Statement by SirFozzie

Personally, I would drop the "Was Lar right to Check User SV's friends" part of things, as this was brought up with numerous groups who ok'd the check, both pre and post check, and get right to the meat of the matter, which is SlimVirgin's tendentious attempts to smear other editors, forum-shopping, and violation of Wikipedia's rules on No Personal Attacks. In that, I do not think a SECOND ArbCom case featuring SlimVirgin would do anything, and any remedies could be handled in the current ArbCom case. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Random832

The question of whether it is acceptable to release checkuser log information to non-checkusers should also be examined, and whoever did so in this case should come forward and be added as a party. -- Random832 ( contribs) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, if any investigation of checkusers' reason for running checks (and whether those reasons are inappropriate, inadequate, or otherwise "bad") is conducted, it should not be restricted to Lar. -- Random832 ( contribs) 23:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:LessHeard vanU

Should the ArbCom decide not to accept the case, I urge that the notification should include a reminder to all parties of the inappropriateness of publicising claims and accusations in public areas which cannot be dealt with in that fora. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Alison

Regardless of what occurs here, I'd like to see a clear, firm statement from ArbCom detailing exactly what checkuser log information can be published on request; request times and dates, checkusers involved, request rationale, etc. It's quite clear from this event and from others that this is a grey area and one in which some checkusers are unclear as to what is permitted or otherwise. I can see the rationale for limited release of data to editors having been checkusered, but under strict circumstances. This discussion may be relevant.

May I also say that I'm highly disappointed that checkuser-related information be used in this manner to berate someone who is ostensibly unable to reply due to the nature of the privacy policy and the case in hand. Furthermore, I'm disappointed that a vulnerable third-party is put at further risk in being used as a pawn in someone else's political machinations. From a Wikipedian, that sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

Statement by User:Mackan79

I think a private case, however that would be carried out, may be appropriate. As such I won't address the issues here, other than to note that SV has again made a number of serious allegations against numerous people which are out of place, unsupported and wildly incorrect. I think there are other issues with the involved editors' actions that should be evaluated as well.

Since one of the allegations is again to repeat that I have some history of causing her problems, I will point out here: until I raised some of these issues with ArbCom in September 2007, I had in fact never raised SV's actions anywhere on Wikipedia, at least to my recollection. I had, solely, edited in the same area as her for a few months, while attempting to make that work. When I did raise some of these issues with ArbCom and later on Wiki, however, I can't say I am surprised that she has continually and grossly misrepresented our interaction everywhere that I'm able to see. I would appreciate if ArbCom could address this as well. Mackan79 ( talk) 04:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Statement by Jehochman

"When no defense is possible, attack," seems to be the strategy that has been employed. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Observation by Horologium

(re:Jdforrester's statement below) Because of the rather public accusations of malfeasance being tossed about with great force, I would think that it would be in everyone's best interest if the arbitrators publicly acknowledged that the allegations were being considered (or declined, as the case may be). Horologium (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Questions by Titoxd

It was my understanding from Lar's 11:49, 17 July 2008 comment in that clusterfuck of a thread that the Ombudsman commission had been involved, but the statement above by Thatcher contradicts that. So, was the Ombudsman commission involved or not? If it wasn't, would the ArbCom consider this case alongside them if accepted, or remit it to them if rejected? Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Giggy

I concur with Titoxd's reading of that comment and think it would be a good idea on behalf of ArbCom (or Mackensen as an ombudsman) to clarify who is looking at this. — Giggy 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Reply to Giggy and Titoxd by Viridae

Mackensen's statement above appears to indicate that he was the ombudsman that heard the matter? Viridae ^Talk 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Two of the three ombudsmen (Mackensen and Rebecca) commented extensively when the incident was discussed on checkuser-L, but no formal complaint has been made. If a formal complaint was indeed made, it would only deal with the release of the results (apparently the only release that occurred was the Lar's wife) and probably Mackensen and Rebecca would have to recuse, leaving the decision to Hei ber. The main issue here, the allegation that Lar should not have checked in the first place, is outside the scope of the commission. Thatcher 12:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Barberio

(Originaly in reply to James F.'s comment below asking how they are expected to proceed.)

The forming consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee is (unless someone would like to correct me) that you,

• always announce a case that is being heard, even if the case will be heard in camera.
• may take private evidence, but must always try to balance that someone has a right to know what the allegations they are defending themselves against are based on.
• may deliberate in private, but should be careful to exclude those not involved in arbitrating the case. (ie, NOT on the Arbitrators and past Arbitrators mailing list.)
• should make as much as the proceedings public as is possible.
• should individually declare your final votes and opinions in public.

Hope that helps you understand how to proceed. -- Barberio ( talk) 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Rudget

If there is found to be any inappropriateness in the conduct of the checkuser, this should include the review of other possible inarticulate CUs which have been suspected of similar direction. If this discussion were to be continued in private by ArbCom, which I think may be the most appropriate course of action, there should at least be a clarification under which circumstances CU evidence is to be released publicly. As with LHvU, there 'should include a reminder to all parties of the inappropriateness of publicising claims and accusations in public areas which cannot be dealt with in that fora.' Rud get 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by G-Dett

I would suggest that if SlimVirgin refuses to participate in this Arbcom case, but continues to venue-shop diff-less allegations elsewhere, that Arbcom should simply review the internal evidence and if, as appears to be the case, the allegations are trumped-up nonsense, vindicate both Lar and Mackan79 in the clearest of possible terms and call it a day.

As to what if anything should be done about SV’s malfeasance, it is a difficult question and probably a moot one. SV is an unusual editor in that she is many things at once: an intelligent, engaging, inquiring intellect; a loyal wiki-friend; a terrific writer and uncommonly productive editor; a habitual POV-pusher, hobby-horse rider and original researcher; and a chronic “victim” and vengeful liar. As content is the preeminent thing in a volunteer encyclopedia, even more important than honesty and decency, and as Slim is a prolific contributor of, on the whole, extremely high-quality content, I do not think she should be perma-banned. And given that she has no record of admin abuse per se, I don’t even think she should be desysopped. Her enormous productive energies should not go to waste. But when she cries foul, when she labels someone a “troublemaker” or “troll-enabler” or “CU-in-WR’s-pocket” or whatever the latest oleaginous smear, the reaction of admins and Arbcom members should approximate that of a World Cup ref when a member of the Italian national soccer team dives to the ground and grimaces in agony while grasping his unscathed ankle.-- G-Dett ( talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

From my recollection of recent world cups, that would involve sending the innocent defender off? Brilliantine ( talk) 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

and/or a penalty kick, yes. See also Italy v Australia. Daniel ( talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It’s really sad to see such an acrimonious conflict between two of Wikipedia's most respected administrators. Rather than focusing on a destructive cycle of accusations and counter-accusations which is only going to promote hatred and fear, let's forget about what did or did not occur months or years ago off-wiki or hidden in checkuser logs, and focus on camaraderie with regard to our shared interest in developing an excellent reference work. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 18:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't intend, of course, to make light of actual checkuser malfeasance. If Lar had posted SlimVirgin's IP address on the administrators' noticeboard, we'd have a problem. But what appears to have occurred here is that Lar performed a check involving SlimVirgin that he in good faith believed was justified, nobody's IP address was disclosed, then SlimVirgin, genuinely beliving the check to be abusive, publically complained about it across all available fora. This is a case study in how fear and suspicion creates a cycle of self-perpetuating negativity: Lar distrusts SlimVirgin, and actually thinks she is operating a sockpuppet => Lar performs a check involving SlimVirgin (without any incriminating result, or we would have heard about that long ago) => SlimVirgin hears of the check, and publically airs her grievances with it => we have an arbcom case. And this isn't going to be constructively resolved through more punitive negativity, along the lines of "Lar is uncheckusered for abuse of the tool" or "SlimVirgin is banned for libel". What's needed here is healing, a mutual recognition by both SlimVirgin and Lar that while they have both made mistakes, their extensive editorial and administrative contributions over the course of several years demonstrate that they are both ultimately here to improve the encyclopedia. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I've lost track of which particular subset of facts is currently public knowledge, but your reading of events is not quite correct. Lar received a request to check two people who were both friend's of SlimVirgin, and that fact eventually got back to her. She claims the check on one person was only accepted because Lar wanted the opportunity to dig up dirt on that user, and that the check on the other person revealed a user who was trying to start a new account after being harassed, forcing the user to leave altogether. SlimVirgin obviously feels Lar is not trustworthy, but no basis for that has been discussed publicly; presumably such matters are part of the private evidence submitted by the parties. Thatcher 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Slimvirgin is one of Wikipedia's most respected admins...? Jtrainor ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

As a matter of pure curiosity, could a member, or members of the Committee please provide an update on the progress of this case (i.e. a rough date by which a final decision is likely to be posted at this stage)? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, any updates? It seems like a month would be more than enough time to gather statements from the involved parties and formulate a response. It is not fair to parties to keep a cloud like this hanging over them for a prolonged period of time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Enquiring minds want to know! :) MastCell  ^Talk 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, none of us read tabloids, surely - not even British ones?! :P Brilliantine ( talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The arbs should take time for careful consideration, especially with the recent concerns about the privacy of checkuser information. It's more important to look at everything and reach a conclusion the community can trust than to satisfy onlookers' wish for speed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think two months is sufficient time to resolve such a case. If there is a case to be made, it should not require such lengthy proof. It is unfair to keep a cloud hanging over editors for such a length of time. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with Jehochman. I also think that there would be less unrest if the community was confident that Arb Comm was working on it, and that there was just a lot of evidence that needs to be sifted through. I think the Cla68-Viridae-FM-SV-JzG case is probably reducing the community's confidence that that's the case, though. Arb Comm, could we at least get an assertion that progress is being made, and ideally an estimated time at which a proposed decision (or a final decision, if the proposed decision is also being run in private) will be posted? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It would be reckless to make any guarantees, but I can say that there has been much discussion on the case, and it is fair to say that the Committee is in substantive agreement on many of the major issues. Obviously we would all like to have this resolved as soon as practicable. -- bainer ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I find it remarkable that a "Case Opened on 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)" has nothing to report in any way shape of form over two months later. Given there was "substantive agreement on many of the major issues" two weeks ago is there any view of how much longer this "process" might drag on? Whatever else I don't see that it looks particularly professional to any outside viewpoint. -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a case here, or was this a political move by one faction against another? The longer this drags on, the more it looks like politics. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Expect a more substantive update by the end of the day. :-) Kirill ^{( prof)} 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The aforementioned finding of fact has been deleted from this case's final decision. It was mistakenly included due to an arithmetic miscalculation by the closing Clerk (it seems that due to a number of abstentions and other factors the majority on that particular finding was adjusted downwards, but adjusted too far by the Clerk—see WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority).

Background reading:

• Request for clarification (filed by User:Thatcher, which initially drew attention to the mistake);
• Announcement on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (by User:AGK).

This note placed here solely for the public record.

AGK 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Archived by Tznkai at 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added the following two motions to the SlimVirgin/Giano/FT2 motion. They have been removed by User: Thatcher with a remark "only arbitrators may propose motions, this is not a workshop". I don't agree with this comment at all - at least I found no such statement on the page, and I see no compelling reason for this restriction. However, I'll put them up for discussion here. I'll also add at least one other motion below. Stephan Schulz ( talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

He's right this is not a workshop sub-page. Summary arbcom motions decided on the main page generally take the shape of remedies which issued without citing principles or findings of fact, which is what your proposals appear to be (however I do agree with them). Wikipedia:Arbitration policy has some salient information about the process, but a bit of noise too. It would be nice if the useful parts could probably be cooked down to companion glossary of arbcom jargon (plus the obscure Latin which surfaces periodically), as a more effective crash course for newcomers and as an alternative to studying actual cases. — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Clarification on arbitration procedures and norms, especially for those not hooked into the constant day to day would be a good idea. I think after the new appointments go through, I'll see if the Clerk's can put something together in our role as communication facilitators-- Tznkai ( talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide does that job already, doesn't it? Admittedly, it could always be improved, and it has largely been written by sitting arbitrators (which is both good and bad), but I've always found it helpful. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but who actually reads that? Oh sure, we'd hope everyone would, but something shorter and to the point might be a good idea.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Arb Guide Lite? The five pillars of arbitration? Arbitration for Dummies? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Arbitration perhaps? ^S._D.D.J. Jameson 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Way to obvious. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I for one concur that a mechanism needs to be built in to the structure used for Requests for Amendments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that allows non-Committee members to suggest proposals (much in the spirit of the /Workshop page of full Arbitration cases). I suspect it would have little practical effect on the outcome of a thread but it may satisfy those who wish for their views to be given broadcasting space. "Free speech," and all that. AGK 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Equal respect

• ) All Wikipedia editors should be treated respectfully. However, no special deference should be expected just because an editor is an administrator or a member of ArbCom. Being either is no big deal.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment: As long as we're going to re-iterate the point that all editors deserve equal respect and do not deserve any special deference, it seems reasonable to extend this equality to the whole concept of vested contributors. I would love to see policy equally applied to all Wikipedians-- but if you are going to asking Arbs to give up an expectation of deference, surely we also must also expect "vested contributors" to relinquish any expectation of special treatment as well. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

You aren't going to legislate "amount of respect", and also WP:DEAL is already part of WP:ADMIN already. For arbitrators I think the point is, these are already selected because they have very high respect from the community (ie arb elections), hence telling people "don't have a high level of respect" may not be a message that gets heard. While most times it's a pain (I have to stay silent on dozens of issues so my words don't get taken with weight I don't wish them to carry, nowadays), there are cases where it seems the only way a matter gets settled well is for an arbitrator to give their view - even "just as an admin" this can help. So clearly it can go both ways. Probably not legislatable anyway. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

To be honest, it's my impression that you, possibly subconsciously, court this "extra weight" given to your words. I don't see a similar pattern for e.g. Flo or Kiril. I would much prefer you to openly state your opinions and to make clear that they are just opinions. You don't have to be right all the time - in fact, one main reason for a discussion is to understand other opinions - and maybe change ones own. You don't get extra respect because you are an Arb, but the other way round. But respect can be both gained and lost. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Arbitration is not proclamation

• ) The purpose of the Arbitration committee is to actively work with Wikipedia users to help them to find mutually acceptable solutions. Sanctions are only the last possibility and should be backed by consensus not only of the committee, but also the community at large. ArbCom deliberation should, as far as possible, happen in the open, on Wikipedia, and interacting with the community. Proclamations of decisions reached without active community involvement and using back channels undermine the trust and respect users place in the committee.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Moot. 1/ Remedies are developed with the community - we enact (other than in truly exceptional matters) well within communally existing norms; we routinely restate the same simple policies the community has adopted, often for years; we note the evidence the community has developed; we routinely take part in developing ideas on the workshop pages. 2/ Matters only come to Arbcom because the community isn't handling them and one or more users presents a good reason why a definitive decision by this means is now needed. Hence sanctions are common. People bring cases to Arbcom usually expecting sanctions due to unrelenting issues, and have had their initial request reviewed and then accepted, so it's to be expected in many cases that the conclusion will be sanctions are needed. We've taken the "only as a last resort" line often enough, if it may help, that's nothing new. 3/ While discussion of the evidence and issues may well take place in private, in most cases any proposals considered are proposed and discussed on-wiki. As can routinely be seen, this includes the full remit and by no means any "rubber stamping" - it includes proposals others disagree on, refinement, "minority of one", and so on are common in almost every case. 4/ In complex cases we tend to consider a broad overview in private, to ensure our early views will not be misused by those seeking grudges or to smear parties in future on-wiki, for example (sadly that's common behavior in some cases), or for privacy reasons, or just to assess in a high profile case which has potential for harm if misconstrued. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 10:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Further motions

Proper community involvement and discussion

• ) The length and intensity of the discussion in this case, with multiple back-and-forth comments between the proponent and several members of the community, shows that this issue cannot be adequately solved without proper community input, e.g. via a full ArbCom case with a proper Workshop page.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

1. Agree with this last one, at least. If that many people have something to say, it's probably not a topic for summary judgment or simple clarification. Coming after the last miserable arbcom fiasco, this looks like a short-cut way for disgruntled arbs to get SlimVirgin, without even pretending to look at evidence or crafting objective findings of fact. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No. In this case it shows four main things: 1/ That the matter was complex. I don't think anyone contests this. 2/ That SlimVirgin declined to present her formal statement of evidence until the very last minute and then some. She was asked in July, and by mid August was being told "we may decide without it". She promised at worst by end August, but actual formal evidence still only came in many weeks later and as the case moved towards close even more claims kept being produced. 3/ That a number of Arbitrators were otherwise occupied (Poetlister in August/September, anyone remember?) 4/ That the parties decided to pursue their own perceptions of the case via "mass appeal" (or forum shopping). Since the whole problem has been marked by appeal to unhelpful venue (mailing lists early on, in preference to dispute resolution? Come on.....) the presence of yet more "appeal to as many people as possible" speaks more of poor choices by the user(s) rather than problems in the case.

It was not the world's easiest case, and I'd highlight three specific reasons: 1/ a lot was based on private matters and off-wiki that needed estimations and interpretations, and 2/ one "side" held out their evidence in a most unhelpful manner, relied more than acceptable on demagogy (or demagoguery? if that's the word) and lengthy essays much of which was not to the point, and refused to countenance a view that others might or could have different impressions than their own, or less certainty than they did, and still be acting and opining reasonably. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 11:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but in the end you needed 10 times the recommended 500 words to state your case. Even your initial statement was more than twice the recommended limit. Extensive discussion took place, both within supposed single user statement sections and between different section by adding impossibly to follow "reply to X, reply to reply from Y..." subsections. This strongly indicates that this was neither the right format nor the right forum for this discussion. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Note to Clerks: This section can please be archived on the talkpage of the case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Archived by Tznkai at 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's okay to comment like this after the case so feel free to revert but I came across this case due to the arbcom vote and one thing which interests me that no one seems to have commented on (that I noticed) is that SV actions were far more effective at compromising the identity of User:Wikitumnus then anything Lar may have done. By making such a big, very public fuss people started to get interested and to dig. Ultimately it was bound to come out. I'm not familiar with the details to be sure if it came out before or after Wikitumnus revealed who he/she was but it seems to me that it was far less likely to happen without this big inane mess. A reminder perhaps that if you really care about someone's identity being kept secret, it's a very bad idea to shout what isn't secret from the roof top. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

SlimVirgin only went public after efforts to resolve it privately failed. The arbs can't justly use a threat of public exposure to insist on a private investigation, and then privately ignore unwelcome evidence. It turned out that threat wouldn't work against Wikitumnus anyway. More at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Slimvirgin-Lar. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply