Case Opened on 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• KamrynMatika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)
• CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

As I'm sure you're aware, on June 15 Jayjg revealed on CharlotteWeb's RfA that she edits via TOR proxies.[1] This caused a pile-on of oppose votes at her RfA and has led to much discussion on-wiki and on the mailing lists as to whether Jayjg's actions were appropriate and within the limits of the privacy policy. On 17 June CharlotteWebb posted a message to her talkpage[2] that claimed that another checkuser had systematically blocked all the IPs she had used in the past three months, TOR proxies or no. This would indicate that there has been an abuse of checkuser privileges. There have been many accusations of checkuser abuse here from Charlotte's supporters and ArbCom is the only place that has the power to issue a finding one way or the other. Kamryn Matika 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ombudsman commission is that way. Sean William @ 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite claims to the contrary, the Arbitration Committee does have jurisdiction over allegations of improper disclosure of checkuser information. Per the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access."[3]. That being said, Jayjg's disclosure of checkuser information at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb did not violate the checkuser privacy policy, which restricts only the disclosure of "personally identifiable data". A statement that a user is editing through TOR exit nodes, without providing specific IP addresses, clearly does not constitute "personally identifiable data". Moreover, since editing through open proxies is a clear policy violation, disclosure of such information does not otherwise violate the checkuser policy. Therefore, insofar as this request for arbitration relates to Jayjg's actions, I would suggest that it be rejected. However, the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee. John254 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said by Sean William, this is outside the scope of the Arbitration committee, given the existence and directive of the ombudsman commission. If you have ethical complaints (not legal, or violation of process complaints), then you'll need to submit them through proper dispute resolution procedures: however given no policy violation exists, it's really a request of the ArbCom to legislate ethics; this is really IMHO the realm of the board. Swatjester 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure only the Ombudsman's office has the resources and powers to investigate the properly and take appropriate action. Abuse of checkuser is a foundation issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" - "Not really appropriate here." That's because thie isn't an Arbitration case. As unpleased as I am over what Jay did and his continued refusal to at least accept any responsibility, this is outside the ArbCom's purview. The Ombudsman Commission awaits, though. Should the ArbCom decide to accept this I believe the focus of this case needs to be changed - not on how Jayjg used Checkuser, but rather his conduct in that RFA, and after that, both here and on the mailing list. – Chacor 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Carcharoth's statement

I think that it would not be appropriate for the ArbCom to handle this case if an additional CheckUser - who could well be a sitting ArbCom member, or who at any rate would have access to the mailing list where this would be discussed in "private" - is involved. Unfortunately my trust does not stretch so far as to believe that the ArbCom will act neutrally in such a case. – Chacor 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamryn said that dispute resolution is "not really appropriate here", but ArbCom said this case is "premature". I don't know what the Ombusman thing is, but it sounds even higher than ArbCom. We should not bother Ombusman people if ArbCom can handle this, or maybe ArbCom and Ombusman can work together to deal with this. If ArbCom does not take this case, what should we do? We can't just leave this hanging there.

I think the ArbCom needs to look at five things:

1. Jayjg's telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

2. Jayjg's conduct after telling everyone that CharlotteWeb used Tor

3. CharlotteWebb's conduct after Jayjg told everyone that she used Tor

4. The blocking of all of CharlotteWebb's IPs - who did it, what can we do about it

5. The policy about open proxies - whether it needs to be changed or cancelled

I am a little disturbed by the entire incident. I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to look into this as a big picture, examining the user conduct of all involved. More focused, was the checkuser information incidental, and released because of its accidental discovery? Was the Requests for Adminship forum the proper place to release this information? Is there a rationale behind CharlotteWeb not receiving a warning prior to the information being released on the forum? Could the proxy machines be blocked without associating this editor with the proxy machine, absent any record of abusive editing? Is this acceptable user conduct all around? Navou 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and committee members should be aware that the role of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission is limited to reporting to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding alleged violations of the WMF privacy policy. The Ombudsman Commission does not interpret local checkuser policy on individual projects nor does the commission consider other allegations of misuse that do not involve a violation of the privacy policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about this being within the Committee's scope, UninvitedCompany is incorrect about that in his un-focused statement above, and therefore, acceptence below. The Committee can oversea this, but the case should be rejected due to pointlessness. Jay did what he is mandated to do, and the result, as dramatic as it may be precieved and, indeed, propogated by some, isn't worth the Committee's time & effort. El_C 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct but closely related issues here. There's clearly a general policy question that needs to be resolved, which I would frame as something along the lines of "is it appropriate to disclose CheckUser data for the purposes of a RfA?". However, I can also see a conduct question, namely: was Jay's conduct appropriate in this particular case, in this particular way and at this particular time, given the predictably explosive effect it had on the RfA?

Regarding the question of jurisdiction, as John254 points out, the CheckUser policy does clearly state that "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access." This might at first sight be seen to conflict with the remit of the Ombudsman Commission. However, the Ombudsman Commission's role is explicitly stated to be to "mediate between the complainant and the respondent." If CharlotteWebb doesn't make a formal complaint - as far as I'm aware there hasn't been one - I assume the Commission can't act, as I doubt it would accept a complaint from a third party without the explicit consent of the injured party. So this is likely to end up in the lap of the ArbCom anyway. I would suggest to the arbitrators that they accept the case provisionally, on the basis of investigating suspicions of an abuse of CheckUser, but defer to the Ombudsman if a formal complaint is made. -- ChrisO 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. Re JzG's statement, it appears from CharlotteWebb's comments on her talk page that her IP addresses have been systematically indef-blocked based on CheckUser data, though the named account isn't blocked. I honestly can't think of any precedent for blocking in such a way. I've certainly never come across a comparable example in nearly three years as an admin. -- ChrisO 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg violated both the privacy policy and the checkuser policy. In the privacy policy, Jayjg's conduct likely violates "Policy on release of data derived from page logs"; though 5 might be used to justify his actions, I personally doubt it applies (it could also be said that revealing Tor usage doesn't count as private data, but again, I disagree). He also violated the checkuser policy, especially section "Use of the tool," particularly "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. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." ArbCom jurisdiction is established in the checkuser policy, "Suspicion of abuses of checkuser should be discussed on each local wiki. On wikis with an arbcom, the arbcom can decide on the removal of access," though it also allows for the Ombudsmen Committee to make a decision, "Complaints of abuse of checkuser or privacy policy breaches may also be brought to the Ombudsman committee." The ArbCom certainly can decide to take the case, though it can also decide to forward the violation of the checkuser policy to the Ombudsmen Committee. Either way, the Ombudsmen should decide on the violation of the privacy policy. --Rory096 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. RFA fails for using TOR against policy, fair enough - silly, come back in six months, no big deal. Hard-banning a productive user with absolutely no suggestion of evil, using tools provided to root out vandalism? That sucks. Really sucks. Arbs, please take this even if it means you have to escalate it, because I have to say I am extremely uncomfortable about this, even as one who feels that a lot of privacy concerns and checkuser paranoia are overblown. This looks petty and vindictive, even if it isn't, and I believe it is a serious error of judgement. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By strict (if unwritten) Wikipedia policy, members in good standing of the Ruling Clique are not allowed to be criticized, held accountable for their behavior, or otherwise subjected to statements or actions of any sort that are unpleasant to them. Peons who attempt such actions against them, on the other hand, deserve the worst possible treatment. Hence, the proper outcome is to award an entire page full of barnstars to User:Jayjg, and give a permaban to User:KamrynMatika. *Dan T.* 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to what CharlotteWebb wrote on talk page, CW is unable to contribute at this point in time. I suggest accepting this case due to the fact that the change in Tor policy effectively prevents a huge amount of editors from editing. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If a checkuser is supposed to reveal when there is editing through open proxies, and this is a thing Jayg did, and
2. It was someone other than Jayg who blocked CharlotteWebb's proxies,

Then

1. Is this an arbitration on this absolutely unnamed second checkuser for performing a block without warning?
2. Is it an arbitration on the unnamed second checkuser for acting on a checkuser without a checkuser request?

I'm unclear about the targets, methods, and questions of the arbitration. If it is "Jayg revealed the proxy editing," then there is certainly potential impropriety in that he did not discuss or warn, if he knew this before, but not really that he revealed the policy violation of a person up for RFA. If it is "the user was innocent and blocked," then admittedly policy doesn't have a space in it for "editing through open proxies is wrong, but some people can if...." Perhaps there should be an "if."

As much of a hair trigger as I am about revealing checkuser data, I see really bad form but no revelation of which ISP (for example) or IP numbers used, and editing through open proxies is against policy because it hides identities. I.e. anyone editing through open proxies can't have private data revealed by checkuser, unless checkuser is much mightier than I think it is. Geogre 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As John254 said: "...the claim that another user with checkuser access has been blocking every IP used by CharlotteWebb, even those that aren't open proxies, may merit investigation by the Arbitration Committee." See Charlotte's comments here. This blocking of IP addresses that are not open proxies may well be an abuse of the privacy policy. I would ask that the allegations be investigated in private by the ArbCom, and a statement issued clarifying what has taken place here. Carcharoth 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chacor's comment to Carcharoth's statement

I was thinking more along the lines that if there has been a mistake or abuse, then the ArbCom should have an opportunity to make a statement that might clear things up, before those unhappy with what happened take things any further. Carcharoth 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CharlotteWebb has posted on Wikipedia Review that she has contacted the Ombudsman commission. This would make this case completely unnecessary and would be beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is a very confidential status. The fact that Jay revealed very sensitive CheckUser information in the middle of an RfA which was likely to succeed without any valid reasons of doing so, is of my concern. Thusfar he denied any responsibility at all on the mailing lists. Also, the proxy policy is very confusing right now, and it'd be good if the ArbCom could establish some things about this. The current controversy about CharlotteWebb's RfA seems to be enough of a reason to accept this case to me. SalaSkan 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I believe ArbCom should decline to hear this case for the following reasons.

1. Mootness. One of the two parties in the dispute seems to have left Wikipedia for good. (Her account was not blocked. She claims her non-TOR IPs were blocked, but if true, she can request to have these unblocked. So far as I know, she has not. I strongly suspect that the account-holder has no further interest in editing as CharlotteWeb because the account was designed solely to be a sockpuppet admin. Her defensiveness and evasiveness are telling.)
2. Lack of prior steps taken. This is mainly due to point #1, above.
3. Lack of jurisdiction. As explained by others, checkuser is a foundation issue.
4. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Some have accused Jayjg of violating checkuser policy, but a cursory look at the (only) diff in question shows that no personally-identifiable information was revealed. Others have accused Jayjg of blocking CW's IPs out-of-process, but the only reason for thinking that anyone has done so is CW's accusation, for which she has chosen to provide no evidence. There is also no evidence that Jayjg was involved in such a block if it occurred, and I don't believe he would make such a block.

In all likelihood, Jayjg's actions prevented another sockpuppet-admin, like User:Runcorn. Even if CW was not an attempted sock-admin, Jayjg's action gave the community useful information to help them decide whether CW should be an admin. He should be commended. If his action had revealed sensitive personal information, that would be one thing, but they only revealed that CW was routinely violating policy for reasons she has refused to explain. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 has recently confirmed "that someone went on a spree and blocked all of... [CharlotteWebb's] IPs, even non-Tor ones". Given that this negligent blocking of IPs involved the misuse of administrative, as well as checkuser, privileges, and in light of the fact that ordinary administrative misconduct is clearly outside the purview of the WMF Checkuser Ombudsman Commission, the portion of this case which relates to the actions of a certain administrator who indiscriminately blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses should not be rejected on the grounds of preemption by the Ombudsman Commission. Note that prior dispute resolution concerning the negligent blocking of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses is impossible, since, in the interest of protecting CharlotteWebb's privacy, the administrator who is responsible for the IP blocks cannot be named publicly. However, should this case be accepted, I can present substantial evidence of prior misconduct by the administrator who performed the IP blocks to the Arbitration Committee via email. Furthermore, I would find rejection of any of this case on preemption grounds to be rather odd, as a member of the very Ombudsman Commission to whose judgment the case supposedly needs to be deferred has voted to accept this request for arbitration. John254 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case raises several novel and serious problems for Wikipedia, which have not been solved by discussion here or on wikien-L. I believe these issues are serious and deserve a hearing via Arbcom.

Some have argued against Arbcom taking the case given CharoletteWebb's apparent departure from the project. I object; the principles at odds here are of interest to the entire english Wikipedia community. We do not have to have an active participant on the one party for there to be a valid and important issue to arbitrate. It may be convenient as an out, but leaves several now-known incindiary policy disagreements simmering along, and lack of clarity on those will blow up in our faces again sooner or later.

The issues requiring attention are:

1. Whether release of otherwise non-public, but not personally identifying information by a CU constitutes an abuse of community trust. While events appear to have met the letter of the policy, many (including myself) feel that a breach of the spirit of the policy has occurred due to JayJGs initial actions.
2. Whether project members with special rights or powers are held to a higher standard for sensitivity and propriety in discussions. Discussions on Wikien-L following the initial incident raised a secondary question here in that JayJGs' responses were inflamatory and showed lack of concern for "spirit of the rules" issues.
3. Whether a range of IP addresses were blocked (by unspecified others) soley because CW used them, in an abuse of both WP:BLOCK and CU policy.

The ultimate issue requiring Arbcom action is whether the community's trust in a CU user has been violated. It brings me no joy to raise the issue here - Jay is a longstanding highly respected contributor trusted at high levels in the Foundation and project. As pointed out on Wikien-L, the risks of legitimate admins using Tor are real, as are the risks of trojan admins brought up in subsequent discussions. But those do not excuse or outweigh the initial action's consequences or impact. I now question whether it is appropriate to continue his CU access. These questions have to be asked and examined and answered.

There is some contradictory jurisdiction in play, but it is reasonable to assert that the Foundation is unprepared to deal with issues which fall below clear breaches of Foundation CU privacy policy but above normal accepted CU actions, where they may or may not be abuses of the community. That is pretty much the role intended for project-specific Arbcoms or the equivalent. Meta's CU policy explicitly says:

On a wiki with a (Wikimedia-approved) Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), only editors approved by the Arbitrators may have CheckUser status.

If there is an issue here, and many feel there is, you must be the right people to take the issues on, and cannot and should not shirk that responsibility. Georgewilliamherbert 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ombudsman committee is for dealing with privacy policy concerns. Revealing use of TOR is almost certainly not a violation of it, but it may cause a lack of community trust. Thus, we need someone else to accept the case. -Amarkov moo! 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Meta checkuser policy states, in part, that:

"The 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..."

In this case, the tool was used to apply pressure on an editor (namely, to apply pressure not to use TOR). There was no indication that CharlotteWebb was engaging in any activity otherwise prohibited, such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, or other disruption. The release of such information, whether found deliberately or incidentally, at a time calculated to cause significant disruption (during an RfA), is of significant concern, especially absent any evidence of wrongdoing. I would urge the Committee to accept this case, to examine whether such a release of information is an appropriate use of privileged Checkuser information. Whether or not information gained through use of the Checkuser tool serves to personally identify an editor, it should be considered clear that such information is privileged and confidential, and should only be released when absolutely necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked as a courtesy. See talk.

I think this would be a good time to consider several key aspects of the TOR situation and the Checkuser situation. For one, I believe that the TOR block seems unreasonable. The primary reason is that if anyone is to commit acts of vandalism or disruption, they can be handled whether or not they do these things from a TOR proxy or anywhere else. I'd also like Checkuser looked into. I remember discussing random checkuser requests on IRC with some editors and I had the impression that they were commonplace. It seems like such a thing shouldn't happen. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that there is no specific foundation for this case. Jayg is not the only checkuser in question, and what the exact question is is not laid out. To keep things short, this seems like a use of the ArbCom to fish and to act as a sort of surpreme court, as though a higher ruling governs any aspect of Wikipedia. Despite Cabalist claims, we don't even have that much form of structure.

Regarding the revelation of CharlotteWeb's use of open proxies: I never saw a violation of privacy by the disclosure. As Jayg further explained, any check of an open proxy will reveal the userID, and thus username, of an account. He is the named party but he did not perform the blocks. I find the complaint and the other statements in support of this case to be faulty in these regards. There was absolutely no violation of the privacy policy by Jayg, nor a violation of checkuser by Jayg or Dmcdevit. CharlotteWeb got found out through other searches, and that was probable cause for the subsequent checkuser by Dmcdevit for open proxies. This whole issue has been cut and dry in that regard.

It seems to me that this case is supposed to set, clarify, overturn or create policy. I don't see that as the ArbCom's purview- that is the enforcement of policy. Keegan^talk 06:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as some people seem to assume bad faith and/or judgement on Jayjg's part, I'd like to comment on that with my own experience with him as a checkuser:

When I first came to Wikipedia, it was a relative disaster. Not going into details here, as this appears not to be the appropriate venue (admins: mail me for details). At any rate, Jayjg had to block me, and when I immediately created another account, I gave him reason to block me again. With my current account, I tripled my efforts to stick with policy and to effectively contribute, and I believe that I have come a long way; but one very inglorious and ill-considered incident which Jayjg noticed and which required an emergency block meant that he realised who I was. In my opinion, the way he handled the situation was very considerate. He evaluated all involved aspects and, following a brief email exchange, he even lifted the block.

I'm telling this here because I am convinced that Jayjg acted on his best judgement of the situation when he commented on CW's RfA. If this led to the failure of that RfA, it's because a considerable number of people share the opinion that admin candidates should be aware of policy and not violate it, regardless of ongoing debate about any particular policy, like WP:NOP. Charlotte Webb was not ignoring this rule for the immediate better of Wikipedia and her using TOR demonstrates bad judgement, to such a degree that I can accept if a checkuser decided to reveal his findings and raise awareness of such an issue in a discussion that has the primary purpose of evaluating a user's trustability with regard to policy and the admin tools.

—AldeBaer (c) 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject Premature. See no ArbCom case now. FloNight 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Strike vote. FloNight 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline pending Ombudsman action. Once they decide or reject the case, we might have more work to do, but given that checkuser status is derived not from ArbCom or the community but rather from the Foundation, we need to defer to them unless they say otherwise. Note that the policy that allows ArbCom to decide these issues is untested, and possibly unworkable, given that half of ArbCom are also checkuser operators. Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per jpgordon. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Accept. Kirill 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept in order to clarify this issue. Local checkuser policy is clearly deferred to the arbitration committee, and we should make it clearer. Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I would argue that it is hard to localise the impact of privacy issues on WP's reputation as a whole; but it would be good to have the AC look more thoroughly at the point. Charles Matthews 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. There are many important issues here which might profit from an examination by this committee. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

1) 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. Generating additional drama by making premature public proclamations is unhelpful.

2) 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.

1) In the course of CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s RFA, Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posed a question regarding the former's use of Tor, based on information that he had obtained through unrelated use of the Checkuser tool. The question, and CharlotteWebb's failure to adequately respond to it, likely affected the outcome of the RFA. Subsequently, a large number of IP addresses used by CharlotteWebb, apparently including both Tor and non-Tor ones, were blocked.

2) Although Jayjg was aware of CharlotteWebb's use of Tor for a considerable time prior to the RFA, he failed to initiate any discussion with her regarding it until his public question there.

3) While Jayjg's question did not constitute an actionable violation of the privacy or Checkuser policies, its timing resulted in an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently.

1) The Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time.

2) Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.