Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Related question from an arbitrator to members of the "community"

• Several of the comments above have touched on the private nature of the list. Would Wikipedia be better off if most Committee business was conducted on a publicly-viewable list? Would such a structural change improve ArbCom? Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Would most committee members stick to the viewable list, or would they just go off to some secret chatroom elsewhere and malign the rest of us? Accept it Luke, the trust in you and your kind has gone. Just a few days ago an ex-Arbs socking was covered up - how much more are you expecting us all to swallow? You are all throroughly discredited. Giacomo Returned 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't the Wikimedia Foundation and their legal people work that out, and then get back to us .... and you - instead of crowd sourcing what is likely to be mainly ill-informed and knee jerk commentary. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Mostly my answer is the one I gave in the section above. Whatever really needs to be done in private should be done in private, and much of what doesn't need to be private should either be done on-Wiki or not at all. No need for a public list, just post it on-Wiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Some arbitrators are loath to post on-wiki and refuse to even use workshop pages because anybody can walk up and derail a thread with grievances about "cover ups" or whatever. I think there needs to be a place for arbitrators to discuss cases free from such interjections. I guess it could be done on PD pages (or something similar), but email is convenient for us; one box to keep abreast of everything. Cool Hand Luke 21:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Then, per Monty, below, perhaps there is a way to create a centralized page on-Wiki where only members are allowed to post. Could be like proposed decisions, where the community only comments on the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have noticed that aversion to "derailment" on a couple of RfAR case workshops recently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Personally, I like workshops, but I understand the aversion to them. The aversion to waking up and finding 50 kb of text on a PD talk page with everyone trying to get their words in edgewise. There's something to be said for allowing partisans to present a logical case and reply—and nothing more, no shouting from the gallery if you will. Case structure control is something we're very bad at. Actually, this is something Wikipedia's bad at, but it would be nice if we could fight the trend for dispute resolution. Cool Hand Luke 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
          • CHL, this just won't do. You have the authority and the means (e.g., clerks) to keep discussion within bounds. So if things repeatedly get out of bounds it's because you (collectively) don't care. Portraying yourselves as the hapless bystanders at something "Wikipedia's bad at" is at best disingenuous. This is not the first time that we've seen arbs whinge about the madness that goes on in workshops, etc. while refusing to address the problem. Either get things under control or drop the subject. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
            • That's fair criticism. I think arbitrators are reluctant to draw lines on case conduct because they're invariably accused of biased tyranny, even enforcing something as objective as a word limit. We don't even agree on what the central problem is. I think at least one problem is that cases cannot be logically presented, but the solution is unclear. Worth some experimentation. Cool Hand Luke 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I think CHL is at least partly right about the reasons for failing to consistently draw lines. To some extent, though, I think that there is a deeply entrenched (but likely invalid) theory that if the parties are fighting on the Arbcom pages, they're not fighting elsewhere and disrupting the project. While there is sometimes some truth to that, the same effect could be achieved by injunctions for the duration of the case. Realistically, the bigger issue is the massive amount of verbiage generated, even more on the workshop pages than the evidence pages. It can be like a theatre lobby during intermission: everyone's pretty much stuck there, it's crowded and noisy and hot, and much of the "conversation" is irrelevant. I think we need to find ways to make better use of the workshop, in particular using the "Questions from arbitrators" section a lot more in order to clarify (and suggest new directions for) evidence. If not for the horror that is wikitables, I'd suggest that at least one editor interested in presenting evidence in a case develop a timeline; however, it's one of those things that is very hard to direct. Risker (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely, transparency is always a good thing, Arbitrators should conduct as little business behind closed doors as possible. If Arbs need a place to discuss without interference, they should structure a space where only Arbs can post, but the public can observe. Monty₈₄₅ 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It is naive to assume that discussions won't go on in private and that they won't be full of snark directed at others. John lilburne (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but should outsiders have access to that debate and be able to influence it? Giacomo Returned 21:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The private snark will simply move elsewhere. There is no reason to keep it along side the deliberation. Snark can be emailed between individuals. John lilburne (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• You can't do without private discussions. What should be changed (apart from what Cla68 wrote in the other thread above), is that you should interview the involved editors privately. I don't think you can judge people well without having talked to them in private. Also, such private discussions may lead to remedies that are mutually agreed to, there is then less chance that problems will persist. Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Users on this site are always free to communicate privately and come to mutually acceptable arrangements. By definition, we get the kind of cases where that doesn't happen. That said, I do agree that it would be nice to have a dialog with just the parties and without irrelevant grievances and jeremiads from all comers; this goes back to our case control problem. Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• This is exactly the issue that I raised with on ArbCom-related talk pages a couple of times this year, before the leak. I think my most recent comments, from May, are still appropriate. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Updated_procedure_for_Committee_resolutions. The ArbCom necessarily deals with material that should be kept confidential. Those include many personnel issues that, if this were a city council, for example, should be discussed in executive session away from the public view. It also discusses other issues which do not need to be confidential and should be done openly. That might include discussion of public evidence and proposed remedies, but the ArbCom would need to establish guidelines on what to discuss publicly and what to keep private. Some form of ArbCom-only forum, whether a mailing list or a page here, would be necessary.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the analogy and principle. I also think that, like a city council, most of our work could be done publicly (especially if we could get rid of some of the noxious stuff I don't even think we should be forced to deal with). Cool Hand Luke 02:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Question - How often is the type of discussion which needs to stay private related to an on-wiki case, and how often is it related to the other types of activity which Arbcom ends up having to deal with (subtle / large sock cases, harassment, minors, etc)? The situation is somewhat different if on-wiki cases routinely have little or no "private material", versus if they routinely do. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • My rough impression (and others may disagree), is that most of the "private" information during cases was involuntarily sent to use by parties; most cases have some emails like this, but most of it is frankly junk and doesn't really enter anyone's analysis. I suspect most actual ArbCom cases could be almost 100% public. The private stuff involves CU, socking, and a large helping of stuff we probably shouldn't have to deal with. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• FAC is able to function without any, ever, off-Wiki coordination-- even when socks, trolls and disruptive users are involved-- between and among delegates and director. We don't discuss FAC business off-Wiki, except as regards our availability, schedules, whether a delegate has gone MIA, etc. FWIW, of course FAC doesn't deal with the complexity of issues facing the arbs, but the fact that there is such a strict line (set by Raul's leadership) is a good thing, I think. There are most certainly occassional arb issues that require extreme sensitivity and privacy (I was involved in at least two where the evidence was so sensitive that it should not have been aired in public), and I have always supported that those cases should be private, but it is surprising to see to what extent arbs discuss items where there is no apparent privacy need on the list. And that leads to arb decisions and conclusions that the community can't get behind, because we can't imagine what on EARTH you were thinking in some cases-- particularly after editors with necessary input are forced to back down and keep quiet because of arb threats of sanction if we speak up. There doesn't seem to be a clear line regarding what should be discussed off-Wiki. How many cases are similar to the RodHullandEmu case and other very sensitive cases? Those should be the exception. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most cases should not involve private evidence and should be dealt with entirely on wiki (WP:ARBCC being an obvious example). That you're having to go off-wiki is evidence of mission creep. If Some arbitrators are loath to post on-wiki and refuse to even use workshop pages because anybody can walk up and derail a thread then there is an obvious trivial solution: just designate on page for arb-only discussion. This is so obvious that if the arbs have failed to find this solution then the only reason can be that they don't want to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly. The candid conversation without fear of reprisal and with the ability to look at meta- or related issues without drawing unnecessary attention or premature community participation. I find thread derailment a tangential consideration at best, although there are many other reasons deliberations are kept private. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think a major theme in the leaks has been the efforts made to reduce drama. We've only really seen the failures. The answer to your question depends on how much private information the committee plans on utilizing in the future. I am guessing that, unless some other group/the WMF is set up to deal with that private junk, you'll all get stuck doing it, and if you are, it's obviously not going to fly on Wikipedia. But a lot of the stuff that was done to "reduce drama" in the leaks? Well, it seems to indicate that you'd do just as well having it all out on-Wiki. At least then we'll be able to tell you what boneheads you're being in real time. And for god's sake, change the workshop and make it into a directed questions kind of thing. That would allow arbs to shape the discussions while also allowing you to show that you really have checked out the evidence, honestly. Archaeo (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • To make all of the above a little more pithy: if ArbCom has to make decisions about things it has historically been involved with, then some sort of off-Wiki communication is necessary. But the consensus of the "community" seems to indicate that everyone wants ArbCom to be more public, so off-Wiki needs to be saved for when it's really necessary. Figuring out when it's really necessary, though, is the pickle. Archaeo (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Followup from my earlier question to Arbcom members - What proportion of the total Arbcom work is the on-wiki cases and related work (which seems to be indicated to be stuff that could nearly entirely be done on-wiki) versus the CU, strange things, harassment, minors, and other stuff which seems generally agreed to be often involving off-wiki stuff?
• Second followup from my earlier question to Arbcom members - For the small portion of on-wiki case materials which do fall into sensitive info categories, how much of that would be too sensitive to discuss publicly that "something was privately received of the following character"? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, GWH, and admittedly basing this on my own read of the situation, about 80-85% of the workload is stuff that relates to onwiki matters: requests for cases, clarifications, amendments, actual cases. Most of that workload is the reading of evidence and related pages. Emails related to these issues are mainly along the lines of "go vote", "when will the decision be up", "can we close this?" and similar memory tweakers that are more likely to get a response if they show up in someone's inbox than if they're written on a wiki page. Sometimes there is floating of a trial balloon or the proposal of a motion in advance of posting to ensure that it's on target; it's a waste of everyone's time to post motions that wind up needing major tweaking, for example. The BASC work is technically off-wiki stuff because it comes in by email, and makes up another 5-10% of workload. It should be noted that there is some element of private or intensely personal information involved in about 20-25% of actual cases, although much more is sent to us without our request, and maybe 5-10% of the unsolicited information is considered relevant. The information can range from an extensive checkuser study of parties in a case where there has been a serious allegation of sockpuppetry (one I worked on took over 100 checks and many hours, with the net result that there was no evidence of socking despite some earlier CU results that suggested there had been) to details of personal relationships between editors, to individual editors explaining personal situations that are adversely affecting their ability to respond to the case (editors shouldn't have to provide extensive onwiki details about vacations, family trouble, or personal health, for both their own privacy and their own security). Some of this will be hinted at onwiki (by extending deadlines in deference to an editor, or with reference to "conflict of interest" or similarly generic information). I'd say at least half of the desysoppings involve personal information that is not appropriate to be discussed onwiki; there is a full and detailed discussion of the remainder. Only a tiny amount of the workload involves matters that are only suitable for private discussion; however, those discussions tend to be extensive. Arbcom is like any other human endeavour, so it should not be surprising that unusual situations draw more attention than the regular day-to-day work.

One of the challenges in keeping things onwiki is finding the balance between openness and effective time/work management. The same question posted to a colleague onwiki may take a two or three days to get a full response, usually with significant "interruptions" from other editors, while it may take only a few hours (with little or no "interruption") on the mailing list. That's simply because it's easier to check one's email than to log into Wikipedia, find the right page, make the edit, hope that the person to whom the question is directed will respond in a timely way (is it faster to leave a message on their talk page, or send an email with a link to the question?), check back regularly until there is a response, then read it and ask any followup question, etc. It's a tricky balance, but I think there is value in trying to do more of this sort of thing onwiki, even if it is on an "arbs only" page, to increase the ability of the community to understand why, for example, a remedy was added, or an additional finding posted to a decision. There's an example of a discussion that several of us participated in here, which took a couple of days to achieve a result (the addition of a discretionary sanctions proposed remedy). Given this was a case that was not being overwhelmed by discussion, it was workable on the talk page; however in a case where there are 10 or more active participants, this wouldn't be terribly workable. Another place where we can do more work is in actively using the "Questions to parties" section on the workshop page, to clarify or further adduce relevant evidence. An example of this is here. (Forgive me for using examples in which I've participated, they are from our two most recently closed cases and I knew where to find them.) Risker (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above regarding speed efficiency of email notifications may be an effective argument for an open-reading closed-posting public arbcom mailing list, which is being discussed with the alternate of on-wiki scheduling discussions on the Cases page with regards to the Cirt / Jn case filing (for those not reading that page but following this here, look at the bottom of the Cases page to the two motions...). I understand the reasoning, and support the experiment of potentially trialing both to see how people feel they work in practice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on the surface a mailing list sounds like a better idea. Practically speaking, though, it will not be reasonable to directly connect the emails to the case itself, and if the same list is being used for multiple cases, I've little doubt it will become a mishmash of threads and posts that mean little to the reader. Of the two, I would really rather do it onwiki, where it's a subpage of the actual case, and the arb-only discussions are directly linked to it. Risker (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to configure Wikipedia to send out email notifications every time certain watchlisted pages you designate are updated? Would that help with the latency discrepancy between email and wiki edits? TotientDragooned (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This feature, which is relatively common on the smaller wikis, is specifically disabled on this project because the volume of email that would be sent would overwhelm the system structures. It's only recently been possible to receive email notifications if one's personal talk page is edited, as the systems have a little more flexibility and redundancy. I understand that some users have written scripts that notify them through some means of any edits relating to them personally (I believe the notice is sent to an IRC channel), but based on that I would assume someone could write a script that would email a notification of edits to a specific page to a small number of people (probably using the email this user feature). I don't think anyone associated directly with Arbcom has the coding skills required to come up with such a script, though. Risker (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I commented in my answer to the first of Luke's question that I'd like to see more delegating, and so I read with interest what Risker said a few posts above, about checkuser. Overall, I think your (Risker's) analysis of how time is distributed makes sense to me, from what I've read. But I wonder about Committee members taking it on themselves to do so much investigation with respect to socking. Normally, members of the community can post SPI requests on-site. It's unclear to me why ArbCom would have to conduct separate SPIs in privacy. Why couldn't most of the CHUs be handled by checkusers who are not members of the Committee? Could the Committee request those checks on-Wiki, or, if not, privately, thus delegating the actual investigation to someone else, someone who is still well-trusted? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case to which I referred, Tryptofish, there had been multiple SPIs carried out, with varying interpretations by different checkusers. I have no doubt they all did their jobs correctly; however, there is something of an art to interpreting checkuser data, and the results may show something quite different when looking at 10 users all at once than when looking at two or three. (I'll also point out that it's important that at least a few arbitrators/AUSC members be fully familiar with how the tools work, so they can adequately assess whether or not a checkuser is interpreting results irregularly.) The socking allegations were a central theme of that particular case; such situations are fairly rare. However, I don't think it would be inappropriate for an arbitrator skilled in reviewing CU data to at least recheck CU results that are an important element of a case. Recent example: the checkuser carried out in a current case that identified the person filing the case as the sock of a banned editor. I think the community would expect that such a finding would be verified by at minimum one technically qualified arbitrator who was familiar with prior information, as part of the decision-making process on how to best address this unusual finding. In reality, I suspect the majority of checkusering done by arbitrators is in relation to unblock requests that are at their last level of appeal, or as skills maintenance/non-arbcom related checks. Appointed checkusers are expected to carry out routine checks, and many of us will routinely request their assistance to address and/or review findings. Risker (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking at this from the perspective of whether ArbCom's workload can be made lighter, as well as better-defined (and I'm unencumbered by any knowledge of how CU actually works!). Can more of that be done by asking other checkusers to do it, perhaps by saying we have found out something that wasn't appreciated when you did the last check, so please go back and re-check, taking into account such-and-such aspect of the "art"? As for the scenario below, I'm glad that's not something that happens, because it shouldn't. Deals like that shouldn't happen, even if they are intended to be gentle, because it puts arbitrators into the position of human resource management. I'd like to see more focus on arbitration, not human resource management or investigation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the script often goes something like,

AC: Admin X, you've been accused of socking using undisclosed accounts A, B, and C, based on checkuser evidence D. What do you have to say for yourself?

X: My computer was hacked; on day E I was suffering from illness F and couldn't possible have logged in to Wikipedia. On day G I was on-site as part of my work for corporation H and had no internet access. On day I I was flying to city J for a family reunion and so would have had an IP address that geolocates to J instead of what you see in evidence D.

AC: We don't buy it, but if you "resign" now we won't publish our findings on-wiki, and will continue to cover up the full extent of your socking should you decide to run for RfA or ArbCom in the future.

X: Deal.

Obviously this whole song-and-dance can't occur on-wiki due to the personal information involved, but I agree it's something the Checkusers should be trusted to handle themselves. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

TotientDragooned, since checkusers can't desysop anyone, any such findings have to be referred to Arbcom. And no, I wouldn't start having a discussion with anyone about hypothetical socking unless I'd verified the information myself (or perhaps had it verified by someone else who is accepting the same level of responsibility as I am). For the record, I don't think there's been a discussion that's come anywhere close to this "script" since I've been on the Committee, but others may have a different recollection. Risker (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with keeping the whole thing off-line (yeah eliminate the whole massive text-hole. Blows me away to see the "can't write an article" admins completely able to write verbosity full of researched diffs. Let's just yearly elect you all as admins, rename the admins moderators and yearly elect them, and then just roll like a normal web forum. We probably need one level above you (I guess single person, elected and not ness Jimmy...the girlfriend thing bugged me...made it look like he was corrupt.) If someone comes with a complaint, it's probably easier to just investigate it yourselves or ask the parties directed questions with private submission of responses rther than reading all that crap. Dick Feynman learned more at NASA by just directing questions for what he wanted to konw rather than allowing death by Powerpoint to be done to him.TCO (reviews needed) 20:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, per William M. Connolley. Minimize private executive sessions and have the rest in public on pages where only committee members (or clerks, for organization) are welcome to edit. We should all be writing less on private lists and more on public wikis. (that applies to private WMF lists too.) – SJ + 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser "will send my results to Arbcom"

Checkuser states he will run a test and report privately to Arbcom. [1] Is this sort of private process required or desirable?

Do we have a "communicate to Arbcom" addition!? Here is a process that exists and functions without needing Arbcom and the first thing that goes down is reflexive "share with Arbcom first". It doesn't make sense to the accuser, the accused, or Wehwalt.

I don't even get the big deal. So Mattisse has a long record of socking over the years. There was a lot juicier and dicier stuff in the WR leaks that the committee had to deal with. Do you really need to have this on the mailing list?  ;-)

TCO (reviews needed) 06:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

TCO, please go and read the SPI. Mattisse is under an Arbcom sanction at present, which is why results are reported to Arbcom. This is standard for Arbcom-sanctioned users who have a history of socking. As an aside, I'm the checkuser most familiar with Mattisse's editing style and pattern of socking, so it would be likely that someone new to doing a checkuser on her would request a consultation at minimum. Please give it a rest. Risker (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Looks like it was not Mattisse. I am glad of that.

2. I don't understand the referal to Arbcom mentioned by Risker. Is this really how you want to do business, especially given discussions of handling even deliberartions out in the open? For that matter, the last test run didn't need some special Arbcom intervention. Also the CUs did not refer to a specific policy or the like "because it's Mattisse". And for that matter, why do you need to be involved?

3. There is something strange about the Smartyboots account. No user page content for a couple years and then puts up the sock template on her own page. [2]

TCO (reviews needed) 06:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

TCO, as has been explained already, Mattisse is currently the subject of an Arbcom sanction, in part because of her socking. You weren't around when that decision was taken, and you clearly haven't read it. Frankly, if not for the long history of socking from Mattisse, I think most checkusers would have declined your SPI request; what evidence you presented was indicative of other accounts that know what they're doing, not other accounts being Mattisse. I'm not going to worry about SmartyBoots either: you're the one who accused him of being a sock, so perhaps you need to mend some bridges there. Risker (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I filed a CU because I was suspicious. It was done. It was negative. I did it in the open. Perhaps this is why people go back channel (in case they are wrong). I am glad Mattisse was not socking and will leave it at that.TCO (reviews needed) 06:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Official Comment requested

[3]

Why was this covered up?

-Defying common sense again, are we? (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me whose sock you are first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

He can't, he's editing from an open proxy which has since been blocked. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, Chase, but it's not so easy to shoot this messenger.

And, no, Elen, I won't tell you. Do you know why? Because I know what will happen to this account regardless. Might as well not give you the satisfaction of putting a "This account is a sockpuppet of X" tag on my userpage.

So, back to my original question. Why was this covered up? -Defying common sense again, are we? (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll happily answer a user who isn't banned. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Chase me, I sent a query to the functionaries list on 12 July. I received no answer until today, after that post had already been made on Wikipedia Review. Somewhere in the list's moderation queue is a question from me not dissimilar to that posed above. If all it takes is a request from a non-banned user, consider it requested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. Sorry to be a pain, DC, but I refuse to give people like User:DefyingCS any slack - personal reasons. As to your most recent email, we've received it and been discussing it - rather a lot has been going on behind the scenes. I'm not sure about your one on the 12th - I've just switched to using Outlook two days ago, and have yet to download my 20,000(!) emails since I opened the account last year. As a result, I'm a few days behind the times. I have my own opinions as to how I'd like to handle this, and have just about run out of patience with the parties involved, but given the rapidly changing situation and the fact that I don't know the entire history of the case, I'm waiting for one of the pre-2011 arbs to come online before I take any rash action. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick response to this would be good to dispel any concern - there is already grumblings about the actions related to this matter. I am, myself, apathetic to accounts choosing to vanish and then sneak back under a new guise to edit constructively in the future. But in this case he has re-entered an area of dispute that is related to his leaving. Is the original account being restored per WP:RTV? This could be done fairly quickly I think, the account is clearly "in the open", publicly and by their own hand, so discussion can occur on wiki. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The user in question wanted a fresh start, given that they were the target of off-site personal attacks linked to using their real-world identity on-site. The new account was still required to abide by the binding voluntary restrictions placed on the old account. We've been emailing the parties in this matter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there are probably discussions still taking place, but is David Fuchs' statement intended to be a response to any of the questions that have been raised? His version of this situation is misleading. The account of the user in question was vanished. WP:RTV states "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). Although the details are already out there for anyone to read in the link above, I do not wish to out anyone here so I will try not to be too specific, but if I recall, there are multiple sanctions in place on this account, from multiple ArbCom arbitrations, not all of them voluntary. I think it might be helpful if someone could confirm that basic fact to aid in future discussions.

Leaving aside the issue how reported off-site personal attacks relates to this case, my concern is this user's deceptive participation in dispute resolution processes. Without getting specific, the user misrepresented themselves and their knowledge of the issues and editors being discussed. It is unlikely that ArbCom members participating in the discussions were not aware of this, but even if that were the case, I alerted them to this possibility on 12 July. I am told that it was being discussed soon after, although I only received acknowledgement of receipt after earlier ArbCom discussion about this user were posted on Wikipedia Review. It would probably be helpful for ArbCom to address these points in order to dispel allegations of "cover-up" such as those above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What "cover up" is supposed to have taken place, exactly? As far as I know all sanctions migrated with the account, so I'm not seeing how RTV was abused in this case. Whether or not the account has actually violated those sanctions in regard to recent events is another matter entirely, and the reason we initially emailed the user before the leak you describe. I'm sorry if our response back to you was suspiciously-timed, but that's what happens when you're trying to coordinate responses based on other people's responses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You would have to ask the sockmaster of the account who posted the cover up allegation above what they meant by that. I am merely pointing out some of the things that ArbCom may wish to address. I did not mean to suggest that the timing of ArbCom's response to me was suspicious, only to make clear that the issue was being discussed before the leak of earlier ArbCom discussion of the same user was posted on Wikipedia Review. Based on past experience, I was not expecting a response at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

David, are you speaking for ArbCom here or just on your own behalf? I'm perfectly happy to address your points, but I'd like to know that this is the official statement before I put the effort into it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As I think is obvious by now, I formerly edited using the account at User:Vanished user 03. I am not involved in any of the editing disputes on any of the articles mentioned in the RfC/U - almost all of which I had never heard of before, let alone edited. I will not be making any further comment on the matter and if any comments concerning it are posted to my user talk page by anyone other than an ArbCom member they will be summarily deleted. I also dedicate my most recent DYK contribution to Delicious carbuncle for reasons that should be obvious. Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)