Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Leaker Identity Speculation

More to the point, when will the Arbcom be announcing the name of the leaker? or are we to read that belatedly on WR too? Giacomo Returned 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the identity of the leaker hasn't been determined. PhilKnight (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Really? You do surprise me, I find that impossible to beleive. Never mind, it's all goood reading and I hope to read a lot more. I supose it must be very hard for you all, does one out him and risk angering him into revealing more, or say nothing and hope he will become tired and return to the fold? I'm sure the Arbcom will eventually make a wise choice, just as they always do. Giacomo Returned 22:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that the above makes not a great deal of sense, don't you. If I knew who the bloody hacker was, I would not stand on ceremony with anybody over saying who it was. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• A hacker? No, I wouldn't think so - this is Wikipedia not James Bond. I xpect he's a paid up member of the arbcom, one does not need amazing powers of deduction to deduce that - does one? Giacomo Returned 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think the leaker must be "a paid up member of the arbcom". A disgruntled member would likely have a more focused agenda, or some sort of specific grudge. The scattershot material argues against the leaks coming from such a person. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What Seth said. A likely source is malware, with email being the initial delivery mechanism.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I expect to find it is a fully trusted member of the Arbcom. I don't buy all this hacking and other funny, clever business. I think people are showing a marked reluctance to look under their noses. No doubt we shall all find out in the fullness of time. Giacomo Returned 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is easier to take everything when you have access to it in the beginning; I agree it's credible. At this time we don't know. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I assume Luke, you are using the royal "we." Giacomo Returned 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but you are right that I only know what I can see and infer. It would be more accurate to say that I am not aware of anyone on ArbCom who has indicated they know, and I don't know myself. Furthermore, at at least some members, as Elen suggests above, would go on a warpath if they had good evidence of who it is. Cool Hand Luke 00:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

When the leaks began, Philippe from the Foundation posted that the developers had found no evidence of unauthorized activity. [1] I took this to mean that no unusual IP address had recently accessed the archives. That suggests three possibilities to me: the leaker is an Arb; a non-Arb with authorized and regular/recent access; or an unauthorized person who accessed the archives from an IP range that an authorized person normally uses. Those possibilities don't include the "malware from a stranger" hypothesis. Or did I misunderstand what Philippe said? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"malware from a stranger" is the way by which "an unauthorized person who accessed [x] from an IP range that an authorized person normally uses" happens. malware installs a backdoor, and the person with access to the backdoor can use the machine to access the internet via the IP of the authorised person. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Malware allows not only the target's computer to be used, but also his IP address? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Malware is a broad term. Any resource attached to a computer, inc. its internet connection and its IP, can be used when someone has access to your computer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know a hacker could use a back door to gain remote access to an IP address (via the modem?) and the computer at the same time. If that were to happen, would the target's ISP be able to see that someone had hacked into the modem/internet connection? The remote access has to leave a trail of some kind. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ISP's don't track that sort of thing without a court order, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, SV, if it was a compromised machine, it doesn't seem like they needed to download the archive through it. In the recent past, at least, everyone who downloaded the archive reports that they did indeed download the archive when the WMF logs said they did. To my mind, this means that: (1) some sort of unauthorized malware got access to an arbitrator's computer and fished around for the archive stored there, or (2) an arbitrator leaked it to someone else and/or is leaking it now. Cool Hand Luke 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm sorry if I'm asking stupid questions. I'm just trying (without technical knowledge) to get a handle on the various possibilities, so I appreciate the corrections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, how many people can there be who downloaded the entire archive, or huge amounts of it, in the recent past? I'd assume that in practice there would be one and only one username which qualifies. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to have been a lot - it had never occurred to me to download it (to be honest, I never looked at it, even before I broke the password), but it was a common practice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was "common practice" to download an archive filled with all kinds of information worth protecting to personal computers? When ya'll had remote access to it already? Simply wow.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the mailman search function has been disabled for quite some time, the only way to search the archives was to download them. (FYI, it is no longer possible to download them). –xeno^talk 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So convenience wins out over security? Or is it laziness, given that I'm assuming it would not have been so hard to get someone to enable searching the archive remotely again in some manner? I appreciate the explanation but it does not make it better.Griswaldo (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't privy to past discussions about searchability of the archives, but I can tell you that searching the archives is a necessity, not a convenience. –xeno^talk 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Where does ensuring privacy fall on the scale of Arbcom mailing list "necessities?" Because if it is high on the list then there is no excuse for not fixing the problem of being able to search the more secure location, as opposed to spreading the archive around on a bunch of non-secure personal machines.Griswaldo (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the act of "looking" at the archives, even if they are not copied, constitutes "downloading" them; a temporary internet file is downloaded onto one's computer. Thus, every time someone even looks at the archive, it is considered a download. I was thinking much the same as others in this thread until one of the sysadmins set me straight on this. As to searchability, this was disabled on WMF servers back in 2009 due to server load, and we have inquired about having it reinstated for this list at least. Risker (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aiiieee ... you mean people have been making wholesale download copies of this supposedly very confidential information, out of necessity because the WMF could not enable a selective list search function??? Oh, Wikipedia has lucked-out so many times here ... Anyway, yes, "every time someone even looks at the archive, it is considered a download" (I was a sysadmin years ago). HOWEVER, nobody should need to look/download e.g. four years of mailing-list archives more than once, to make a local copy. If I read what you are saying correctly, this complete look/download is common enough that more than one account has done it in the past three months. And alternatively, someone might have pilfered a local copy. Is this all true? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "you mean people have been making wholesale download copies of this supposedly very confidential information, out of necessity because the WMF could not enable a selective list search function???" Yes. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SV, given my experiences helping tech support, I would be very, very, careful about drawing too many inferences from anything relayed by a person who did not do the investigation him or herself. The question to ask, if you want to press the matter, is "What username is shown in the server archive log downloading the archives?" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer might be "none". Until this leak, mailman usernames and passwords were used. I'm not 100% sure whether mailman logs each access with a username. I dont think so. The HTTP server only logged the IP. We now have HTTP authentication, so the server log now includes a username. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Earlier, I thought there would be one mass download, which then gives one username. I'm finding out those assumption are sorely in error. Ouch. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouts all around for egregiously inadequate security measures, but to be fair nobody on the committee has ever claimed to be an expert on computer security. Seth and Giano, the archive password (singular) was emailed, in plain text, to every member of Arbcom. Most members of the committee likely kept that email in their inbox or archive instead of permanently deleting it. In all likelihood the hacker compromised one of these email accounts, found the password, then downloaded the archive while safely behind an open proxy: we'll almost certainly never know his identity unless he wants us to. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

but to be fair nobody on the committee has ever claimed to be an expert on computer security. I believe this is factualy untrue. I'm not saying this person is to blame, they've previously commented here on complaints they made pre-leak.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. At least two folks on the committee have a background in computer security, one of them being me. Only speaking for myself, I didn't ever get into the Mailman software, because I've mostly been a security policy manager and risk assessor for the past several years, and don't do much in the way of technical security. Well, that and because I am not particularly interested in taking on problems without authority or budget to solve them. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, John? WMF seems to have an idea of who recently downloaded the archive. Cool Hand Luke 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WMF compared the IPs in the server logs accessing mailman with IPs on en.wp and arbcom-wiki using checkuser, and deduced the people responsible for downloading the archives. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All this talk of hacking and hackers is just an excuse to stop looking at the obvious. I want to know how the Arbcom are currently discussing this on their list? Are they saying "I think it is A", and A replying "No, it is quite definilty B" or more likely are they seizing on the hacking version because it is less embarasing to all? Let's face it, the Arbs are so stupid and ignorant that last December, they thought that I was clever enough to hack their sacred wiki? Looking for the obvious has never been any of their strong points. This is not clever hacking; it's almost certainly an inside job which their pride forbids them even to consider - or at least admtting to the rest of us. Giacomo Returned 21:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Giano, can you lay out a chain of reasoning as to why you believe this is "almost certainly an inside job", as opposed to, e.g. someone cracked into an Arb's email account, and found the list archive password (or found a hole in the archive setup)? The reasons I don't think it's an inside job is that 1) there doesn't seem to be a motive 2) the leaker didn't know the cases where leaks would do the most damage 3) the leaker didn't contact prominent critics 4) the initial release wasted the breaking story interest spike, and actually ending up making ArbCom look good. That all doesn't add up to a rogue insider. I'm certainly willing to consider an inside-job hypothesis. But, please, give some sort of rationale for it, and against the point outlined above. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems from reading some of the leaked emails that the list has on and off, in one way or another, always been insecure - without any doubt from inside and also from possible attack from outside. It is still insecure and should not be trusted as confidential or private in any way. Really, as this is the case and arbitration members are volunteers with no training or success historically in such a task as keeping private information private - the arbitration committee should cease to discuss personal issues in regard to identifiable living living people in insecure locations, such as their mailing lists. The recently added disclaimer - "It should not be assumed that material sent to this address will remain private." - only protects them from release of your own emails sent to them - uninvited personal discussion of private personal details in regard to living people between themselves that is repeatedly published to the www would leave then open to all sorts of situations. - its likely the committee as a whole could be held responsible for any release of private personal data and following that any negative impact in regard to living people in real life. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Giano, if the Arbs thought you were "clever enough to hack their sacred wiki", doesn't it follow that if they hold such absurd notions, their speculations as to the identity of the leaker would likely be similarly unreliable? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Amusing point. Cool Hand Luke 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All this talk about the mechanics of security rather misses a larger point: if you want something to be confidential, don't tell 18 people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. We can't expect people to behave otherwise. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions for ArbCom regarding Prioryman

I'm starting this in a new section to distance it from the thread originally started by someone's sockpuppet and also to separate it from the general discussion above. Although I understand that there may be differing opinions within ArbCom about these matters, this has been discussed and ArbCom has presumably decided by consensus what actions to take or not take, as the case may be. I ask that the answers here reflect that consensus, instead of expressing personal opinions (not that I think ArbCom members shouldn't have personal opinions that may differ from the consensus, but the consensus is the basis for action, not the discussions leading up to it). To make discussions less convoluted -- and not as any sort of "outing" attempt -- I am going to refer to the user in question by the name that is most recognized, ChrisO, since it has already been linked to the user in other on-wiki discussions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cool Hand Luke and Risker for your answers below. I believe that editors tend to think of ArbCom as a single entity and it is helpful to be reminded that it is a group compromised of individual editors who may not have experience with particular past situations or users, due to changes in the composition of ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "comprised" not "compromised"...although the latter adjective has some currency at the moment...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Right to vanish

WP:RTV is quite explicit in what RTV is not: "The right to vanish is not a temporary leave or a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction, is not a "fresh start", does not guarantee anonymity, and may be refused if ever abused" (bolding in the original). In this case, despite ArbCom member User:David Fuchs stating "As far as I know all sanctions migrated with the account, so I'm not seeing how RTV was abused in this case," it is clear that:

• ChrisO invoked RTV in the midst of the ArbCom case on climate change (WP:ARBCC), which was explicitly noted in the final decision as the reason for not imposing sanctions (in other words, there is the appearance that ChrisO invoked RTV in order to avoid sanctions)
• ChrisO user invoked RTV on or about 30 August 2010 and started account L'Ecrivant the same day, which calls into question their intent to "vanish"

I have heard the suggestion that ChrisO may have been the target of off-wiki harassment by a certain movie producer with an anger management problem, but I do not understand how vanishing the account was intended to have any effect on off-wiki actions.

1. Does ARbCom consider the use of RTV by a user under sanctions and facing more sanctions to be a proper use of RTV? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not "may have been." He was, and it was not the only source of off-site harassment. He wanted what you have "delicious carbuncle": pseudonymity. He apparently didn't want it that badly, however. In retrospect, it's probably better just to tell users they can't be helped, and that their disclosure is fundamentally irrevocable because most users do not have the ability to create a new identity that can't be deduced. This user certainly couldn't.

As for RTV, if ArbCom had voted on it August 30, 2010, it probably would have been rejected. But ArbCom found out after it had already happened. The edits were still slowing transferring over when his abusive sock was discovered a couple of weeks later. There's a very good argument it was a ridiculous and cynical abuse of RTV, but what to do (besides indef the sock, a no-brainer)?

I honestly believed there was no point in telling the devs to reverse their work, naming and shaming him. Personally, our project does too much of that crap. I also honestly believed it would be good to keep this editor if he could stay out of problematic topics. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions

1. ChrisO invoked RTV during WP:ARBCC. L'Ecrivant was blocked by a checkuser on12 September 2010 and I assume that ArbCom was notified. The final ARBCC decision is dated 14 October 2010. If ArbCom was aware that ChrisO had already created at least one new account, why did they choose to impose no sanctions at that time?
2. What climate change-related sanctions, if any, have been imposed on ChrisO/Prioryman since their return?
3. ChrisO was under "binding voluntary" sanctions as a result of the ArbCom case on Scientology-related editing (WP:ARBSCI). Do those restrictions apply to the Prioryman account?
4. What other sanctions were in effect prior to ChrisO's vanishing? (I believe there are some, but there seems to be no consistent logging of these kinds of things)
5. If editors are unaware of sanctions imposed on or voluntarily undertaken by users, how can they monitor them?
6. If Prioryman was under sanctions, how was ArbCom monitoring them?
7. If User:Helatrobus was an account controlled by ChrisO/Prioryman, did the ARBSCI sanctions apply to that account?
8. Did User:Helatrobus violate the ARBSCI sanctions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I will provide my own answers, because I feel largely responsible for what happened; I did support him returning as Prioryman, and it was not a unanimous decision. I've been disappointed by user's editing behavior—if user did intend a fresh start, he didn't realize how obvious his behavior was.

• 1. His sock was blocked, and he claimed that he could not log in to his old account (and we would have likely blocked him if he did). His underlying IP was also hard blocked. I didn't participate in that case, but I do note that he was topic banned in spite of his false "vanishing."
• 2. User agreed in October to a binding sanction not to edit CC on any future account we might allow. Since a topic ban was on the table anyway, this seemed acceptable. Also, as I pointed out above, user was formally topic banned after his abusive return.
• 3. Yes, all sanctions previously in place are still in place.
• 4. Here is a summary.
• 5. You know the answer: they can't.
• 6. Poorly, it seems. I am sorry about that; I didn't notice how deep he was getting into Scientology with all the Cirt stuff. I'm not sure whether there were violations, but ArbCom should have made some sort of indication that he stay away. We didn't contact user until after your email. That was a failure, I'm sorry.
• 7. User:Helatrobus geolocated to a different continent than Vanished User 03 user 04. If you have credible evidence that it was the same user, I would support a ban on the spot. Do you? Some ARBSCI sanctions apply to everyone, including that account.
• 8. Maybe. Assuming it was a sock, it's unclear who it was. It also could be a violation as an agenda-driving SPA.

Cool Hand Luke 18:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that I was asking if sanctions applied to User:Helatrobus in the event that Helatrobus was an alternate account of ChrisO. I asked in order to counter the suggestion that Helatrobus was an ArbCom-approved sockpuppet allowed to skirt sanctions. Incidentally, ChrisO was User:Vanished user 03, not Vanished User 04 (and also not User:Vanished User 03, which is a valid username but not ChrisO). This is exactly why I chose to use "ChrisO" instead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman's involvement in Cirt RfC/U

Prior to ARBSCI, ChrisO and Cirt were both very active editors of Church of Scientology-related articles. This link shows their editing overlap. Prioryman's participation in the RfC/U on Cirt is both inappropriate and deceptive. In those discussions, Prioryman not only fails to declare their interest in Scientology (and their voluntary restrictions relating to it), but actively tries to pass themselves off as an impartial editor. At one point Prioryman declares "Let's be clear, I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims". While I can't be bothered to find instances where ChrisO has edited the articles under discussion, it is simply not believable that someone with ChrisO's editing background and interests is unfamiliar with Lyndon LaRouche or high-profile Scientologists. ChrisO's close involvement with Cirt calls into question Prioryman's stated reason for involving themselves in this proceeding. Since it is clear that ArbCom was aware that Prioryman was the same user as ChrisO (see Roger Davies unblocking of the account), they surely must have been aware of their participation in an ArbCom case.

1. What action did ArbCom take in relation to this participation?
2. Does Prioryman's participation violate their ARBSCI sanctions?
3. Does ArbCom agree that Prioryman's statements were deceptive?
4. Having involved themselves, will Prioryman be a named party in the upcoming ArbCom case, and if not, why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, these are my answers alone.

• 1. None, until after your email. At that point, we asked that he identify himself as a returned user.
• 2. Maybe. That might be determined in an upcoming case (see #4).
• 3. I think they were.
• 4. There is support for it, yes. Cool Hand Luke 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• From my point of view, any case related to the issue of RTV should be handled separately. This case is already extremely convoluted and I'm not entirely certain that the Committee will be able to do justice to the issues that are already on the table. Prioryman did not comment at the request for arbitration in any way, so it is inappropriate to say that he participated in an Arbcom case. He participated (perhaps inappropriately) in an RFC/U, which is a dispute resolution process the Committee does not monitor and over which it has no jurisdiction. I would object to Prioryman being named a party in the Cirt/Jayen case. The issues of how to fairly deal with users who have been seriously harassed in relation to their reasonable participation in the project, and balancing that against the community's increasing view that personality means at least as much as contribution, and also against the breaching of reasonable constrictions applied to individual users, is a very serious subject that should be examined distinct to the other issues of this case. I am currently listed as inactive on this case, as I reasonably anticipate having extremely little time available in the next month; however, I feel strongly enough that this issue should not be conflated into this case that I would become active simply to address this. Risker (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has asked for User:Prioryman to be added to the Cirt/Jayen case - I have requested he be replaced into motion (b) where he clearly seems to be involved. - or rather to have foolishly and against WP:RTV re-involved himself - You assert, "The issues of how to fairly deal with users who have been seriously harassed in relation to their reasonable participation in the project, " - such claims as this with the disruptive/activist edit pattern history as User:ChrisO has got is nothing but manipulative crocodile tears - like suggesting someone who commits a major crime and get punched in the mouth is a victim. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested elsewhere. What do you mean by "motion (b)" anyway? Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion 1 - from - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motions

The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will:

a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal the conduct of ::::::each party and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties;

b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta :::::::behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; note I personally see motion (b) as very vague indeed and did ask for clarification as to its scope. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the reason I find your request so puzzling is that the (b) subsection proposes to open a BLP case that currently lists no affirmative parties. Are you asking us to forget the attack BLP issue and host a whole case for user's RFCU advocacy? Cool Hand Luke 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK but the case is not simply called "BLPs" but, "Feuding and BLPs." Furthermore you say that it "the (b) subsection ... currently lists no affirmative parties," but that is simply not true. The (b) subsection lists "all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties." Indeed there have been several questions, almost entirely unanswered, from various "named parties" about subsection b precisely because the language would include them in the case but they do not feel party to it. That you all failed to answer these questions was bad enough, that you now act as if the very motion that you, the Arbs drafted doesn't include such a statement is quite frankly preposterous. Prioryman was a named party, along with everyone else who commented at the RfC, until he asked ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the list, claiming not to have any involvement in the related topic area ("cults" I believe, since that was the original arbitration request). I do not know if Prioryman's previous identity has any bearing on his inclusion in the case, but I gather from what Rob is asking that given his involvement in the RfC, which was aggressive and combative, if anyone should be included in a case revolving around "feuding" he surely should. As long as you have a motion that still includes all the original named parties except Jayen and Cirt I don't think there is anything remotely puzzling about Rob's request.Griswaldo (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just thrown off by the suggestion to "replace" him to "motion (b)." I now understand that he was asking that he be considered as a party for the second case. As I said above, arbitrators have supported considering his behavior in that case; whether or not anyone removes their own name, nobody would delete evidence about it. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Prioryman questioned] the ArbCom case on the talk page. Note also that Prioryman was initially named as an involved party to the case, but requested that the initiator remove them, which they did. I suggest that "I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else" is a less than honest statement. I suspect that Prioryman was included as a party based not on their comments at the RfC/U, but on the basis of their comments on WT:Wikibombing (see archived discussion). I could be wrong about that, but if so it shows another instance where ChrisO/Prioryman has involved themselves in a discussion related to Cirt's editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is how obscuring Chris's on-wiki identity helps him in terms of RL harassment problems. Those who might wish him ill have long known who he is. Changing his WP user name does not change that. It only misleads the community. --JN466 05:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't you think it's unwise to be so emphatic about the origin or nature of threats you know nothing about? And, no, this isn't an invitation for a speculation-fest, it's a general observation ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The alleged threats are not enough worrying to the User:ChrisO to keep him from exposing himself by his returning ot his previous fields of activism in support of his fellow anonymous (group) activist. Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that in some cases, it is not a user's on-wiki activities that are the basis for harassment, but a user's off-wiki activities. The connection between that user's on-wiki and off-wiki identities (real or pseudonymous) is likely distressing for the user, but the cause remains the off-wiki activities. In such case, it is unclear that vanishing the user will have any effect on off-wiki harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not my experience. Overwhelmingly, off-wiki threats are explicitly linked to demands about specific on-wiki activity.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom support for Right to vanish and Clean start

Speaking generally, not about any particular case, can we start a discussion about whether the ArbCom can agree in future to respect the Right to vanish and Clean start policies? I'm asking this not because of the recent example, but because the inconsistent application has been causing problems for years, so this is a good chance to get it sorted out.

• Right to vanish is for people who want to stop editing Wikipedia entirely. It involves a bureaucrat moving the user's contribs to a new "vanished" name (e.g. Vanished User X). User pages may be deleted on request. User talk pages should not be deleted, because they consist mostly of other users' posts. The user is expected not to return. If s/he returns under a different name, the vanishing is reversed, i.e. the user pages are restored, and the contribs are restored to the old user name.

• Clean start involves a user deciding to set aside an old account and begin again with a new one that isn't linked to the old account. This may only be done where there are no sanctions being evaded. The old account's name and edits remain in place. The new account should not return to the same topics, or same behaviour, and should not continue problematic interactions with the same users while pretending to be someone else.

No one wants to be overly bureaucratic, but there are two major problems with allowing flexibility. First, the inconsistent application is unfair to users who are forced to abide by the policies. Secondly, we're encouraging really quite creepy behaviour if we allow users to disappear, then re-appear and start interacting with the same people—including launching personal attacks against them—while pretending to be a different person. There's an interesting article here in The Observer today that touches on aspects of this. Even with quite innocent intentions, it's not particularly healthy to continue interacting with the same people while hiding behind a new mask, and it places those not in the know in a vulnerable position.

So I think in the interests of community health, we ought to agree on a reasonable and humane set of rules, then ask the bureaucrats and committee to apply them consistently. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an entirely valid concern, and I support a full blown CENT-advertised RFC on the topic. One situation I don't see addressed here is whether the community would like the rules to take into account when editors have chosen to edit under their real name (or a derivative thereof)--should that modify the rules at all? As you've heard above, it was one of the considerations in the ChrisO case. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First name + last initial is an extremely borderline case of "real name": unless the first name is exotic or unique that information alone isn't nearly enough to identify someone. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The account was identifying and was in fact identified. Cool Hand Luke 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the issue arises when an editor asks for an account rename because of RL harassment arising from onwiki activities that have seen them sanctioned, or to escape from being thought of as a 'black sheep' when returning from a lengthy block. Neither of those match cleanstart, but both requests are likely to be fulfilled, going on previous form. In both cases, outing is a potential issue, but so is the prospect of the editor evading sanctions, or getting back into the fray while pretending to be someone new. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with changing names to avoid real life harassment is that people on- or off-Wiki often make the connections and post their speculations. "CLEANSTART" isn't just a proscriptive policy, it's a reflection of the community's experience that editors who go back to the old topics will likely have their previous accounts identified.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "respect the Right to vanish"? Recall that ArbCom did not vanish the account. You mean punitively restore an account if they start editing again? I honestly don't see how that helps the encyclopedia.

If you want to get rid of RTV, I'd support you, as it almost always adds to drama, but I can't think of an example where "fully reversing" the alleged vanishing seems like a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is hard to imagine such a situation. Imagine an editor, in a strained marriage with children. The editor sees trouble ahead, and is concerned about custody issues. The editor's contributions to WP are not a violation of any WP policy, but the editor emphasize certain areas that may be viewed negatively in a family court. For this reason, the editor exercises the RTV, to minimize the chance that an investigator in a divorce and custody proceeding might link the editor to comment made to user pages. Fast forward, and the siltation is resolved, perhaps amicably, perhaps resolved completely, or the spouse is no longer alive. The editor wishes to return to WP. It is entirely understandable that the editor would put up where they left off, with deleted user pages restored.

Did I misunderstand the implied query?--SPhilbrickT 01:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we're under any obligation to help that editor disassociate himself from the consequences of his actions in this hypothetical case. If you feel your editing history will negatively affect your real-world life, it's on you to take appropriate measure to maintain anonymity (and we will respect these by not WP:OUTING you). If you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and sign with your real name, you can't later demand that newspaper collect and burn all copies it printed because you have second thoughts and fear it will harm you if presented in family court. Personal accountability doesn't stop at your modem. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) In-depth community discussion of WP:RTV and WP:CLEANSTART is long overdue. Perhaps the thing to do is to more sharply separate them, and perhaps create a third type of vanishing, which applies to when real life identity/risk issues arise. Whether it is possible (or desirable) to come up with a sufficiently nuanced set of parameters that will cover all reasonably likely permutations is another matter.

People usually invoke WP:RTV as a way of severing links with an account which has either been linked to their real life identity or contains information/edits making identification trivially easy; and which has led either to serious harassment or credible real life threats. This, I suppose, evolves from the WP:PRIVACY policy which provides for suppression of information that faciitates real life identification.

In some contexts, WP:BLP (and WP:LIBEL), which apply to any information about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, has a bearing too. For example, someone might wish to RTV an account because it is closely associated with their RL identity and has been been serially (but falsely) accused of, say, pedophile advocacy or other very serious malfeasance. (It is often not possible to RevDel everything, especially if discussions have taken place over time and in multiple venues.) In these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that an editor might wish to sever all connections with such an account.

Complications do arise where there are outstanding community issues (cf. WP:SCRUTINY) or current sanctions, though the sock policy is so loosely drafted on this that it is a wikilawyer's charter. For example, WP:SCRUTINY covers "misuse" of RTV and alternate accounts. This, to my mind, turns on motives, which is a hair's breadth away from personal attacks about integrity. There are also serious implications involving the WP:OUTING policy, which explicitly prohibits linking to renamed accounts. I suppose the issue here is whether a Wikipedian desire for transparency about an editor's history outweighs the real life dangers that editors sometimes face.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger; you've expressed my thoughts better than I could have. Risker (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing more than an academic exercise to forbid things on Wikipedia, like outing, when WP editors can go to Wikipedia Review and do it there instead with impunity.   Will Beback  talk  07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference, I suppose, is that WR isn't a World Top Ten website. And does this mean that all our editors should plaster their real name/home town on their user pages because the information is out there somewhere if others look hard enough? And who, among our anonyms, will lead the way on the path to utter transparency?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• ...and not to put too fine a point on it, but an additional difference is "personal integrity".  – Ling.Nut 07:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quite,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

With Daniel Brandt's website still active there's no need to post that information ourselves. My point isn't that we shouldn't discourage outing on Wikipedia, just that we need to recognize that Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. If someone, even with a very legitimate reason for changing their username, goes back to editing the same articles in the same way then the connection will be obvious to people on and off Wikipedia. If folks want a clean start then they need to avoid those old issues, not because of the WP:CLEANSTART policy but because otherwise their anonymity will be lost. It'd be silly to say, "yes, Joe232 does edit the same articles in the same way as Jack323 but if you say so we'll punish you".   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've often thought that spurious/unfounded sock allegations probably need some sort of "rebound" penalty. The other question, I suppose, that arises in this increasingly wide-ranging discussion is whether the sock policy is still fit for purpose as drafted and whether the whole sock-hunting thing wastes too many resources/attracts too much drama to well serve writing an encyclopedia.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Then insist on anonymity for all. As long as you have individual accounts then you need a prohibition (and a much stronger one than we currently have) on socking. Make all edits anonymous and they can then only be judged on the quality of the edit. DuncanHill (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But in the real world we have to deal with trolls, POV pushers, and other problematic or disruptive users. In order to achieve the goals of the project we need to have an intelligent approach to dealing with those who would derail or degrade the efforts of the rest. But I don't think this thread is really about vandals and trolls - it's about editors who have a significant editing history, with concomitant controversies, who change their usernames to avoid harassment and/or scrutiny.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But that's the problem - we say comment on content, not contributor but in fact we need to comment on contributor. We allow anon editing yet need to know edit histories. We don't allow socking except when we do. Our policies and practices are so confused and confusing and wide open to gaming - as well as to the perception of gaming even when someone has a genuine reason for needing to change name. I think we need to go either for all anon or all one identified account. Allowing the mix is what creates a lot of the problems. All anon would probably lose us a lot of our better contributors who like the shiny things and good feelings they get for their contributions though. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not contributor" is the right standard for article talk pages. But for all other dispute resolution purposes, we can't regard one person with multiple accounts as multiple people. Behavioral guidelines and polices apply to the person, not the account. If a person creates a dozen or a hundred new accounts, we don't need to accord AGF to each account's edits. Back to the issue at hand: for folks who "vanish" in the midst of a dispute, is it legitimate for them to re-appear with a new, "unconnectable" name?   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger, when Prioryman was blocked by a checkuser, you unblocked them with the edit summary "False positive: legitimate editor". Leaving aside the question of why ArbCom would go to such lengths to protect a user with so many existing sanctions (and who also gives the appearance of having vanished in order to avoid further sanctions), would anyone who identified Prioryman as an alternate account of ChrisO have your suggested "rebound penalty" imposed on them? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, I don't regard unblocking someone as going to any great length. On the "rebound penalty" question, it would rather depend what they said and how far they went. The fair-game-for-any-allegation aspect of SPI has always troubled me, as does the propensity for settling scores.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The ChrisO case very clearly brings up the issue of how we deal with sanctions in relation to a user who wishes to invoke their right to vanish. Sanctions, whether voluntary, imposed by the community, or imposed by ArbCom, are really agreements between the user and the community. The user is expected to honour those agreements, but the community must also be able to ascertain if they are being honoured. Deals that are made outside of the view of the community deprive the community of the ability to monitor if those the user is honouring their agreements. ArbCom is not a monitoring body and it is foolhardy to assume that they will ensure that users abide by their sanctions. While ArbCom may suggest that they would not undertake any such deal with a user that they felt they could not trust to abide by their sanctions, should ArbCom be making those kinds of decisions for the community? I find it troubling that a user with such a long list of sanctions was extended this special treatment, and I find it more troubling that ArbCom member David Fuchs would suggest that there is no abuse of RTV in this case, despite the very clear wording of the guideline. If ArbCom is going to substitute its judgment for that of the community, the community deserves the right to decide the circumstances under which such deals are appropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What it clearly highlights, in my view, is the Byzantine complexity of various policies, the inherent contradictions in them, and the legion opportunities for selective application of one policy, while ignoring others, that frequently present themselves. What it also highlights is the problem of feuding factions continuing to neutralise their opponents and this later point may well be fuelling the fires considerably here for all concerned.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "feuding factions". Let's be clear about what those factions are in this case - anti-Scientology POV-pushers, and those who think Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies should be applied consistently, even to Scientology-related articles. I'm part of the latter (and apparently in a minority). I'm sure there are even some Scientologists lurking nearby, waiting to see how the playing field will change, but they are likely to be disappointed in any case. I don't recall having had any interaction with ChrisO when they were editing under that name, but I appear to have earned their enmity nonetheless, likely for my continued criticism of Cirt's editing of Scientology-related BLPs. So while I agree that there two opposing factions, that is hardly an unusual situation here, and it should not be used as justification for you to dismiss people's concerns about ArbCom's actions with respect to a user with a long history of conflicts and under multiple ArbCom-imposed sanctions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually slice it as three factions but obviously your milegage varies. However, as this current tangled mess has its origins prior to the 2009 Scientology case, with many of the same dramatis personæ, it seems entirely reasonably to allude to it. I'd personally have much preferred it if all this was brought to us by entirely uninvolved people but you can't have everything. Incidentally, I have reviewed the editor's comments at Cirt's RFC and - while it would have been much more politic to have said nothing - the comments express mainstreeam views. In order, they were 1/24 supports; 1/27 supports and 1/19 supports.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were three factions. As for the first faction, Bearian, one of those 27 "no problem/bullshit RfC" voters, told me a few days later he was not aware of any "adult entertainment company that a free-speech lawyer has a significant business interest in". It so happened that this was the very first paragraph in the RfC/U evidence. Someone saying, a few days after voting at the RfC/U, that he has never heard of what it said, seems like an indication that he hadn't read it, and I suspect he may not have been alone in that. Gamaliel, pointing out that some of the politicians puffed up were Democrats, and some Republicans, simply did not get that this was not about party politics, but about Scientology politics. You can't puff up Democrats in a Republican primary. The three "first faction" views you mention had essentially all the same supporters.

The middle faction were those who agreed there were problems, but felt the RfC/U overreached, like Khazar. I would also include in it those who changed their minds over the course of the RfC/U. Macwhiz, whose initial statement, posted before he reviewed the politicians' bios, received the most supports (27), posted a revised statement two weeks later, after he had worked through the evidence. By that time, of course, most of the original commenters had moved on to other things, and some of them, unlike Macwhiz, probably wouldn't have changed their view anyway. I think it is a reasonable assumption that some of the groups concerned are so hated that a significant proportion of editors here do not have a problem with it if policies are broken in our articles on them, but do have a problem with articles being less negative. I can't subscribe to that view. If a reviewer says a book sympathetic to Erhard is "attractively written", and Cirt says in Wikipedia the reviewer described the writing as "appalling", I do have a problem with that, whatever I think of Erhard.

Coming to the third faction, DGG's view was the most critical outside view, and it was clearly based on a thorough review of the evidence, as you'd expect with DGG. That view attracted 18 supports. The RfC as a whole was endorsed by 9, two of whom did not endorse any individual views.

I sure wish I had written the RfC/U differently (and certainly wish I had never mentioned bacon ...), but with a matter like this, raised against a very popular editor, it was never going to be easy to persuade people that there is a problem with their edits. I am grateful for the number and caliber of people who did see the problem, and said so. --JN466 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Break 1

I'd prefer to avoid discussing ChrisO in this section. I was one of the editors he interacted with as Prioryman, so I don't want to be involved in discussions about what should be done in his case. The reason I'm posting about this here is I've been involved for some time in trying to bring consistency to the way RtV and Clean start are enforced, and this is an opportunity to get things straightened out for future cases.

The biggest problem with editors disappearing and reappearing is that we actively encourage behaviour we would find unacceptable in real life. If we have a problem with a store assistant, and we complain to a supervisor, we don't go back the next day with a wig and fake nose to complain again about the same assistant, so the supervisor thinks multiple customers have the same problem. If that behavior isn't okay in real life, it shouldn't be okay on Wikipedia.

Allowing some editors to return with new wigs and fake noses means we find ourselves interacting with users we've previously chosen not to interact with; repeating discussions we've had before with the same user; and subjected to personal attacks by users who've previously attacked us using different names. It wastes volunteers' time, makes fools of us, and places us in a vulnerable position. No one minds the occasional exception for users who've been seriously harassed or outed, but if the committee is going to allow regular exceptions, it means the policies (SOCK, RtV, and Clean start) are effectively null and void.

It would be helpful if we could have a commitment from the committee going forward that it will respect the policies, and where it allows exceptions, these will be rare enough to allow the committee to monitor the user's edits to make sure old haunts and interactions are being avoided. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I think you're overstating the rigor of the current policies if you're implying that Arbcom is failing to respect them. The first step is as you already described: getting updated, comprehensive community input on what the policies with respect to RTV and CLEANSTART actually ought to be. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wigs and false noses apart, there's a load of behaviour that's (bizarrely) acceptable on Wikipedia that isn't acceptable in real life, prurient examination of people's private lives being one of them :)

Apart from that though, RTV is a guideline "and occasional exceptions may apply". More to the point, as I've outlined above, it can only be read in conjunction with various policies and the overall implication of these is far from clear.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What kind of "prurient examinations of people's private lives" are you referring to? I haven't noticed any in the recent RTV discussions.

The only difference between someone returning from RTV or from retirement is the disposition of their user talk page and their contribution list. If it is determined by the community that a user who vanished has returned to editing, then presumably any bureaucrat could restore the user to the old name. The mechanism for that request is unclear. If the new user denies the connection then the situation is essentially the same as a sockpuppet case, where behavior and CU evidence are applicable.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sensitive much? I took it to be a more general comment, reflecting on the penchant for editors to build a one-shop-stop catalogue of gossip, sex and drugs reports, of celebrities, and all the polemical criticism that can be found on political opponents, their family members, and anyone else we disapprove of. The sort of stuff that fills the moulah making machine, and space lizard articles. The nonsense that gets slapped into any breaking crime story, or trial reports, and all the other places where the net-curtain twitchers hang out. John lilburne (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SV that it would be good to get some consistency (her word) and clarity(my word) regarding the RTC and CS options. However, I also think Roger Davies makes a good point that we ought to consider a third option, dealing with the intrusion of RL into the WP world. While it might be tempting to suggest bifurcation: clarify existing guidelines first, then consider additions, extensions or modifications, it is my impression that some of the recent concerns may have arisen from trying to use RTV in a situation where it wasn't intended. If I may push an analogy, suppose you need to drive a screw, and all you have is a hammer and saw. However you use either tool, you will butcher the project. It doesn't make sense, in that case, to redefine and clarify how best to use a hammer or saw to drive a screw, you should obtain a screw driver. I think the RTV and CS guideline/polices each arose to address a legitimate need, but neither is ideally suited to a situation where a user has adopted a user name clearly identifiable to their real name, and has reached the point where off-wiki activity makes this a problem. I suggest that squarely identifying a guideline or policy covering that situation would avoid the issues associated with using the other two options. There may still be a need to clarify the existing options, but that may be easier to do, if we aren't trying to figure out how to use one of the options for a situation they were not designed to handle.--SPhilbrickT 14:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather sympathetic to the concerns that SV raised. Alert the news media! I think that part of the problem is that we seem to have two separate things going on here, that are getting mixed together: (1) the seemingly reasonable use of clean start to avoid privacy violations while being able to resume productive editing, and (2) the seemingly problematic use of RTV to withdraw from an arbitration proceeding that was in progress, followed by the resumption of edits in related areas. Two different things entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting points ... though what do you mean here by "resumption of edits in related areas"?  Roger Davies ^talk 19:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I may be entirely wrong about that. I was going by what I understood of what other editors are saying. If the resumed edits are unrelated, then I would consider whether or not the resumed edits would in any way have been affected by whatever decisions would have been made if the participant had remained active during the arbitration. I think it's understandable that editors will have questions when someone vanishes during an active arbitration, apparently under RTV, based on my memory of the discussions at the time, and then apparently returns, more in line with clean start. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking specific cases, then the editor has consistently complied with the two extant restrictions. There have been a few gray-area edits but nothing (at least that I've seen) that's in clear blatant breach. Responding more generally, the question is whether risk to personal safety trumps transparency. The answer to that, I suppose, depends entirely on your individual philosophy.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From where I sit, personal safety trumps transparency, of course. You have access to information that I don't. If you only knew what I know, ie the little that the community knows, you might well have wondered the same things that I did (gray-area?). It's not unreasonable for the community to have questions, and you may have reasonable answers to provide. What the community could see, was RTV just before an arbitration decision was going to come down. If that's all one can see, it's reasonable to expect vanishing, not a reappearance. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it helps to see the key issue in human terms. The bureaucrats handle RTV, entirely of their discretion. If they are faced with an editor who believes his safety is at risk they can hardly refuse because to do so might have appalling consequences and it puts an immense burden on the bureaucrats to expect them to act otherwise. This, to my mind, makes any discussion of motive for an RTV to all intents and purposes irrelevant. The same argument then applies to ArbCom: it is fair or reasonable to expect ArbCom or indeed the community to make what might be life or death decisions over something relatively trivial? This is way the third route is so important.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Please understand that the community as a whole didn't have enough information to see it in those human terms. Please don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the information should have been made public. Of course not. I'm just saying that it explains why you are getting these questions, and that these questions are coming in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that entirely :)  Roger Davies ^talk 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Generaly speaking wouldn't that be a choice the editor has full control of? If their personal safety truly is at risk they have the option of RTV followed by actually not editing anymore.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Some people do get addicated to Wikipedia and that must be very difficult indeed to deal with. Similarly, there is the philosophcal issue of whether evil should triumph. To explain, if an editor is receives real life threats because of their on-wiki edits, and seemingly disappearing from Wikipedia throws the bad guys off the trail, then I don't suppose anyone would seriously disagree that it's a job well done. Why should that same lifeline not be given to people wioth sanctions who wish to continue editing? It seems disproportionate to me to do otherwise.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Davies, your rhetorical religious inspired bullshit about "good v. evil" is not relevant, not appropriate and not welcome here. There's plenty of wikis that value your fundamentalist fairy in the bottom of the garden view point I'm sure. Be a good chap and go and edit them will you? Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not a Christian.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if they're truly in danger it's reckless to suggest that their anonimity can be protected if they come back. They're being offered a false promise.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not aware of any instance where people have been told their anonymity is guaranteed by a name change; quite the opposite in fact.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems quite clear if only the arbitration committee would not play around with it. Right to vanish is just what it says - your edits will be moved to a vanished user title which will be blocked indefinitely and your old username will be blocked indefinitely and you are gone from the en project, thank you for your contributions - please be aware if you return you may be treated like a sockpuppet and may be blocked and your edits will be returned to your username. - do you want to request this? - enforce it and the issue goes away. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, the current guideline specifially says that ArbCom can play round with whether the accounts are connected.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you see the issue here is that no matter that you are entirely correct we've got a bunch of redacted people enacting it and worser a bunch of utter redacted enabling it. The procedure is not at fault I feel. But if you give the procedure over to the likes of "Elen-of-the-D1-minor-roads-with-potholes", "Der ferkwitted" "Chase my copyvios-i'm-immune", "Risk-it-for-a-biscuit", "Roger-love-thy-neighbour-and-thy-bible-10-4-and-out" and "Cool-hothand-luke" it's simply bound to go wrong. It's the people not the process. (no disrespect to Arbcom members of course) Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as Rob about the Committee "play[ing] around with it", but my understanding of RTV is the same as Rob's. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it'd be necessary to block a returning RTV. It'd be sufficient to undelete their user talk page and revert the old account to its original name.

The issue of outstanding or pending dispute resolution is more complicated. If someone has been gone for six months or a year then it'd be odd to restart a DR process as if it were an active dispute. It'd probably have to be treated on a case-by-case basis.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all of it needs treating on a case by case basis. Incidentally, does anyone know of any accounts that have been unRTV'd? I don't. If not, on what basis is it in the guideline? (Remember: policy etc follows practice, not vice versa.) And how long is RTV supposed to apply for? Surely in this context, permanently means for ever, the duration of a natural life? So a RTV by a 15-year-old can be undone up to 70 years later? That's what the guideline says. Let's face it: the whole thing is poorly thought through.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If a 15-year-old is banned permanently by the community, does that ban ever expire? No, though it may be lifted. If a 15-year-old vanishes shortly before being banned, do we simply ignore that history? No, I don't think that makes sense either. The logical thing would be to connect the accounts and ask the editor, "have you learned anything in the meantime?"   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's an account that returned: user:Mark t young. There are degrees of vanishing-some users don't ask for their contributions to be renamed.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree there may be no need to block. I did say " please be aware if you return you may be treated like a sockpuppet and may be blocked" - But it needs to be clarified when users request RTVanish that violating the privilege is a blockable offense. Users that have a bit of harassment but wish to continue to contribute to the project should follow WP:CLEANSTART and keep their heads down for a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on that because blocking would likely be Purely punitive, no? After all, if the RTV'd account has had its email disabled and its password scrambled, which I guess is what happens, it can't be edited from.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be, but the editor can make a choice of either identifying the new account as belonging to the same person as the vanished account or not. Pretending to be a new account, even making statements to that effect, while still vanished is fundamentally deceptive, and violates the principle of WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, one of the principles of WP:SOCK (WP:SCRUTINY). Otherwise, WP:SOCK is being interpreted increasingly liberally and moving away from the core principle of one editor = one account. That needs looking at critically too,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Scrutiny is a key part of the sock policy. Vanishing under one name and returning to old disputes with a new name is a clear violation. If there is significant opposition to the current wording of the policy then maybe we should hold an RFC to change it.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You know as well as I do, Will, that WP:SCRUTINY was never intended to be absolute. For instance, the Privacy section of WP:SOCK#LEGIT explicitly sets aside WP:SCRUTINY saying: "Privacy: A person .... may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area".  Roger Davies ^talk 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Break 2

This discussion isn't making sense to me; I suspect it is because it isn't a hypothetical, but a specific example, and not all information is available. To respond to RD, if the bureaucrats are faced with an editor with legitimate concerns for his safety arising from editing WP, then of source safety concerns trump transparently, and RTV should be allowed even if sanctions are pending. It also follows that safety issues mean that, even if the editor pleads addiction, the editors problem should not be enabled by and end around. It literally means those enabling it are putting the editors life in jeopardy, and I could imagine legal consequence. I do hop I've misunderstood the facts, but I'm only working with what has been presented.SPhilbrickT 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The life or death example is extreme but I have heard about plausible physical threats as I'm sure others here have. But what if the threat is to out someone as gay to their wife and/or parents (ie their editing reveals their sexual orientation)? Or to cause trouble for them at their place of work? Or whatever other nastinesses can be dreamed up. Are you seriously suggesting that someone under a 1RR restriction should be exposed to risk because they "abused" RTV?  Roger Davies ^talk 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll leave a note for the bureaucrats to weigh in about Roger's idea of creating a separate policy, or section of a policy, for people with identity concerns. WP:IAR can be applied to those cases, but that leads to some people being allowed to vanish and return, and others not. It would be good if we could discuss the generic issues only, so that we're looking to the future, not applying things retroactively. The point is: the policies have to be enforced and enforceable, or else they're not really policies, so the bureaucrats and Arbs have to be comfortable with them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Having an identity concern policy would probably led to everyone pleading it instead of going down the RTV or CLEANSTART route. What might be more sensible is to regard sanctions as spent after twelve months or so if there haven't been further problems in the area of sanction. ie you can RTV or CLEANSTART with blots on your copybook, but they're expunged after twelve months if you don't repeat the behavior with the new account. Underr this scenario, RTV becomes a variety of CLEANSTART but with the original account renamed. All three could, with a bit of sensible drafting, be easily combined into one guideline/policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm thinking the text will end up horribly complicated. Also, there are scenarios that don't involved sanctions. E.g. an editor in good standing using their real name, or where the name was obvious via edits. Starts getting harassed, wants to appear to stop editing for that reason, wants his edits to be renamed, but wants to continue editing as before, but with a different name. It's not Vanish (which involves leaving), and it's not Clean start (which involves not continuing as before). It's also not a sensible thing to request, because editors who continue as before are usually identified. But people do regularly want this.

So the questions are: (a) in what circumstances do the Arbs and bureaucrats currently say yes to this, and when do they say no? (b) How do we prevent misuse, i.e. someone simply wanting to re-appear in old haunts with a new name? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

These questions are fine and dandy if the core guideline is okay and workable but, for reasons given about, it isn't. The whole thing needs a rethink, including the premise that RTV is permanently leaving. (Permanent is a very very long time and circumnstances change.)  Roger Davies ^talk 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So are we now suggesting that topic bans, etc, all expire in 12 months if there is no proof that the editor has been active during that time? And that the ability of the community to scrutinize the new contributions of previously banned editors also expires? I think that would be a radical and unfortunate change in enforcement procedures.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily in twelve months (that was an example) and definitely not in all instances, but the broad principle is probably right.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no difficulty imagining serious situations which require a user to leave the community, and not just cease editing, but take steps to hide their past existence on the project. I do not think their ability to avail themselves of this right should be contingent on being in good standing. If they have serious concerns, such s the examples you gave, we should help them mitigate their risk. However, should they avail themselves of an option we have yet to fully articulate, we should not actively help them endanger their own safety by enabling them to get around the rules. I don not see how you can argue that "Having an identity concern policy would probably led to everyone pleading it instead of...". We haven't even articulated the policy. It may, for example, allow a user, even one under a cloud, to leave in a manner like RTV, but we might impose a mandatory 12 month period before they could ever consider rescinding it. That would help eliminate the possibility that someone uses it to dodge a possible sanction. The RTV rules say that someone coming back has to have their (presumably identifiable) user name restored, but again, we are talking about a new option, and we can craft it in a way that makes sense. Better to say that someone trying to come back early will be blocked. Perhaps they have to provide some evidence that the threat is gone. We do have to think this through, and consider different cases. We might decide to come up with a policy covering identity issues while leaving RTV and CS untouched, or we might start with a clean slate, and ab initio, think through what options should be available to a user who needs to do something more than a simple retirement.--SPhilbrickT 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My take is that I have no problem with someone vanishing and then coming back for a clean start, provided they don't do it to avoid community scrutiny of dubious behavior. For someone who really wants to edit, but knows information about their prior account has exposed them to real-world consequences, the combination would be ideal. So here's what I would suggest: If an editor vanishes and it is not "under a cloud", then they should be allowed to clean start without having their old account resurrected. WP:RTV should be updated to expressly permit that. On the other hand, if there is cloud cover overhead, then a clean start account should only be permitted if they inform ArbCom and commit to avoiding the behaviors that created the cloud. If they return to bad habits, then their vanishing is revoked so the full history of their behavior is available for community scrutiny. WP:CLEANSTART should be updated to say that. This seems the fair approach to me. To facilitate this, when a vanishing is approved, it should be recorded as to whether it is "under a cloud" or not, so any future attempts at a clean start can be handled accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the determination of "leaving under a cloud" would often have to be made after the editor has left and is unable to reply. In one RTV case I know of, the editor RTV'ed after some mild editing problems were revealed, but then more serious problems were found later. Since the editor was already gone there was no point in airing the charged publicly, but the clouds remain. Also, there's no clear definition of what "leaving under a cloud" really means. I imagine that it would include outstanding topic bans or other imposed remedies. But what about unproven accusations?   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

These same concerns about what constitutes a "cloud" are already dealt with when someone resigns advanced permissions or abruptly retires during a discussion of their behavior, and I agree that it deserves better definition. But there is no inherent reason it can't be worked out, and many cases should be obvious. (No issues ever raised, no cloud. Vanished immediately after an unfavorable ArbCom ruling, cloud. Etc.) I expect there will always be new and unusual situations to handle case-by-case, but AFAIK, the number of vanishings being requested at any given time is not so large as to make that a serious burden. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's possible to vanish without making a declaration of it. Any editor may ask to have their user page deleted. Any editor may blank their user talk page. Name changes are routine and don't require a specific "RTV" reason. In some cases, editors announce a retirement or simply stop editing (with that account). There are a lot of gray areas.   Will Beback  talk  20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means in terms of the present discussion. If someone doesn't invoke RTV, then the current restrictions of that guideline aren't applicable. --RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to declare "RTV" in order to vanish. Anyone (with fewer than 50,000 edits) can request a name change, and anyone can have their user pages deleted. If they stop editing then they've vanished. If I understnad correctly, none of that is at issue. The concern here is when editors return with a new name. Is it proper to connect a new account to an old one?

Let's say there are ANI rumblings against user:JohnSmith, but it hasn't yet reached the point of sanctions. He says, "fine, I'm leaving". He asks a bureaucrat to change his account to something more anonymous, user:JS100. He puts SD tags on his user pages and blanks his talk pages. For all intents and purposes he has vanished. Then, a month later, editors notice that user:SJ001 is making the same kinds of edits as JohnSmith/JS100 used to make. Is it outing to say, "hey, aren't you user:JS100"? I would say no. The editor has not really vanished, nor has he followed CLEANSTART. He's just abandoned one account and created a new one. Editors are allowed to do that, but they can't expect others to pretend that they're actually a new person. If there were concerns about the user with his old account then those concerns probably remain. OTOH, if someone vanishes and later wishes to return with a new identity and if he actually follows CLEANSTART to the letter, then there's little chance of him being associated with the prior account. The problem comes when they vanish and then return to their old topics of interest.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly should CLEANSTART be offered to editors with community sanctions in the first place? While I hear from other arbs that such has occasionally been successful, my recent experience dealing with WikiManOne/BelloWello has been that problematic editors simply cannot cease being problematic editors if offered a new chance. Might not a policy that only permits anyone with a block log (or worse) to assume a new, disconnected account after 12 months of no problematic editing be more universally fairly applied? Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I referred to community scrutiny, not necessarily active sanctions, although the policy should be clear about that situation as well. I don't object to there being some other stipulations on clean starts for problematic editors, but we should be clear on what they are and why we think they are reasonable conditions to have. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about allowing any unbanned editor to start editing under a new account name, provided it has been at least one year since their last edit under their old account(s)? There's no need for subjective decisions about whether or not the editors are under a cloud, or whether or not their reasons for wanting a new name are credible: instead, each editor weighs for himself whether a new name is worth taking a year-long wikibreak. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing makes historic reference difficult - whether users left under a cloud or not, as I understand it vanishing is not for the many but only for the few? Vanishing should only be granted in extreme circumstances and agreeing to actually vanish should be a part of that. If you allow it for all, or even liberally we would have no ability to search or evaluate historic contributions. Are there many users that had sanctions and block records and arbitration cases against them that have been given the privilege of vanishing - is vanishing a privilege or a right? I am beginning to think that we should remove all offer or option of WP:RTV, delete the guideline completely. Get a new username or stop editing or make a WP:CLEANSTART is plenty of possibilities to cover all emergencies imo. In what situation would these options not be sufficient ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A user may have no sanctions or even disputes, but still have an editing history that exposes them to real-world consequences. If they edited under their real name or a handle that is easily associated with them, then employers, family, abusive ex-partners, etc., could discover things they revealed in talk comments or edit summaries, or just interests that they have that might be problematic. You might say (as I believe someone did farther up the thread) that this is their problem to deal with, but I think we should remember that people often start editing at a young age, and may not be fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions. Vanishing is useful in a few different situations. Editors who have created a bad reputation for themselves in the community are the most problematic cases, but hardly the only ones. --RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have policy and guidelines to support and protect them but after that children that edit here do so at their own risk, at article creation they should be directed to read advice prior to getting an account after reading the advice they should get no leeway for claiming I was only twelve, its a matter of personal responsibility and users need to accept theirs - when they get their accounts a message - Please be aware, every comment you make here at wikipedia will stay in the history attached to your internet address and your username, don't say or do anything you do not want to be later held responsible for. It should be made very clear the dangers of editing under your real name at account creation position, after such a explicit warning anyone that does it should get no benefits from doing it. Anyone can create an account as Harry Higgs , edit away all about racist topics and then squeal away that they have been exposed as a racist to their family. Why should users that have created a bad reputation for themselves get their disruption vanished? Ow - I have been exposed as a supporter of far right political parties through my editing of wikipedia articles please vanish all my contributions - NO - take responsibility for your contributions, you made them they belong to you and we are not hiding them for you. User:ChrisO didn't need or deserve his contributions vanishing and neither did User:Rlevse, both of them were under a cloud when they requested it and both of them should be reverted to a position of responsibility for their historic contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Looks around to see if Rob is done revising his comments after the fourth consecutive edit conflict.) And a teenage girl could create an account under a screen name that she uses for everything, only to realize later that her not-so-loving parents could use this to discover her interest in lesbianism/atheism/name something her parents don't like/etc. and kick her out on the streets (or in some cultures, worse). Moreover, she could be doing this already, which is a bit late for a new editnotice to change the situation. Not every problem someone encounters is the fault of their "bad reputation", much less "disruption". As I said, those are the most problematic cases, but not the only ones. That doesn't mean there aren't abuses of RTV that we should try to address, but vanishing has its place. --RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts - so many corrections/revisions is the reason I have so many contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, another hypothetical scenario might involve someone creating an article that says something like "<redacted> is an American actress and lingerie model best known for her role in <redacted> and her crotchshot on <redacted>. She is also married to real estate veteran and Internet sensation <redacted>" They might even, hypothetically, add the "crotch shot" in question, although that would be a (hypothetical) copyright violation. If someone had used their real name when creating an account, they might change it to hide their identity before doing that. Of course, if that ever happened and a long time admin stumbled across it, they would probably delete it immediately. Or maybe they would tag it as uncategorized. Hypothetically. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And neither of the users in question has requested RTV. Perhaps you could find a racist pedophile edit warring on Eastern Europe and climate change topics who also hasn't vanished, and bring that into the discussion? --RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I get confused easily. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing is one thing, and it certainly sounds like it has its value in protecting certain users in very specific types of real world situations. But vanishing is only one half of the scenario that started this discussion. The other half is Arbcom enabling users to return after vanishing. Cube lurker raised an issue in conversation with Roger that no one has addressed, namely that it seems irresponsible to enable such returns. If a user's editing of Wikipedia poses them the threat of real life harm, if there is no way to ensure anonymity and if one is trying to protect the user then there is no rational defense for enabling them to return to editing under a disguise. Roger made reference to not letting evil triumph. Well if that is his position then it is completely disingenuous for him to play the "protection from harm" card in this discussion. If he wants to play with the safety of editors in order to prove some point about Wikipedia not kowtowing to "evil" then he needs to be honest about that. What this all seems like to me is something like the witness protection program saying ... "OK we'll give you a new name and a make over but I'll be damned if we let those homicidal criminals you're testifying against make you quit your job or move from your house." Roger can you please respond to this comment, because the way you left things with Cube lurker doesn't sit right with me at all.Griswaldo (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did comment on this hypothetical here. In the vanishingly unlikely event of someone being mad enough to wish to edit while faced with mortal threats, they would be advised not to. However, anything formally preventing people from editing for their own protection would not only be unprecedented but also the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. And, just to make it very clear, the current guideline permits people to return without being linked to their RTV account (though this is contradicted elsewhere in the same guideline).  Roger Davies ^talk 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly the sort of thing we need to clean up. If returning under a new identity (WP:CLEANSTART) after vanishing is accepted, then the guidelines should state that it is and under what conditions. That way situations that abuse those conditions can be addressed by reference to a clear and consistent guideline. I believe an example was given earlier (the true details of which I don't know, so I'm not commenting on that user) of a user who RTVed during discussions of his problematic editing and created a new account the next day. I would consider that an abuse, and the guideline should rule out that kind of gaming. But if a good-faith editor vanishes due to external circumstances and later decides to return anonymously, I think the guideline should be equally clear that that is OK. (Assuming the community thinks it is OK; I certainly do. If it isn't OK, then that needs to be just as clearly stated.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many of our policies and guidelines need to be cleaned up for clarity. I see that several users have quoted bits while ignoring all of the equivocal and contrary language. I'm fine with having ArbCom abide with the RTV and cleanstart policies. As far as I can tell, we have (even though the outcome was poor). If the policies are meant to set down firm rules, they should be edited to reflect them. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger your original comment didn't address the issue nor does this one. Let's straighten a couple of things out. My question was not about "mortal danger," but whatever level of danger that you all consider enough to facilitate a RTV because of that danger. I have no idea if the threshold is "mortal danger." Is it? My concern also never mentioned "preventing people from editing" but something much less extreme--not actively facilitating their return to editing. Those are very different things Roger, and I'll expand on that through the concrete example that started all of this discussion. From what you have stated we are to understand that Prioryman faced enough danger off-wiki to trigger this protective response from the Arbitration Committee. You have even suggested that the very act of editing the encyclopedia put him in danger. These claims are also used to explain why those who knew who he was (the Arbs) did not out him or link him to his old account. Those things were done to protect him we are told. When Prioryman contacted you all to give you the heads up on who he was what was your response Roger? Was it: "Prioryman, we vanished your account because of a safety concern, and as long as that concern still exists we cannot in any way recommend that your return to editing. If you wish to return to editing you do so entirely at your own risk, and without any help from us." That would be not enabling him to return as opposed to "preventing him" from returning (which, in this discussion, is a straw man in case that wasn't clear yet). What we know from the leaked emails is that you all clearly did enable him to return, because you were helping to keep his identity a secret and cleaning up after admins who were not in the know after they blocked him as a sock-puppet. Do you get this point yet? That is actively enabling. You all didn't just stand by and say that you can't prevent the return of a vanished user, which is the argument you present above, but you helped this user get back into the swing of things, to do the exact thing that you claim puts him in danger. THAT is the issue we're asking you to reconcile here. Can you please do that? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger, Griswaldo is asking a clear question and deserves a clear answer. He hasn't received one yet. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What "Right to Vanish" States

Above, Roger Davies writes:

• And, just to make it very clear, the current guideline permits people to return without being linked to their RTV account (though this is contradicted elsewhere in the same guideline).

I have just read and reread the current guideline and I do not see where it "permits people to return without being linked to their RTV account." Can someone please explain what part of the guideline this permission is found in? The closest idea I can find in the guideline is that if a user vanishes, wants to return but linking to the old account poses a problem "Arbcom may be consulted." So the guideline itself does not "permit" any such thing. You, Arbcoim "permit," or have permitted such things after users with a problem consulted you about it, but nowhere does the guideline itself permit this. In fact the guideline does not even stat that such permissions can be granted by Arbcom (it doesn't say that they can't either). Indeed the only language that deals directly with the issue states things like: "Return leads to the "vanishing" being fully reversed," and "Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity or as an IP." What we have here is a situation which has been handled entirely within the discretion of the Arbitration Committee. There are no policies or guidelines to fall back on here guys, its just your decisions. You need to defend these decisions and it would be nice to see you do within the actual context of what has happened as opposed to various irrelevant hypotheticals. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

FT2 edited the guideline in October 2010 and introduced the inconsistency about consulting ArbCom if linking pre- and post-vanishing accounts was a problem. It was clear before those edits that vanishing means vanishing. See before, after, and diff.

We should remove the contradictory passages from RtV, because they're mixing up RtV and Clean start. But we shouldn't do this with reference to past examples of people vanishing and returning. What's done is done, so let's look to the future only. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)