Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motion to dismiss this case
1) Since there are no real policy violations, there is nothing to arbitrate in this case. I suggest that this case be dismissed. Even if somebody can prove that the checkuser/privacy policies were violated, such concerns should be brought to the Ombudsman commission, not here.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not the right reason for dismissal. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to the idea if not the form. I'm unconvinced that there's even a matter for the ombudsman commission to investigate. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Sean William @ 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong objection. The community's trust has been breached, and perhaps the CheckUser policy as well.  Sala Skan  23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about. The checkuser policy is not within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. As such, violations should go to a higher venue. A breach of trust alone does not merit an arbitration case. Sean William @ 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This concern of yours was why a few arbitrators rejected the case at first, but after that, they accepted it. For some reason they apparently think/thought that an arbitration case was necessary. How has the situation changed since the case was accepted?  Sala Skan  23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what made them change their minds then. I know, however, that nothing has changed since the case was accepted. Closer scrutiny at the evidence convinced me that there's not a whole lot that ArbCom can do here. Sean William @ 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * , an Arbirator and Ombudsman, voted to accept the case in this venue. Being the only person on both committees, he knows better than anyone where this should be addressed, right? So it would make sense to propose dismissing the case if you think nothing will come out of it, but proposing to dismiss it and saying it should be handed off to the commission when an Ombudsman has explicitly said it should be taken care of in this venue doesn't seem right. Therefore, I disagree with this too. Picaroon (Talk) 23:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser local policy is explicitly by Foundation meta policy local arbcom jurisdiction, where there exists a local arbcom. Venue is proper.  Dismissal is premature.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

CheckUser permission
1) CheckUser permission is a confidential status that shouldn't be taken lightly. CheckUsers should usually only be performed when a request has been filed on Requests for checkuser and there is a serious suspicion of sockpuppetry, vandalism or other kinds of abuse. Quick CheckUsers should only be performed in emergency cases.

1.1) The CheckUser tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user and checks must be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.

1.2) CheckUser permission is a status of trust. The CheckUser tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user and checks must be done subject to the provisions of the privacy policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Regarding the original: Absolutely, 100% not. WP:RFCU exists as a convenience for the checkuser operators, to keep them from their talk pages and mailboxes from being filled up with such requests and discussions. However, there is and never has been any policy requiring that requests be made on RFCU, and many (most? I don't know) of them aren't. 1.1 seems a good statement of policy, given what a broad brush "limiting disruption" provides. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * (Proposed by Salaskan )
 * Sometimes checkusers are done in private when there are serious issues involved. Remember the admin account hijackings? Checkusers did that request without any request for checkuser being filed, which is the correct cause of action in that case. This principal is too strict. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed it a little. Would the wording be alright now?  Sala Skan  14:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that incident revealed the fact that admin accounts can edit through a hard-blocked IP. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.1 Proposed as an alternative of 1. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this kind of.. stating the obvious? Is that the point? I've never participated in an ArbCom case before but this seems a little too redundant to be necessary. ("Checkusers must follow the checkuser policy")  Kamryn Matika  14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious is often what ArbCom have to do. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point :o) Fair enough!  Kamryn Matika  15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.1 seems to be directly quoted from CheckUser, but is a fine principle. What about 1.2? (added the "confidential status" bit which seems relevant to this case)  Sala Skan  16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "confidential status" makes no sense - it implies that the checkuser level must be hidden from the public, as opposed to the results of a checkuser (or details thereof). I know what you mean, but I don't think that the text is clear enough. Martinp23 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, this seems to be wrong. CheckUsers are not supposed to be hide-bound by the RFCU process, that is to stop us from making vexatious requests not to stop them from doing their job.  Second, both CheckUsers made, in my view, legitimate use of CheckUser.  Jayjg asserts that CharlotteWebb's userid came up in connection with other edits from open proxies, which is plausible; the second CheckUser was tracking a user known to use proxies, which is also legitimate, even if it might seem a little vindictive.  1.2 in particular assumes that tracking a Tor user is not a suitable use of CheckUser.  It is.  Tor use is banned, and for good reasons.  I have seen no evidence that the second CheckUser's actions were motivated by malice, and this would be entirely out of character from what I have seen in the past, so it is not clear to me that any abuse of checkuser took place. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can support 1.1. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "CheckUser permission is a status of trust" or something like that? Could anyone come up with a better wording?  Sala Skan  19:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about applying Clue? CheckUser notices that an editor is using Tor, editor applies for adminship CheckUser asks editor why they are using Tor despite knowing that this is (at the time) banned by policy?. In what way is that not reasonable?  X is proscribed, user does X, ask why.  Guy (Help!) 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a "principle" and is relevant to the case, but does not judge on whether Jay's actions were appropriate.  Sala Skan  14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 is complete bollocks. 1.1 and 1.2 are true but their relevance to this case would require pretty extraordinary evidence. --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy policy
2) It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
 * In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
 * With permission of the affected user
 * To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
 * Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
 * Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
 * Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Taken from privacy policy. Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see how this is relevant considering no personally identifiable information was released.  Kamryn Matika  15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, unless of course it's to point out that no actual violation of the privacy policy occured.  Kamryn Matika  15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly important in this case, and what the whole case centres around really - I've got no opinion on whether or not this was violated. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, on the contrary, there is no reason at all for Jayjg to release the information. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since none of the above applies to CharlotteWebb, the policy was breached.  Majorly  (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What personally identifiable information was released by Jayjg? – Steel 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And here we have the dispute, a simple enough question really - Is identifying that a user has used tor nodes or open proxies a breach of the privacy policy? <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because he should have only done it in the above circumstances. Whether it was personal or non-personal, it wasn't appropriate to release any information.  Majorly  (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The privacy policy is specifically about personally identifiable information. If information of that sort was released, you would be free to say that it was a violation of the privacy policy since none of the above applied. Since the knowledge that CharlotteWebb edits through Tor provides no personally identifiable information, whether it falls under the above conditions is irrelevant. – Steel 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But why was the information released at all, when he knew she had been editing with tor for a while? Why did he pick her RfA to bring it up?  Majorly  (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a different issue and should be kept separate from discussions of possible privacy policy violations. – Steel 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly, see the section. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This principle seems redundant, as the revealing of the usage of Tor nodes was not a breach of the privacy policy, but perhaps one of the community's trust. But it may be useful to state this as a principle anyway to tell in a FoF or something similar that it was not violated, for clarity.  Sala Skan  17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this should be a "finding of fact", if it is included at all, and not a "principle". After all, the accepting ArbCom members indicated that the privacy policy was not apparently breeched, and the case only covers the use of checkuser which isn't a part of privacy policy. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What private information can I infer about CharlotteWebb from the bare fact that she uses Tor? An IP address gives several pointers to identity, simply using Tor offers none.  That is the whole point, in fact.  I see no evidence that CharlotteWebb's privacy was violated, only that her violation of policy was revealed. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Guy, I oppose this principle. Seems unnecessary.  Sala Skan  19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Revealing someone using a Tor without previous communications, and to do it on an RfA that was passing at the time doesn't violate privacy policy(?)... However, I do think that Jayjg did this at a very bad timing. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was a very bad thing, but it did not violate the privacy policy.  Sala Skan  10:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Better than letting her get the sysop bit and then having a shitstorm about an admin violating the open proxies policy. We already voted down one RFA that was predicated precisely on the need to evade the block on Tor, in that context CW's RFA could almost be construed as a breaching experiment. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, one can look at the block logs associated with this ArbCom case and find out all those lovely IP numbers - Tor and non-Tor, and perhaps find out something about CW, and certainly find out lots of Tor IPs. In that sense, the privacy policy has been violated; one of the purposes of permitting pseudonymous editing has always been to avoid public disclosure of IP addresses. Risker 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, guys, an accepting ArbCom member already said the privacy policy wasn't breeched and isn't an issue. If the privacy policy were breeched, that would be a matter for the ombudsman, not the Arbcom. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JzG as well. Nothing pertaining to Charlotte's personal identity, location, religion, sex, ethnicity, nationality etc. was revealed by Jayjg, just that she was violating policy. I would like to point out, though, that the revelation, by others, of the name of the checkuser who blocked her non-Tor IPs goes a long way closer to violating her privacy. ElinorD (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (And it was her own revelation that an admin blocked her non-Tor IPs at the same time as blocking her Tor IPs that made those IPs discernable. That information alone is all a dedicated sleuth needs to determine what her non-Tor IPs are. She outed herself.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see the relevance of this principle to the case. No personally identifiable data is involved here. CharlotteWeb could be my next door neighbor and I wouldn't know. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Open or anonymising proxies
3) The Wikimedia Foundation has prohibited users from editing through open or anonymising proxies, as documented at no open proxies. Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. Reading through said proxies is not restricted.

3.1) Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy.

3.2) At the time of the revealing of CheckUser information, users were prohibited from editing through open or anonymising proxies, as documented here. Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. Reading through said proxies is not restricted.

3.3) Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Dates on all of these would be helpful. The meta pages seem to have undergone fairly signficant edits recently; it'd be useful to know what they said at the time of the RFA. Kirill 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Please move this if deamed inappropriate) - This was the version prior to CharlotteWebb's RfA, this was it by the end. At the time of Jayjg's comment, it was in the first version. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Sean William @ 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sensible. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this correctly described as a Foundation decision? It was a meta discussion on the lists and the policy is common to all projects, but there has never been a Foundation statement on the subject as far as I know. Might simply "users are prohibited" be a better phrasing? WjBscribe 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's currently disputed.  Majorly  (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 3.1 as an alternative. Directly from no open proxies. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support 3.1, which has strong consensus at meta, on the talk page of the policy. 3.0 has been removed from the WMF policy, so is no longer true. Martinp23 16:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful. 3 and 3.1 may be in some sense contradictory, or at least controversial when put together. 3 says editors are prohibited from editing from anonymizing proxies, while 3.1 says editors are free to do so until they're blocked. Does that mean "editors are allowed to do something policy-breaching (OP-using here) until they're discovered and stopped"? That's not sensible. And does this justify or condemn Charlotte's acts, which are the main point in question? These two combined gives a mixed message. The first one seems to say she's totally wrong, while the second one seems to defend Charlotte's action. At least some rewording is necessary here (eg. stating 3.1 is a special case of 3). --Deryck C. 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm sorry, is 3.1 intended to replace 3? In that case the message is alright. I personally agree with 3.1 as a replacement for 3, but beware that 3.1 is kind of against the current NOP guidelines and which to choose between 3 and 3.1 would probably cause strong impact to the final decisions of this arb case. 3 will lead to denouncing Charlotte's action, while 3.1 will defend them. Nevertheless, I support 3.1. --Deryck C. 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My reaction regarding this is that at one point Tim Sterling actually posted information for Tor workarounds (See the very initial state of the meta page for example), and only until about April 26 of 2006 was the information removed (due to the old information no longer working) and was replaced with links to HTTPS, which as of this posting is of unknown status. My question is really: why couldn't we extend immunity to IP blocks to certain users? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy does currently say what principle 3.1 says (and I agree with that version, but that debate is out of question in this RfAr), but at the time of Charlotte's RfA (i.e. when the CU info was revealed), the policy stated this: "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." Thus, principle 3.1 is possibly misleading, because the policy was different at the time of the revealing by Jay (the incident that this case is about). Proposed 3.2.  Sala Skan  19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a finding of fact, not a principal. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 3.3, which is halfway between the blanket ban and the rather dangerous idea that we should turn a blind eye to editors using proxies. We should not turn a blind eye.  If we discourage or prohibit proxy use it makes no sense whatsoever to say in the policy that it's fine until they are found out.  A bit like having a prohibition on breaking an entering, but telling people that if they are not burglars they can break and enter at will up until an actual burglar is caught. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3.3 seems like a fine compromise to me, doesn't take a POV on the open proxies debate.  Sala Skan  15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, only open and anonymising proxies are the problem, since open but non-anonymising proxies are irrelevant and basically everyone is behind a closed anonymising proxy, i.e. NAT. This is my understanding from an discussion I had with Armed Blowfish earlier today, so anyone with further questions should probably contact him :)  Daniel  07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies
4) There are many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, often in flux. As WP:CCC states, the consensus can change. While contributors are expected to have a general understanding of core policies, and to adhere to any policy that has been pointed out to them, it is not expected for any editor/administrator to understand every single policy and guideline by heart.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Could stand to be worded better. Kirill 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Reworded. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, what's the context of this? ElinorD (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No open proxies Sean William @ 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough but not relevant since it is abundantly clear that CW was involved in prior, related debates in which this policy was explicitly cited. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Contradicts FoF 9, CW was aware of the open proxy policy pretty damn well (see evidence).  Sala Skan  15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a good principle. Leniency and common sense should be exercised, but ignorance is not an excuse for failure to comply. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Adherence to policy
5) All editors are equally expected to abide by the project's policies; there is no class of editors with a lesser or greater obligation to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Somebody will probably come up with an exception or two, but this is true at least in the general case. Kirill 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * From Administrators: "Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community." (My emphaisis). Admins are definitely expected to abide by site policies, from what I gather. They are often considered as examples to newer users (rightly or wrongly).  Majorly  (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR WAS 4.250 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Customary practice
6) Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Possibly useful as background. Kirill 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * What exactly do you want with this? Is it about the CheckUser standards?  Sala Skan  15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's background for the two proposals below; some of this stuff isn't explicitly written into policy, if I recall correctly. Kirill 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True. A fine proposal.  Sala Skan  12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians
7) All Wikipedians should strive to be kind and thoughtful in their actions and comments towards each other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Some thoughts. Kirill 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * True. Sean William @ 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Martinp23 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously.  Sala Skan  15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Private discussion
8) When an editor has a concern about another editor's behavior, it is generally appropriate to contact that editor privately and attempt to discuss the issue before initiating a more public discussion of it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Some more thoughts. Kirill 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes - it makes sense to make comments about others "away from the limelight", in the first instance at least. Going out with the intention to embarrass or to damage an editor's reputation only shows that one has no regard for finding a resolution to the problem one might have with another, instead preferring to cause some sort of drama.  What I'm getting at is that more empathy is needed. Martinp23 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This principle seems to be very necessary indeed.  Sala Skan  15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was arguably no time in this case, because CW had accepted a nomination and people were voting, so the luxury of private communication wasn't obviously appropriate. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that, frankly. An opportunity to explain matters privately has traditionally been extended even to users suspected of rather more serious misbehavior (c.f. Requests for arbitration/Henrygb); it's not like we lack the means to remedy the situation after the fact should the explanation not prove satisfactory. Kirill 20:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there was time, Jayjg had said he'd noticed she'd been editing with Tor for a while and could have easily said something.  Majorly  (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There sure was. Note the "e-mail this user" button to your left? Can be very handy when something like this happens... Revealing it in public all of a sudden without any prior notice to CW at all was inappropriate.  Sala Skan  12:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would also seem that if a policy violation is sanctionable, that could always be done either before or after an election, and not by attempting to influence the election itself. Mackan79 08:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we know if Jayjg did ask privately first? No answer was given publicly, after all.  The concern was over a violation of policy, and a previous RfA had revealed that the community was uncomfortable with editors who violated that policy, so I don't see that private contact would have been an improvement. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Information gained through checkuser considered sensitive
9) Information gained through the checkuser tool, even if it does not directly identify an editor, should be considered sensitive information and should be released only in cases where a clear necessity exists.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. At least, I sure hope this is the case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sensitive, yes, but not relevant in this case as the information released was minimal and did not in any way compromise CW's anonymity or privacy. Publishing CW's IP address would have been a privacy violation, noting that Tor was being used against policy is a reasonable use of CU, in my view. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's the core of the issue here, though. For example, the country an editor is editing from is generally not considered personally-identifying. Now, I have my location on my userpage. Let's say a checkuser checked me out, and stated "Why have you lied about your location, when you're really editing from Canada?" (Due to my proximity to Canada, I've actually had my IP show up at various times as being from Canada, get Google Canada when I go to Google, the whole bit.) They didn't reveal identifying information, in our hypothetical scenario, but I'd hardly find that appropriate, and it certainly might serve to degrade my reputation or make others suspicious of me. The same seemed to have happened here&mdash;the information revealed may not have served to point a big red arrow to CharlotteWebb's house, but it sure did serve to raise a lot of hell and affect her editing here. That's how I mean that even non-identifying information may be sensitive, and I'm not so sure the release here was appropriate. No vandalism was being fought, no sockpuppeting was being stopped, no disruption was being ended. The checkuser policy seems to pretty clearly indicate those are the only legitimate uses. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade sums it all up pretty well. I strongly agree with this principle.  Sala Skan  15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely agree.  Kamryn Matika  03:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between 'personally identifiable information' and 'private information'. There is also a difference between 'privacy' and 'privacy policy'. Even if Jayjg did not technically violate policy here (although I believe he did), he certainly violated the spirit of them.  Kamryn Matika  03:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say. Whereas CW unquestionably violated policy, and in a way that the community had previously said was not appropriate for an admin.  Which makes that arguable breach of the spirit of policy moot. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that most checkuser results arn't posted other than the person checking noting that it was done and either a block issued or not. That would seem to be the way it should be.  This case is very disturbing.  --Rocksanddirt 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
10) If a rule would be an impediment to a user making improvements to the encyclopedia, and the user is not disruptive in doing so, the user may ignore that rule.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This has been around as long as I can remember. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps the reason Jayjg did not intially speak up about CharlotteWebb's Tor use, and only did so when she went for a position of higher trust. – Steel 13:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This incident had nothing to do with "improving the encyclopedia"...  Sala Skan  14:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since CW is clearly able to edit without using Tor, I would say this is a red herring. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one knows why CharlotteWebb used Tor, it may be that she could only occasionally get on without it. "Impediment" doesn't mean "absolute prohibition". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so it refers to CW's actions? I thought it referred to Jay's actions when he revealed the CU info. Which FoF/remedy does this principle support?  Sala Skan  11:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure any yet. As to Jay's, there might be a case that it applies to his actions too, especially since he didn't technically violate a Foundation issue (Foundation issues are decidedly not subject to IAR, but local extensions of them could be). I intended it to support my finding of fact that CharlotteWebb didn't actually do anything wrong, since while she technically violated a policy, there's no indication that she behaved badly or disruptively, and we don't require slavish following of policy. However, others may say that Jayjg properly invoked IAR in this scenario. Since it does seem that both Jayjg and CharlotteWebb did some rule-bending in this scenario, however, I thought it was appropriate to have a principle that says "Hey, we do let people bend the rules at times." Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Jayjg's revealing information really "improving" the encyclopedia? Marginal. If Charlotte've passed without this incident, she might've been working hard and become a good sysop that helped Wikipedia out, instead of causing this incident that revealed some of Wikimedia's pitfalls but disrupted the daily operation of the pedia. --Deryck C. 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When Checkuser info should be revealed
11) Information gained by checkuser should only be released when it's gained.

11.1) Information retrieved by a CheckUser performance should only be released when it was recently gained, and not a considerable time afterwards.

11.2) Information retrieved by a CheckUser performance should only be released when a relevant need is established.

11.3) Information retrieved by a CheckUser should only be revealed if it is necessary to reveal it, and only to the minimum extant necessary. Checkusers should always attempt to resolve a situation without revealing any information obtained by using the tool.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I really don't think so. It often takes time to build up a case; and checkuser operators are not perfect. So, for example, if I happen to come across something that might or might not indicate abuse, I might not say anything until the user in question provides behavorial evidence that, in combination with the marginal checkuser data, is strong evidence of sockpuppeting. Further, a guideline like this wouldn't help anything; for example, in the current case, I'd simply have run a checkuser on CW anew, to make sure the bad behavior was still going on, and to double-check my original analysis. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Established by whom? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, if someone can fix the wording of the main proposal, it'd be appreciated. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here... How could the info not be released if it hadn't been gained? Martinp23 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying info gained by a checkuser request should only be released at the time of the request. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know where you're going with this principle and do not support it (yet), but the initial wording was very confusing as Martin pointed out, so I changed the wording a bit. Would 11.1 be better?  Sala Skan  19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was trying to say. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this would necessarily work in practice. (For example, checkuser A gains information about banned sockpuppeteer B running a checkuser, and finds out banned sockpuppeteer A has been editing from ISP C for quite some time. A month or two down the road, New Editor D with a suspiciously similar pattern of editing and interest to banned sockpuppeteer B starts editing. I wouldn't see a thing wrong with Checkuser A saying "Yes, New Editor D edits from ISP C, as did banned sockpuppeteer B.") Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope.  CheckUser information should be revealed when it is relevant, and when it will not compromise the privacy of non-abusive editors.  Since this did not compromise privacy, and since the context was entirely relevant, this proposal effectively reverses the reality. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 11.2 based off your comment. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11.2 is definitely best. It precludes storing evidence to use as a silver bullet when you want to discredit someone (since there's clearly no more relevant need at that time than at any other), while not hampering checkusers in the cases where there actually is a good reason to reveal the results later. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now the question is, what defines a "relevant reason" <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 22:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And who establishes that it's relevant? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a problem... can ArbCom do that, or is that take care of by some other group? <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This proposal is to restrictive. The type of revealing is more important than the timeframe.  If jayg (sp) had revealed his information personally to CW first, and they discussed and he decided that a question was relevant to the RfAdmin, that's one thing.  And that would be different than what did happen, which has (seemingly) chased away a good member of the community and pushed a lot of others out of shape.--Rocksanddirt 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 11.3 based on the language of Help:CheckUser at Meta. GRBerry 21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Common sense
12) All editors are encouraged to use common sense and follow the spirit of a rule, not the letter.

12.1) All editors are encouraged to use common sense and, where this conflicts with the rules, they should follow their spirit, not their letter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Doesn't help much when the spirit of the rule is vague. In the current case, are the checkuser policies protecting privacy or identity? There's a big difference. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This principle mainly refers to the part on whether CW was breaching policy or not when using Tor, it's not about the checkuser.  Sala Skan  15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The spirit of the No open proxies policy is preventing vandals, sockpuppeteers etc from abusing open proxies, even though the letter is(/was) different.  Sala Skan  00:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  Sala Skan  19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propsed 12.1, but could do with improvement. Of course, this is just common sense ;) Martinp23 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does 12.1 and 12 have implementation differences? I doubt that. Given this, I think 12.1 looks too skeptical. --Deryck C. 02:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think 12.1 is better, because 12 may implicitly suggest that following the letter of a rule is bad (although 12.1 may suggest that common sense should only be used when the spirit of a rule conflicts with its letter). They're both fine, actually.  Sala Skan  23:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is probably too uncommon to use as the basis for any sort of binding decisions... I've seen all sorts of things that I regard as totally lunatic justified as "common sense". *Dan T.* 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And we're back to the IAR debate. So things that you think are lunatic others think are improving the encylopedia or common sense.  That's why we have consensus, which even if IAR is policy, pragmatically speaking overrles other policies etc.  If people have the lunatic's back, you'll be regarded as a lunatic.  It's the way wiki works.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  12:40, July 2 2007 (UTC)

Releasing checkuser information discreetly is preferable
13) If possible, checkuser information should generally be released discreetly rather than in more public settings.

13.1) If possible, checkuser information not publicly requested (e.g. not through WP:RFCU and talk pages) should generally be released discreetly rather than in more public settings.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, open to better wordings. Mackan79 08:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 13.1, though the original isn't that bad. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's always possible to do this, but if a checkuser is run that reveals users X, Y, and Z are sockpuppets of each other, it can be dealt with a lot more easily if announced publicly, even if the checkuser noticed a pattern and ran the check on their own. -Amarkov moo! 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Feasible" might be a better word (or to just stick with "generally"). I was also thinking of a direct response to a checkuser request as discreet (per the general "when in doubt" rule) but 13.1 may be fair as well.  Mackan79 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not really checkuser information. Checkuser information is the IP addresses used by an account.  This was one step removed: the fact of using proxies, in defiance of policy and in the knowledge that a recent RFA candidate had withdrawn over concerns over proxy use. Nothing at all can be inferred about CW's real-life identity from the information released. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One clarification I'd like to see is that the checkuser policy doesn't just protect privacy of personally identifiable information, but also other interests. The major tension here is noted in Kwsn's alternative:  If you have a public request, then at least the person has a chance to see that and respond and perhaps object to a checkuser being run.  You can also then see exactly what the evidence was.  If there is some privacy issue that the checkuser may not know about, you can contact them quickly and let them know.  If it is entirely done in secret, then the person has no such opportunity, and is caught entirely by surprise.  It's in that latter case where I'm suggesting discretion becomes particularly important. Mackan79 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Either is an obvious implication of Meta:Help:CheckUser. GRBerry 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Proxy usage and Sockpuppetry
14) Usage of an open proxy of any kind on one's main account is not necessarily an indicator that one would create sockpuppets, since one can still create sockpuppets and use them from an open proxy while using their main account exclusively from their real IP.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * And whoever said otherwise? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think it's obvious why we need this pointed out. --Random832 01:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. The case at issue was whether the community trusts admins who use anonymous proxies, specifically Tor.  Per precedent (Armed Blowfish) the answer is no.  The community having expressed that view where the information was openly provided, it is reasonable to ask the question when the information is not provided, particularly when the candidate can reasonably be expected to be aware of the community's view. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of disinformation surrounding open proxies (there was, in particular, a constant refrain of this in the oppose votes of CharlotteWebb's RFA), and if this blatantly false belief is _why_ the community doesn't trust such users, I'm not sure it's legitimate to say that that's a real consensus. --Random832 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When to release checkuser information
15) Unless a policy violation is likely to be sanctionable, checkuser information indicating such violation should generally not be released.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The broader principle would be that unless there is a clear policy violation checkuser information should not be released, but it would seem the principle should cover this as well. Mackan79 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. A previous RfA had fallen for precisely this reason, the community was clearly against use of Tor by admin candidates, the information was germane and its disclosure did not compromise privacy. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check out ABF's RfA, it was actually 63/43/6, plus I'd bet on even less support for the idea that regular editors should be allowed to use open proxies but not admins. I'm also looking at the broader picture, though: let's say a checkuser finds incidentally that two accounts are editing from the same IP, one of whom appears to be doing it to "avoid scrutiny from other editors."  Would that justify release of the match?  I'm thinking a necessary principle is that the violation needs to reach some level of seriousness before being released, whatever that threshold might be. Mackan79 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies
16) The status of the open proxies policy is a foundation issue and not within ArbCom's remit. It is appropriate for ArbCom to consider whether individual actions based on that policy have been appropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I see some evidence in the background debates that people are looking to this case to enforce one result or the other.  I don't think that'll fly. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking suspected open proxies
16) Before placing indefinite or long-term blocks on IP addresses suspected to be open proxies, administrators should exercise reasonable care to confirm such open proxy status. Confirmation procedures which satisfy this duty of care include, but are not limited to, performing port scans on the IP addresses in question, and verification of the presence of such addresses in lists or other references of open proxies that are widely regarded as reliable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. John254 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. Many administrators need to be more careful while blocking proxies.  Sala Skan  11:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, maybe they should soft block when they suspect, and hardblock when they confirm, but that's not to be decided here. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Port scanning needs to be used more often, in my opinion. I'm not really sure why this is relevant, though. Sean William @ 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of "John Doe"'s blocks on all of CW's IP addresses, including her non-Tor ones.  Sala Skan  17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy cannot be changed just by rewriting the page
17) Wikipedia's written policies reflect actual practice as established by consensus or official Wikimedia requirements. Changes to policy pages which do not reflect actual practice or Wikimedia requirements do not suddenly become 'policy'. Such a change remaining overlooked and unreverted also does not make it 'policy' if it is not actual practice.

17.1) Wikipedia's written policies reflect decisions made by either consensus or Wikimedia Foundation requirements. Changes to policy pages which do not reflect these are not considered policy, and such a change remaining unreverted does not, by itself, give the change official status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The idea that something can become policy without either Wikimedia directive OR consensus support is simply false... or so I have always been told. Sneaking out to the barn wall and repainting the list of rules doesn't cut it - or should not. If alot of people object, either when the text is changed or when it is actually put into action (as in this case), then it obviously doesn't have consensus and isn't policy. --CBD 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed subtly different 17.1. The requirement that policies reflect current practice is just a convention based on the difficulty of enforcing prescriptive policy. Sometimes it's necessary to enforce policies that don't reflect current practice, though, so I don't think it should be included in an Arbcom ruling. Definitely agreed with the sentiment that sneaking something into the policy and claiming it's official is silly. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy gap
18) The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits editing from open proxies; these may be blocked at any time for a significant duration. At the same time, users editing from open proxies do not face sanction solely for that act; their behaviour from those proxies must be taken into consideration. This constitutes an acknowledged 'gap' in policy: proxies are prohibited from editing, but those who use them are not. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed as an attempt at clarification. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
19) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of the dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is that released information that  has edited using tor nodes. This information was gained by Jayjg doing unrelated CheckUser requests. Further to this, all CharlotteWebbs' IP addresses were then blocked making her unable to edit.

1.1) The locus of the dispute is that released information that  has edited using Tor nodes. Jayjg acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers.

1.2) The locus of the dispute is that released information that  has edited using Tor nodes. Jayjg acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers. The information was revealed in the middle of CharlotteWebb's request for adminship and probably caused the nomination to fail.

1.3) The locus of the dispute is that released information that  has edited using Tor nodes. Jayjg acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers. The information was revealed in the middle of CharlotteWebb's request for adminship.

1.4) The locus of the dispute is that released information that  has edited using Tor nodes. Jayjg acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers. The information was revealed in the middle of CharlotteWebb's request for adminship and largely caused the nomination to fail.

1.5) The locus of the dispute is that asked  why she had been using Tor nodes. Jayjg had acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers. The question was asked in the middle of CharlotteWebb's request for adminship and, combined with her refusal either to answer publicly or to state that the reasons were private and could be discussed by email with a member of the ArbCom, largely caused the nomination to fail.

1.6) The locus of the dispute is Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb. The dispute has since extended to encompass No open proxies.

1.7) The locus of the dispute is that asked  why she had been using Tor nodes. Jayjg had acquired this information over the course of running unrelated CheckUsers. The question was asked in the middle of CharlotteWebb's request for adminship and, combined with her refusal  to disclose the reasons for her use of Tor, largely caused the nomination to fail.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Should split this into two separate findings of fact. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think it's quite a neutral asceration of events, but feel free to work on it. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs about how it was done during an RfA, which is (most likely) what caused it to fail.  Majorly  (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 1.1. I think it would be beneficial to have two FoFs here, one about the actual release of information by one checkuser and one about the subsequent blocking by another checkuser, if the latter is within this case's scope. – Steel 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should include something about it being released during an RfA. What about this? (added 1.2)  Sala Skan  16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I added a separate one below, but we can merge the info in if we need to.  Majorly  (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The one about the RfA below seems alright as a separate principle, but for this short paragraph we'd better summarise the entire case. The CU info being released in the middle of an RfA is one of the basic things this RfA is about, but I guess we could leave the "probably caused the nomination to fail" bit out, because it is redundant to the below principle. 1.3 added.  Sala Skan  17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 1.4. "Probably" isn't a "finding of fact". "Largely" is. While completely omitting the Jayjg's reveal's impact on Charlotte's RFA will make the summary not comprehensive. --Deryck C. 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 1.5. Many of those who opposed did so because of her angry response and her refusal to answer Jayjg's question. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I already proposed a FoF that CW did not answer the question. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposed 1.6, which does not prejudge any of the issues. This is supposed to be the locus of the dispute (as in where it happened). Guy (Help!) 14:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1.6 - this RfA is not about the debate at No open proxies, but about the incident at CW's RfA. 1.5 seems to summarise the events rather well, but goes a little too in-depth on the refusal thing, so I proposed 1.7.  Sala Skan  14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be a statement of the background of the dispute, but the locus of the dispute is CW's RFA and continuing into the meta policy page. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we can change the word "locus" to "summary" or whatever. This FoF is meant to tell the basics of the dispute, and that is certainly not the discussion at m:Talk:No open proxies.  Sala Skan  19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that, actually. I would say that this, the ArmedBlowfish RFA and the edits to the meta policy are all part of an ongoing attempt to soften the blanket prohibition on use of anonymous proxies.  Reinfordcing this following other related debates: it looks to me very much as if ideological opposition to blocking Tor is central to the whole case.  Having at first seen it as an excessive response, I am now persuaded that nothing evil was done by any CheckUsers, and that the issue is actually the foundation policy on Tor, which would appear to be outwith the scope of ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CharlotteWebb's RfA
2) CharlotteWebb's RfA stood at a total of (34/4/2) (see ) when the question was asked. The final total ended up 93/68/19, with many of the opposers citing the Tor use as their main or sole reason for opposition. This would be due to the question, and also the responses to it.

2.1) CharlotteWebb's request for adminship failed, but would most likely have succeeded when the use of Tor nodes had not been revealed (see evidence).

2.2) CharlotteWebb's request for adminship failed as a result of the debate over use of Tor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed: This shows that CharlotteWebb would have most likely passed her adminship request if the question was not brought up.  Majorly  (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that makes it sound as if the question was the Bad Thing, rather than her violation of policy. One could just as easily argue that CharlotteWebb would have most likely passed her adminship request if she had not used open proxies. ElinorD (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no problem, that's just another finding of fact.  Majorly  (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal - seems to be objective and definitely relevant to the case.  Sala Skan  17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A better way to do this would be to create an evidence section on the evidence page showing how it likely contributed to the RfA demise, then it can be linked to from finding of fact 1.2. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True but irrelevant without a clear principle justifying/condemning/whatever it and a remedy following from it. – Steel 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryan makes a valid point - what about 2.1 (with a link to the evidence page)? I'll add the evidence for this fact there, or someone else could copypaste it from here and include some links.  Sala Skan  17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer 2.0 to 2.1, as it avoids uncertainties "probably". As an aside, I was recently speaking to ArmedBlowFish (another editor driven away by the Tor blocks), who told me that "Tor" should not be capitalised (after his own discussion with the devs) - it might be an idea to standarise this one way or another throughout the RFArb. Martinp23 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed in this section; I'll change where I see it. ArmedBlowFish's RfA could be an interesting thing to examine (since it has similarities with CharlotteWebb's).  Majorly  (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify about Tor - by not capitalised I meant that it shouldn't be TOR - the correct spelling does seem to be Tor. As for ArmedBlowFish - I'm not sure how to fit that into this specific, fairly narrow dispute, without pressuring ArbCom into making a decision on policy. Martinp23 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Armedblowfish's RfA was different in that he told everyone he used Tor for privacy reasons, and that he could continue using them was the entire point of his RfA. However, it may be a thing to examine as he got away with using Tor (and was open about it). @Mart: Changed probably to "most likely" in 2.1 so it sounds a bit more certain.  Sala Skan  18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support with proposed change: I feel Armedblowfish should have something mentioned since that RfA failed for the exact same reason. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was an apparent abuse of power that affected CharlotteWebb's attempt to become an admin that some see as political in nature and has resulted in a loss of confidence in the one that appears to have abused his powers; therefore arbcom in needed to sort it all out. WAS 4.250 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 2.2, which I thihnk is more value-neutral in respect of the cause/effect relationship. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.2 is a lot better indeed. Says basically the same thing but sounds more neutral, more firm and is shorter.  Sala Skan  11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - 2.2 is very to the point, and supported by the readily available evidence. Martinp23 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.2 is poorly phrased at the least (and possibly outright false). The RFA failed because of Charlotte's use of TOR and serious concerns about her civility - going over the opposes, it's clear to me that neither alone would've sunk her - it was only the combo platter that did the RFA in.  Apart from which, 2.2 casts the failure as a "test case' in an already raging debate on TOR.  It should at least say "CharlotteWebb's RFA failed as a result of the debate on her use of TOR" or probably better is "The debate on CharlotteWebb's use of TOR contributed to the failure of her Request for Adminship." Wily D  15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

IP blocks on CharlotteWebb
3) It was claimed by that all the IP addresses that she had previously used had been blocked post the revelation that she used Tor nodes. It was confirmed by checkuser  that both Tor and non-Tor IP addresses used by CharlotteWebb were hard blocked, making her unable to edit. The CharlotteWebb account, however, was not blocked.

3.1) It was claimed by that all the IP addresses that she had previously used had been blocked post the revelation that she used Tor nodes. It was confirmed by checkuser  that both Tor and non-Tor IP addresses used by CharlotteWebb were hard blocked, making her unable to edit. The CharlotteWebb account, however, was not blocked.  CharlotteWebb is not banned.  Raul654 offered a private and discreet means of unblocking the non-Tor addresses.

3.2) It was claimed by that all the IP addresses that she had previously used had been blocked post the revelation that she used Tor nodes . It wqas asserted that some of these addresses were not Tor nodes.  It was confirmed by checkuser  that all IP addresses recently used by CharlotteWebb were hard blocked, rendering her unable to edit . The CharlotteWebb account, however, was not blocked.  CharlotteWebb was not and is not banned.  Raul654 offered a private and discreet means of unblocking any non-Tor addresses.  It is understood that no such addresses have yet been identified for unblocking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added in Raul is a checkuser.  Majorly  (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added in the fact that the main account was not blocked. It's very unusual - unprecedented in my experience - for the user's IPs to be blocked but not the main account. -- ChrisO 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't make her unable to edit. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that your opinion or do you have evidence of that? daveh4h 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, she has edited since then. And she claims she has a new account. Which is odd, since if she can edit under a new account, then she can edit just as easily under CW. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. We have no idea how many accounts the person behind CW has; whether they have other admin accounts; which IPs he has used or can use; or anything else, and there was no way to find out. That was the problem with the adminship. Nothing could be pinned down, and CW wouldn't answer any questions, even by private email to the ArbCom, which is the usual thing to do when something is very sensitive. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you conclude that there was no private email to the ArbCom? The very nature of "private email" indicates that it wouldn't be shared with those not on the committee. --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * and we have no idea how many accounts the person behind SlimVirgin has.... it is trivially easy to edit from multiple ip address and use a consistent pattern which a check user will not reveal. Check user can be useful for suspecting guilt (that someone is sockpuppetting), but it cannot be used to prove innocence (that someone is not sockpuppetting). If you want admins to be "pinned down" then ask for a copy of their id / driver's license / social security number; anything else is just false security. 75.116.11.115 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone checkusering me will see that I mostly edit from the same IP address; that it's a regular address and not a proxy; there are editors who know who I am, and people who have spoken to me; and I tend to maintain the same voice, the same interests, and so on. That's what it is to maintain a stable pseudononymous identity. When you have an admin using open proxies, and who (so far as I know), no one knows anything about, all that goes out the window. And as Quadell said, CW is on the one hand claiming that all his IPs were blocked and that he can't edit; and at the same time is claiming he's had to set up a new account, so the various claims aren't even consistent. Our credulity has to stop at some point. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. None of the things you listed prevents you from having another account (even an admin account). It's as simple as getting another isp (and another computer, if you really want to avoid accidentally mixing up your accounts). Using your criteria for "stable pseudononymous identity" for "trust" is absolutely foolish and completely unsound technically. The number of admins is large enough that they can't all personally know each other (just look at essjay for an example). Jumping from "stable pseudononymous identity" = "trust" to "unstable pseudononymous identity" = "distrust" is even worse. 98.132.47.84 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those things prevents me from doing it, but it makes it less likely. It's not a trivial matter to have made nearly 60,000 edits based on editing articles and policies; whereas it is a trivial matter to get to 60,000 via vandalism reverts, and it's easy to imagine someone maintaining more than one account that way. Not sure what you mean by "just look at essjay": it was obvious that Essjay wasn't what he initially said he was, and it seemed very clear that this was a tongue-in-check persona. That anyone believed it speaks directly to the issue of credulity. My point is that a mix of criteria are used to work out who's who: some technical, some not. With an account like CW, there's nothing at all to get a handle on. It's all smoke and mirrors. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So an examination of her contributions/mailing list posts etc. yields only smoke and mirrors? CharlotteWebb attracted some opposes before the proxy issue was entered because of allegations of incivility and difficult behaviour.  This is one facet of someone who has demonstrated some strong opinions and feelings in different arenas over a stretch of time, which doesn't lead me to a suspect intentional deception. --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, saying that CharlotteWebb is making contradictory claims is simply incorrect and shows that you haven't even read what she said. Charlotte claimed that (a) all her IPs were blocked, something confirmed by Raul, and (b) she felt that making any further edits from that account would only serve to have other Tor IPs blocked, thus harming other people who edit from Tor. She never claimed that she could not edit and could of course have continued to use Tor, another anonymizer, a public computer or indeed, her own IP address. All this "CharlotteWebb claimed x and y" rubbish is using weasel words to try and discredit her statements. What she has said does match up, if you had bothered to read it, and we have no reason to believe otherwise (particularly as her 'claims' have been confirmed by a checkuser, a group of users that we all know are completely infallible).  Kamryn Matika  02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point I was making was, the IP blocks did not make her unable to edit, so this statement is not factually correct. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you know? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She made this edit after she claimed her IP's had been blocked. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She could merely be using another computer. Note that her main account was never actually blocked. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose 3.1, since a means was provided by which CW could edit again. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed addendum: 'The user who placed these blocks shall henceforth be known as "John Doe" in this RFAR.' --Random832 06:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose 3.2, which is slightly different. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy policy rewritten in parallel to CharlotteWebb's RFA
4) No open proxies at the time of Jayjg's question (15 June 2007) to CharlotteWebb's RfA read: "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies. (...) Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects." After an edit war on the 17th, the page was rewritten, introducing the phrase "While [the blocking of open proxies] may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." See talk page discussion.
 * A typo was corrected, nothing more. Precedence indicates the policy was never interpreted as a user conduct policy prior to my RfA.  It was no secret that I and certain other editors used Tor,  but to my knowledge, none of our accounts were blocked, although we did have to deal with autoblocks from time to time.  Also, e-mails from Jimbo to the good people of Tor clearly indicate that well-meaning individuals blocked as a result of the blocks on Tor are collateral damage, not the intended targets.  See my talk page or these examples.  Thanks, Armed Blowfish 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. – Steel 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accurately reflects the facts of the case per evidence. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How it was exactly changed seems irrelevant to this case; the page is subject of heavy debate right now and may very well be changed before this case is finished. Proposal 3.2 seems to suit the same need as this one and does not say anything about the current version of the page (which is irrelevant).  Sala Skan  19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this FoF was proposed to supplement any principle (like 3.1, which has support) that talks about the current state of the policy without taking into account what it said at the time. (And as Ryan points out above, your 'principle' 3.2 is a finding of fact anyway.)  – Steel 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Recaptioned. The policy itself isn't a fact in concern. It's change is something this case is to consider. --Deryck C. 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Tor use
5) CharlotteWebb did not publicly disclose her reasons for using Tor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, see ../Evidence/. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5.1 proposed for clarity of language, but I'm not sure what the intention/utility of this FOF is. --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that CharlotteWebb never answered Jayjg's question in her RfA to public knowledge. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but I'm not sure why it is necessary to include this as a finding of fact. --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really matter - the case revolves around whether or not Jayjg should have released that information. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not clear exactly what the case revolves around. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about CharlotteWebbs conduct that's for sure - CharlotteWebb failed to answer a question on the matter - big deal. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is, she was asked to explain her reasons, yet she failed to do so. The entire case to me revolves around that one question Jayjg asked, and this is related to the question.  Concerns are noted though. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence has been offered that the question spiked the RfA; there is another claim that the tone of the response and the lack of an answer contributed to the failure. If the arbitrators choose to take on the result of the RfA as part of this arbitration, they may consider the relative effects of Jay's question vs CW's answer(s). Jd2718 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevance? There is no evidence of CW having used Tor to compromise the integrity of articles, only that Tor was used in clear violation of policy. Are we trying to imply that this was a breaching experiment? Guy (Help!) 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be combined with (1.7) instead. No need for a separate FoF here.  Sala  Skan  15:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Charlotte was blocked shortly after Jayjg revealed that she used Tor. Given the quick action, I think 5.1 is better than 5, since the former implies "Charlotte (somehow) refrained from explaining why she used Tor." 5.1 simply says "Charlotte did not disclose", which is more neutral. And I think it's safe to say Charlotte is a female by replacing "his/her" with "her". --Deryck C. 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Amount of personal information disclosed
6) Jayjg did not disclose any personal information related to CharlotteWebb outside of the fact she used Tor.

6.1) Jayjg did not reveal any information which might compromise CharlotteWebb's anonymity. The information that was released, was the minimum compatible with dealing with a breach of policy by an admin candidate.

6.2) Jayjg did not reveal any information which might compromise CharlotteWebb's anonymity. The only information that was released, was the fact that she used Tor.

6.3) Jayjg did not reveal any information which might compromise CharlotteWebb's anonymity. The only information that was released, was the fact that she used Tor, and this was confidential information obtained through the use of Special:Checkuser.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 6.2 is much better than 6.1, in that 6.1 is a conclusion, not a fact. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. See evidence. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "outside of the fact she used Tor" - is using Tor personal information? Would prefer a rewording. – Steel 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 6.1, which is probably the point. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6.1 takes a firm POV, which seems to be premature right now. Proposed 6.2 (a mere rewording of 6, which I also support).  Sala Skan  15:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew there was a problem with the wording when I made it, and I like 6.2 as well. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I take it that you do not dispute that CW had breached policy. 6.2 is fine by me, the first sentence was the more important anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, CharlotteWebb was pseudonymous, not anonymous. [[User talk:Armedblowfish#When_pseudonymity_isn.27t_anonymous_enough |There

is a significant difference]]. Secondly, I would prefer 6.2 over 6.1, since I do believe there was room for interpretation in the policy. Thirdly, it should probably be mentioned that the good people of Tor make no attempt to hide that a connection is from Tor, and in fact provide good tools to help you find out. My proposed change is, "The information that Jayjg released - namely, that CharlotteWebb was using Tor - was never intended by the good people of Tor to be personal information." Thanks, Armed Blowfish 9:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose 6.3. I think what happened here is that Jayjg revealed confidential but not personally identifying information.  This was a breach of the instructions for use of checkuser, but less serious than a breach of the privacy policy.  GRBerry 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of the checkuser information was not in response to disruptive behavior
7) There is no evidence that CharlotteWebb was utilizing Tor to engage in vandalism, sockpuppetry, or other types of disruptive behavior.

7.1) There is no evidence that CharlotteWebb was utilizing Tor to engage in vandalism, sockpuppetry, or other types of disruptive behavior prior to her RfA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, I think that's pretty clear from the evidence, whether or not it's eventually found that such a reason is enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Misses the point. A sockpuppet(eer) is a good user until they're found out. – Steel 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the following sections of my talk page: Internet Protocol (IP) addresses do not map 1:1 to human beings, or even computers, Current misused sockpuppet detection practice and Figuring out whether or not Alice and Alex are the same person, without knowing who in the world Alice and Alex are. Thanks for listening, Armed Blowfish 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not actually relevant, as noted above: the breach of policy was disclosed in a context where suych breaches of policy had previously been shown to be controversial, namely RfA. The only concern I have is whether this was a breaching experiment, but we should assume good faith on that score. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - this thing should definitely be clear. Charlotte's use of Tor is not considered harmful (yet).  Sala Skan  14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 7.1, makes the situation a little more clearer. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7.1 makes no sense, it indicates that she was disruptive after her RfA, which was not the case.  Sala Skan  11:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Struck it. I had second thoughts about it too for that exact reason. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg released checkuser information in response to CharlotteWebb's request for adminship
8) Jayjg released the information regarding CharlotteWebb's use of Tor as a direct result of the fact that she was requesting adminship, and because he was concerned about a potential administrator using Tor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, I think pretty clearly this is the reason, whether or not it's eventually found it was a good one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate as a finding of fact; there is no evidence to the contrary that I can see. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence for this? Perhaps a statement by Jay himself?  Sala Skan  14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, see my evidence section on the evidence page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CharlotteWebb's awareness of the no open proxies policy
9) CharlotteWebb had participated in Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, in which Armed Blowfish requested adminship in order to be able to edit using Tor. This request for adminship failed precisely because Armed Blowfish uses Tor.  Armed Blowfish's RFA closed on 6 June, CharlotteWebb's RFA was started on 14 June.  It is reasonable to expect that CharlotteWebb would have been well aware of the policy on Tor, and the fact that use of Tor by administrators in particular was considered by many to be inappropriate as it was at that time an explicit breach of policy.  Although CharlotteWebb could reasonably be expected to know that using Tor was contrary to policy, there is no evidence that CharlotteWebb's request for adminship was a breaching experiment.

9.1) CharlotteWebb had participated in Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish, in which Armed Blowfish requested adminship in order to be able to edit using Tor. This request for adminship failed precisely because Armed Blowfish uses Tor.  Armed Blowfish's RFA closed on 6 June, CharlotteWebb's RFA was started on 14 June.  It is reasonable to expect that CharlotteWebb would have been well aware of the policy on Tor, and the fact that use of Tor by administrators in particular was considered by many to be inappropriate as it was at that time an explicit breach of policy.

9.2) CharlotteWebb had participated in another request for adminship, in which another Tor user requested adminship in order find out if the community wanted him/her. A significant portion of the community expressed distrust in the editor because the editor used Tor and ran a Tor exit node. He withdrew the request for adminship on 6 June, CharlotteWebb's RFA was started on 14 June. Although CharlotteWebb could reasonably be expected to know that a significant portion of the community distrusts Tor users, there is no evidence that CharlotteWebb's request for adminship was a breaching experiment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Per Evidence. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully support. – Steel 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support this one in its current form, it is a quite important fact.  Sala Skan  14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments by User:Armed Blowfish (posted by the Clerk, by request) :
 * The goal of my Request for Adminship was to find out if the community trusted me, and basically get out of blocked-but-not-directly limbo land. I got a clear answer, so it was successful in achieving that goal.[]
 * I can already edit through Tor, although it would be best not to explain here. However, I have an ethical problem with exerting significant effort to do this without the Wikipaedia community's permission, as explained on my talk page.  I was hoping to be authenticated as a trusted user, per Jimbo's suggestion.
 * There was room for interpretation in the No open proxies policy.
 * I would prefer my user name to be spelled 'Armed Blowfish', rather than 'ArmedBlowfish'. Thanks, Armed Blowfish, 28 June 2007
 * To be absolutely clear, the current wording misrepresents my intentions, so I would like "in which Armed Blowfish requested adminship in order to be able to edit using Tor" to "in which another Tor user requested adminship in order find out if the community wanted him/her." (Note that I can already edit via Tor, but the level of effort required would count as block evasion in my book, and there is really no point if the community does not want me anyway.) Since success and failure are terms relative to goal, and I was successful in achieving my goal, I should like, "This request for adminship failed precisely because Armed Blowfish uses Tor," changed to "A significant portion of the community expressed distrust in the editor because the editor used Tor and ran a Tor exit node."  Also, I withdrew my RfA, so "Armed Blowfish's RFA closed on 6 June" should be changed to "The editor withdrew the request for adminship on 6 June". To dodge the question of interpretation of No open proxies, I suggest "It is reasonable to expect that CharlotteWebb would have been well aware of the policy on Tor, and the fact that use of Tor by administrators in particular was considered by many to be inappropriate as it was at that time an explicit breach of policy. Although CharlotteWebb could reasonably be expected to know that using Tor was contrary to policy" be changed to "Although CharlotteWebb could reasonably be expected to know that a significant portion of the community distrusts Tor users".  Also, per Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, I ask that my long-standing pseudonym not be explicitly stated, so replace "Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish" with "another Request for adminship", and occurrences of my pseudonym with "another editor", "another Tor user", etc.  Also, it's Tor not TOR.
 * Thanks, Armed Blowfish
 * Don't really understand the last sentence's coherence to this case. She didn't use the RFA as breaching experiment. So what? --Deryck C. 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider: If CW was deliberately setting out to gain adminship, use it through Tor nodes, then come back and show it was not a problem, hence Armed Blowfish should be allowed to do the same, then that would be a breaching experiment. It would also be likely to be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If, on the other hand, CW expressed solidarity with AB as a fellow Tor user, and did not personally consider the policy to be appropriate, it would not be a problem (other than in the sense that people had already shown they were not too happy about the idea).  I see no evidence that this was done with the deliberate intent to make a point.  Guy (Help!) 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could she "disrupt WP to illustrate a point" by using Tor with her sysop account? I doubt it. She could at most twist a rule. There's no "disruption". --Deryck C. 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't think "X failed due to Y, I did Y without telling anyone, therefore Y is not a problem, therefore X should not have failed" is at all disruptive? I think it's a poor thing.  But there's no evidence this is what was going on. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 9.1 proposed. (last sentence deleted from 9) Lack of evidence is very weak evidence itself. We do not know why CW chose to enter into an RfA, knowing what had happened but a few days earlier, and we shouldn't be offering guesses. Jd2718 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 9.2 per A.B.'s request.  Sala Skan  20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Duff has requested that I alert you guys to a discussion on his/her talk page. He/she also uses TOR, and would like to participate in this discussion, but is currently unable to. Please see User talk:Duff/Archive_1. -Pete 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Relation between Jayjg and CharlotteWebb
10) Jayjg and CharlotteWebb had minimal to no communication between each other prior to the RfA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, see evidence. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable.  Majorly  (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That no such evidence has been presented might reasonably be part of FoF 12, below, but how is our ignorance a finding of fact? Jd2718 12:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Release of CheckUser information
11) Jayjg's release of CheckUser information in the middle of CharlotteWebb's RfA was inappropriate.

11.2) Jayjg's release of CheckUser information in the middle of CharlotteWebb's RfA was inappropriate, and should have been discussed with the Arbitration Committee first.

11.3) Jayjg's release of CheckUser information in the middle of CharlotteWebb's RfA was inappropriate, and he should have contacted CharlotteWebb privately before releasing the information publicly. Also, it would have been appropriate if it had been discussed with the Arbitration Committee.

11.4) Jayjg's release of CheckUser information in the middle of CharlotteWebb's RfA was inappropriate, and should have been discussed with the Arbitration Committee first. He should have also contacted CharlotteWebb privately.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed 11, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3. I think one of these would be acceptable. Various people raised concerns below that sanctions against Jay weren't supported by an FoF, so here it is.  Sala Skan  11:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the word "highly" in 11.1 and 11.3. (You also have to think of how this affects the proposed remedies: does it really matter for whether Jayjg keeps checkuser access or not?)  I'm also not sure that ArbCom had to be the first stop.  If I were in Jayjg's position, I would probably have sent CharlotteWebb an email before bothering ArbCom, so 11.2 doesn't really hold water for me. Shalom Hello 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I listed 11.1 and 11.3 separately, because I was unsure whether to include that word or not. I'll remove the "highly" variants. Regarding your "concerns", I added (a new) 11.3.  Sala Skan  21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Policy violation by admin candidates is a problem, discussion of this in a way that minimises the violation of privacy (which is the case her, nothing can be inferred about CW form the mere fact of using Tor) would seem to be entirely legitimate. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: As said before, "Jay was not entitled to hold such information, decline to act on it, and decline to ask about it, only then to reveal it directly into an RfA for the purpose of influencing that vote" . That's a direct violation of the checkuser policy.  I think that the user should be notified first, but notifying the user doesn't (necessarily) do away with the checkuser policy violation here. I've put up a cludgy 1.4 that handles both.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  13:15, July 2 2007 (UTC)
 * He was entitled to have the info though because he is a checkuser. Me and you are not entitled to have that info unless it's publicly released.  Either way, I oppose them. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 15:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support some version of this. It appears that the entire reason was to impact CW's Rfadmin. --Rocksanddirt 18:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpose for revealing information
12) Although Jayjg has not directly explained his purpose in revealing CharlotteWebb's use of Tor, his statements that adminship is a position of trust and his choice to release it directly into the RfA suggest that he wanted the community voting on CharlotteWebb's RfA to consider the information in making their decision.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per . Mackan79 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevance? Obviously policy violation is more of a problem in an admin candidate, why would we need a specific proposal to say that? Guy (Help!) 10:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some hesitancy to recognize what exactly happened; I think we should address this with our eyes open. Whatever results, I think we need to recognize what Jay did in order to determine whether it was ok. Mackan79 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tor-using accounts generally have not been blocked
13) Accounts found to be using Tor generally have not been blocked in the past.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I'm basing this on statements that various checkusers knew about CW without blocking her, and that apparently the same happened with Armed Blowfish.  I don't know if more evidence would be needed to support this. Mackan79 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevance? CW's account was not blocked, known Tor exit nodes are blocked. This does not actually address either of those points. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Proposed principle 15. One question in my view is whether checkuser information should be released simply for the sake of some community disapproval and no other clear remedy.  It's also relevant generally to the policies and practices surrounding the event, though. Mackan79 00:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses was negligent
14) The indiscriminate blocking of all IP addresses used by CharlotteWebb in the last three months, even those IP addresses that were not open proxies, was negligent, breaching the duty of care described in blocking suspected open proxies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. John254 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely relevant.  Sala Skan  11:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on what percentage of blocked IPs were not open proxies. Are we talking about 1%? 5%? 50%? Chaz Beckett 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 48% of the blocked IPs were not open proxies, based on Shadow1's evidence. John254 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The rules on Tor use are disputed
15) The way Tor is tolerated varies from admin to admin and there is no clear policy on whether or not Tor should be hard-blocked or soft-blocked.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed MessedRocker (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your proposal confuses things even further. This RFAR is partly meant to clear up the issue on open proxies, not to just state that "the rules are disputed". Also, this FoF seems irrelevant.  Sala  Skan  17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There has never been a Wikipedia policy forbidding users from editing via TOR
16) While the foundation policy page indicating that open proxies can be blocked was rewritten to say that users were forbidden from editing with them this was NOT stated by the foundation or established by consensus. Further, when Jimbo expressed concern about this policy he was explicitly told that it did NOT imply any sort of censure towards users editing from open proxies. The claims, only a week later, that users editing from open proxies were violating policy, were untrue. This change was never established as a policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * However, editing from Tor (and other open proxies) is prohibited and such IPs are routinely blocked. You can argue that the one does not imply the other, but for a potential administrator to be knowingly editing from IPs that according to policy ought to be blocked is a strange action, at the very least. If editing from open proxies is prohibited (and it is), how is editing from those proxies not a violation of policy? Furthermore, your claim of no past history of enforcement isn't quite correct. During the course of many sockpuppet investigations checkusers have found sockpuppeteers using open proxies (Tor et al) to evade detection. We've taken that action, rightly, as evidence of bad faith. While that's not the exact situation before us here, it's also damn rare to see an administrator (potential or otherwise) edit from proxies. Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but editing from open proxies is prohibited and that's been the case for some time. If people can't be bothered to read meta that's their own lookout. This has been the case for several years. This is only disputed by people who ignore policy. The real question is whether otherwise apparently legitimate users who use proxies should face sanction, or be treated differently. That's the gap. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first line from that statement is operative: "I do not intend this to be a decree or anything overriding policy. This is merely a statement." Moving along, soft-blocking proxies is completely ineffective; we might as well not block them at all. Open proxies are hard-blocked. Whether users who deliberately use them should face sanction is an open question; I suspect they shouldn't. At the same time, they've no real right to complain if they find their proxies blocked. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conrad, you're disagreeing with a point that I'm not making. Please go back and re-read what I wrote. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, are we complaining about proxies or non-proxies? I think all parties are in agreement that the blocking of the latter was an accident, and there were, to my knowledge, several efforts to covertly unblock those to maintain the privacy of CharlotteWebb. You're also wrong about people complaining that Tor was blocked; I've handled several such complaints as a Checkuser. Finally, you continue to misconstrue my statements (you may find this statement helpful). Editing from open proxies is prohibited therefore they may be hard blocked. This says nothing about editors editing from open proxies. This, incidentally, reflects the practice of WP:OP, checkusers, and anti-vandalism patrollers, going back several years. That's policy. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read my proposed principle above I think you'll find we're more or less in agreement. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Until people started claiming out of the blue that CharlotteWebb was 'violating policy' most Wikipedians had never even heard of such a theory. Indeed, Jimbo was publicly told that this was not the case... and no one spoke up to object that it was. There was no past history of enforcement of such a theory. In short, it was not policy. --CBD 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen, NO... "editing from Tor (and other open proxies)" is NOT prohibited. That's the whole point. You are starting from a false premise. The Wikimedia foundation never said that. The Wikipedia community never said that. Jimbo has specifically said the opposite. Discussion on the talk page about the wording in question held that it did NOT mean users were prohibited from doing so, that we would never 'harass' good users for doing so, and that there is nothing wrong with it. That's all fiction - not a word of it was ever discussed or approved by anyone until it showed up out of the blue to torpedo the RFA. Yes, we've blocked Tor and other open proxies in the past and will continue to do so... but the idea that users aren't allowed to edit Wikipedia from them is something cooked up by a few people and never given any sort of official approval. Unofficially, it is DIS-approved of by Jimbo and a substantial portion of the community. --CBD 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like this policy to be (thoughtfully, slowly, and with due consideration for all valid viewpoints) revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do. --Jimbo Wales (original here)
 * Can you provide a link to a Wikimedia representative saying that we have a policy against allowing individual users in good standing to edit from Tor or other open proxies? Can you provide a link to a discussion where a consensus of the community held that such should be policy? If not, then you are essentially arguing that something can become policy simply by virtue of being written onto the page. Even if some person of insignificant note, say... Jimbo, challenges it on the talk page it becomes policy unless people edit war to actually keep the text off the policy page? I don't think that has been the practice regarding policies to date and I don't think it is how they should be handled going forward. Policies are what the Wikimedia foundation says they are or the practices which a consensus of the Wikipedia community accepts. This is neither. --CBD 12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read it... you say we have a policy forbidding editing via open proxies ("editing from Tor (and other open proxies) is prohibited"). I say we don't. As to, "they've no real right to complain if they find their proxies blocked". You know this is a strawman right? No one has actually lodged such a complaint. I believe the complaints were over having their RFA derailed by a false accusation of violating a "foundation policy" (the foundation has made no such statement) and having their NON proxy IPs blocked. I think people DO have a 'real right to complain' about such. --CBD 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a semantic issue. Wikipedia has a policy that open proxies may be blocked. It does not have a policy forbidding users from editing via open proxies. Do you agree with that? Your wording that 'editing from open proxies is prohibited' would seem to imply not. Blocking open proxies is long-standing practice. Treating established users in good standing who edit from them as 'policy breakers' and subject to suspicion, public revelation, barring from adminship, and outright banning (I don't know who did it or why - but it IS reality) is certainly NOT any sort of long-standing practice in my experience. Mere days before the first incidents of such things Jimbo was being publicly assured (without contradiction) on the 'policy' talk page that they were not the intent and would never happen. They certainly weren't commonplace before that and thus, again, were no part of active policy. --CBD 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
17) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Assume good faith
1) All involved parties are reminded to assume good faith on the part of other parties, even where there is a disagreement over specific actions or the interpretation of specific policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This seems to be missing form some people's crusade against both CW and Jayjg. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A good proposal, nothing about it seems controversial.  Sala Skan  14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not relevent. Absent a FoF that an involved editor failed to AGF when they should have, this remedies nothing. Perhaps as a principle? But even then, how does it/should it come into play in this case? Jd2718 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with JD - we should have this accompanied by an FoF stating that certain parties didn't AGF when they should have, but it seems difficult to make an FoF like that; Jayjg, CW and the second CheckUser (the involved parties in this case) did not do anything which assumed bad faith, but perhaps the "community" did after the events (e.g. on the mailing lists). I fail to see what exactly the purpose of this remedy is, but if there is one, I have no objections to adopting this remedy.  Sala Skan  18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CharlotteWebb sysoped
2) CharlotteWebb is promoted to an administrator notwithstanding the final result of the RFA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No. This would be a usurpation of the authority of bureaucrats and of the primacy of the community; the structure here is quite deliberately set up to avoid what is suggested. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed. --Random832 06:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even though I supported her adminship and continue to support it, this would set a very bad precedent. Adminship is not for the ArbCom to give, it is something granted by community consensus. In addition, there were opposes on the RFA based on other factors, and it is pointless to speculate on how the RFA would have proceeded had not the Tor issue popped up. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They can take it away, surely they can give it? I think it's perfectly clear how it would have proceeded. --Random832 08:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose this. Having the arbitration committee sysopping people would set a very bad precedent. Bureaucrats and bureaucrats alone handle promotions. Sean William @ 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's obvious that people did not support her because she used Tor. Regardless of if that information should have been released in the first place, we don't ignore evidence because it was obtained improperly. We're not a courtroom. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, she officially failed her RfA. Case in point,  failed his first RfA because of runcorn's vote stacking.  It was not overturned as well. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 16:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I encourage CW to reapply for admin privileges immediately after this case is resolved, but the community should decide whether she should be sysopped, not the ArbCom. Definitely not.  Sala Skan  19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. This is inconceivable. For those who don't remember, User:Jreferee's first RFA was sunk by Runcorn sockpuppets, and his second RFA just passed. There's no reason CharlotteWebb can't have a similar outcome. Furthermore, even if ArbCom decides that CW was totally not at fault, the community may have changed its opinion anyway. Shalom Hello 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Outwith ArbCom's remit. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all been said, but I'll add my "No way" to the chorus. She's free to run again at any time. Chaz Beckett 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"John Doe" admonished
3) The user who blocked CharlotteWebb's IPs is admonished that to take such an action, in an already highly-charged situation, is usually counterproductive.

3.1) The user who blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IPs, including the non-Tor ones, is admonished that to take such an action, in an already highly-charged situation, is usually counterproductive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed --Random832 06:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we know who this "John Doe" is at this point. Sean William @ 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I going to get sued if I change the "John Doe" bit to the user of whom the name is known by now?  Sala Skan  18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just leave it alone. If the ArbCom decides that a caution/admonishment/etc. to Mr. Doe may be warranted and that mentioning his actual name would be harmless, they'll do that when they put it up to a vote anyway. If they decide no such action is warranted, or that mentioning the real identity would be harmful, no point spilling any beans. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually see no need to "censor" this name. What exactly is the purpose of this?  Sala Skan  11:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unnecessary to admonish him - simply spread the word that the thoughtful Tor developers have provided an easier and more accurate ways to block Tor, and it's a moot point - that is the past, and now we look towards the future. My proposed change is, "Administrators blocking Tor should use the highly accurate list generators provided by the thoughtful Tor developers, rather than harder and less accurate methods, which are bad for both Wikipaedia and Tor.  It is also recommended that the Tor blocks be updated frequently, if possible, due to the highly dynamic nature of Tor." Thanks, Armed Blowfish 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you admonish a checkuser for blocking proxies, which is allowed by policy? Most of the IPs blocked were Tor exit nodes, and the few which allegedly were not have yet to be identified. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He blocked her regular IPs as well, and should have been more careful in doing so.  Sala Skan  11:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 3.1, by the way, it's a bit clearer on why it was counter-productive.  Sala Skan  17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg decheckusered
4.1) Jayjg is stripped of checkuser for revealing CharlotteWebb's use of Tor 4.1.1) Jayjg's CheckUser privileges are to be revoked. He may reapply for these privileges two weeks after this case is closed through the usual means.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, someone's going to do it eventually, so why not get it over with. Note: I do not support this, just doing it because I know someone else will down the line. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 17:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 4.1.1, better wording.  Sala Skan  18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; far too strong. – Steel 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that this is appropriate. Sean William @ 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not supported by principle or finding of fact. Jd2718 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think Jayjg handled it in the greatest way possible, but I don't think the situation merits this at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd, Jayjg did what was well within the bounds of his position. Why punish him for it. --MichaelLinnear 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too strong.  Voice -of-  All  07:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Third choice.  Sala Skan  11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the two versions? As a practical matter, the only way for him to get checkuser back would be to ask ArbCom.  Anyway, I support this remedy because I don't want this controversy to happen again with some other unsuspecting RFA candidate.  Forget whether it was exactly right or wrong or in between - it was disruptive, and that bothers me somehow. Shalom Hello 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between the two versions is the wording, obviously. 4.1.1 sounds a lot more formal. I slightly support it, but it may be a bit too harsh, so I prefer 4.2.1.  Sala Skan  21:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd, and wholly disproportionate. Jayjg revealed policy violation by an admin candidate, and in doing so revealed no private information about that candidate.  Guy (Help!) 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's too much a punishment to an authority who performed an illegal action out of good faith. I'd support a temporary decheckuser or admonishing Jayjg. --Deryck C. 14:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this remedy isn't supported by the facts. Chaz Beckett 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. User:Jayjg did not search CW's edits, he was already aware of her status. He used his legitimately acquired knowledge to uphold wikipedia policy. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg admonished
4.2) Jayjg is admonished for revealing CharlotteWebb's use of Tor 4.2.1) is admonished for revealing CheckUser information in an inappropriate manner. Any future violation of the CheckUser policy will result in immediate revoking of CheckUser privileges once it is brought to the attention of the Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I'd prefer this over 4.1 personally. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 17:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 4.2.1, better wording.  Sala Skan  18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, particularly Salaskan's 4.2.1.; again, too strong. – Steel 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When the ArbCom admonishes someone, it generally warns someone that his privileges may be revoked; when it cautions someone, it merely cautions, and nothing else. With the wording of 4.2, this remedy would be the same as 4.3.  Sala Skan  19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; too strong. Jd2718 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Sala Skan  11:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayjg admonished for asking an admin candidate why they were violating policy? Interesting idea, but probably not that great. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Candidate was violating policy, User:Jayjg was aware of it through previous checkuser work, and asked her why. A reasonable question, aimed at maintaining wiki policy.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg cautioned
4.3) Jayjg is reminded that his position of checkuser is not to be taken lightly 4.3.1) is cautioned to avoid breaching the CheckUser policy and not to take CheckUser permission lightly.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 17:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 4.3.1, better wording.  Sala Skan  18:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Better than the above, but prefer 4.4 below. – Steel 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still too strong, given no fof that Jay misused checkuser. Jd2718 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added FoF 10.  Sala Skan  11:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  Sala Skan  11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I see nothing in the very extensive RfA discussion relating to CW to suggest that User:Jayjg took has checkuser position lightly. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bare minimum. While the information released was not personally identifying, it was confidential.  Public release, without having had any prior discussion with CharlotteWebb, clearly violates the guidance at Meta:Help:CheckUser to attempt resolution without releasing any information.  GRBerry 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg advised

 * Original wording: "Jayjg is encouraged to..."

4.4) Jayjg is advised to discuss potentially controversial and/or damning information regarding good-faith, established users in private before revealing it in a public forum.

4.4.1) Where possible, Jayjg is advised to discuss potentially controversial and/or disruptive information regarding good faith editors privately rather than, or preceding, in a public forum.

4.4.2) All CheckUsers are advised to discuss potentially controversial and/or damning information regarding good-faith, established users in private before revealing it in a public forum.

4.4.3) Where possible, all CheckUsers are advised to discuss potentially controversial and/or disruptive information regarding good faith editors privately rather than, or preceding, in a public forum.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Could be worded better. – Steel 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he needs to be reminded of this says a hell of a lot. Jayjg has been around Wikipedia for a long time, and you'd be a fool if you thought he wouldn't have realised what the consequences of his actions would be (i.e. Charlotte's failed RfA and a lot of people pissed off). Kamryn Matika  02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Best, but needs rewording. Where possible, Jayjg is encouraged to discuss potentially controversial and/or disruptive information regarding good faith editors privately rather than, or preceding, in a public forum. (Cross-discussion w/KM): If there is evidence that would support a stronger sanction against Jayjg, please share it. Jd2718 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed it as a subproposal for you. The wording seems to be fine.  Sala Skan  11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need to be about Jayjg personally, it's not like he had any precedent to go by. I suggest striking out "Jayjg" and putting "Checkusers".  Make it about the principle, not the editor.  Peace, Armed Blowfish 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worth going a step further and use "Wikipedians" instead, since arguably it applies to everyone. – Steel 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice.  Sala Skan  18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 per Armed Blowfish.  Sala Skan  18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You need not present a million different wordings for every proposal, especially when they're only one word different to each other. – Steel 19:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed "encouraged" to "advised" - fits the context better. Shalom Hello 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Jayjg could have discussed the problem privately with CW, or could have gone privately to Arbcom. Either option defers the problem without solving it. I feel that his revelation of the Tor-editing was correct. CW could have given a simple and straightforward answer, and chose not to. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No sanctions
5) Due to the lack of any actionable policy violations, no sanctions are given to any of the parties. Involved editors are encouraged to move forward from this regrettable incident with a spirit of understanding and forgiveness.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Indeed, after reviewing the evidence I'm tempted to move for outright dismissal. Mackensen (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dismissal of the arbitration case, or dismissal of this proposal?  Sala Skan  22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, we don't need to "dismiss" individual proposals; we just ignore them if we don't like them. The whole case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, and partially sporked from Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision. This is at the other end of the spectrum. (This is resting on the fact that Jayjg did not checkuser CharlotteWebb directly, which is generally considered to be what happened.) Sean William @ 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what purpose would this RfAR have then? What happened is a very serious issue, and I believe that a sanction would be appropriate, or at least a cautioning.  Sala Skan  21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "what purpose would this RfAR have then?"
 * To review and reach a conclusion on a controversy? You seem to be suggesting that, rather than act because it's necessary, the ArbCom acts for the sake of acting. Hopefully you can see why that's a bad idea. – Steel 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Little basis for, and little to be gained from sanctions here. – Steel 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, he did violate the checkuser policy - he used information he gained from checkuser (whether he checkusered CharlotteWebb specifically or not) for political means.  Kamryn Matika  02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose as to form. The three involved editors are here for quite different reasons, and should be addressed individually. Jd2718 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KamrynMatka is only a party because she initiated the request. CharlotteWebb's only offense was editing through Tor. Jayjg released the information about Tor, which is not personally identifiable and not covered by the checkuser/privacy policy. I see no (actionable) policy violations. Sean William @ 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You left out John Doe. I was counting CW, Jay, and John Doe. I wasn't counting KamrynMatka as a party in that sense. Jd2718 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CheckUser: The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. - yes, he violated the policy. it is not about the fact that he released the information, but about the manner in which he did it.  Kamryn Matika  06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to argue this in finding of fact 8. As the workshop stands now, there is no FoF that supports what you say; no interpretation of the checkuser policy appears on this page that says that what Jay did was using the tool for political control. If you believe that such a finding of fact is warranted, please, by all means, introduce it in the appropriate section, above. Were it there, then, and only then, would it make sense to argue for a remedy based on it. Jd2718 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a FoF concerning this, Bob's your uncle ;-)
 * By the way, Sean, you copied this from a case where the parties agreed at last, and the real conflict was resolved. That is definitely not the case here.  Sala Skan  11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. I was simply looking for a phrase that I was unable to compose myself (the last sentence). Sean William @ 13:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Infeasible. Tor users and exit node operators (present Wikipaedia administrators excluded) who cannot in good conscience circumvent the Tor hardblocks are already autoblocked, and in my case, banned.  There have been a few complaints on the official Tor IRC channel, and the Tor developers have probably seen more complaints than I.  There are sanctions here, and lifting them would most likely raise questions of jurisdiction and precedent.  However, it would at least be nice if you all could at least block Tor more accurately and keep the blocks more up-to-date.  This would at least solve the problem of exit node operators who do not care about their own privacy and do not have an ethical problem with blocking exit connections to Wikipaedia.  Blocking exit nodes which do not actually exit to Wikipaedia really doesn't accomplish anything besides hurt Tor by pressuring the exit node operators to stop running exit nodes altogether.  (reject 66.230.200.100:80 and reject 66.230.200.219:443 should do it, assuming those are the only IPs/ports en.wikipedia.org and secure.wikimedia.org listen on.  You might want to check with the Wikimedia developers and/or system administrators to be sure.)  As for former exit nodes, blocking those IPs really accomplishes absolutely nothing besides annoy people who are not even running exit nodes.  Not to mention that more accurately blocking Tor will make it much more difficult for those who would circumvent the hardblocks to find unhardblocked Tor exit nodes.  Thank you, Armed Blowfish 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Before someone rails me for proposing the other things, they were more of a preemptive proposal. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn (Ni!) 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I suspect that CW is a great editor, and a loss to wikipedia. But in upholding wikipolicy User:Jayjg was wholly correct, his revelation of CWs editing was appropriate, and I applaud what must have been a very difficult decision for him. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Jayjg did clearly violate the instructions to attempt resolution without releasing any information. GRBerry 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like the most sensible proposal on the page. Sanctions aren't going to solve anything. Chaz Beckett 12:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second RFA for CharlotteWebb
6) CharlotteWebb is permitted to reapply for adminship immediately, and the community is admonished that her use of Tor is NOT a valid reason to vote against. The Bureaucrats are recommended to disregard such votes.

6.1) CharlotteWebb is permitted to reapply for adminship immediately.

6.2) CharlotteWebb is encouraged to reapply for adminship immediately.

6.3) CharlotteWebb is encouraged to reapply for adminship immediately, and the Bureaucrats are encouraged to use their discretion in weighing arguments for or against adminship rather than simply counting "votes" as is often done.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not within our ambit. Arbcom does not make admins, and Arbcom does not tell either the community or the bureaucrats who should be made admins. Arbcom occasionally will say that an editor needs to go through Arbcom to get admin status restored, if it has been removed by Arbcom or in a related action, but that's about it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. (though, it seems the committee is allergic to positive remedies, so we'll see if this gets any traction) --Random832 00:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lord no. Not for the ArbCom to decide. – Steel 00:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose the "and the community is admonished that her use of Tor is NOT a valid reason to vote against" section. It is absolutely a valid reason. No open proxies is still policy, regardless of how many people disagree with it. Sean William @ 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Bureaucrats are recommended to disregard such votes". Firstly, it's not a vote. A secondly, it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose someone. CharlotteWebb is allowed to reapply whenever she wants to anyway, so this point is definitely moot.  Majorly  (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a vote, my eye. Why the talk of vote counting, "discretion zone", why the use of numbered lists, etc? It's a vote, like it or not (and I don't). Making it into something that is not a vote is beyond the scope of this RFAR. And whether or not use of Tor is indeed a valid reason to oppose something is NOT beyond the scope of this. --Random832 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not changing anything, we're talking facts. Anyhow, this second rfa business is irrelevant for arbcom.  Majorly  (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between facts that are true, such as "RFA is, presently, a vote", and facts that you would like to be true, e.g. "it's not a vote". --Random832 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, not only is it not in ArbCom's remit, the RfA would fail anyway and CharlotteWEbb has already indicated that she is using a new acccount.  Kamryn Matika  02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * She already has the right to re-apply any time she wants, and ArbCom really has no business telling people what are valid or invalid reasons to !vote on it, even if some of the reasons are in fact really silly. And, unrelatedly, I hate the word "ambit" (used above in one of the arbitrator opinions)... it looks too much like "armpit"! *Dan T.* 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The rabid anti-armpit cabel strikes again. God, you guys are everywhere! WAS 4.250 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 6.1, the ArbCom isn't permitted to tell what is a valid reason to oppose or support someone. It's not that you aren't usually allowed to immediately reapply for admin, but often people vote against just because a previous RfA was too short ago. This "remedy" will hopefully stop people from opposing for that reason only at her possible second RfA, without explicitly mentioning what is a valid reason to oppose and what isn't.  Sala Skan  11:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * She is already permitted to do so, so the point is moot. Sean William @ 13:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are unwritten rules stating that one should wait a considerable time before reapplying for adminship after failing an RfA. Proposed 6.2, but I prefer 6.1 myself because it takes a less firm POV (the arbcom should be careful in these kinds of situations).  Sala Skan  18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The community is not allowed to vote against an admin candidate who violates policy? Interesting. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If CW were to reapply, she wouldn't be "violating policy", as the policy has now been changed to say that "legitimate users may freely use open proxies until those are blocked".  Sala Skan  12:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If wiki policy were to be changed to allow editing through Tor proxies, then I would support an RfA fron CW, as I originally did. But not until.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser information and requests for adminship
7) All users with access to the checkuser feature are instructed not to release checkuser information about a candidate of a request for adminship during the RfA discussion, if that information has not been publically announced (as in, a requests for checkuser case or otherwise) on the English Wikipedia prior to the start of the debate. In the event that a user with checkuser access has checkuser information which relates to a possible breach by a candidate of the sockpuppetry policy, or other policies (including any further versions of the no open proxies policy), they are instructed to email the Arbitration Committeee's mailing list as soon as possible, and are further instructed not to release the information to anyone without checkuser access (publishing it on Wikipedia, private communications with non-checkusers etc.). The Arbitration Committee will then investigate and be the final determiner of what actions, if any, are to be taken. 7.1) All users with access to the checkuser feature are instructed not to release checkuser information about a candidate of a request for adminship during the RfA discussion, if that information has not been publically announced (as in, a requests for checkuser case or otherwise) on the English Wikipedia prior to the start of the debate. Doing so will result in an immediate revokal of checkuser privileges once it is brought to the attention of the Committee. In the event that a user with checkuser access has checkuser information which relates to a possible breach by a candidate of the sockpuppetry policy, or other policies (including any further versions of the no open proxies policy), they are instructed to email the Arbitration Committeee's mailing list as soon as possible, and are further instructed not to release the information to anyone without checkuser access (publishing it on Wikipedia, private communications with non-checkusers etc.). The Arbitration Committee will then investigate and be the final determiner of what actions, if any, are to be taken. 7.2) Checkusers are advised to avoid releasing checkuser information about a candidate of a request for adminship during the RfA discussion, except pursuant to a public request. In the event that a user with checkuser access has checkuser information which relates to a possible breach by a candidate of the sockpuppetry policy, or other policies (including any further versions of the no open proxies policy), they are advised to email the Arbitration Committeee's mailing list as soon as possible, and are further advised not to release the information to anyone without checkuser access (publishing it on Wikipedia, private communications with non-checkusers etc.). The Arbitration Committee will then investigate and be the final determiner of what actions, if any, are to be taken.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * 7 proposed. It's very wordy, but it seems like a good idea (to me, so it may be the opposite). Basically, we need to avoid any possible situations where people are accused of using private/non-accessable information to sway an RfA. Although I'm not saying that Jayjg envisaged failing CW's RfA by releasing the information (and it would be a flagrant assumption of bad faith to say so), I'm sure that Jayjg acknowledges that the furore that has occured since the question he asked is undesirable. If this were implemented, it would mean that there will be no further situations like this RfAr, and also that the Arbitration Committee can discuss what they want to do without fears of juristictional issues or accusations of an individual trying to influence an RfA with sensitive information (again, not saying it happened here). The downside if this were implemented is that RfA's only last for a week, so ArbCom will need to make up its' mind and act quickly. I'm just throwing ideas into the hat, and I appreciate copy-edits and changes to this if anyone feels that this starting point has any merit (could you please make 'changes' as 7.1, 7.2 etc.). Cheers,  Daniel  07:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 7.1, a little more firm.  Sala Skan  11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good idea. In the example given (evidence of sockpuppetry), checkusers would KNOW of someone flagrantly disregarding policy, and be forbidden from doing anything about it until Arbcom review, which would take a significant amount of time. That's not good. -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There needs to be one overriding goal here: minimizing embarrassment to people who "get caught". As some of you know, I am a reformed vandal and sockpuppeteer (nothing recently, I assure you), and this came to light in the follow-up to my second RFA as YechielMan.  I knew that, theoretically, if someone checkusered me they would find these things, but I knew it would not happen, and I knew I had no intent to abuse admin tools, so I went ahead and applied.  The RFA failed mostly for unrelated reasons.
 * Now suppose Jayjg had come during my RFA and released all the dirty little secrets I was hiding. Yes, I would have been ashamed, but more than that, I would have been angry at him.  Why did he need to do that?  If he had just sent me an email saying, "I know what you've been up to, and you would be wise to withdraw the RFA before I have to do it for you," that would have made the point clear without making my misdeeds public.  It would have been a little more awkward with CW, who was actually passing her RFA (unlike me, where I was failing anyway), but it could have been done somehown in a discreet, dignified way.  This didn't need to come to light.
 * What everyone seems to be arguing about is whethere checkuser must respect the privacy of "Yechiel" (my real-life identity) or "Shalom" (my online persona). I think, if at all possible, the higher standard of protecting the online persona should be preferred.  Do whatever it takes to avoid embarrassing a user in front of hundreds of her colleagues.  There needs to be a kinder way. Shalom Hello 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to propose a situation: a checkuser pops up at an RfA and states categorically that the candidate is using sockpuppets, per Checkuser evidence. Naturally, everyone would believe the checkuser. The RfA would be destroyed, and probably every RfA after that for a long while.
 * Now, imagine this: what if the checkuser was wrong? I clerked WP:RFCU for a long, long time, and I know Checkusers make mistakes. I guesstimate this rate is probably about 0.5-1.0%, though. Checkuser is not magic pixie dust, it is not always right. Although, in many situations, errors can easily be fixed through unblocking/apologising, RfA doesn't work like this. The original RfA would be destroyed before the problem could be fixed, and then that candidate would come under increased and possibly-undue scruiting merely though the 'exception-to-the-rule' factor, as they stand out due to their failed RfA due to the 'wrong call' being made. We need to be careful in this situation a) to protect the candidate from undue or totally incorrect comments and b) to protect Wikipedia from losing good people.  Daniel  07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointless. Either policy will change so that use of Tor is allowed (in which case this is a solution to a non-problem) or it won't (in which case this requires CheckUsers not to ask admin candidates why they violate policy).  Neither makes any sense. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shalom, and have nothing to add to his statement. @Guy: policy has already changed to state that the use of Tor for legitimate ends is not prohibited...  Sala Skan  18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * what legitimate ends are not prohibited? only reading wikipedia is not prohibited. editing and other activities are still prohibited through open proxies (inlcuding Tor)--Rocksanddirt 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy states: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked."  Sala Skan  12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time of Charlotte's RfA, the policy stated clearly that editing through open proxies was prohibited. After the RfA, people started tampering with the policy page, and then it was locked in the new version. Someone could be blocked for making five reverts in 24 hours, and then people could come along and edit the 3RR policy page to say that you may not make more than six reverts in a 24-hour period. What is relevant to this case is what the policy said at the time of Charlotte's RfA, and at the time of Armedblowfish's RfA, in which Charlotte participated. ElinorD (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Elinor, yes, but JzG thought that policy currently prohibited the use of Tor, so I refuted that.  Sala Skan  11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If Checkuser data, legitimately obtained, shows that an RfA applicant is violating current wiki policy, surely that checkuser operator has a duty to reveal this? --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose this based on an experience I had a couple of months ago which presented the opposite situation: someone opposed an RfA based on an allegation of sockpuppetry, which was potentially plausible but which I believed was incorrect. I filed an emergency checkuser request and the check immediately disproved the allegation (the two editors were located on different continents), whereupon the RfA proceeded without further incident. These proposals would have caused a significant problem in those circumstances. Newyorkbrad 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 7.2 as another option. Mackan79 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7.2 seems fine to me.  Sala Skan  10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
8)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: