Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Vote: clarify to avoid misunderstanding
→‎General: additional statement by Newyorkbrad
Line 429: Line 429:


*The general principle where people are accused of misconduct in office is that it is up to the person making the accusation to substantiate it by evidence. That principle applies on Wikipedia. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
*The general principle where people are accused of misconduct in office is that it is up to the person making the accusation to substantiate it by evidence. That principle applies on Wikipedia. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

===Additional statement by Newyorkbrad===

I already voted in this case, last week, after carefully studying it, and had not planned on saying anything further. In fact, the form of the proposed decision arguably says more than is needed to resolve the case, in a situation where "less is more" might profitably have been a guiding watchword for many of the parties and onlookers.

Nonetheless, within the past few days, in posts on the talkpage before it was archived as well as in e-mails sent to the arbitrators, I have seen levels of distress and anger expressed by several dedicated and experienced Wikipedians. In fact, I have seen dedicated Wikipedians more miserable than anyone really should be as the results of events on a website, to an extent that I have not seen in a very long time. This suggests that our decision may not be achieving the purpose for which the committee accepted this case for private deliberation. That purpose, I assume (I was inactive on-wiki at that time), was to assess the validity of the allegations that had been made, in a fashion that could provide some comfort to the participants in the dispute as well as the wider community. Binding dispute resolution, in the real world or on-wiki, often leaves one or more parties unhappy—sometimes, indeed it leaves all of the parties unhappy. But it does not leave them ''this'' unhappy; and I therefore feel impelled to make these additional or more detailed observations—even though there still are things I cannot say, and even though there is not the least assurance that anyone will feel better after reading these words than before.
I first became aware of the dispute that led to this case by reading some threads on the public WikiEn-l mailing list over the summer. (I was not active on Wikipedia at that time for reasons irrelevant here, but had continued to follow what was going on both on-wiki and on the lists. It turns out there had discussion on Checkuser-l before the dispute was brought to WikiEn-l, but I was not subscribed to the former list at that time.) It became apparent that a highly experienced administrator, SlimVirgin, was alleging in essence that a steward and checkuser, Lar, had conducted a checkuser inquiry involving SlimVirgin and others based upon what SlimVirgin believed was insufficient cause. It also became apparent that SlimVirgin had decided not to raise the issue with the Ombudsmen tasked with investigating violations of the Foundation's privacy policy, nor with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Instead, the issues were taken to WikiEn-l, a mailing list that is openly archived and can be read by any member of the general public. As the committee's decision finds with my concurrence, this was a seriously ill-advised and unhelpful way of proceeding, because neither Lar nor other checkusers could respond in detail to the accusations against them without, in the process of doing so, violating the very tenets of respect for the privacy of Wikipedia contributors that Lar was accused of having violated in the first place. Beyond that, the community reading the mailing list would have no means of evaluating the merits of the controversy, making resort to the court of public opinion, in these circumstances, a nearly pointless endeavor. (In connection with why the matter was not brought to the Ombudsman, I understand that one of the Ombudsmen, Mackensen, had commented on the issue on the checkuser-l mailing list and therefore probably could not have worked on the matter as an Ombudsman; but there are two other Ombudsmen who are not En-Wiki checkusers and would have had no such conflict.)
As one who does his best to calm tensions around this place, sometimes successfully thought often enough not, I asked myself several times if I could say anything that could potentially resolve the dispute or at least tone down the level of tension, but I found that without the relevant background, I had little of use to say. But eventually, another checkuser, Thatcher, filed a request for arbitration to obtain the committee's review of the allegations. Comments on the request for arbitration pointed out reasonably enough that the accusations and denials and counter-accusations flying back were accomplishing nothing and affecting reputations and demoralizing virtually everyone.

The committee's decision to accept the case, though made before I had become active again as an arbitrator, seemed an eminently reasonable one. To a question raised on the talkpage, whether the ArbCom has jurisdiction over posts made on mailing lists, the best answer is probably this: That while in general the committee focuses primarily on on-wiki conduct, it is in order to review allegations of misconduct by functionaries such as checkusers, no matter where those allegations are made.

Consider: If, hypothetically, allegations about a checkuser on the mailing list came to the committee's attention and we found them to be very serious and fully justified, the committee surely would not refrain from taking necessary action because they had initially been posted off-wiki, even though we might simultaneously observe that the allegations had really been made in the wrong forum. A rule that we can sanction a user based on off-wiki allegations, but not clear him, would not be a reasonable one. Moreover, the presumption that off-wiki conduct, whether on mailing lists or other websites or blogs or e-mails, should not lead to sanctions, has a recognized exception when the contents of the off-wiki postings have a direct and serious impact on Wikipedia itself. It was reasonable for the arbitrators who voted to accept this case to conclude that this might be such a situation.
When the case was opened, some of the editors involved in, or mentioned in the course of, the dispute submitted evidence to the committee privately, while others did not. SlimVirgin, as noted in the decision, did not submit evidence. Regrettably, there was some confusion at a stage in the case concerning what evidence had been submitted and by whom, and issues concerning timetables: We will certainly have to do a better job of managing any private cases that we may take on in the future. Also regrettable, and we find ourselves saying this far too often, is the undue length of time that it took for us to issue a decision. (Part of the reason this was my personal view that, having just been the scrivener of the committee's decision in another recent case involving SlimVirgin, I did not think it right that I be the public face of the committee in a second case also involving the same editor. Looking back, this delicacy may have been misplaced.)

However, despite the lack of formal evidence from SlimVirgin, we were able to gather the basic thrust of her concerns from her mailing list posts. There were essentially two.
The first major issue raised was whether a series of checkuser inquiries run by Lar in March 2008 was justified. The checkuser policy states in substance, or at least is widely understood to mean, that checkuser will only be run where there is a good reason to believe that abusive sockpuppetry or other misuse of alternate accounts may have occurred, or for other reasons directly connected with protection of the project and its contributors from abuse. "Checkuser," the maxim runs, "is not for fishing"; certainly it is not to be run, either by request or at a checkuser's whim, for no reason, or insufficient reason, or for that matter for "political" reasons. That much, I hope, is common ground.

In this case, an experienced editor in good standing asked Lar to run a check on a particular account (not SlimVirgin's) based on an allegedly suspicious edit. Lar reviewed the request, decided to run the check, and ran it. It turned out that the user's suspicion was incorrect, and Lar reported (and nothing else) this back to that user.

To the question "was this check justified?" the answer is as stated in the committee decision: the committee has found that running the check fell within the acceptable range of checkuser discretion. That does not mean that reasonable people could not disagree with the decision to run it. Having reviewed the background again in preparing these comments, I realize that if I had been the checkuser who had been approached with the request (a purely hypothetical situation, as I did not have checkuser in March and do not run checks even today), I might have declined it. But checkusers are given broad discretion in deciding what checks to run, for good reason, and I cannot find that the request was unjustified so that running the check was an abuse of Lar's checkuser privileges. Unfortunately, I cannot explore the arguments on both sides of the issue without divulging a series of private facts, so I must stop here, but both sides should rest assured that the issue has been reviewed.

I suspect that an array of checkusers who would opine that the check was or was not justified could be assembled, if that were needed. In a perfect world, the guidelines for when checks are run might be much more clear. Realistically, though, it is impossible to anticipate every possible set of circumstances that might prompt a request for a check, or to take the discretionary element out of the checkuser function; and I do not know that it would be a worthwhile use of the community's policy-writing resources to try.
Returning to the narrative, Lar followed up on the check he had been asked to do by running a customary series of cross-checks. About the nature of these, again, I cannot say more without violating the privacy of more than one user. Lar has explained that these are routine follow-up steps he and other checkusers take when running virtually any check. I have considered this explanation and find it to be credible. I therefore concur that in running these follow-up checks, Lar did not misuse his checkuser privileges.
The second issue raised in the case is an even more sensitive one, and again, there are strict limits to what can be said on-wiki; indeed, the optimal amount to have been said on-wiki about the matter would have been nothing at all, but most unfortunately it is too late for that. For reasons not discussable here, but not in my view reflecting adversely on any of the parties, the fact that Lar had run these checks became known on Checkuser-l, and discussion arose. In the course of the discussion, Lar apparently mentioned in passing that he had alluded to a certain fact in a conversation with his wife, who is herself a Wikipedia editor although Lar's wife is not accused of having done anything wrong whatsoever and is not a party to this case.

The fact that Lar had said something to his wife, in turn, became known to an editor (not SlimVirgin) whose account became involved in the matter, whom I shall call B (for bystander, as B did nothing wrong). At the outset, there appears to be some confusion or disagreement about exactly what Lar admitted telling his wife or what he actually told her. That confusion, I suspect, is the basis fo rmuch of the problem here (and again, I have to skip most of the details, for quite a number of reasons). There is also disagreement concerning whether, and to what extent, B and Lar's wife had been acquainted and whether Lar would have had reason to believe that B would be upset by his having confided the fact in question to his wife. My review of the correspondence reflects that this is not a matter of lies by one side or the other, as some have characterized it, but comes down primarily to a matter of miscommunications—regrettable, but not venal; unfortunate, but not actionable.
A question bruited about has been "did Lar's mentioning the fact in question to his wife violate the privacy policy?" Even putting aside the preliminary issue of whether this question is rightly addressed to the Arbitration Committee or the Ombudsmen Commission or both—an issues whose answer is surprisingly unclear, even after it was heavily discussed in the CharlotteWebb case a year ago—this is actually a fairly hard question to which to provide a useful answer.

On the one hand, after all, quite arguably the answer is yes: the privacy policy does not, of course, allow that information derived directly or indirectly from checkuser results may be shared with the checkuser's spouse. (For my part, I will confess that the issue of sharing private Wikipedia information with family members does not arise: My family consider my avocation of Wikipedia editing and administration to be an eccentricity of mine at best, and if I started to bore everyone at the supper table with matters such as who was allegedly a sockpuppet of whom, I would be pelted with shouts of "boring!", if not with dinner rolls.) But at the same time, it is surpassingly difficult to regulate what anyone might tell to someone as close to one as one's wife. Had Lar not happened to mention in passing that he had told her, obviously not believing that this would cause B any offense or distress, no one would have known of the matter.

My conclusion was that the matter was best addressed in the public decision by indirection; no finding that anyone violated the privacy policy, but a remedy reminding all checkusers that they must be punctilious about obeying it. A question on the talkpage figured out what we were doing and called us on the lack of a finding, but sometimes there are reasons for not mentioning every detail. Those who needed to know what the decision meant understood full well what it meant, and sometimes there really are reasons for why decisions are written in the way that they are.

As noted, the committee initially concluded that what Lar told his wife was not a matter worthy of on-wiki criticism in the decision or of sustained attention (I adhere to this view, and therefore have not supported proposed finding 8.1). One reason the matter can readily be characterized in this way is that in some 99.9% of instances, the type of comment that Lar acknowledges having made to his spouse would be completely harmless. In this instance, moreover, Lar plainly believed that it would indeed be harmless (remember, again, that he himself mentioned what he had told his wife, which he would hardly have done had he harbored a bad intent or done anything he felt he needed to conceal). I cannot fault that belief, even though things turned out otherwise in B's view.
The severely complicating factor here, and one that I for one had no intention of alluding to on-wiki directly, indirectly, or otherwise until it was raised on the talkpage by others, is that there are special circumstances affecting B. I have just deleted from this paragraph, before hitting the "save page" button, a description of what those circumstances are, and I will thank everyone both on and off-wiki to avoid speculating on the subject. Suffice it to say that in light of B's experiences, B is legitimately sensitive to certain types of things that might not, objectively or subjectively, affect most other users. B was therefore very upset by Lar's comment about having revealed limited information to his wife, even though other users in an identical situation would not have been.
I find that B has acted in good faith in asserting that Lar did not have B's permission or acquiescence in making the comment that he did; but I also find that Lar subjectively understood and honestly believed that B would have no objection to his making the comment. And returning to the original issue about SlimVirgin's allegation, I find that SlimVirgin had credited B's version of the facts when SlimVirgin made the allegations that SlimVirgin made, although I remain critical of the manner in which SlimVirgin raised the issue. The reasonable resolution here, when it became obvious that a serious miscommunication had occurred, would have been for the parties to mutually regret any misunderstandings and, if trust had been irrevocably lost, to agree to stay away from each other. An alternative sensible resolution would have been to submit the matter to some form of dispute resolution. As we have said, the least desirable course, but the one that was followed, was to bring the dispute to a public mailing list.
In light of an e-mail that the arbitrators and some other Wikipedia leaders have received from B, I find it appropriate to reiterate that SlimVirgin appears to have relied on B's account and understanding of the situation in SlimVirgin's posts to the mailing list. I hope that this observation will help to address certain concerns recently raised by several editors, at least one of whom has expressed concern that we have left an unfair impression that SlimVirgin's allegations about what Lar had told his wife were not backed up by anything or anyone. (That is not the same as saying that SlimVirgin's criticism of Lar was correct, on which I have commented above.) We have had the comment that editors will feel compelled to "go public," revealing further private information about themselves and others, if we do not clarify the record. I hope that no one will feel compelled to proceed in this manner; not only would this further damage the people concerned, but we have had more than enough heartache and "drama" surrounding this matter already.

I hope that these observations, along with those I made two nights ago on the talkpage and will not repeat here, will help conclude this case. Participating in unravelling this situation and dealing with the unhappy feelings of all the people concerned has been a miserable experience for everyone involved in it. It has quite certainly the most saddening thing I have been part of in my two and a half years on Wikipedia. People, including myself, sometimes have to remember that we spend time on Wikipedia, in large measure, to have fun. That doesn't mean we don't do serious and worthwhile things here, which we do, but the overall experience should be fun. Intractible disputes should be brought to dispute resolution so that they can be resolved without festering, and thereby detracting from both our productivity and our enjoyment of editing, without which there will be no editing. We need to get along with one another, and we need to resolve disputes and disagreements in a way that reduces stresses rather than adds to them.

I strongly urge that in the best interests of all concerned, that we can move on here without extensive further discussion of matters that have, frankly, been discussed to death already to the manifest detriment of everyone affected. I hope that lessons have been learned so that nothing like this will ever have to be repeated.

I have been asked to note that this statement is posted only for myself (though I have run an earlier draft before my colleagues via e-mail and taken a few suggestions received from them) and that at least one other arbitrator may have additional comments. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


==Motion to close==
==Motion to close==

Revision as of 02:34, 23 October 2008

After considering the evidence, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.


Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

CheckUser

1) The CheckUser tool is used thousands of times every month to defend the English Wikipedia from improper use of multiple accounts held by one person. Its application underlies many basic principles of how the site operates, such as valid consensus, use of pseudonyms, and the integrity of elections. The effectiveness of the tool requires that operational details also be kept largely confidential.

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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC), Second choice.[reply]
  6. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 1.1. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per bainer. -- fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

User privacy and CheckUser

1.1) Wikipedia protects the privacy of registered users by concealing their IP addresses, which can reveal their physical locations and other identifying information. Access to this information is provided only to a small group of carefully selected users, designated as CheckUser operators. CheckUsers may access this information only when necessary for the protection of the project from abuse. The CheckUser tool is used thousands of times every month to defend the English Wikipedia from improper use of multiple accounts held by one person, and its application underlies many basic principles of how the site operates, such as valid consensus, use of pseudonyms, and the integrity of elections. The effectiveness of the tool requires that operational details also be kept largely confidential.

Support:
  1. First choice; includes all the concepts in 1 but also emphasizes other relevant considerations. (My apologies to my colleagues for not having proposed this change before the decision was posted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill (prof) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC) First choice.[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference with 1). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. James F. (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Complaints about CheckUser

2) Those with grievances and other concerns concerning supposed misuse of the CheckUser tool should seek redress by application to the Arbitration Committee; those with related privacy issues should apply to the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is no such division of responsibility. See 2.1. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

...can go wherever

2.1) Those with grievances and other concerns concerning supposed misuse of the CheckUser tool should seek redress by application either to the Arbitration Committee, or to the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, particularly where issues relating to the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are involved.

Support:
  1. Both the Committee and the Commission have jurisdiction with respect to all CheckUser complaints. From the earliest official version the CheckUser policy gave removal of access jurisdiction to local Arbitration Committees (or the communities at large, for projects lacking a Committee) but recognised that the Foundation also had such jurisdiction. Per the resolution creating the Ombudsman Commission, the Commission will "take charge of investigating cases of privacy policy breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner" (emphasis added): the Commission can be seen as a delegation of the Foundation's powers in relation to CheckUser. It could be said that the Commission answers to the Foundation, whereas the Committee answers to the local community, reflecting the stake each has in dealings with this sort of private information. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The meta CheckUser policy refers to local discussion in the case of "abuses of CheckUser", not of breaches of the WMF privacy policy per se; note that the last paragraph explicitly names "abuse of CheckUser or privacy policy breaches" (emphasis mine), which suggests that the two are different. I am uncomfortable with potentially expanding our role here absent some indication from the Foundation that they would like us to do so. Kirill (prof) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see this as attempting to fuzz the issue; the division of responsibility is clear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Brad, I think this is best dealt with outwith this case; the wording of (2) may be somewhat aspirational rather than actual, but it should remain. James F. (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. It is somewhat remarkable that it is not clear, after all this time and after the prior exploration of this issue in the CharlotteWebb case, exactly how responsibility is allocated. The situation warrants clarification, but that should probably come outside the context of a particular case, particularly not a highly contentious one. In the meantime, my comment on proposed principle 4 remains apropos. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per NYB. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy policy

3) The disclosure of information obtained from the CheckUser tool is governed by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Breaches of the privacy policy

4) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is not necessary to consider the position generally: the issue here concerned only CheckUser aspects of the privacy policy, in relation to which the position, as I see it, is clear. See 2.1 above. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This is true, but of course, only up to a point. If someone pointed out to the Arbitration Committee that a checkuser had posted the IP addresses of 50 editors on his userpage, we would not sit around waiting for the Ombudsmen to get back to us regarding their investigation of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser discretion

5) 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.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill (prof) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. fayssal - wiki up® 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the case

1) This case centers on the use of the CheckUser tool on several user accounts by Lar in March 2008; the disclosure of information regarding said use; and a series of subsequent allegations concerning these matters.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Made minor semantic edits; other arbitrators please check. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

SlimVirgin's allegations

2) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very slight clarification to avoid confusion. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Support all but the last three words, which I do not believe are necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with NYB. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Brad. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of forum

3) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is a straightforward application of the principle that people with grievances are expected to use the dispute resolution system, and a prime example of the consequences that occur when they do not. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lack of statement

4) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indeed, and over a very protracted period. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We're entirely cognisant of the fact that SlimVirgin did not initiate the request for arbitration that resulted in this case, but she made the initial allegations; she should not have done that in any event (they should have been made through dispute resolution channels, per above), but given that she did, she at least ought to have been prepared to substantiate them to the Committee once the case commenced. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per NYB. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's conduct

5) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Simply repeating the above here achieves nothing, and risks obscuring the points made above. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. SlimVirgin effectively elected not to participate in this arbitration case, whether because of procedural concerns regarding how it was being conducted, or for some other reason. Given the vehemence with which she had previously pursued her allegations in a public forum, this was regrettable, but four consecutive paragraphs of the decision making effectively the same point may constitute overkill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's conduct

6) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should be read in conjunction with proposed principle 5. In response to a point made on the talkpage, in reaching the conclusion set forth in this paragraph, we have reviewed the entire body of evidence submitted in the case; the wording adopted does not suggest by any means that the evidence considered on this point was limited to Lar's subjective views only. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Brad, this does not mean that Lar's evidence is all we considered (we considered a wealth of evidence on this point, in addition to our own observations), but the wording is still unclear, and since the final decision won't include these explanatory comments, it really ought to be addressed here. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

6.1) The checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion.

Support:
  1. Best to avoid the ambiguous wording altogether. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Equal preference with 6; and still to be read in the context of principle 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Equal preference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mackensen's conduct

7) The Committee has examined Mackensen's conduct in relation to this matter, and sees no reason for concern, nor any reason why anyone should doubt his integrity.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should not be read as a negative pregnant: by stating that there is no reason to doubt Mackensen's integrity, we do not suggest that there is reason to doubt anyone else's integrity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fayssal - wiki up® 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Breach of privacy

8) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is incorrect to say "may" here, and per my comments on proposed principles 2 and 2.1 above, there is no need to qualify anything we say with "informally". I will propose an alternate version soon. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I might propose a slightly more definite version of this finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Awaiting Thebainer's and/or Sam Blacketer's alternative proposals, if any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NYB. fayssal - wiki up®

8.1) Lar disclosed data derived from page logs, in circumstances in which none of the situations permitting disclosure applied. This constituted a breach of the privacy policy.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Based on the best evidence. While dealing with this breach is a matter for the Ombudsman Commission, it is reasonable for us to make a finding. By making a finding we are not fettering the Ombudsman Commission's discretion: they may choose to disagree with our finding, or to take no further action over it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shall we make that explicit here? -- fayssal - wiki up® 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Yes but per [4], any dealing with a breach of the privacy policy falls within the responsibility of the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission, and lies outside the remit of the Committee. I'd only support such a finding if this is made explicit (I hold the same view with regards to FoF 8 above). -- fayssal - wiki up® 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Users reminded

1) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support, although I do not believe it is really necessary here to criticize the same person by name for a fifth time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal - wiki up® 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

CheckUser operators reminded

2) The Committee reminds all operators of the CheckUser tool that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

Support:
  1. Kirill (prof) 17:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. fayssal - wiki up® 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

  • The general principle where people are accused of misconduct in office is that it is up to the person making the accusation to substantiate it by evidence. That principle applies on Wikipedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by Newyorkbrad

I already voted in this case, last week, after carefully studying it, and had not planned on saying anything further. In fact, the form of the proposed decision arguably says more than is needed to resolve the case, in a situation where "less is more" might profitably have been a guiding watchword for many of the parties and onlookers.

Nonetheless, within the past few days, in posts on the talkpage before it was archived as well as in e-mails sent to the arbitrators, I have seen levels of distress and anger expressed by several dedicated and experienced Wikipedians. In fact, I have seen dedicated Wikipedians more miserable than anyone really should be as the results of events on a website, to an extent that I have not seen in a very long time. This suggests that our decision may not be achieving the purpose for which the committee accepted this case for private deliberation. That purpose, I assume (I was inactive on-wiki at that time), was to assess the validity of the allegations that had been made, in a fashion that could provide some comfort to the participants in the dispute as well as the wider community. Binding dispute resolution, in the real world or on-wiki, often leaves one or more parties unhappy—sometimes, indeed it leaves all of the parties unhappy. But it does not leave them this unhappy; and I therefore feel impelled to make these additional or more detailed observations—even though there still are things I cannot say, and even though there is not the least assurance that anyone will feel better after reading these words than before.

I first became aware of the dispute that led to this case by reading some threads on the public WikiEn-l mailing list over the summer. (I was not active on Wikipedia at that time for reasons irrelevant here, but had continued to follow what was going on both on-wiki and on the lists. It turns out there had discussion on Checkuser-l before the dispute was brought to WikiEn-l, but I was not subscribed to the former list at that time.) It became apparent that a highly experienced administrator, SlimVirgin, was alleging in essence that a steward and checkuser, Lar, had conducted a checkuser inquiry involving SlimVirgin and others based upon what SlimVirgin believed was insufficient cause. It also became apparent that SlimVirgin had decided not to raise the issue with the Ombudsmen tasked with investigating violations of the Foundation's privacy policy, nor with the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

Instead, the issues were taken to WikiEn-l, a mailing list that is openly archived and can be read by any member of the general public. As the committee's decision finds with my concurrence, this was a seriously ill-advised and unhelpful way of proceeding, because neither Lar nor other checkusers could respond in detail to the accusations against them without, in the process of doing so, violating the very tenets of respect for the privacy of Wikipedia contributors that Lar was accused of having violated in the first place. Beyond that, the community reading the mailing list would have no means of evaluating the merits of the controversy, making resort to the court of public opinion, in these circumstances, a nearly pointless endeavor. (In connection with why the matter was not brought to the Ombudsman, I understand that one of the Ombudsmen, Mackensen, had commented on the issue on the checkuser-l mailing list and therefore probably could not have worked on the matter as an Ombudsman; but there are two other Ombudsmen who are not En-Wiki checkusers and would have had no such conflict.)

As one who does his best to calm tensions around this place, sometimes successfully thought often enough not, I asked myself several times if I could say anything that could potentially resolve the dispute or at least tone down the level of tension, but I found that without the relevant background, I had little of use to say. But eventually, another checkuser, Thatcher, filed a request for arbitration to obtain the committee's review of the allegations. Comments on the request for arbitration pointed out reasonably enough that the accusations and denials and counter-accusations flying back were accomplishing nothing and affecting reputations and demoralizing virtually everyone.

The committee's decision to accept the case, though made before I had become active again as an arbitrator, seemed an eminently reasonable one. To a question raised on the talkpage, whether the ArbCom has jurisdiction over posts made on mailing lists, the best answer is probably this: That while in general the committee focuses primarily on on-wiki conduct, it is in order to review allegations of misconduct by functionaries such as checkusers, no matter where those allegations are made.

Consider: If, hypothetically, allegations about a checkuser on the mailing list came to the committee's attention and we found them to be very serious and fully justified, the committee surely would not refrain from taking necessary action because they had initially been posted off-wiki, even though we might simultaneously observe that the allegations had really been made in the wrong forum. A rule that we can sanction a user based on off-wiki allegations, but not clear him, would not be a reasonable one. Moreover, the presumption that off-wiki conduct, whether on mailing lists or other websites or blogs or e-mails, should not lead to sanctions, has a recognized exception when the contents of the off-wiki postings have a direct and serious impact on Wikipedia itself. It was reasonable for the arbitrators who voted to accept this case to conclude that this might be such a situation.

When the case was opened, some of the editors involved in, or mentioned in the course of, the dispute submitted evidence to the committee privately, while others did not. SlimVirgin, as noted in the decision, did not submit evidence. Regrettably, there was some confusion at a stage in the case concerning what evidence had been submitted and by whom, and issues concerning timetables: We will certainly have to do a better job of managing any private cases that we may take on in the future. Also regrettable, and we find ourselves saying this far too often, is the undue length of time that it took for us to issue a decision. (Part of the reason this was my personal view that, having just been the scrivener of the committee's decision in another recent case involving SlimVirgin, I did not think it right that I be the public face of the committee in a second case also involving the same editor. Looking back, this delicacy may have been misplaced.)

However, despite the lack of formal evidence from SlimVirgin, we were able to gather the basic thrust of her concerns from her mailing list posts. There were essentially two.

The first major issue raised was whether a series of checkuser inquiries run by Lar in March 2008 was justified. The checkuser policy states in substance, or at least is widely understood to mean, that checkuser will only be run where there is a good reason to believe that abusive sockpuppetry or other misuse of alternate accounts may have occurred, or for other reasons directly connected with protection of the project and its contributors from abuse. "Checkuser," the maxim runs, "is not for fishing"; certainly it is not to be run, either by request or at a checkuser's whim, for no reason, or insufficient reason, or for that matter for "political" reasons. That much, I hope, is common ground.

In this case, an experienced editor in good standing asked Lar to run a check on a particular account (not SlimVirgin's) based on an allegedly suspicious edit. Lar reviewed the request, decided to run the check, and ran it. It turned out that the user's suspicion was incorrect, and Lar reported (and nothing else) this back to that user.

To the question "was this check justified?" the answer is as stated in the committee decision: the committee has found that running the check fell within the acceptable range of checkuser discretion. That does not mean that reasonable people could not disagree with the decision to run it. Having reviewed the background again in preparing these comments, I realize that if I had been the checkuser who had been approached with the request (a purely hypothetical situation, as I did not have checkuser in March and do not run checks even today), I might have declined it. But checkusers are given broad discretion in deciding what checks to run, for good reason, and I cannot find that the request was unjustified so that running the check was an abuse of Lar's checkuser privileges. Unfortunately, I cannot explore the arguments on both sides of the issue without divulging a series of private facts, so I must stop here, but both sides should rest assured that the issue has been reviewed.

I suspect that an array of checkusers who would opine that the check was or was not justified could be assembled, if that were needed. In a perfect world, the guidelines for when checks are run might be much more clear. Realistically, though, it is impossible to anticipate every possible set of circumstances that might prompt a request for a check, or to take the discretionary element out of the checkuser function; and I do not know that it would be a worthwhile use of the community's policy-writing resources to try.

Returning to the narrative, Lar followed up on the check he had been asked to do by running a customary series of cross-checks. About the nature of these, again, I cannot say more without violating the privacy of more than one user. Lar has explained that these are routine follow-up steps he and other checkusers take when running virtually any check. I have considered this explanation and find it to be credible. I therefore concur that in running these follow-up checks, Lar did not misuse his checkuser privileges.

The second issue raised in the case is an even more sensitive one, and again, there are strict limits to what can be said on-wiki; indeed, the optimal amount to have been said on-wiki about the matter would have been nothing at all, but most unfortunately it is too late for that. For reasons not discussable here, but not in my view reflecting adversely on any of the parties, the fact that Lar had run these checks became known on Checkuser-l, and discussion arose. In the course of the discussion, Lar apparently mentioned in passing that he had alluded to a certain fact in a conversation with his wife, who is herself a Wikipedia editor although Lar's wife is not accused of having done anything wrong whatsoever and is not a party to this case.

The fact that Lar had said something to his wife, in turn, became known to an editor (not SlimVirgin) whose account became involved in the matter, whom I shall call B (for bystander, as B did nothing wrong). At the outset, there appears to be some confusion or disagreement about exactly what Lar admitted telling his wife or what he actually told her. That confusion, I suspect, is the basis fo rmuch of the problem here (and again, I have to skip most of the details, for quite a number of reasons). There is also disagreement concerning whether, and to what extent, B and Lar's wife had been acquainted and whether Lar would have had reason to believe that B would be upset by his having confided the fact in question to his wife. My review of the correspondence reflects that this is not a matter of lies by one side or the other, as some have characterized it, but comes down primarily to a matter of miscommunications—regrettable, but not venal; unfortunate, but not actionable.

A question bruited about has been "did Lar's mentioning the fact in question to his wife violate the privacy policy?" Even putting aside the preliminary issue of whether this question is rightly addressed to the Arbitration Committee or the Ombudsmen Commission or both—an issues whose answer is surprisingly unclear, even after it was heavily discussed in the CharlotteWebb case a year ago—this is actually a fairly hard question to which to provide a useful answer.

On the one hand, after all, quite arguably the answer is yes: the privacy policy does not, of course, allow that information derived directly or indirectly from checkuser results may be shared with the checkuser's spouse. (For my part, I will confess that the issue of sharing private Wikipedia information with family members does not arise: My family consider my avocation of Wikipedia editing and administration to be an eccentricity of mine at best, and if I started to bore everyone at the supper table with matters such as who was allegedly a sockpuppet of whom, I would be pelted with shouts of "boring!", if not with dinner rolls.) But at the same time, it is surpassingly difficult to regulate what anyone might tell to someone as close to one as one's wife. Had Lar not happened to mention in passing that he had told her, obviously not believing that this would cause B any offense or distress, no one would have known of the matter.

My conclusion was that the matter was best addressed in the public decision by indirection; no finding that anyone violated the privacy policy, but a remedy reminding all checkusers that they must be punctilious about obeying it. A question on the talkpage figured out what we were doing and called us on the lack of a finding, but sometimes there are reasons for not mentioning every detail. Those who needed to know what the decision meant understood full well what it meant, and sometimes there really are reasons for why decisions are written in the way that they are.

As noted, the committee initially concluded that what Lar told his wife was not a matter worthy of on-wiki criticism in the decision or of sustained attention (I adhere to this view, and therefore have not supported proposed finding 8.1). One reason the matter can readily be characterized in this way is that in some 99.9% of instances, the type of comment that Lar acknowledges having made to his spouse would be completely harmless. In this instance, moreover, Lar plainly believed that it would indeed be harmless (remember, again, that he himself mentioned what he had told his wife, which he would hardly have done had he harbored a bad intent or done anything he felt he needed to conceal). I cannot fault that belief, even though things turned out otherwise in B's view.

The severely complicating factor here, and one that I for one had no intention of alluding to on-wiki directly, indirectly, or otherwise until it was raised on the talkpage by others, is that there are special circumstances affecting B. I have just deleted from this paragraph, before hitting the "save page" button, a description of what those circumstances are, and I will thank everyone both on and off-wiki to avoid speculating on the subject. Suffice it to say that in light of B's experiences, B is legitimately sensitive to certain types of things that might not, objectively or subjectively, affect most other users. B was therefore very upset by Lar's comment about having revealed limited information to his wife, even though other users in an identical situation would not have been.

I find that B has acted in good faith in asserting that Lar did not have B's permission or acquiescence in making the comment that he did; but I also find that Lar subjectively understood and honestly believed that B would have no objection to his making the comment. And returning to the original issue about SlimVirgin's allegation, I find that SlimVirgin had credited B's version of the facts when SlimVirgin made the allegations that SlimVirgin made, although I remain critical of the manner in which SlimVirgin raised the issue. The reasonable resolution here, when it became obvious that a serious miscommunication had occurred, would have been for the parties to mutually regret any misunderstandings and, if trust had been irrevocably lost, to agree to stay away from each other. An alternative sensible resolution would have been to submit the matter to some form of dispute resolution. As we have said, the least desirable course, but the one that was followed, was to bring the dispute to a public mailing list.

In light of an e-mail that the arbitrators and some other Wikipedia leaders have received from B, I find it appropriate to reiterate that SlimVirgin appears to have relied on B's account and understanding of the situation in SlimVirgin's posts to the mailing list. I hope that this observation will help to address certain concerns recently raised by several editors, at least one of whom has expressed concern that we have left an unfair impression that SlimVirgin's allegations about what Lar had told his wife were not backed up by anything or anyone. (That is not the same as saying that SlimVirgin's criticism of Lar was correct, on which I have commented above.) We have had the comment that editors will feel compelled to "go public," revealing further private information about themselves and others, if we do not clarify the record. I hope that no one will feel compelled to proceed in this manner; not only would this further damage the people concerned, but we have had more than enough heartache and "drama" surrounding this matter already.

I hope that these observations, along with those I made two nights ago on the talkpage and will not repeat here, will help conclude this case. Participating in unravelling this situation and dealing with the unhappy feelings of all the people concerned has been a miserable experience for everyone involved in it. It has quite certainly the most saddening thing I have been part of in my two and a half years on Wikipedia. People, including myself, sometimes have to remember that we spend time on Wikipedia, in large measure, to have fun. That doesn't mean we don't do serious and worthwhile things here, which we do, but the overall experience should be fun. Intractible disputes should be brought to dispute resolution so that they can be resolved without festering, and thereby detracting from both our productivity and our enjoyment of editing, without which there will be no editing. We need to get along with one another, and we need to resolve disputes and disagreements in a way that reduces stresses rather than adds to them.

I strongly urge that in the best interests of all concerned, that we can move on here without extensive further discussion of matters that have, frankly, been discussed to death already to the manifest detriment of everyone affected. I hope that lessons have been learned so that nothing like this will ever have to be repeated.

I have been asked to note that this statement is posted only for myself (though I have run an earlier draft before my colleagues via e-mail and taken a few suggestions received from them) and that at least one other arbitrator may have additional comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • Passing at this time are:
    • Proposed principles 1.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5;
    • Proposed findings of fact 1-7 (2 and 4 pass due to the abstentions' reducing the required majority); and
    • Proposed remedies 1 and 2.

Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close. Although as noted above it might be optimal to make some changes in the wording, on balance I conclude that this long-delayed matter should not be kept open any longer. Of course, any votes or input from arbitrators who have not yet commented would still be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. I see the last minute privately sent evidence as irrelevant to this particular ArbCom case. -- fayssal - wiki up® 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Kirill (prof) 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hold off on closing for a brief time. An email from one of the parties needs to be dealt with. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a late influx of emails, some of which may contain evidence (or not). On a case like this all evidence ideally needs review, so allowing an extra day to review these for anything they add makes sense. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision&oldid=247090972"