Case Opened on 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, email it directly to a sitting arbitrator for circulation around the mailing list.

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered.

There are no Evidence or Workshop pages for this case. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the Arbitrators. The proposed decision is located at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Thatcher

This is a request for the committee to formally review Lar's use of the checkuser tool in an incident that began in March, 2008. SlimVirgin has made multiple allegations that Lar abused his access and has stated that she does not trust him. These allegations were made on the checkuser-L mailing list and in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Checkuser, and again recently on WP:ANI (see the subpage Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway#Break:_checkuser) and on the wikien-L mailing list.

SlimVirgin's accusations are largely unanswerable without revealing details of the checkuser result and private emails. Lar argues that the check was justified by the evidence provided; SlimVirgin believes the request and Lar's decision to accept it were politically motivated. Lar says he has emails supporting his view of events, SlimVirgin claims to have emails proving exactly the opposite.

SlimVirgin's summary of the situation is here; Lar's is here [1] [2].

SlimVirgin has never filed a formal complaint with either the ombudsman commission or Arbcom. The accusations have the potential to undermine the community's trust of SlimVirgin and Lar, and are having a negative impact on the checkusers as a group. It is time to have the matter adjudicated by someone with full and unfettered access to the checkuser data, to the checkuser-L mailing list, and to the private emails from the affected parties. This is not a request for a public hearing. However, I believe there should be public acknowledgment that the committee is investigating the matter, and a public resolution. If Lar's use of checkuser in this case fell within the reasonable use of the tool, he deserves a public answer to that effect from the committee, and SlimVirgin needs to back down. If the committee finds a problem with Lar's conduct, SlimVirgin and the community deserve to know about it. The committee may also wish to consider certain ancillary matters that I will raise privately with the active members of the committee if this case is accepted.

Although this probably a futile request, can we avoid unnecessary drama-raising pile-on statements from the peanut gallery? Very few people actually know what is going on here; uninformed commentary is likely to unhelpful in addressing the situation.

Reply to Lar and SirFozzie: With all due respect to the Committee, I think the current Arbitration case is a Norwegian Blue; the plumage is dramatic, but there is very little chance of it muscling up to the bars and going "Voom!". I believe that the Committee needs to address the narrow question in a rapid and thorough manner. It might be better to save certain ancillary matters for another time, although this is up to them, naturally. Thatcher 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

I agree that a lot of public statements by third parties who don't have the information at hand may not add a lot, although perhaps not with the characterization of third parties as the "peanut gallery" :), although I certainly see where Thatcher is coming from there. This matter has been extensively discussed in multiple venues already. I thought the matter was closed. I have material to share with ArbCom privately but even so I'd prefer to get permission from the other parties to emails before sharing it, if at all possible, for privacy reasons. This case is not well named, because I think the greater part of it has to do with SlimVirgin and her tendentious arguing of this matter even after it was considered settled. Despite the bearing that this has on the other current case involving SlimVirgin, I would request that, if accepted, the cases not be merged, as I agree that a private review of the matter and statement by ArbCom is the better approach. I may expand this statement as necessary if events warrant it. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Thatcher: SlimVirgin continues to discuss this on the wikien-l mailing list, so your summary of her position may need amending from time to time, as she comes up with new insinuations, new allegations, and new people to accuse of various wrongdoings. I confess I'm not clear why she is attempting to try this case there, instead of coming here and making a statement of some sort. I'd prefer to hear from her what exactly she considers the issues in this matter, so they all can be properly acknowledged or rebutted. I have observed that when others try to paraphrase what she feels the issues are, they do not always state them to her satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mackensen

I suppose the committee can decide for itself whether I'm involved or not, but given that my role as an Ombudsman has been put in question (along with my integrity), I don't think I'm disinterested. I have nothing to add to the statements of Lar and Thatcher, except to urge that the case be conducted in camera before current arbitrators only. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/2)

I find SirFozzie's remarks to be expressed in an unhelpful manner, I respectfully ask him to reconsider. Paul August ☎ 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Paul August ☎ 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Allegations continue to be made but no formal review requested. I feel this situation, if left, is damaging for the project and therefore the entire affair needs to be looked at. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have to take this case in private, since much of it involves things covered under the privacy policy and general understanding of confidentiality. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan is quite right to remind me about this. I think we have to take the case in private and we have already discussed mechanisms for so doing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept per Matthew. The case is already being discussed in private. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept for private consideration, per Matthew. Kirill ^(prof) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. We don't normally note in public as if it were a public case when we accept matters for private discussion. This is particularly true for matters which aren't cases per se, but instead relate to our oversight of our non-Arbitration powers of patronage (CheckUser and OverSight). Not really sure how to proceed. James F. (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think it is clear why the ArbCom should look into this matter. Exactly how is a separate point, really. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per above. --bainer (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Titoxd's question, there is some overlap but the two bodies have somewhat different concerns: the role of the ombudsman commission in relation to CheckUser is concerned with the privacy policy and its application to the CheckUser tool; the role of the Arbitration Committee (along with other CheckUsers) is more general, see m:CheckUser policy#Access to CheckUser. --bainer (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for parties

These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.

Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
The Committee will understand participation in the case by a party as assent to the principle that the information circulated is confidential (cf. Wikipedia:Mediation#When should a mediation be held confidentially? for some good reasons).
The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.

Paul August ☎ 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

Principles

Findings of fact

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.