Case Opened on 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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.

• 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)

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

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

]

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]

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]

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. --
  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
    talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1. 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.
2. Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
3. If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
4. We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

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.

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 7 to 1, with 1 abstention, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

Privacy policy

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

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 6 to 1, with 2 abstentions, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 5 to 0, with 4 abstentions, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

Lar's conduct

5) 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.

Passed 8 to 1, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

Mackensen's conduct

6) 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.

Passed 9 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

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.

Passed 7 to 0, 00:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC).