; it should never have been made public in the first place. I do not accept the relevance of the gender/power narrative to this debate; I allow that being both male and a holder of authority on this project may create a certain insensitivity to this issue. The question of whether the Crum375/WT check should have been performed is independent of these considerations; Lar did not know who WT was when he performed the check--Lar did not know that WT was female. For that matter, I have no idea what Crum375's gender is and I frankly don't care (which also marks me out as male, I know). That the check led Lar into two editors whose gender is female isn't surprising; there's about even odds on that score. That one of those editors has been the victim of a particularly pernicious stalker is unfortunate but, forgive me, somewhat beside the point. No one knew that going in. Wikipedia has attempted to deal with the question of stalking and harassment as best it can, but its record of protecting its users, both male and female, who have been targets of external harassment is poor. There can be no easy answers here. There are no doubt editors on this site who dismiss stalking complaints as "whining," but that description doesn't match what I see on a daily basis within the arbitration and checkuser communities, where it is a constant topic of discussion and concern. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen: Well, perhaps i should have just directed my comment at ArbCom. Just to clarify: first, when I brought up gender, I was refering to Slim Virgin whose outing I was aware of - I had no idea of Wikitutmus's gender but maybe I missed it in the posting above. Second, the post above seems like relevant evidence to the ArbCom decision and I did not see any consideration of it in the ArbCom decision. My third point is a question for you: when you say this should never have been made public, do you mean the ArbCom case itself? I am not trying to stir up trouble, we have had enough of that, but you obviously disagree with someone and I want to be clear whether it is me, ArbCom, or Thatcher, or Slim Virgin, or Lar, or someone else, or everyone. Mackensen, I want to be clear that my only concern here is ArbCom's handling of this situation. I never meant to call attention to you, and mentioned you only because i was quoting an ArbCom statement that refered directly to you, and then NE2 brought you up ... and then you were among the few to respond to my comment (which by the way I appreciated ... but my entire comments was directed to ArbCom). Please believe me my concern was with ArbCom's handling of the matter based on what I have read here, not you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My position is that it should never have been made public because much of the evidence, given its nature, should never be published--checkuser data, private correspondence, etc. I can tell you that much of what the committee considered has not been made public. I know that the committee is aware of WT's allegations, among other data. We can therefore take as a given that the decision being made here reflects that knowledge. The community doesn't know this, of course, which is what I find frustrating in the extreme. My own hands are tied--my position as a checkuser prevents me from disclosing certain facts which might otherwise bring the case better into focus. Full disclosure would be of no conceivable benefit to any of the principal parties. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"We can therefore take as a given that the decision being made here reflects that knowledge." Mackensen, that seems not to be the case. The arbs investigated SlimVirgin and Lar, ignoring the third editor's evidence. If they had looked at the evidence before it was posted here, it would have been easy enough for an arbitrator to answer my question: "Has this third editor submitted evidence? If so, does his evidence support Lar's account of events, or SlimVirgins?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That no arbitrator has answered you is a separate issue which has no bearing on the material fact of the situation. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That fact being, we now know, that another editor had given evidence to the arbs, and that evidence supported what SlimVirgin said. Yet a finding says "...SlimVirgin has been quick to make statements potentially damaging to other editors, but tardy in matters of clarification, mediation, and resolution of the points that she has raised." No mention that what SlimVirgin said about Lar was supported by the evidence of a third party. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the distinction that you're trying to make. What SlimVirgin said about Lar is what the third party told SlimVirgin, and this does not constitute the totality of the issue. Moreover, these claims predated the opening of the case. I believe what the arbs are saying is that for a period of two months SlimVirgin did not submit any evidence to the committee for consideration, despite being asked to do so several times. Again, I cannot speak for the arbs on this matter. I also cannot speak to their silence on this other matter which your asking about; possibilities include additional exculpatory evidence which has not been made public, or perhaps a determination that the claims made are not germane to the case in question. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are third parties involved? Doesn't this change things? Macknsen, how could SlimVirgin present evidence that comes from third parties? It has to be up to those third parties you refer to to provide evidence or not, as they choose. Perhaps ArbCom needs to undertake its own investigation (there should be some body at Wikipedia empowered to investigate abuses of power by those who do not operate with transparency), but it cannot ask SlimVirgin to act as its investigator on its behalf ... even if she knows about something, isn't it between ArbCom and these third parties you mention? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you might find it of value to review the original Request for Arbitration (and perhaps the associated talk page. The discussion on those pages deals with questions that are quite similar to yours. Jd2718 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jd2718. I had, before commenting here. I have just reread them at your suggestion. I see Lar referring to a third party, but the reference is vague and I think he is referring to Slim Virgin. Mackensen is referring to third parties who have been contact with Slim Virgin. If that is the case, the question is, have these third parties given evidence to ArbCom. My point is just that I wouldn't ask Slim Virgin (or anyone else) to identify a third party - if we keep using the term "third party" I guess it means the third party is anonymous. My point is, does ArbCom expect Slim Virgin to identify this third party? Mackensen's reference to third parties raises all sorts of questions unaddressed by ArbCom. I would expect one of three statements on the "proposed decision" page: either (1) ArbCom identified anonymous third parties who confirmed the accusations, (2) Arbcom identified anonymous third partices who did not confirm the accusations, or (3) ArbCom could not identify or contact anonymous third parties and therefore can neither confirm nor reject the accusations (these kinds of statements maintain the anonymity). Can ArbCom make one of these three statements? In any event, the issue now according to Mackensen, if I read him right, is that this case should be called "Third parties-Lar" not "Slim Virgin-lar". Slrubenstein | Talk 01:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alanyst: Alanyst made two points: "Arbcom does have jurisdiction over disputes about use of checkuser privileges, as the only body capable of investigating and adjudicating the dispute without violating the privacy policy. SlimVirgin did not make her allegations only on the mailing list, but on-wiki as well, as Tombomp has pointed out above." I appreciate your correcting me about these fact, A. Okay, but Alanyst, Arb-Com is the instrument of dispute-resolution of last resort. So there is a dispute between Alim Virgin and Lar. As i said, in reference to Wikipedia ArbCom policy, one of the two parties should have requested informal medition, and then formal meditation, before taking it to ArbCom. I see two problems here: first, I do not see that other forms of dispute resolution between lar and Slim Virgin were exhuasted before it was taken to ArbCom. So ArbCom should have rejected this as it was premature. Second, neither Slim Virgin nor Lar filed the complaint at ArbCom! Thatcher did. Slim Virgin is not involved in a complaint aginst Thatcher. Again, I do not see how ArbCom has jurisdiction over Slim Virgin's behavior. You will have to show me the policy that covers this, because the policies I know make it clear that ArbCom arbitrates disputes between two or more parties when the parties in dispute take the dispute to ArbCom, and after they have exhuasted other means of dispute resolution. I do not see how these two conditions have both been met. So I do not understand by what right ArbCom is making findings and judements about Slim Virgin. (please note my 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC) embedded response to Tom Harrison, above)

Just in case people have the wrong impression, I am not here to defend Slim Virgin. I have not investigated all of her actions, and do not know whether I agree with them. I am here because when we discussed creating ArbCom there was much concern about creating a hierarchy at Wikipedia and granting a select group of people, rather than the open dynamic of the community as a whole, special power. Almost all of us agreed it was necessary, and that ArbCom's powers had to be clearly defined. Over the past several years I have seen some editors use a variety of means to suggest that there is a hierarchy at Wikipedia, and concentrations of power. I certinly do not blame ArbCom for that!!! But in this environment I do care about the way ArbCom exercises its powers. As I have said, I know ArbCom fills a necessary and very important function at Wikipedia, and ArbCom members work hard, and I genuineloy admire them and am grateful for that. nevertheless, all Wikipedians have to be vigilent about any extension of power. That is why I am looking for the ArbCom policy that explains their jurisdiction over Slim Virgin in this case ... my concern is not Slim Virgin, it is ArbCom jurisdiction. Thatcher did not complain about Slim Virgin, Thatcher did no say he was in a conflict with Slim Virgin. Where does it say that ArbCom can make rulings about people who have not brought their dispute to ArbCom? Where does it say that ArbCom should hae authority in the first resort, rather than last? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin originated a discussion of the matter by asking Florence Devouard, essentially, "who has jurisdiction over claims of misuse of checkuser by checking someone on insufficient grounds." Florence brought the issue to the checkuser-L mailing list which had a long, acrimonious discussion with checkusers taking sides and acting as proxies for the various non-checkuser parties, and which had no definitive resolution. SlimVirgin brought the matter on-wiki here, where she raised the issue in order to deprecate Lar's comments on an unrelated matter. After further acrimonious discussion, this time on the public mailing list, I filed the case here. My purpose was to obtain a fair hearing of the allegations against Lar, which by that time had been made on two WMF mailing lists and on-wiki, but which neither of the affected parties (Crum375 and Wikitumnus) nor their interlocutor SlimVirgin, had seen fit to bring formally to either of the two bodies with jurisdiction (Arbcom and OmbudsCom).

You may believe that editors can attack each other and make serious allegations of violations of the privacy policy without being asked to back them up, but I do not. Likewise, while blogs and other off-wiki fora are generally off-limits, they are not always considered so, and here both lists are run by the WMF on WMF servers. Either Lar made serious errors and should not have checkuser access, or he didn't and should. SlimVirgin refused to bring the matter to a formal hearing, so I initiated it. There was really no sense in filing the case against SlimVirgin; a case like "SlimVirgin has made false and corrosive allegations without proof" assumes one particular set of underlying facts as well as assuming bad faith on the part of SlimVirgin.

The arbitrators have never restricted themselves to the parties named by each other at the start of a case and have always felt free to follow the facts and conclusions wherever they lead. If one person makes criminal allegations against another that are deemed to be false, the rules of criminal procedure may require the convening of a separate trial (civil or criminal) to deal with the conduct of the accuser who made the false accusations. Arbcom is not a court, and I see no benefit to requiring them to initiate a new, separate hearing on the matter of whether SlimVirgin's behavior in this matter is sanctionable. Thatcher 17:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commend Slrubinstein for raising these questions, which I see to be very pertinent. I am summarizing these below:

1. Does ArbCom have the authority to compell anyone to file a complaint at ArbCom?
2. Does ArbCom have the authority to compell anyone to submit evidence, or to rule against a user that choses not to do so?
3. Does ArbCom have jurisdiction over the ListServe?
4. If there was a complaint about checkuser abuse, why is the ArbCom ruling on the complainer instead of simply clearing the accused?
5. Can ArbCom be appealed to without priorly seeking other means of dispute resolution?

Regardless of the specific of this case, I share Slrubinstein's concerns, and would appreciate clarifications from the ArbCom about these questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Arbcom can not compel someone to file a complaint or submit evidence. However, there is an expectation that editors will follow the dispute resolution process rather than hold grudges and fling unsupported allegations around everywhere, and Arbcom can (and has) sanctioned editors who acted disruptively and pursued grudges instead of entering into good faith dispute resolution. 2) Arbcom certainly can ask that an editor submit evidence relevant to their public allegations when offered the opportunity to do so and can take failure to submit evidence into account in deciding the case. 5) Arbcom is the last step in dispute resolution and does not usually accept cases at an earlier stage, but it retains jurisdiction to do so, especially regarding cases that can not be meaningfully decided by the community at large, such as accusations of misuse of special tools and matters involving confidential information. 3) Arbcom generally does not consider off-wiki evidence but it can (and has in prior cases) if there is a strong link between the off-wiki comments and on-wiki behavior. Certainly there is no question about the authenticity or authorship of messages which were posted to WMF-hosted mailing lists. 4) Happens all the time. What really would be the benefit to clearing one editor, and requiring a separate case be filed asking for sanctions against the other for having made allegations that are (now ruled to be) unsupported. Thatcher 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Earlier in this thread Mackensen asserts: Wikipedia has attempted to deal with the question of stalking and harassment as best it can, but its record of protecting its users, both male and female, who have been targets of external harassment is poor. Half of that assertion is true: its record of protecting editors from external harassment is indeed poor. I should know; when I brought a problem of that nature to ArbCom's attention last year its handling was so inappropriate that it was substantially more stressful than the harassment itself. ArbCom is a committee of encyclopedia editors, fourteen male and one female, who have between them--to the best of my knowledge--no expertise in dealing with harassment. And yet, just a few months after mishandling my complaint, they passed the following ruling:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment

Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.

During the ensuing months the Arbitration Committee has taken no steps at all to equip themselves for cases of grave real-world harassment, nor have I seen them respond adequately in the subsequent examples to which I was privy. Repeatedly I have proposed that they either undergo formal harassment awareness training or engage the consulting services of a credentialed professional in the field. They have done neither, nor have they replied to the proposal. It cannot possibly be alleged that either they or this website have done everything feasible to deal with the problem. For my own part, the next time I encountered harassment I bypassed site processes entirely and opened an investigation with the FBI, which resolved the problem with competent professionalism. Without comment on other aspect of this case, I think I may safely stand on the proper side of WP:NLT by stating this much and advising others to do the same. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor have they done everything possible feasible (as changed by Durova) to eliminate poverty. I fail to see your point. --NE2 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Committee never went out of its way to encourage editors to come to them with financial problems. With regard to harassment they have done so in a formal ruling, as quoted above, yet they have failed to undertake elementary measures to follow up on that weighty commitment. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't encourage editors to come to them with harassment problems either. They encouraged people to report it to them, since we don't want people like that editing here. If the ArbCom's actions stop the harrassment, awesome, but presumably the main purpose of reporting is to get the harrassers out of here. --NE2 04:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that is the main purpose; would that the Committee's actions bore out that commonsense principle! Durova^Charge! 04:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction of fact. As stated: "Repeatedly I have proposed that they either undergo formal harassment awareness training or engage the consulting services of a credentialed professional in the field. They have done neither, nor have they replied to the proposal." In fact replies were given by Paul August, Newyorkbrad, FloNight, James F, and myself, as well as ex-arb Mackensen, as recently as September. (link) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Yes, the reaction was to move the proposal out of formal proposal space and then belittle it. After I saw how aggressive the initial responses were I scarcely stayed around to watch the rest; clearly it was not being entertained as a remotely workable concept. It mystifies me how a set of normally rational individuals--indeed usually patient and thoughtful people--would not only presume that such undertakings as running a wikiproject or performing checkuser prepare themselves to deal with "grave real-world harassment", but proceed with such assurance that neither relevant training nor professional consultation is worthy of consideration. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this gets at the heart of the issue, and I appreciate Durova's courage in bringing it up. I followed the link FT2 provided and found it very illuminating. I think there are three fundamental issues involved when we discuss harassment. I am glad that Durova has brought this up because I do not think that the charges Slim Virgin level against Lar could ever be effectively handled (whether the result is to find against Slim Virgin or against Lar) without confronting these issues:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a community. I have seen several people deny that there is a Wikipedia community. I find this funny, bewcause when people try to turn Wikipedia into an interactive on-line role-playing gaime, with people trying to find one another's secret pages, and awarding themselves "service awards," no one says: hey, this is not a community. Frankly, if this is what people meant when they say Wikipedia is a community (that there is this game to earn prestige points or attain titles like tutnut or whatever, and that people rush to IRC whenever they have gossip to share) I too would scoff and say "We are an encyclopedia, not a community!" So I really do understand and sympathise with people who say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a community." But the fact remains, we are an encyclopedia and an community. In order to write the encyclopedia, we create a community, and the community exists in order the write the community, but there is NO denying we are a community. The explanation of what Wikipedia is begins by saying it is an encyclopedia; the second paragraph explains it is written through a collaborative process. The page explaining our policies refers explicitly to "community pages" and to the "Wikipedia community." And we all know of the importance of community bans. This is not some semantics game, and some editor going through all these pages and deleting the word"community" will not change the fact that we are a community. Because Wikipedia is written through a collaborative process that encourages consensus-based editing, we are a community. ArbCom itself is evidence of this, since it does not rule on conflicts over content. If Wikipedia were just an encyclopedia, either ArbCom would only rule on matters of content, or it would not exist. But ArbCom exists because we really are a community. And why do we need ArbCom? Because for a community to work people should not abuse one another. On the contrary, we should be working to build and sustain a positive work environment. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - and Jimbo's vision implies that everyone should be able to edit it. This is important because we believe that it is not only the PhDs who work for EB who can contribute to an encyclopedia; we believe that a diverse group of people with different backgrounds, experiences, and interests can actually build a better encyclopedia. But this means creating an environment where a divers group of people with different experiences and interests are able to work together. We do this in part through certain policies like AGF and CIV, and even NPOV which provides a framework for people with opposing views to collaborate on an article (I have seen this happen at the Jesus article and believe it or not even the Sarah Palin article). But because Wikipedia for various reasons has traditionally attracted a larger percentage of male editors, there is often a good deal of bullying against female editors. I am not saying that all male editors are bullies, and I am not saying all female editors are angels. I am stating the simple fact that sexual harassment sometimes happens, and we would be a better community meaning a community that would write a better encyclopedia if this did not happen.
2. Wikipedia is written by real human beings. What I mean is that wikipedians have lives outside of Wikipedia. We celebrate that - I have never been to a Wikipedia reunion but I have seen the announcements and the photos posted on Wikipedia in which we have celebrated the Wikipedia community through get-togethers of real people in different cities. But this also means that there is a serious potential for abuse when Wikipedians take conflicts off of talk pages and into the real world. And this has profound implications ofr any discussion of harassment because some wikipedians have harassed other wikipedians off-line, and other people who have drifted in and out of the Wikipedia community have harassed and stalked wikipedians off-line. NE2 makes the idiotic and asinine comment, "Nor have they done everything feasible to eliminate poverty." I do not know if NE2 just doesn't understand simple points, or is deliberately trying to be offensive, but the difference is obvious: No one so far has ever demonstrated that one wikipedia editor, because of activities on wikipedia, singled out another wikipedia editor, and in the real world impoverished that person. But there are at least a few demonstrated cases where a wikipedia editor, because of activities on wikipedia, singled out another wikipedia editor, and in the real world harassed her. NE2, we are not talking about ending poverty, or ending war. We are not even talking about ending sexual harassment. We are talking about ending the harassment, sexual or otherwise, including criminal stalking, of one Wikipedia editor by another. Get the difference? Now, there is no question in my mind that we need an open decision about how best to handle these kinds of problems. I do have questions about how to handle such problems and imagine that among us we have a wide range of views as to what would be necessary, appropriate, or effective. But surely in such a discussion we should be guided by the same principles that we claim should guide other discussions, like AGF. NE2, if you cannot assume that Durova wrote in good faith, do not bitch when you realize people have started to question whether your comments are made in good faith. Wikipedia must have some response to the problem of the harassment of Wikipedia editors on- and off-line. I have no idea what would be an appropriate response to off-line harassment. perhaps our responsibility (legally and practically and ethically) actually is minimal. Let's discuss it! But even if our responsibility is minimal, I would propose that at least it extends to protecting the real-life identity of Wikipedians. I do not think Wikipedia owes any editor a 24-hour security guard. I am not sure Wikipedia owes an editor legal services. But I do think we owe editors their privacy, this is the minimal effective protection we really can offer. And this is why checkuser abuse (by which I mean misusing a tool which is otherwise often very necessary) is so serious. This is also why Wikipedia should have a policy that, unless there is probably cause to think someone is using multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policies no one e.g. ArbCom should demand that a Wikipedian reveal their personal identity. I consider these minimal steps. I do think we need a more general discussion on the problem though.
3. ArbCom has to make up its mind. ArbCom has institutionalized power over editors which is a serious matter and their power puts a burden on them to be careful about their choices of how and when to act, or not to act. Once they have made a choice, they should stick to it ... isn't anything else hypocracy? Durova is right: ArbCom made this ruling, "Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately." ArbCom did not HAVE to make this ruling, but it did make this ruling. Having made this ruling, it is a very good idea for members of ArbCom to be trained in dealing with victims of real-world harassment. In fact, not to be so trained is irresponsible. Troikoalago responded to Durova's proposal with this: "And if reported, the committee should consider banning the user involved from this website, because their real-world activity is likely to mean that there presence on this website is not conducive to the project's goals. Once that is done, their responsibility ends as a committee." The problem is, ArbCom does not automatically ban the person accused of harassment, and nor should it (as this present case indicates): it has an investigation. And in the course of the investigation it questions the person who is bringing the charges - who may be a victim of harassment - and it seeks out further testimony, including from others who may be victims of harassment. THIS is the reason ArbCom members need the training. So I really do not understand the link FT2 provided where he and others declared that they would not seek training, and in fact denigrated the idea. ArbCom is acting hypocritically and irresponsibly, gravely irresponsibly, when it claims to have any, even minimal, jurisdiction over real world harrassment and yet refuses to be trained in how to handle people who have been victims of harassment. If you do not want the training, resign from ArbCom. Or, ArbCom can reverse itself and say that ArbCom has no interest in harassment. But please, be straight with us! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wikitumnus is sensitive due to past harassment and was trying to start over, but this case does not involve harassment, enabling of harassment, or anything else. In fact, no one except Arbcom would have known anything about this matter if SlimVirgin or the affected parties had made a private complaint back in March. SlimVirgin opened the issue on-wiki here, and proceeded to reveal far more detail on wikien-L than had been revealed previously on checkuser-L; if anyone threatened Wikitumnus' privacy it was SlimVirgin.
• Wikipedia in general and wikipedians in specific, including Arbcom, do a very poor job handling editor harassment, but this is not the place to work on that problem. Thatcher 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But clearly ArbCom needs to ake a leading role in establishing and promoting an appropriate place to work on the harassment problem, given that ArbCom has ruled that Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately. I acknowledge that this is not that place. I respectfully ask the members of ArbCom to tell me where this place is. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant statement

It might get lost in the other edits to this page, so I thought I'd start a new section to point out this statement, which seems to me to need some sort of co-ordinated response from the Committee. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikitumnus' statement is incorrect on several points.

• To the contrary, an editor is hardly entitled to use a sockpuppet to remove a sockpuppet notice from their own user page. This would plainly violate the policy on multiple accounts, and would be an utterly misguided approach. Anyone doing this should also at least expect to be checkusered.
• Whether or not a particular check is justified does not only relate to the actions of that account. Moreover, the assumption that Lar checked any other account based purely on Wikitumnus' actions is not supported.
• This whole discussion of Wikitumnus' identity and Lar's wife is certainly valid, just as long as one considers that it has nothing to do with SlimVirgin, the public accusations that she made,[1][2] or any claims that Lar has targeted someone he "dislikes." Wikitumnus' claim, raised first in public by Jayjg, does not replace or negate SlimVirgin's (specifically, knowledge of checkuser abuse, and that Lar had revealed himself as Wikipedia Review's checkuser), attempts to have it do so notwithstanding.
• If SV did not want ArbCom to hear this case, she could easily have said so. Instead, she argued that she was not given time to submit evidence for her accusations. So far as I am aware no one has contested the case until now, when no evidence came, and when findings are proposed.

Finally two additional points. First, I have personally found, somewhat recently, that I have been checkusered at least four times, in no case having anything to do with any sort of policy violations or misbehavior on my part. In one instance, not only was I checkusered, but I was then blocked despite an obvious non-match, and had to submit my personal information in order to resolve the matter. Editing Wikipedia in contentious areas clearly means one can expect to be checkusered. Second, in my submission to ArbCom I specifically stated that "raising complaints about official actions should most likely not be punished even if done inappropriately," and in my view, some of ArbCom's judging statements here go slightly further than necessary if these refer only to her comments about Lar. On the other hand, the days of simply allowing any unsupported accusations amid Wikipedians, which has just been addressed in another case, should be over. Considering SV made the accusations, including on Wikipedia, clearly expected a response, asked for time to submit evidence, complained that she was not given time to submit evidence, and then failed to submit the evidence, I think some sort of acknowledgment is entirely appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A few comments from MONGO

I don't know what evidence has been presented to arbcom privately. I am not privy to this evidence, nor should I be. However, the details of the events involving Lar and his use of the checkuser tools on several editors is something I am aware of and question strongly. I want to comment that Lar and I have communicated in the not so distant past via email as well as publically on this website and I generally hold him in high regard, so this series of comments isn't designed to get revenge or anything of the sort...I simply want to get to the bottom of this mess. I would like to also state that Lar and I have very divergent views regarding the website Wikipedia Review...though I have not examined his postings there (and won't) he knows I have been very vocal about my distain for that website, but I also recognize that, as Lar has told me, his posts at Wikipedia Review are done to restore sanity there, not to help feed the oftentimes common themes present. So, speaking of themes, one that has persisted at Wikipedia Review for some time is the issue of SlimVirgin and Crum375 being sockpuppets...or, as I have also seen posted there, meatpuppets at the very least. This mythology has also been presented in previous arbcom cases, at least in discussion form on various talkpages.

I see others have posted that SlimVirgin has provided no evidence...or that her evidence is erroneous. On the mailing list she did post her comments on the matter after being asked to do so by David Gerard [3]. Subsequently, Lar claims that he shares some confidential information with his wife, apparently also a Wikipedia editor. [4] and that Wikitumnus and his wife know each other...well, they don't know each other. They have never once communicated with each other either on or off site apparently...and, apparently the arbitration committee has been informed of this in private, and now above by none other than Wikitumnus and now me as well. Now, here's the real crappy part of this whole saga...Lar was told by Wikitumnus about other identities...identities that not once performed a conflicting edit with each other...identities that were never once used for the purpose of vote stacking or malicious deception...these other identities were created SOLELY for the purpose of avoiding a real life scumbag...and arbcom knows who that scumbag is. I can certainly understand why Lar feels that his wife is completely trustworthy but unfortunately, Lar's wife has not been entrusted with checkuser tools and more importantly, Wikitumnus has no reason to trust Lar's wife. I have been informed that contrary to Lar's comments on the matter, Wikitumnus did not appreciate Lar sharing the actual usernames of Wikitumnus's previous accounts with his wife.

Now back to the Wikipedia Review theme of SlimVirgin and Crum being socks...so was the checkuser done on Crum because of this theme? Or was it because arbcom was curious itself...what purpose did it serve?...there was no reason (from my perspective) to do this checkuser except to satisfy some long standing desire to "know"...based on the same tired old theme perpetuated at Wikipedia Review. Furthermore, this has all the looks of a fishing trip...and that is a violation of the checkuser policy...unless Lar is justifying the checkuser on Crum as being based on some theme that the account is a malicious sock used to votestack or perform other malicious activities. Best case scenario, but odd that it came when it did, was that the checkuser was done to put an END to this old theme. If done merely out of curiosity, based on the theme, then that truly is a misuse of the checkuser tools....and those tools should be removed.

Instead, what I see now in this proposed decision is that the messenger, who perhaps didn't act discretely enough, is the one being admonished, and all we have regarding the defendent is a reminder to be careful, essentially. That is not satisfactory I am afraid.

Lastly, Lar's mailing list comment, "But see, SlimVirgin, the thing is... in the final analysis, it's my word against yours. My word is good. Yours... not so much. More and more people realise that, as you try this trick on more and more innocent victims, so this tactic of yours will work less and less well. Drop this. You come off the worse, and the more you dig into this, the deeper you dig your own hole."...[5] makes me think that Lar feels he is untouchable...and that is a problem. I certainly hope that Lar understands that what I am seeing here regarding his use of checkuser makes me feel very uncomfortable with him retaining this ability.--MONGO 05:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting on this case publicly, as I was asked to do, but I think this goes too far. I think that the long term user behind the WikiTumnus account (who I shall refer to as WT for convenience, the identity of this user is not germane to the case) is drawing incorrect inferences and making unsupportable statements. Stripping away a lot of this, there are two basic allegations, that the check run was unwarranted, and that information was shared inappropriately. These are both false, and I have presented evidence to that effect.

First, Checkusers can and do have differences of opinion about requests, and about findings, which is why we often are asked to check each others work. I acknowledge that not every checkuser will find every request compelling enough to run a check, but this request was reviewed by multiple CUs, after the fact, and I was by no means the only CU who felt the request was justified. That's not really refutable. So calling it "fishing" is really not helpful at all. You can call it a difference of opinion, and that's it. Anything more is polemic and should be discouraged.

Second, WT and I had a long and cordial email correspondence. This correspondence included disclosure that I discussed WT's situation (but not particulars) with my wife. Evidence was given to that effect as well. There may not have been direct correspondence between my wife and WT, but there was information flow in both directions between them and each was aware that the other knew things, and the correspondence continued, and there was no indication that there was an issue. The prior context is that my wife did not understand why WT did not quit editing in the face of the serious and repeated harassment WT was receiving. When WT proposed a new ID (the WT one) I agreed that WT should disclose the new (WT) identity to as few people as possible, not including me, so I didn't know whose it was. When I got a valid request for a check, and I ran it, and I discovered that WT's WT identity was "blown" I was dismayed... you can fault me for telling my wife it was blown (but NOT the particulars, I don't share CU data with my wife, period) and asking what to do. She's my wife of 27 years... I value her counsel, and I can get it without giving particulars, and I did.

That's really all there is to this. Two false allegations. Certain people have repeatedly tried to spin this up into way more than it is. I don't know why. I did not ask that this case be brought, but when it was, and when the process was outlined, I replied promptly and completely. So did Mackenson. So did WT. SlimVirgin did not. For two months I have been waiting patiently for this case to be resolved. There has been talk about back channel notes, pressure being applied, and the like... but no sign of SlimVirgin actually substantiating any of the things she wildly accused ArbCom, the Ombudsmen, Mackenson, me, and gosh knows who else of. Now finally this case seems to be coming to resolution... and all of a sudden, lots of voices appear, repeating the same false allegations. I'm rather disappointed. This case is yet again being tried in the court of public opinion. Can we not do that please? ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar, is there any way you can clarify one point without violating Wikipedia policy or any trust extended to you? The question I have is, which case are you referring to? If you cannot answer this question just say so; my only motive in asking is I am confused. Please understand that it is only since reading this ArbCom proposed decisions that i have been sorting this stuff out. Above, Wikititmus makes two claims: (1) that contrary to statements made by you W never had a relationship of confidence with your wife and (2) you did an unnecessary checkuser of Crum. If I understand you correctly, you reject both of these claims. Is this the "case" to which you refer? If so, I am confused because (1) I do not know when it was "tried" in the past - was it an ArbCom case and if so can you refer me to the appropriate archive? (2) this appears to be a conflict between you and Wikititmus, not you and Slim Virgin. I realize that if my inferences are wrong you may have good reasons for not being able to explain why.

Lar has shown commendable restraint in not responding publicly to these allegations, given that the bulk of his defense remains covered by expectations of confidentiality; I would very much appreciate it if everyone were to act with an understanding of the constraints on him, and to avoid attempts—intentional or otherwise—to elicit further details. If there are questions regarding the substance of this matter, please direct them to us instead.

And, yes, the matter of the checkuser on Crum375 is indeed best regarded as a conflict between Lar and SlimVirgin, not Lar and Wikitumnus. The precise details of how that came to be, however, are restricted by virtue the privacy policy; so we're unfortunately left with asking you to take us at our word on that. Kirill ^(prof) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If my inferences are right, then it looks like all of this hinges on the checkuser of Crum. Now, I understand that the results of checkuser have to be confidential if the person checked has not violated Wikipedia policy. Since Crum is still around, I infer Crum has not violated any policy. Now my question is very simple and I know very vulnerable to misunderstaning. My question is: what was the evidence that established sufficient cause to justify using checkuser? This would be something to suggest that Crum was (1) a sockpuppet and (2) violating some policy. Vulnerability to misreading: someone might think I am saying Lar was wrong to use checkuser. I am not saying that. I fully acknowledge that checkuser will be used many times only to reveal that the suspicious are without merit. I am just asking what the grounds of suspicion were, that made it seem that he is a sock-puppet and violating policy? I am not asking anyone to retry any case; I assume this is on public record and you could just provide a link to the archived request.

The matter is not one of public record; but please see proposed finding of fact #6. Lar made a judgment call here and, having examined his reasoning, we are satisfied that it was a reasonable one given the circumstances. Kirill ^(prof) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My motive is simple. I think everyone on this talk page agrees that some things at Wikipedia need to be strictly confidential, and other things do not. I think the underlying problem is that many people are unsure about where the line is drawn. I am unsure, and I would really like to see the line even if I am not allowed to look across it.

I have two final comments in response to your point about being tried in the court of public opinion. First - and again I warn you this is vulnerable to misunderstanding and I will express myself as plainly as possible. I understand the need for ArbCom, and the need for some ArbCom investigations to be private. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that as long as the community acts in accordance with policies, the community is the highest authority at Wikipedia. yes, I know legally Jimbo is, but my understanding of Wikipedia is that it was Jimbo's intention to create an open community. At Wikipedia, "the court of public opinion" is the highest and best court. ArbCom is there as a back-up when the system fails, when for example a community ban is called for yet the community cannot act. But his does not change the fact that the ideal at Wikipedia is the open community. I am not threatening you with a community ban (as if I could). You are free to protest forum shopping and being put on trial twice, as it were. I just think it is wrong for you to denigrate a public hearing, as if there were something wrong with that. As i said, I understand that there are good reasons why some ArbCom investigations have to be in private, but maybe if your first trial were in public, and everyone saw all the evidence exculpating you, some of the discussion here and elsewhere that wounds you so wouldn't be happening. I repeat: I am not saying there is never a need for confidentility. I am just saying that transparency and openness are virtues we should never denigrate. We do without them only if we have to, not because we want to. I say this solely as a matter of principle but it is an important principle and we shouldn't lose sight of it.

Second and final comment. I have no idea what kinds of attacks you have had to endure elsewhere, so i just cannot speak to that. All I can tell you is, other people at Wikipedia have attacked me far worse than anything I have seen on this talk page and I survived. So will you. Chin up, bud! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the questions raised in this thread directly enter into areas that should not be addressed on-wiki for privacy and related reasons. I am sorry that this is the case, because the entire way that the discussion has developed on this talkpage (due to no fault of anyone in particular) is not satisfactory, but for Lar or anyone to respond in detail to some of these questions would leave things even less so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I know some of this may be off limits. But surely, you cam direct me to the request for a checkuser on Crum, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of interleaving my replies with your comment above; ; given the lack of a continuous numbering scheme for your individual points, it seems the easiest way of referring to them, but please feel free to reorganize things if that's stepping on your toes too much. Kirill ^(prof) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kirill for responding to my questions, I appreciate your taking the time. Just two things. First, my initial comments on this talk page were directed exclusively at the members of ArbCom, not Lar. It was not my attention then to address lar directly and I am happy to move away from that. Second, while this page may not be the venue, I do think there is a need for public discussion of the checkuser policy. The policy arose under one set of conditions; much has changed in the past few years. My main concern is that while ArbCome is charged with oversight of the use of checkuser, there is no clear oversight of ArbCom. Don't take this personally - in any community offices of authority require some kind of oversight. I hope when this issue is resolved we can find an appropriate space for community discussion of this. Again, thanks for explaining things to me, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The WMF Ombudsmen would, in theory, be able to provide some oversight of our activities, insofar as they have to do with the privacy policy (and hence with checkuser-related matters), although this relationship isn't really something that's very clearly delineated; I expect that any other body set up for that purpose would also have to be a WMF one (or at least a WMF-sanctioned one), as its members would require access to said private data in order to be effective. Whether a second body would be useful in practice is, of course, something for further discussion. Kirill ^(prof) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Slrubenstein, a large number, perhaps a majority, of checkuser investigations are initiated by requests through channels other than RFCU, such as email, user talk pages, and IRC, and through checkusers acting on their own initiative when seeing some form of questionable behavior on a noticeboard or somewhere else. If you disagree with this, you may wish to start a community discussion to change the policy, but absent an overwhelming community consensus to do things differently, checkusers have broad discretion to investigate disruptive and questionable behavior, no matter how it comes to their attention. Other communities have other policies, you may wish to investigate (public logging, all checks to be requested in writing and must be voted on, etc.). Given the size of the enwp community, I don't think a more restrictive policy would be a good idea.

On the issue of there is no clear oversight of ArbCom; be careful you do not create a policy ouroboros. Allegations of release of non-public data are handled by the Ombudsman. Allegations of misuse of checkuser tools not involving release of data are handled by Arbcom. Arbcom is accountable to the electorate. If you feel this is insufficient, that Arbcom should have a special commission overseeing its activities, then who oversees the activities of the Arbcom Oversight Commission? Who oversees the activities of the Arbcom Oversight Commission Oversight Commission? There has to be a decision-maker of last resort. You can not have a public hearing on the facts (and thus be able to decide for yourself) without discarding the Privacy Policy and screwing a bunch of good editors. There has to be a final ruling person or body, and you either trust their decisions or you don't, in which case you have to come to terms with that on your own. Thatcher 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You say the way we avoid an ouroboros is by making ArbCom answerasble to the elctorate. I will accept that, but let us reflect on the implications. If what you suggest is the case, then we need a degree of transparency at ArbCom. I have several time statement my acknowledgment for the occasional need for confidentiality. Confidentiality and transparency are in conflict. We need to find the right balance between them. We need a space at Wikipedia where the electorate can debate the proper balance between confidentiality and transparency. If the ultimate oversight is the electorate, then the electorate also needs to be able to witness debates over the appropriate or inappropriate balance of transparency and confidentiality. On this page, two discussions have become entangled. One is a discussion over who is right, Lar or Slim Virgin. The other is a discussion over the relative need for privacy versus the relative need for transparency. Several people said that this is an inappropriate place to discuss the conflict between Lar and Slim Virgin, notably Lar. That leaves us with a more abstract and principled discussion of how to gage the right balance between secrecy and transparency. Or ary you proposing another purpose to this "talk page?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't have a meaningful discussion over the issue of whether Slim or Lar is right without disclosing information covered by the privacy policy. You can certainly ask for clarification, and make comments on the process, but the reason I raised this case in the first place is that charges and counter-charges were flying all over the place between people who were in partial possession of the facts and who were unable to speak openly about the case. It makes no sense to rehash the same half-informed allegations here. As far as broader discussions about privacy versus transparency are concerned, is there anyone who does not agree with the proposition that some sensitive matters need to be discussed by Arbcom in confidence? As long as we all agree with that basic principle, then the question boils down to where to draw the line in each specific case. Frankly, I can't see a way to have an informed discussion about where the line is drawn without disclosing the information that the discussion is supposed to determine the status of. Thatcher 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Thatcher, I just said that we can't discuss the issue of whether Slim Virgin is right or Lar is right, so there is no need to repeat what I said. As to the issue I raised, it was not where to draw the line in a specific case, that is not what I wrote. We need a general discussion about where to draw the line between transparency and confidentiality. You seem to be resisting this, repeating what we all agree we cannot do and ignoring suggestions about what we need to do. Frankly, your position is absurd and I am surprised you forward it. You are in essense saying that there can be no policy and that Arbcom will act without regard to a policy. This is not an acceptable situation. There can be no accountability unless there is some policy that is a point of reference against which to assess actions. Moreover, I would think that a policy clarifying the issues involved in balancing transparency and confidentiality is something that members of ArbCom would benefit from. Isn't this what policy is all about, providing guidelines general enough to apply to a wide variety of cases but clear enough so that people will know how to apply them? The community ought to discuss this, this is my proposal. If you reject it, then I have ageain to ask you: what do you see as appropriate topics for this talk page? The talk page exists so there is some presumption it serves some need or can be of use. Lar, you, and others keep telling us what we can't talk about. How about some discussion of what we can talk about? Or does ArbCom consist of a group of people who are comfortable exercising power but not leadership? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to have a general discussion. There was a recent RfC on ArbCom. Perhaps that would be a better place? I don't think Thatcher is resisting having such a discussion. I think he's resisting having it here. Calling what he's saying "absurd" suggests that perhaps he failed to make himself clear enough that you understood it. I suggest that instead of insisting on discussing this here, you work to determine the right place, and have a discussion there. I would prefer that this talk page focus on matters specific to this case. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite glad if I misunderstood Thatcher and if so, I apologise. But I remain confused and hope you can explain this to me, Lar: you suggest that we use this page to discuss matters specific to this case. Yet it seems that all the matters specific to the case that others have brought up must be kep secret; you yourself requested that Slim Virgin's remarks on the list-serve and even Wikititmus's comments about the ArbCom investigation specific to this case were off-limits for discussion (it was to honor that that I raised these more general policy-oriented questions, which now you say are too distant from the case....). So can you explain a bit more positively what areas you see are open to discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on changes to the arbitration policy at WT:AP or a subpage somewhere. The problem of privacy vs transparency is indeed complex and I do not have any good answers at the moment. There seems to be no explicit policy now, decisions are made by Arbcom on a case by case basis. If you want a specific policy, you should feel free to initiate such a discussion at the appropriate place, and we can have theoretical and hypothetical discussions until the cows come home. But we can't discuss any real cases. And when it comes down to applying policy to the next case--whether the current de facto policy or some new de jure policy, you will have to rely on someone to consider the facts and apply the policy--whatever it is--and decide that a case is going to be open or closed. It's a catch-22 of course. You can't have a public discussion of whether or not a dispute should be handled publicly or privately without making the details public and mooting the discussion. I guess I am responding to your sense that there is a problem because this case, or others, have been handled on the side of privacy when they should have been more transparent. Some things will always need to be discussed privately, and the person or group that makes that determination can not be expected to answer publicly for its decision if the only way to justify the decision for privacy is to reveal private information. A formal policy discussion will create a rulebook to be followed in subsequent cases, but every private case will come down to Arbcom or some other body telling the community that according to the written policy and based on non-public information, the case needs to be heard privately. Thatcher 21:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, are you responding to me? I ask because I have never stated that this case should not be heard privately. I simply asked, and you are still evading, the question: what woud constitute appropriate discussion on this page? ArbCom created a public ArbCom page with a public talk page. So here we have this space on THIS page for discussion. You have made it clear what kinds of discussion you consider inappropriate on this page. Everytime you say something is inappropriate for discussion I say okay and suggest another theme, and then you say it is inappropriate for discussion on this page. Are you saying that ALL discusion is inappropriate on this page? I am asking you what discussion you DO consider appropriate on this page? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have lost sight of your original point. As far as I am concerned, this page is the appropriate place to discuss this arbitration case and to ask any questions of the arbitrators that you want, as long as it is understood that the discussion will be of necessity relatively uninformed and many of the questions will have to go unanswered. Thatcher 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A comment

I have stayed silent on the case, assessing the evidence carefully. This is a case where inferences and intention (in the sense of good or bad faith actions, good or bad judgement) are as relevant as other conduct. A wide range of claims have been circulated in the public arena. Some of those (by both "sides") may be accurate. A number of other claims may be better characterized as misperceptions, misrepresentations, partial truths, personal opinions, or a mix of these.

What can and should be said at this point is simple. This is a debate where the private and public debate have diverged significantly at some points. What is said in public does not always match what is actually supported by evidence, or suggested by thoughtful interpretation of evidence and behaviors.

It is also notably a dispute where both parties have been strongly requested to avoid public re-enactment or re-statement of their cases, due to the nature of the case. Bluntly without endorsing either side, one party has abided by this and has been for practical purposes self-restricted in comment, while others on the other "side" have felt free to comment when they see a need. Disputes, however high profile, are not resolved by recourse to a venue that by its nature can only have half the story - in this case the half that is likely favorable. Apologies for feeling the need to note this obvious fact; it would not be necessary had our request been adhered to.

This talk page is a valid venue for comments on the case. It is not "yet another venue for forum shopping, re-enactment, and pushing one or another side's view", to add to WikiEN-l, private email, and a number of other locations. The case has been brought to the Committee to discuss and consider. It has already done the rounds of the community at multiple venues, so posting yet more here, is just in effect, forum shopping. I would ask that this be reduced, since frankly, it's not going to be helpful.

Note: Nothing above should be taken as a view on the dispute itself, or on the appropriate decision in the case, nor does it affect any party's evidence as presented in private. It is a comment on the conduct of a few users during the case, for example, as evidenced on this specific page.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that someone has finally spoken out against the forum-shopping in section 2 of this talk page, "comments." I think most of today's discussion has been about how ArbCom appears to be handling this case, and am glad FT2 seems to welcome this. i hope other members of ArbCom find this discussion valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean the forum shopping in section 5? --NE2 01:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, all I know is that my comments have focused on ArbCom policy and ArbCom statements. That said, there is a diference between some people who are uninvolved in the case attacking one of the parties, and a person who testified to ArbCom publicizing their testimony because rbCom's proceedings are not transparent. Isn't the purpose of confidentialproceedings to protect the privacty of witnesses?: Why should anyone then try to stop it when a witniss is willin to waive privacy? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whose privacy in particular they're trying to protect (whether 'witnesses' or not) - it seems obvious that they're not going to be able to give a list of people and reasons :) However, it isn't hard to see why they would ask people avoid making public presentations of evidence that can't be satisfactorily responded to without violating the privacy of others. The whole point of Arbcom's involvement is surely that they can hear the totality of the evidence where others apparently can't. 87.254.68.49 (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, anonymous user, but one does not "respond" to evidence. One asks for evidence and then uses it in drawing findings of fact. What one can respond to are charges and counter-charges. This thread is about forum-shopping. If Thatcher, who brought the charges against Lar, used this page to argue against ArbCom's rulings, or if Lar used this page to argue against Arb-Com rulings, that would be forum shopping. For a witness to share his own experiences as matters of fact - not an argument but sharing personal experiences and making assertions of fact about one's own experiences, that is not forum shopping. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there, person who posts under the username Slrubenstein. Clearly people can respond to evidence. Clearly people do respond to evidence. I’m not sure what it means to say that "one does not" do so. Regardless of whatever semantic point you were making concerning "respond", Thatcher didn’t "bring charges" against Lar. He asked that a public dispute between Slim Virgin and Lar be settled one way or the other : "If Lar's use of checkuser in this case fell within the reasonable use of the tool, he deserves a public answer to that effect from the committee, and SlimVirgin needs to back down. If the committee finds a problem with Lar's conduct, SlimVirgin and the community deserve to know about it." He wasn't making an acusation; he was seeking a resolution. 87.254.72.198 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, on both counts. I understand people can respond to evidence, my real point is that I don't see it as forum shopping when someone who is not a direct party to the dispute tells their own story. I also stand corrected about Thatcher, you are right that it was wrong of me to say Thatcher was accusing Lar. That said, I still have some fundamental concerns about process. First, ArbCom is the dispute resolution mechanism of last resort ... I still do not understand what ArbCom's jurisdiction over this argument between Lar and SlimVirgin is. It has also been brought to my attention that there were earlier resolved disputes that are part of the context for this case. Which brings me to my second point, and it has to do with transparency. I did not know about any earlier conflict, perhaps because it was handled in confidence. Look, I fully acknowledge that there are some conflicts that can only be investigated and resolved in confidence. But here is an ArbCom proposed decision that is not secret, it is public, as is the page where the arbitration was first requested. These things are public and it is all we editors have to go on. I still find it odd that there is some dispute between Slim Virgin and Lar but neither Slim Virgin nor Lar requested arbitration. Perhaps my confusion has to do with this: I see signs that some people believe there is a specific dispute between Lar and Slim Virgin that can be arbitrated, and that should be arbitrated in private. Okay, fine. But I also see signs of another problem: a dispute between a number of people who do not trust ArbCom, or checkusers, or somebody in a position of power, to keep confidential things confidential. This is very confusing, because I can see cases where absolute confidentiality is necessary, and when it is not necessary, I believe absolute transparency is necessary, but there are signs that something is going on that falls between these two situations, a case that was not public and transparent, but also in which some things were not kept confidential. I am NOT trying to make anyone's side here but I am very troubled by some recent posts by a couple of editors, one who I do not know but who claims to have submitted testimony and feels it was misrepresented, and now people are saying the testimony was false ... and then Durova's comments, and while I have never really worked on anything with her I have never seen her make an edit I didn't respect or make a comment I didn't find constructive, and these comments and how people are responding to them are calling into question how ArbCom works. I am not forum shopping. I do not know what any past dispute was so I can't be trying to change its resolution. But as I made clear in my original post on this page, I find the wording of some of ArbCom's proposed decisions perplexing and troubling. I find it weird that ArbCom can present as a possible decision that a checkuser can violate a privacy policy but it is okay - so what is the point of the policy? I find it perplexing and troubling that ArbCom can present as a possible decision that an editor who complains but who doesn't file a complaint at ArbCom has done something wrong - this seems to imply that editors either cannot complain, or have to do it through ArbCom, and this stark choice seems to give ArbCom far more power than I thought we ever intended to give it. And I am perplexed and disturbed by the combination of these two proposed findings which seem to hold someone with special powers (checkuser) to a lower standard than Slim, who so far has not been accused of abusing any powers. I find this weird and came here hoping someone could clear it up for me and although Alanyst and Mackensen have responded in good faith (as have you) I still do not feel these basic concerns have been addressed. Since then Wikitumnus has complained that he has been misrepresented and has been called a liar, and Durovna, whom I really respect, has complained about ArbCom and has been mocked. And I fear that any point I try to make, someone is going to accuse me of being partisan. But this is the point I want to make: In order for Wikipedia to function, the community has to accept that certain people are going to have extraordinary powers, essentially delegated by Jimbo, but historically through a process of negotiation involving the community that established policies guiding these special offices. Is there any space to criticize how these offices have been functioning, or at least raise concerns, and have an open discussion with an eye towards some kind of accountability or reform? This is the bottom line for me. I am afraid of two responses: first, some people will say "why these abstract fears and anxieties, if the system is working fine, why change anything?" And then if I say "Well, here are some examples where I saw some troubling signs that things are not working the way they should," I open myself up to charges of being partisan or forum shopping. My mistakes (saying Thatcher charged Lar) are the smallest part of what I wrote. I understand that in this specific context people have good cause to call attention to them so I sincerely apologize. The fact remains, they were but a tiny part of what I wrote. I wrote much more that was about the community in general, about harassment in general, and about arbcom in general and wish we could focus on those. I also started this by writing questions about how specific proposed decisions were phrased, questions that I still believe are non-partisan and non forum shopping but reasonable questions about process and how disputes are characterized and resolved, and wish we could just discuss those some more. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If this case did not involve checkuser and other confidential matters, presumably the proper dispute resolution method would have been a user conduct RFC filed by SlimVirgin against Lar for misuse of checkuser and a second case filed against SlimVirgin by Lar for making false and corrosive allegations. However, unless the affected parties (Crum375 and Wikitumnus) agreed to a full and open disclosure of the checkuser findings and all the surrounding matters, no editor reading the RFC could possibly have an informed opinion. Thatcher 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

more convenient sharing

I have looked around onwiki and mail:wikien-l archives, and I cant see how Wikitumnus knows the details of this email as described in this statement here. The checkuser-l list is private, so I am very curious how Wikitumnus came by that email. Does arbcom know what is going on? I hope they will remedy this too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikitumnus's statement said that the details were sent by an unnamed checkuser to Jimbo and cc'ed to Wikitumnus. Presumably the checkusers and/or Arbcom are capable of sorting out who that checkuser was and whether that sort of disclosure was appropriate. (Amendment: Technically, Wikitumnus only said that the link to the checkuser mailing list was sent to Jimbo and Wikitumnus; I am inferring that that email also conveyed details besides the link.) alanyst ^/talk/ 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the link is mentioned in the statement twice. The date of that email is obviously known to Wikitumnus, but I guess it is up to arbcom to work out whether this leak was merely a drop or not.

fwiw, Special:LinkSearch/https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/checkuser-l/2008-March/002009.html only points here.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Could an arbitrator clarify whether they have been informed of which checkuser shared the contents of confidential checkuser-l discussions with WikiTumnus, and why? If not, Jimbo was a party to this email and thus will be able to identify the checkuser. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody knows this one. You don't need to be Jimbo or on ArbCom to know that 2+2=4. Moreschi (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But you need to have a massive dose of bad faith to jump in with a snide and unhelpful remark about how 2+2+5. If you mean Jayjg, no, it wasn't. Wikitumnus (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent the email. I was cc;d on a number of conversations including one in which WT made some allegations and Jimbo asked for proof. I sent an email containing brief excerpts from 3 CU-L messages, as well as other material, to Jimbo and Newyorkbrad, and cc'd SlimVirgin and WT. If I recall correctly, this was deliberate and not an accident. WT was concerned about statements made by Lar that he heard of through third and fourth hand information, and I felt it would be beneficial for all parties to know precisely what was said. I stand behind my actions in this case and will undertake any review desired by Arbcom. Thatcher 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher for clearing that up. I wasnt expecting names publicly, but I do hope that Arbcom are also reviewing the other convenient sharing that occurred in the lead up to this case, and which was very specifically called out on checkuser list email 123. It is not unexpected that checkuser information and discussions will be "conveniently shared" with others, but it starts being concerning when non-checkusers share the data around further, and it is misused/abused/used in a politically manner. When that happens, it reflects poorly on the checkuser that shared the information, and the third party that abused the trust, even if everyone involved had the best of intentions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a long time ago, but I think the "second checkuser" who gave away details in March was a figment based on a misunderstanding. When Lar contacted Wikitumnus, I believe Lar told WT that someone had made an allegation linking WT to Crum375 by way of explaining his check. So WT found out about the check on Crum from Lar, and WT told Crum who told SV. I may be misremembering, but I think that's what happened. Thatcher 18:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar informed me that my account had come up in a note he received related to the Mantanmoreland case. I had never posted or commented there. But I had seen Mackan79 and Lar very much present on the pages related to the arbcom case, and had noticed Mackan trying to get SlimVirgin sanctioned for blocking Wordbomb. I had received an impertinent message from Mackan79 at User talk:Wikitumnus just days before the check, asking me was I a returning user, and telling me to "feel free" to respond by private e-mail. So I figured that Mackan was the person who had gone to Lar, presumably guessing that Lar would give him a sympathetic ear. I contacted two other checkusers very soon after, and also contacted SlimVirgin and Crum375, telling them of the check, and of my belief that it was Mackan who had requested it. This was confirmed at some stage, but I'm not sure how or when. Wikitumnus (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer John's question - I am not going to post the name here. Generally, if an arb or a CU privately informs a friend of something that took place in private discussion, that is frowned upon, and the offender might be sanctioned if it became known. However, it does happen that a non-privileged Wikipedian writes to the committee, or to the CU list, and a committee member or CU might press "reply all", and might refer to information that is not public, so the non-privileged member would now have this information. By using "reply all", instead of secretly informing the non-privileged Wikipedian, the CU or arb is protecting himself, as it comes across as a good faith decision to allow X to know a certain fact in the presence of other senior Wikipedians, rather than as a leak. At worst it might be a blunder (though I think not in this case) but not an abuse. Arbs and CUs do that all the time

So as to how I got this privileged information - I do not have access to the CU list. I have not seen Lar's e-mails there. However, during the case, one CU who has been publicly critical of SlimVirgin for making the allegations in public received a private e-mail from me saying that I do not know Lar's wife. He asked my permission to copy Newyorkbrad in his response. He said that he was troubled by my statement that I do not know Lar's wife, because if true, it would indicate that Lar had lied on the CU list, and he would feel uncomfortable with a CU lying when questioned about the circumstances of a usercheck. It grew into a discussion, with others being added to the Cc field. At one stage, Jimbo asked a question, copied, if I recall correctly, to me, to the CU who had criticized SlimVirgin, to Newyorkbrad, and to SlimVirgin. The question was something like where is the evidence that Lar did something.

The unnamed CU replied to Jimbo on 22 August, and included me, SlimVirgin, and Newyorkbrad in the Cc field. He gave a very small number of extracts of what Lar had said both on the CU mailing list and on the enwiki mailing list. (SlimVirgin and I were never permitted to see the other statements Lar had made there, although I submitted evidence indicating that the statements I had seen were false.) I do not think that either Jimbo or Newyorkbrad had an issue with the CU cc'ing me and SlimVirgin. If they did, they presumably chastised him privately. There is no need for you to know who it was. It is quite possible that Newyorkbrad may even (with the CU's permission) have forwarded it to other arbs. This really is a non-issue.

But I'm concerned that your first reaction is "Who leaked to Wikitumnus?" If I were a checkuser who had read all the posts on the CU list, then, assuming that the post I linked to really has Lar claiming that I admitted to him that the CU was justified (you can see it but I can't), and if the affected user then came forward to say this is completely untrue, then I think my first reaction would be "Gosh, this is really worrying" and my SECOND reaction would be "I wonder who told Wikitmnus." I hope you are concerned about the first issue as well. Wikitumnus (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You and I, prior to this incident, had a long history of cordial emails on a wide ranging number of subjects that led me to believe we were friends. I believe I made reasonable inferences, based on things your mails did, and did not, contain, about the relationship between you, myself, and my wife, and what it was OK to disclose, and to whom. I have introduced the mails that I believe supported those inferences into evidence. They are, I believe, exactly the same mails I shared with you prior to so introducing them. It is possible to have differences of opinion about facts, but my inferences were justifiable.

I do not understand why you are making stuff public about yourself that I had worked so hard to keep private. Since you are, if you don't admit that the inferences I made were at least reasonable, if not correct, I will introduce the portions of the mails that support my inferences into the public record here, and let others evaluate them. There is much that I have kept private throughout this, but this road you are on will lead to folk inferring other things that you presumably do not wish inferred, despite my best efforts throughout this to protect your privacy. This continuing assassination of my character by you and others, after being asked to stop, is not conscionable. It pains me that it has come to this, but you should know this: You are apparently being used, and your good faith is apparently being deployed as a weapon against those that SlimVirgin has apparently decided she has to try to destroy. Whether you realise it or not, you are being used. You should stop letting yourself be used this way. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This threat, "if you don't admit...I will introduce the portions of the mails that support my inferences into the public record.." is way out of line. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a threat. The portions would be carefully cut down to the minimum necessary to show that my inferences were reasonable and would not reveal the identity of WT. Alternatively, I invite an ArbCom member who has seen them to confirm what I am asserting. But the smearing of me going on here is what actually is "way out of line". It needs to stop. All parties need to stop it. That includes you, by the way, Tom harrison. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Free advice: Lar, stop responding. Wikitumnus, stop repeating allegations that have already been considered by Arbcom when Lar can't answer them without disclosing non-public information about you. Attacking him from behind the cloak of a process that was made private to protect you is bad form, to say the least. Thatcher 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes free advice is worth what you pay for it. And sometimes it's worth far more. This is one of those latter times. Thanks, Thatcher. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Expression of concern

I remain concerned that some of the talkpage discussion is trenching toward matters whose privacy or confidentiality are the reason the case was taken up off-wiki in the first place. Caution on all sides is recommended, even if this engenders some frustration that one's account of the whole story cannot be told or that some particular allegation on this page is not being responded to.

I will be voting on the case tonight and may have some additional comments at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between innocent negligence and overt misuse. My query was whether we are dealing with one or the other. Apparently, the arbcom has made a determination regarding this already, so that is the way it will be.--MONGO 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole spectrum of possibilities, of which "innocent negligence" and "overt misuse" are both on the same "naughty" half of the spectrum. So far it is looking like this check wasnt even a little bit naughty. This case would have been closed months ago if it was as simple as "innocent negligence" and "overt misuse". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that "innocent" means it wasn't done for malicious purposes...whereby "overt" means it was. I doubt it was ever (hopefully) "overt"...and, as I stated a few sections above, was instead either due to a curiousity, as in the case of Crum, to satisfy or best case, to end the "theme". Frankly, the issue of satisfying or ending the "theme" is immaterial since the question of WHY as well as the timing is what I saw as circumspect.--MONGO 23:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be innocently neglecting to allow for the possibility that the check was done routinely and appropriately without any wrongdoing, whether innocent or intentional. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I noted above, with links to public emails, that SlimVirgin and Lar's accounts of what happened with a third editor directly contradicted each other. I asked if the third editor had given the committee evidence, and if so whose story it supported. The arbs ignored my question. Finally the editor involved, who seems at least as concerned about privacy as anyone here, posted above, describing his evidence. Since then, it's been ignored or dismissed. The amazingly written findings that "a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred" and the finding SlimVirgin's conduct, make it likely the committee ignored or dismissed that evidence as well, and raise questions about judgment and fairness. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please listen to NYB and knock this nonsense off. The Committee has made it clear that it can't give out any more details and that Lar and Mackensen are also doing exactly the right thing by not revealing any more details publicly. After being told this several times, some of you persist in casting aspersions which you've been told cannot be responded to. Please show some respect for the privacy of the individuals involved and for the rules governing the use of checkuser and its oversight process. Two arbitrators have requested very politely that you stop pressing for undisclosable details. Please listen to them. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cla68...the rules governing the use of checkuser is my focus. As I mentioned and, rightfully voiced my dissent, I am not satisfied that the rules have been followed appropriately, but as I also stated above, the arbcom has apparently spoken on this issue and have found apparently little to no evidence of malfeasence. However, without filibustering the issue, I still wished to express my disagreement. And that concludes my comments on this matter.--MONGO 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You admit to not knowing all of the details upon which the Committee's decision is based, but yet are willing to conclude that you don't agree with it? Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes....I do not know what the checkuser investigation concluded. My query was about why it took place to begin with.--MONGO 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Lar explained his rationale in a mailing list post. The committee seems prepared to rule that Lar's rationale was within the bounds of acceptable checkuser discretion. Thatcher 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, SlimVirgin and Mackan79 discussed the matter. Slim claimed Lar ran the check at the request of Mackan79. Slim gave reasons why the request was invalid, Mackan defended his request. Lar did not publicly comment as far as I can tell. Thatcher 01:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has spoken.--MONGO 02:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lar has stated that several other checkusers reviewed the check after it was done and validated it. And, the ArbCom appears to be passing a finding that the check was reasonable. Again though, since many of the details surrounding the check have not been disclosed, I wonder why MONGO feels that he has enough information to reach a conclusion that the check should not have been done? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you even involved in another case regarding SlimVirgin...I thought you had been admonished to avoid her.--MONGO 02:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait...! Do you mean to say that SlimVirgin has participated in this ArbCom? Where? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, as I noted above below Wikitumnus' statement, this information was submitted to arbcom, along with other claims and details not included, many weeks ago. I know because I was cc'd on some of the emails. Only arbcom can determine how much weight to give to each statement, especially when it comes to differing sets of claimed facts, and differing interpretations of the facts that are agreed upon. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to be more specific without disclosing information derived from non-public sources. Thatcher 23:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather disappointing

I was hoping that the proposed decision about to be ratified would put the matter behind us. ALL OF US. Instead, after being heard by the Arbitration Committee, it's apparently just the introduction to the next court, apparently, that of public opinion. Unless I miss my guess, this discussion really is not helpful or particularly wanted by the community. This is the reason why the Arbitration Committee chose the extraordinary method of hearing this case in private. This is only the second time that I can remember this happening. This method was chosen specifically to avoid the kind of divisive community squabble that several folks are now attempting to kick off (I'm not going to assign it to either side, just note that it IS happening). I ask all sides to let the end of this case be truly, the end of this case. SirFozzie (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Supporting fully SirFozzie's comment. For a hearing in camera this can only be described and completely ludicrous. As with the literally incredible delay this hardly shows Arbcom & its processes in anything other than a very bad way. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also fully support SirFozzies comments and concerns here. I'm confused as to why the discussion has gone on in such a fashion on this page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see it, this is a battle over who is in charge at wikipedia, and with that, who can enforce their specific global POV to many articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the discussions here, virtually every other recent cases has had an active workshop in which involved and uninvolved editors can give their views and discuss the relevant issues. It's not surprising that this page has taken the place of the workshop to some extent. Telling WP editors that they can't discuss something is a futile effort. OTOH, I note that some folks seem to be unaware of the Streisand effect. While I haven't followed this case closely, it demonstrates some of the pitfalls of hearing cases in secret. If editors don't feel that they've been treated fairly in a secret trial they have little recourse other than to complain on pages like this or on off-wiki forums. If I understand correctly, editors have been discussing this case for months off-wiki. It's probably healthier to have relevant discussion on-wiki. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it went unnoticed by Kim van der Linde...I am in charge at Wikipedia.--MONGO 03:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very disapporinted to see SirFozzie belittling the "court of public opinion." As I think MONGO means to say, at Wikipedia it is the open community of editors who run the place, and the public IS the highest court. That said, I do accept tha there are some times when servants of the community like ArbCom have to investigagte and deliberate in private. But then what is the purpose of this talk page? I suggest that unless ArbCom provides a clear explanation of the purpose of the talk page, Will BeBack is right that it will be used as a workshop. Look, I made a series of comments and questions strictly about content on the main page, and ArbCom ignored me. I (and others) then asked questions about the case, and finally were not ignored but we were instead told we couldn't ask these kinds of questions. Then I made some general comments about general issues brought up in relation to the case, and I was again told that this is not the right place for such discussion (still, a teensy bit better than being ignored). I asked Thatcher what, exactly, we should talk about on this talk page and his answers were either vague or evasive. So yeah, with this kind of response I think people will use the talk page to host their own workshop. If ArbCom does not like this, then they hve to find some better way to engage editors who make comments than (we ignore your questions) or (we tell you this is inappropriate for this talk page). really guys, can't you imagine a third option? if you can't, don't be surprised when editors do. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They could put their fingers in their ears and chant, "La la la, we can't hear you," but that would be unlikely to resolve anything. I hope they will instead do the responsible thing and address the evidence they have. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NYB's comments

NYB writes: "While this is true, and regrettable, I believe that SlimVirgin's mailing list posts (see findings 2 and 3 above) were (unfortunately) sufficiently detailed that the committee had a reasonable basis for understanding the substance of her allegations.

If NYB's is right, why did she not just tell the ArbCom that those posts are all what she had? That cost less times than me writing this response. Unfortunately, SlimVirgin has a reputation of making unfounded allegations, insinuations, and framing without providing evidence to back those up. So, quite frankly, I am not surprised at all that she did not provide evidence. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• my comment on nyb's comments....It appearantly is neccessary for the committee to call out one user by name multiple times in a given hearing in order for that person to get the picture that certain behaviors are not helpful to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising of privacy issue

Apart from issues being discussed above, one point that has seemed odd to me is the way that the privacy issue was raised. This was specifically a response by Jayjg to Thatcher, in which Jayjg said that Thatcher had failed to acknowledge "the issue of Lar informing his wife, another Wikipedia editor, of the results of the checks."[6]

Especially considering the limits on Lar's ability to address this case, I would not have expected that a checkuser could publicly share portions of a confidential discussion in order to call into question another checkuser's actions. In fact, the comment seems remarkable.

For that matter I am also unclear how SV could say on the mailing list that Lar had said an initial request came from me.[7] As I said on the mailing list, it is possible but I would be surprised if Lar said this to SV or Wikitumnus. Whether internally or externally, I hope that both of these are addressed. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that Lar told Wikitumnus why he ran the check, and that included your name. I may be mistaken in my recollection. Regarding Jayjg, there have been so many back channel communications and cc'd emails that I don't think you can infer that the only way Jayjg could have learned that Lar dicussed WT with his wife was from the confidential checkuser mailing list. Thatcher 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true. On the other hand, Jayjg did not present Wikitumnus' allegation that Lar had spoken with his wife, but rather stated himself as fact that this had happened, which would seem more difficult for him to have known. If the statement was considered independent of confidential discussions, there seems at the least to have been an element of care missing. Mackan79 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement from SlimVirgin

I've not looked at these pages before, but someone told I was being criticized for not having submitted evidence, so I'm putting up this quick statement. This is what happened, and it includes an explanation of why I felt submitting evidence was pointless, though this statement is now being submitted in evidence:

The initial checkuser

1. Lar, a Wikipedia steward and checkuser, is a regular poster on Wikipedia Review (600 posts when I last checked). I've been told by sources there that he tries to make himself useful to them; posts frequently in the private areas of the website; and has been conducting checkusers at their suggestion. I'm unable to post evidence for this, and I have no smoking gun regarding the CU issue, though I will be sending evidence to the ArbCom that Lar has offered to swap general wiki-gossip for information that he wanted from WR-ers.

Lar was allegedly particularly close to Poetlister — the 52-year old British civil servant who was posing on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review as several pretty young women — who tried to out me in 2006. Lar supported Poetlister's application to be a bureaucrat and checkuser on Wikiquote (one as Poetlister, the other using another account), which gave Poetlister access to the entire (global) checkuser mailing list, on which Wikipedia's private details and locations are often discussed.

2. In March 2008, Lar allegedly received a private request for a checkuser from Mackan79, someone who has been repeatedly involved in trying to cause trouble for me, after Mackan was blocked for 3RR and blamed me for it. Mackan had already been advised by the ArbCom to stop posting about me, just as I had been advised not to address him. I have not seen Mackan's CU request. The only information I have about it comes from Lar himself.

3. Mackan allegedly told Lar that he suspected Wikitumnus, a vandalism reversion account, was a sockpuppet of Crum375. Mackan clearly had no valid reason to suspect this, because Wikitumnus had no obvious connection to Crum375. The only link between the accounts was that Wikitumnus had twice, in November 2007 and January 2008, reverted vandalism on Crum's user or talk page. That is obviously not a strong enough reason to perform a CU. It is a fishing expedition, pure and simple, and these are not supposed to be allowed.

4. Crum 375 has often been referred to on Wikipedia Review as my sockpuppet, which I suspect was the real reason Lar and Mackan wanted to perform a check. I believe the check of Wikitumnus was simply used as an excuse to check Crum375, and that this was done in the hope that it would lead to me.

5. Lar checked Wikitumnus, and found it was the new account of an established editor. There had been no violation of WP:SOCK. Lar contacted the editor and received confirmation that Wikitumnus was the new account. Lar knew that this person was not Crum375.

6. Nevertheless, he proceeded with his check of Crum375, in violation of the checkuser policy, which states both that there must be a valid reason for a check, and that checks must not be performed for political reasons. I am submitting evidence to the ArbCom that Lar has stated I am the Wikipedian he most dislikes, and that I must be gotten rid of, which is what I regard as the "political reason" in this case.

7. In checking Crum, Lar found that Crum and I had several times shared a closed proxy. I stress that this was a closed proxy, not an open one. I had used one of Crum's proxies a few times to read Wikipedia Review, and had forgotten to revert back to my own IP to edit Wikipedia. Jimbo and several checkusers already knew about this.

8. Lar told one of the checkusers what he had found, and was advised by Mackensen that it was already known about, and that there was no issue there.

9. Nevertheless, Lar proceeded to checkuser me, after being advised by Mackensen that the proxy issue was known about, in violation of the CU policy, because he had no further grounds to obtain my real IP after being told that the closed proxy issue was a red herring.

10. He then disclosed to his wife, User:Epousesquecido, the real-life identity of Wikitumnus, in violation of the privacy policy.

After the checkuser

11. If the above had been all that happened, I would not be making this statement. It would have been very annoying, yes, but I'd have let it go. What was more disturbing was that, after the fact, Lar started telling different people different stories. For example, he told several people by e-mail, including several checkusers, that the only reason he had told his wife Wikitumnus's real details is that his wife and Wikitumnus were friends. He used the word "friends" in some e-mails, and other words elsewhere: for example, on wikiEN-l, he said that his wife had been involved in "counseling" Wikitumnus.

None of this is true. Wikitumnus and his wife do not know each other. They have had no contact whatsoever. I find it worrying that a checkuser is willing to mislead people in this way.

As a result of the check, and because of the information that was passed to Lar's wife — someone Wikitumnus would not have chosen to pass private information to — Wikitumnus felt compelled to abandon the account. I believe Wiktumnus has submitted evidence about this issue, so there's no point in my repeating it here.

12. Lar wrote to me very aggressively after the checkuser insisting that I send him all correspondence related to my use of the closed proxy. He wanted to know the entire background, including who had been told about it. He asked to see my e-mails to and from Jimbo and the checkusers. I asked him why he needed to see these, and he could not explain, other than to say I should send them to him "as a friend" (though I have never considered him to be a friend, and have had minimal contact with him).

This made me suspicious. I felt that Lar simply wanted as much information as he could get, particularly about wiki-relationships, IPs, and locations of editors, perhaps in order to pass it to his friends on Wikipedia Review. His need to read my private correspondence made no sense otherwise, and to this day he has been unable to explain it.

13. Mackensen made it clear from the start that he strongly supported Lar, even though Mackensen is an ombudsman. His intervention meant there was no point in taking the case to the Ombudsman commission. I can only hope that Mackensen did not involve himself in this case.

Other information

14. After the checkuser, I was approached by several women Wikipedians who had heard there was some problem with Lar. I was told that, for some time, Lar has been offering to swap Wikipedia gossip in exchange for certain types of information from these women. I will not post details here. Only one was willing to submit limited evidence, and only to a few people. Jimbo was approached and said the source would have to appear before the whole ArbCom. She was unwilling to do that, so the evidence could not be submitted.

However, I will be sending the ArbCom some evidence related to this, privately, with the source's permission. They can decide whether it is appropriate for a steward and checkuser or not.

My involvement

15. I became involved in this case because I posted to wikiEN-l that Lar had misused checkuser, and had violated the privacy policy by passing information to his wife about Wikitumnus's real-life ID. This would matter less if his wife were not a Wikipedian, but she is, and she is not cleared for checkuser access. Wikitumnus was aware of what I was posting; several members of the ArbCom have tried to criticize me for writing to the mailing list because it would affect Wikitumnus, though I feel the main concern is that it would affect Lar.

Lar responded by implying that I'm a liar, though what I wrote there is 100 percent correct. Thatcher then submitted an ArbCom case so the matter could be examined.

Checkuser policy

16. The issue that matters here is that the CU policy is being openly flouted on Wikipedia. Personally, I don't care about that. If CUs want to check people randomly, so be it. But if you're going to do that, you must tell editors in advance, so they can use proxies if they want to. If CUs are being performed for any reason and for none, the CU policy must be changed to say that.

Similarly, if the privacy policy now allows members of checkusers' families (even if Wikipedians) to be given checkuser results, the policy should be adjusted to say that too.

My only argument is the policies should reflect accepted practice, or that accepted practice should conform to the policies.

ArbCom case

17. Not only did the ArbCom decide to handle the case in private (possibly in order to protect Wikitumnus, but possibly also to protect Lar), but has repeatedly refused to show Wikitumnus or me Lar's evidence. It's therefore impossible for us to address it, and given that one of the complaints is that he says different things to different people, what he has said about this to the ArbCom is clearly relevant.

In addition, Charles Matthews started sending me extremely rude and aggressive e-mails insisting that evidence be submitted within 48 hours. This was during August when the ArbCom was aware that I was unavailable for Wikipedia work. I really have to question the attitude of some members that they're the kings of the castle and we're the dirty wee rascals.

I therefore decided to have nothing to do with the case, because I feel it was handled very poorly from start to finish. I'm posting this now only because people have told me I'm being criticized for having submitted nothing.

Submitting evidence

18. Finally, if someone chooses not to submit evidence to ArbCom, especially when they're not accused of violating policy, the ArbCom really shouldn't try to force them to submit by use of public criticism.

What I wrote on the mailing list was absolutely correct; it was Lar who was trying to mislead, not me. I wrote it there precisely because I have no faith in the Ombudsmen or ArbCom to get to the bottom of this, for various reasons: first, the clear bias of Mackensen; secondly, that the Ombudsman commission is apparently (and bizarrely) not allowed to hear CU misuse cases.

I therefore chose not to get involved in a case where no policy violation by me was alleged, where we would not be allowed to see the evidence, and based on an RfAr that I had not posted. That is my right, surely. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh hour

SlimVirgin, you say that you have no faith that Arbcom can get to the bottom of the matter. Is it fair to assume that your statement above is not intended to assist them in resolving the dispute? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed so intended, and I've emailed them the material that I can't post publicly. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea about the facts of this, and choose to stay out of it. However, on a point of principle, whatever your "rights", it simply will not work in any community if people can lay charges in public, which by nature of the evidence can neither be supported nor refuted in public, and then when the only private body empowered to investigate those charges asks for details, refuse to submit evidence to substantiate the accusation. There's an old adage that people should "put up, or shut up" and I'd say that there's an element of natural justice in that demand. Even your post above troubles me, because it again makes grave public accusations, including serious innuendoes about improper approaches to female editors, and yet offers not a shed of public evidence. Perhaps the evidence can only be submitted in private - that may be understandable. But then, in that case, the charges should also be made wholly in private too. Frankly, far too much of the case here (on your, and perhaps on Lar's side too) seems an attempt to damn by unsubstantiated and unsubstantiat-able innuendo and "guilt by association". You say you've broken no policy? Well perhaps; but there is an issue of natural justice that should protect the reputations of all members of a community. It does not look like that justice has been respected here. From the outside, we do not know and cannot know, perhaps Lar is contemptible and you the victim of his unwarranted machinations - or perhaps the whole thing is some horrible bad-faith slur on his good name? But that's the point - we can't judge that. And if either one of you is innocent, then that party is entitle to vindication as publicly as the accusation they have faced. The way you have made public accusation and (up till now) seemingly refused to make even private substantiation, should be incredibly worrying for all members of a community that is based largely on trust and reputation. I now hope that arbcom are able to give make some sort of closure that leaves any innocent reputations intact, although I sadly doubt that possible any longer. Up till now, I've had the greatest respect for both you and Lar, it now appears I must consider that one of you is a rat and the other has been very poorly used. Unfortunately I have no means of deciding which. So my apologies to the victim.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence I'm allowed to release has been e-mailed to the ArbCom. The nature of the material is unfortunately such that the sources are reluctant to share it, even with the Arbitration Committee, or perhaps especially with them, I don't know.

As for ArbCom, they refused to send me evidence to address, so I felt there was little point in taking part in it. When a case is heard privately, it should not be kept private from the parties too. That is quite absurd. The privacy was allegedly to protect Wikitumnus, and given that all the participants in the case know who Wikitumnus is, there is no reason not to share evidence. I can accept that one or two documents might be sensitive, but surely not all.

This has been a bad case all round, and gives the very, very strong impression that checkusers will rally round to defend any practice from other CUs, no matter how much it violates the policy. I've been told privately by several CU's that they don't support what Lar did, but for some reason none of them will stand behind that in public. And given that the ArbCom are all checkusers, that attitude infects all bodies empowered to oversee CU. It's a very bad situation. What we need is an independent ombudsman who can look at CU misuse, as some of us have been requesting for over two years. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shrug, I've no idea. That's the point. And "I've been told privately" is just more of the same. There's nothing here that doesn't come down to "trust me". I have to trust you, and not trust lar, but with no evidence. Whilst you don't trust arbcom, who are the only body equipped (and trusted by the community) to see private evidence. Trust is such an illusive thing, and trust has indeed been the victim here - once it's gone then any claim lacking cast-iron sourcing becomes at best questionable. And now, after months, more claims? I suspect that there's little point in using this talk page any further. Those predisposed to trust you will believe without evidence, those predisposed to believe Lar will assume the contrary. It's become a faith thing now and, unfortunately, us agnostics know that we are doubting whoever is telling the truth.....--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott, is it possible that these are all the good reasons why Slim Virign never filed a complaint at ArbCom? Given that Thatcher did, and ArbCom accepted it (despite the fact that ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort in dispute resolution and that it was created to resolve disputes occuring in the course of editing articles), what did you expect? Do you genuinely believe that Wikipedia has mechanisms that are capable of handling these kinds of matters? Durova has revealed on this talk page that the ArbCom does not find it necessary to receive any training in dealing with victims of harassment, something that is a requirement at virtually every other institution, certainly public institutions and most businesses. You say that there should be some natural justice. I do not really know what you mean. If sufficient material evidence exists, a court of law can handle this and anyone is welcome to initiate legal action if they believe they have been wronged and have evidence acceptable to a law court. For any other kind of justice, when such evidence is available, only God can judge. As for Alanyst's comment, it seems like an unfair provocation that is beneath him/her. SV was expressing her despair, whether you like it or not. I am sure all of us who care about Wikipedia are hoping ArbCom does the right thing, and either makes a fair decision or none at all. Right? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think enough mud has now been flung to kill all reputations, regardless of the truth. But really, Thatcher did the right thing, because either we had a bad checkuser (and that needed investigating) or we has a good checkuser whose reputation was being unfairly publicly wrecked (and that needed vindication). Either way, the project suffered unless a halt was called. Like it or not, arbcom/the ombudsman are the only way of resolving disputes based on private evidence - mailing lists and theatres with peanut galleries of uninformed people like me are shit poor ways of sorting anything. Put or shut up, take the evidence AND accusations to the bodies that can actually do something. And frankly, if you've lost complete trust in them, then you can't really continue with the project. These are the only sheriffs in town.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein: It was an honest question to SlimVirgin. I was having difficulty squaring "I have not been watching this case" and "I do not have faith in Arbcom" with her making a last-minute statement of her allegations, hours after a motion to close the case was put forth and receiving votes. Rather than allege bad faith behavior on her part (though I definitely consider it disruptive, even if done in good faith), I asked her about her intentions regarding the statement so as not to make an unwarranted assumption. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to both of the named parties here (I cannot do otherwise, being out of the loop on the principal facts of the case), there may be a lesson to be learned on both sides about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Checkusers have been known to confer with each other in advance of running checks that are potentially controversial. Whether or not one would have been run in this instance, it could have allayed concerns to have gotten more feedback in advance. Likewise, although there may not be an ideal venue for raising the concerns SlimVirgin has expressed, surely a public mailing list was not the optimal choice. In a situation where the underlying concern is one of privacy, there seems little chance of positive outcome in selecting a forum where resolution is virtually impossible. The Committee itself has shortcomings, but at least has potential to resolve this type of matter. And editors who lose faith in it can appeal to the Foundation. Although it is far too late in this instance to change those choices now, these may be points to bear in mind in future. Durova^Charge! 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: "There are no Evidence or Workshop pages for this case. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the Arbitrators."(not my emphasis) Am I right to assume there is no sanction available for disregarding this injunction? --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The material from Slimvirgin doesn't appear to be evidence so much as a narrative. We usually think of evidence as things like diffs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, I understand now. There's no available sanction if you ignore the injunction and post - as long as it's completely devoid of diffs. --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Slim seems to be saying that she's facing a powerful clique that circles its wagons to protect their own, regardless of any private misgivings any of its members may have about this, and that she finds this situation frustrating. I can sympathize, since I'm one of those who has at times been on the receiving end of a clique gang-up to squelch my side of a dispute... unfortunately, in some of these occasions, Slim herself has been part of that opposing clique with which I was frustrated. Perhaps sayings like "What goes around comes around", or "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" might apply, but I'm not a vengeful, grudge-holding person; I'd like to see the truth upheld and no unfair railroadings occur. Unfortunately, with so much of the important evidence private, or perhaps nonexistent, I have no way of knowing which side has the truth, but it does seem like at least one of the two parties involved is a liar here... just wish I knew which (and I won't jump to any conclusions simply based on my prior prejudices... I'm too fair-minded for that). *Dan T.* (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Daniel

Findings of fact

Lack of statement

4.1) Despite repeated requests from the Committee, as well as several extensions of the submission deadline, SlimVirgin had failed to provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint in this matter up until this case was in the "Motion to close" phase.

At that point, SlimVirgin then posted a continuation of her allegations against Lar on the proposed decision page, blatantly disregarding the imminently-passing remedy six of this case ("The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct").

This statement contained allegations of checkuser results being exchanged for "gossip", an allegation which the Committee finds holds no credibility whatsoever. The timing and nature of the statement suggest that SlimVirgin did not have the best interests of dispute resolution at the forefront of her decision-making; rather, the Committee believes that the only apparent purpose of this statement was to reinflame tensions and continue the attacks made on Lar's credibility in June 2008 on wikien-l.

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin desysopped

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrator privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means at any time, or by appeal to the Committee after a period of no less than six months.

SlimVirgin prohibited

4) SlimVirgin is prohibited from making any comment whatsoever, explicitly or implicitly, about this issue in a public forum associated with Wikimedia (this includes, but is not limited to, all Wikimedia wikis, Wikimedia mailing lists, and IRC channels associated with Wikipedia). Violations of this remedy may be enforced in line with the enforcement remedy below.

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should SlimVirgin violate the restriction imposed by the Committee above, she may be blocked for an appropriate period of time of up to one week. After five blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Daniel (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it has gone beyond even this. If Slim has no faith in arbcom or the ombudsman (indeed utter contempt for both), and is left feeling wronged, and her privacy violated by someone who enjoys our highest tools of trust; if the only remedy she feels left for her is to repeatedly make unsubstantiable allegations, then she and wikipedia, with the greatest regret, must part company. No matter how right she may be, we can't have the law of the jungle. We need a final court that can, on the community's behalf, vindicate or damn our officials (and both Lar and the community are entitled to one or the other). Without that there can be no trust, (and no closure) and without trust (and closure), the project dies in frantic wars of accusations and assertions. (If I hear one one assertion based on "I've got a private e-mail from someone I can't name....)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• If making unsubstantiated charges about arbcom members, admins, or other editors is grounds for banning or desysopping then we'd have to ban half of the contributors to ANI. This case was judged with secret evidence which was apparently withheld even from parties to the case. I don't think anyone who hasn't seen all of the evidence can really judge what happened here. It's certainly regrettable that Slimvirgin didn't present her case when she had the chance, but her late submission makes the case even murkier for those of us on the outside. I don't think it's appropriate for any of us to propose remedies if we aren't informed about what happened. Many users have said that they have lost confidence in the arbcom, editors from all "political" factions. But when cases rely on secret evidence we have no choice but to trust them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While I certainly acknowledge that I don't have the specifics of the evidence, what I do have is a good enough understanding of how this case has progressed to offer the above remedies. The proposals don't deal with whether the check was right or wrong, but rather whether SlimVirgin acted in a manner which she had been told not to, and in a way which was extremely disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Nobody is alleging, to my knowledge, that Slimvirgin misused the admin tools. If she was disruptive on the mailing list then the simplest and most appropriate solution would be to ban her from the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Seriously poor judgement is a rationale for desysopping, especially blatantly contravening a specific ArbCom remedy not to continue the allegations in a public venue. Unfortunately ArbCom has no jurisdiction over wikien-l, so it was either desysop or block when I was writing up the remedy. SlimVirgin has shown she cares little for remedies restricting her posting on the issue publically (given she just did above again, after being explicitly told not to), so banning her from commenting on it would simply be futile. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • The ArbCom has other remedies at its disposal beside banning and desysopping, including admonishments. It has decided to use an even lesser remedy, a reminder. After reviewing all of the evidence at its disposal, the ArbCom has not found that Slimvirgin had seriously poor judgment, so I don't know what evidence you are consulting that they haven't seen. As I wrote before, I think this a case where we have to trust that the ArbCom is competent to judge these matters, particularly when we don't have access to the evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
          • The irony being that SlimVirgin refused to participate because she doesn't trust them? Daniel (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, it's ironic. But respect for the ArbCom is not a requirement. If it were... Also, I don't see any injunctions in this case that prohibited Slimvirgin from commenting. Is it on another page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I would have thought the remedy, which was about to be passed with two more votes to close, would have been enough, considering at the start of the case ArbCom instructed that all submissions be made via email rather than in public ("Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee"). Daniel (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
                • • Remedies aren't official until they pass. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a need to say that, in a project based on reputation and trust, where we need particularly to trust our checkusers, then it is simply unacceptable to repeatedly make damaging allegations about someone and then refuse to co-operate when the community's only method of investigating is initiated by concerned users. If people are allowed to do that, then no-one's reputation is safe, trust is shot, and the community is destroyed. Any official who has serious allegations made against them must face investigation and then either removal or vindication - Slim's actions have simply made that impossible. She's allowed unsubstantiated allegations to hover about Lar for months, and then at the last minute, with the case about to close, she jumps in with more. Has she misused the admin tolls? No. But for the sake of the project it is necessary for arbcom to say "behaviour like this is unacceptable, highly damaging and disruptive, and people who do it will face very serious consequences - up to and including outright banning". This type of thing must never ever happen again.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• As Daniel points out, those allegations were made off-wiki. Should I be able to seek redress from the ArbCom for things people write about me off-wiki? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, Wikien-1 is part of the project, isn't it?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • But it isn't part of EN.WP. If I badmouthed you over on Wikiquote would that be cause for desysopping me here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • this is irrelevant sidetracking. The point is that arbcom need to send a strong message that this is unacceptable - how they do that is secondary.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You don't trust the ArbCom's judgment either? They've examined the evidence, which neither you nor I have seen, and they've determined what they think are the appropriate remedies. Unless they start sharing the evidence we don't have a complete picture to second-guess them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I will accept arbcom's final ruling. But I've seen something new since those rulings, and so have they. A new post (in the last hours) of public allegations, attempts at guilt by association, and damaging innuendo without a shred of public evidence, posted just as it closes. So, in light of that, I'm calling on arbcom to issue the strongest possible cease and desist to Slim. Of course, arbcom knows more than me, and if they choose to do something different on that basis, fine. But what I'm seeing now needs stopped. And if SlimVirgin obviously isn't going to take the hint with the current (fairly damning) arbcom findings - then stronger remedies of some type are needed. We simply can't have people throwing mud in public, and then taking months to even lower themselves to producing evidence in private. It has to stop, and permanently.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's failure to submit evidence

The proposed findings of fact repeatedly criticize SlimVirgin by name for not submitting to the committee. I'd like to comment on that. Wikitumnus (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First allegation

SlimVirgin made two main allegations against Lar. One was that he carried out a fishing check. The committee members who have voted so far have been content to just state that the checks fall within the acceptable range of checkuser discretion. They have not stated how they reached that conclusion. For example, none of the following points has been addressed:

1. Why a revert of trolling on Crum's page from an account that was five weeks old and had about 200 edits was seen as convincing evidence that this was a sock of Crum375, when the account was not showing any interest in Crum's articles, Crum's friends, Crum's noticeboard discussions, etc., and when Crum was an established administrator in good standing, who had never been found violating the policy.
2. Why a check was considered necessary (again considering this was an established admin in good standing) when there would have been absolutely no action to take in the event of a positive result. If I'm Crum, so what? I haven't violated the any policy? What was Lar going to do about it? Apart from reverting userspace trolling (and even that was hardly a frequent occurrence), where did I double vote, where did I revert for Crum, support him on talk pages, comment on him at noticeboards? If there is no action to take in the event of a positive result, why is it necessary to check?
3. Why, after Lar discovered who I was, and knew for certain that I wasn't Crum, did he proceed with the check on Crum, using the pretext that Crum was my suspected sockmaster? He knew Crum wasn't.
4. Why, after Lar was told by a CU that the issue of SlimVirgin having used a proxy that Crum had also used was known to some arbs, and that they had been cleared, did he proceed to obtain and check SlimVirgin's IPs?
5. Is it a problem that the CU policy forbids checks based on curiosity, but that in practice they are allowed, and that those who carry them out are supported by other CUs?
6. If CUs can carry out checks any time they feel like it, for a good reason or a bad reason or no reason at all, claiming that they sincerely believed that there was something that needed to be checked, should there be any rules that specifically prohibit checks against people that the CUs personally dislike?

I am aware that SlimVirgin intended to submit evidence. She did ask for an extension at some stage, because of real life commitments. And she would certainly have been shocked that she received a notice saying that she had 48 hours to submit and that no extra time would be granted before voting started, when she knew that I had been told a few days before that nothing was being rushed, and when nobody contacted ME to warn me that the case was going to close. (I have still not received an explanation for that.) However, after she had fulfilled her real life obligations, she did say that she was ready to submit, and asked to see Lar's evidence, because she wanted to base her statements on the rationale that he provided for carrying out the check. She was repeatedly refused. Whether this was right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but it left her unable to address the problems with the check. As Newyorkbrad pointed out in FoF4, her previous statements were sufficiently detailed that the committee did have a basis for understanding the substance of her allegations. Wikitumnus (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This case opened at the end of July. Arbitrators did not begin voting on a decision until October. I cannot see how SlimVirgin can say she hasn't had adequate time to present evidence. OK, she was told in August she had 48 hours before a decision was posted - but a decision was not posted in August, nor in September. However upset SlimVirgin may have been at being rushed in August, she seems to have been given at least an addition month to present her case after she did not comply with that deadline. I personally cannot understand why she could not submit any evidence at all before seeing Lar's evidence - it was after all her allegations of misconduct on his part that were being investigated. It is generally accepted practice that it is for the accuser to make out their case - or should Lar be regarded as guilty until able to prove himself innocent? I am trying hard to understand where she has been coming from in relation to this case, but frankly I cannot justify her behaviour. Today she posts more allegations - including those in 14. above that had not been made before in public - again without evidence to back them up. I cannot see a legitimate reason why she made those allegations here rather than only to ArbCom in private. Their effect is poisonous - serious slurs made in public by someone who knows the evidence behind them cannot be presented in public. Like others reading these pages, I am privy to none of the private data - all I can say is that I am extremely disappointed at the amount of serious allegations and accompanying innuendo that have been raised publicly. Sadly, my confidence in SlimVirgin has fallen considerably as a consequence of the manner in which she admits to having responded to this case. WJBscribe (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help Wikitumnus:

1. A five-week-old account takes an interest in removing an allegation of sockpuppetry from Crum's page. You yourself said it was stupid. Reasonably suspicious? - yes. "Convincing evidence"? - of course not. If there were "convincing evidence" already, a CU wouldn't be needed.
2. Was the check "considered necessary"? - in itself, a CU can only disprove sockpuppetry. I would think it necessary in Crum's interest to have it disproved, considering somebody had slapped a sockpuppet allegation on his page. Also: "If I'm Crum, so what?" - if that were the case, you've used a sockpuppet to remove an allegation of sockpuppetry. Do you really think that is no big deal?
3. What if Lar did the CU on Crum before you? As I understand it, you haven't seen Lar's evidence. Why assume the worst when the alternative makes more sense?
4. It seems illogical to assume that Lar could know that Crum and SV shared a proxy before he did the CU on SV. Why assume the worst when the alternative makes more sense?
5. I see no evidence that "in practice they are allowed" and I'll bet nobody else does either.
6. You seem to be the only person who believes that "CUs can carry out checks any time they feel like it, for ... no reason at all". Have you considered the possibility that everybody else may be right and you may be wrong?

Reading over, I'm sorry to seem so harsh. I sympathise with your perceived frustration, but venting it here, in my very humble opinion, is not appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Second allegation

The other allegation was that Lar told untruths on the mailing list. I submitted evidence to the committee confirming the following:

1. Lar's statement on the enwiki mailing list that his wife had had a role in offering me advice and counsel was untrue. We don't know each other. We never addressed each other. We never posted on each other's talk pages. We never sent messages to each other. Lar told me ONCE that his wife didn't understand why I didn't leave Wikipedia, and I replied that she was right, but that I didn't want to leave. That does NOT make her somebody who had a prior involvement in the case (and certainly not a prior involvement that would justify his sharing my identity with her without my consent). Nor does it mean that she had had a role in offering advice and counsel to me.
2. Lar's statement on the enwiki mailing list that I had made statements to him and his wife "to us" was untrue. I never sent an e-mail to the two of them together, and never sent one to her alone. Nor did I give permission for him to show her anything that I sent to him. I had an expectation that checkusers would not share sensitive information with family members, especially family members who edit Wikipedia.
3. Lar's statement on the checkuser mailing list that I had admitted to him that the usercheck was justified is untrue. Between the date of the usercheck and that particular post, I had e-mailed him twice. In the fist e-mail, I confirmed that his checkuser findings were accurate. In the second, I acknowledged the the revert on Crum's page was stupid as it would lead trolls to speculate on my identity, but continued by saying that in saying that , I meant that I realized that it could lead trolls to start speculating on my identity, but that I had felt sure no CU would ever look at it, as I had understood that there had to be some valid suspicion of abuse, which there wasn't in this case. I had not mentioned my views on the usercheck anywhere else and have never had any off-wiki communication with Lar except by e-mail. I submitted the e-mail where I said that I couldn't understand how that CU could have been justified. ArbCom saw it. I also pointed out the link to the statement on the CU list where he claimed that I had admitted it was justified.

Now, this is the important bit. When SlimVirgin stated on the enwiki mailing list that Lar was spinning and that in fact, I had had no interaction with his wife, her source of information was me. She got it from me. I told her that Lar's wife and I did not know each other. SlimVirgin had no extra evidence that I didn't know Lar's wife over and above the evidence that I submitted. There was nothing she could have submitted on that issue that would have been necessary or useful after ArbCom had heard from me. SlimVirgin was fully aware of my submissions to ArbCom. What separate evidence did ArbCom expect from her on that issue? Since I submitted, and they knew that I submitted, and they knew that she knew I had submitted, would it have helped if she had submitted to tell them that I had submitted? Would that not simply have been seen as an inappropriate attempt to be funny or sarcastic? If I had died suddenly just as the case was opening, then it would certainly have been appropriate for her to submit in evidence my e-mails to her which contradict Lar, but while I was alive and submitting evidence myself, why does the committee believe that she needed to prove to them that I deny being a friend of Lar's wife, that I deny having made statements to Lar and his wife together, and that I deny having ever admitted to Lar that the checkuser was justified?

I asked the arbcom members on 8 October to inform me if any of them thought I was lying. I have had no response. It's very worrying that they are criticizing SlimVirgin for not backing up her statements when they know that I backed them up, and when they could certainly guess that she was aware of that, and when they have not even mentioned my evidence in their final decisions. Wikitumnus (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered [8]. Cla68 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Slim is an experienced user who made damning accusations about a senior office-of-trust holder. She offers no cooperation for months, no substantiation, and then just as the case closes publicaly posts more unsubstantiated innuendo - including an implication of inappropriate e-mails to female editors. It is unacceptable, pure and simple. Whatever wrong (if any) was done, this is outrageous, unethical and unfair. Some silly arb may have said 48hours, but the case has been open for months.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just added: another chapter of unsubstantiated accusations

I just read SlimVirgin's 'evidence' statement, which is nothing more than the same trick she tried already elsewhere, and for which she, quite rightfully, gets criticized in this case. In the past, she has gotten away with sentencing-by-accusation without providing evidence, and as an old fox that does not learn new tricks, she just tries again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To add, anyone who wants to make more unsubstantiated accusations should be willing to face the public making of the evidence against them. It is cheer unacceptable that some people continue to make accusations to which the accused cannot defend themselves without violating the privacy of the accusers. As such, I think the ArbCom should pass a injunction stating that privacy information may be released about everybody making accusations in public that need rebutting. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why no remedies against me?

As I stated above, I told SlimVirgin that I didn't know Lar's wife. SlimVirgin for some reason believed me. Based on her absolute trust that I was telling the truth, she posted on the enwiki mailing list that Lar was inventing a friendship between his wife and me, which would presumably excuse him for having passed on my identity to her, but that it was false.

During the summer, and more recently, I stated to the committee members again and again that I don't know Lar's wife, and had had zero interaction with her. I commented on this post where Lar, to the considerable frustration of SlimVirgin, wrote:

"For the record, from time to time I do discuss matters related to WMF wiki affairs with my wife, if there is a past history of her involvement. (which there was in this particular case, with the editor whose sock I first checked). . . . [My wife's] role was only that of advise and counsel to both me and the other editor whose sock I first checked, based on the history of communication that we already had with that editor, and on the statements that editor had made to us."

I told the committee that I didn't know Lar's wife, had never interacted with her, but that he had once told me that she didn't understand why I didn't leave Wikipedia (based on information with was fairly public, and known to dozens of people - nothing like so sensitive as the details of my attempt to start again. I had replied that she was right, but had said why I didn't want to leave. Her comment, that she didn't understand something, was not sent to me as advice; it was repeated to me as a comment. My reply also was not a message to her. I told the committee that there was no other occasion on which Lar had told me of any comment that she had made about me or my situation. I cc'd Lar, so he was free to contradict me, if I had left out some crucial e-mail. I stressed that I had no history of communication with her, that she had not had any role in offering me advice, and that I had never made a statement to both of them.

I also, in my evidence, commented on this post, where Lar said that he was looking at an e-mail from me from December 2007, which included phraseS (he used plural) like "your wife is right", and that he had older ones too, which would prove that SlimVirgin was the one who was spinning, and where he taunted her by saying that it was his word against hers, and his word was good but hers wasn't.

I stated that my e-mail did not contain phraseS like "your wife is rights". I had said it once in response to a comment that he informed me of. I also stated that there are NO older e-mails where his wife makes a comment on my situation. None.

Also, I commented in my evidence on this post which Lar supposedly made to the private CU list on 27 March, in which he supposedly says that I admitted to him that the usercheck was justified. (I say "supposedly" because I haven't actually seen it, but any CU can confirm the contents.)

I submitted to ArbCom (in addition to other e-mails) the only two e-mails that I sent to Lar between the date of the usercheck and his astonishing statement on the CU list. In the first of those e-mails, as the committee knows, I acknowledged the accuracy of the CU findings, but did not express any opinion on the justification of the usercheck. In the second e-mail, sent on 14 March, I acknowledged to Lar that it had been a mistake to revert trolling on Crum375's page, but continued as follows:

But, when I say I agree that the edit was unwise, I mean that I realize that it could lead WR trolls to start speculating on who it is. Since the account was not turning up to support other people on noticeboards, or commenting on issues the way Privatemusings does, or reverting, or giving any signs of being a banned user returning, or of being a sockpuppet used abusively to create an appearance of consensus, I felt quite sure that no checkuser would ever look at it. I had seen requests declined with a  CheckUser is not for fishing template when the evidence was much less flimsy than in this case. My understanding was that there has to be a valid suspicion of some wrongdoing (for example, that the suspected account was supporting his puppetmaster in votes or reverts, or was a banned user returning) not just some very dubious speculation that it might be a completely non-abusive alternative account of Crum because it once reverted trolling on Crum's page when it had been on Wikipedia for over a month and had nearly two hundred edits.

There was nothing else in that e-mail that related to my feelings about the usercheck, and I did not send any other e-mails before hi 28 March post to the private CU mailing list which he knew I couldn't see. And we never communicated off-wiki except by e-mail. Yet Lar, within two weeks, posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that the check was justified.

Why is the committee not addressing this?

I asked ArbCom in a private mailing to tell me if any member thought I was lying. There was no reply from anyone. I am now requesting that every single arb who has voted to exonerate Lar and to criticize SlimVirgin for failing to substantiate her allegations would state formally whether or not they believe that Lar's wife was a friend of mine, that I had made statements to both Lar and his wife, that she had had a role in counselling me, and that I admitted to Lar that the usercheck was justified.

Kirill, do you believe those things? James, do you? Charles, do you? Paul, do you? If you believe these things, you must draft a finding of fact that I misled SlimVirgin and attempted to mislead the ArbCom, and you must draft a remedy against me for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

You cannot continue to pretend that my evidence does not exist. Was Lar telling the truth on the CU mailing list when he said I had admitted to him that the CU was justified? Was he? Is it your intention to endorse his statements by your silence? Kirill? Paul? Anyone? If you don't want to post it here, send me a private e-mail with the quotation from me where I said that? It has to be in one of those two e-mails. I did not send any other e-mails to him between the date of the check and the date of his post, and I did not communicate with him by any other means.

If Lar lied on the CU mailing list in response to a query about his check, this is serious. It means someone with access to sensitive information is not trustworthy. You must address this. If he lied on the public enwiki list, this is also serious, for the same reason and also because it allows SlimVirgin to be unjustly suspected of having made up all the allegations, and if you close the case without either confirming or denying it, you will have collaborated in deceit.

If I lied, admonish me. If my evidence was credible, say so.

Please don't think this is going to go away. It is not. Wikitumnus (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility here that you don't mention is that neither one of you is lying, instead that you both, in good faith, drew different conclusions from your communication with each other. If so, that's understandable, and unsanctionable. Cla68 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory discussion

The nature of the discussion of sensitive information and allegations that has appeared on this page over the past several days is not satisfactory and is undercutting most of the rationale for considering this case privately in the first place.

It is apparent that some users who disagree with the committee's decision now wish to bring additional or augmented allegations to the committee's attention. Assuming that it is not unreasonably late in the life of the case to do this, a matter on which I do not comment at this time, many of these allegations should not be being presented on-wiki or in any other public forum.

It is possible for users in good faith to disagree with all or part of the committee's decision. (I did not support all of the findings in their entirety, indeed.) It also is possible that there may have been some procedural errors or miscommunications made during the case (in one instance possibly by myself, in which case I apologize to the user concerned). There are also issues of judgment and arbitrator discretion concerning which issues should be the subject of discussion in the public decision or otherwise. Users in good faith might disagree that the committee has not expressly addressed certain matters, and I might or might not, as it happens, agree with them.

None of these considerations justifies posting certain of the material that has been presented on this page, which can be read by any member of the general public, in violation of the ground rules that were established when the case was accepted. This is not said in the spirit of censorship, or of indifference to the views or concerns of any of the participating editors, but out of respect for the privacy and dignity of all Wikipedia participants. (We owe no less consideration to BLP subjects who are not Wikipedia participants, by the way, but that is a subject for another time.)

I have consulted in this matter with a couple of arbitrators who happen to be online at this time, but exigencies of time do not permit me to speak for the entire committee.

I instruct the parties to this case, and very strongly urge all other editors, to make no further posts to this page or on the subject of the case pending further input from arbitrators. The Clerks are authorized to remove from this page any material that they find to be inappropriate for posting on a publicly visible page. In fact, it would not surprise me if another arbitrator chooses to blank the entire page. Any removed material shall not be restored to this page except by direction of an arbitrator. To ensure that no material is inadvertently hidden from review by the arbitrators themselves, any arbitrator or clerk deleting material from the page should e-mail a copy to the arbitrators' mailing list.

Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)