Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin		12 September 2023	6/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin

Initiated by -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) at 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mark Ironie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Indigenous girl (talk · contribs)
• Skyerise (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• CorbieVreccan
• Mark Ironie
• Indigenous girl
• Skyerise

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311 § Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan (2019, final warning for Corbie)
• Private correspondence with ArbCom
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Long-term meatpuppetry by two admins

Statement by Tamzin

I'm filing this at the suggestion of several users at AN. ArbCom has already considered a narrow aspect of this privately: Whether off-wiki evidence of a personal connection between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie, combined with point 1 of what's discussed below, warranted ArbCom sanctions. While I briefly mentioned other issues (points 4 and 5), I did not present the case as a general review of Mark and Corbie's admin actions, and to my knowledge the Committee did not treat it as one.

After Mark and Corbie's connection was made public at ArbCom's behest, I raised this matter at AN, where a broader portrait of repeated violations of WP:MEAT, WP:INVOLVED, and possibly WP:COI has emerged. To summarize what I and others have presented in that thread:

1. Almost all of Mark's significant non-mainspace, non-own-userspace participation since the start of 2020 has been in support of Corbie. This includes 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation. (timeline)
2. Corbie was given a final warning in 2019 by Seraphimblade for disruptive editing in the Native American topic area. Mark had defended Corbie at length in that discussion and sought sanctions against Corbie's opponent.
3. Across 20 XfDs, Corbie and Mark have !voted the same way in 18, and mostly the same way in 2. (analysis by BilledMammal)
4. In February, Corbie indefinitely semi-protected the article Two-spirit (authorship stats), ostensibly as an AE action (never logged). They acknowledged their involvement, linking to WP:CTOP, which forbids involved CTOP actions.
5. In June, Corbie deleted User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit because Editor does not understand topic and has been disruptive on Indigenous articles. Image is offensive. They self-reversed after a DRV in which they cited no policy basis for deletion.
6. There are some concerns that Corbie has a COI with respect to Celtic reconstructionism and rival schools of paganism. I'll note that, 5 years after being renamed from a username that made that COI more obvious, they logdelled the pagemove. (While I'm not saying that name as a courtesy, past usernames on the same account are public information, and Corbie has acknowledged their off-wiki identity in the past.)
7. User talk:Mycelium101 § September 2016 may or may not have been a good block (not an OS, can't say), but Corbie certainly shouldn't have made it against someone accusing them of COI, and Mark certainly shouldn't have declined unblock.
8. Corbie revision-deleted my required notification of the AN thread as purely disruptive. They self-reversed after criticism, but never adequately explained the action.

In the AN thread, both admins have taken an approach of generally denying wrongdoing, without substantively disputing the allegations. Mark says that they genuinely agree with Corbie each time they've !voted together, and I'm sure that's true. Most meatpuppetry cases work that way. "Failure to exercise independent judgment" isn't just about the opinions expressed, but the time, place, and manner of expressing them—WP:CANVASS, essentially. I have blocked experienced users in similar situations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• @clerks: That's 495 words, as much as I could condense all the evidence; preemptively requesting 250 words for replies. Also, additional clerical note: Since Corbie accused me of misconduct, and in acknowledgment of some editors' concerns about the "anchoring" effect of only naming the "accused" in case names, I've included myself in the request name. I have no strong feeling as to what an eventual case ought to be called. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• @Cryptic: I will say, I think the older usertalk revdels are probably fine, since WP:DELTALK allows privacy RDs in userspace, which provides a limited extension of WP:U1 onto usertalk pages, and it's generally understood admins can self-action U1s when the matter is non-controversial. The issues with the revdel of my edit were that the matter was decidedly controversial, and that it accused me of disruptive behavior; I don't see this as present in the other ones (tagged as RD6, although RD5 would be more apt). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• To address my background for looking into this: I had heard, years ago, from a user in very good standing, that they had seen the SPI against Mark before it was deleted, and that it made a compelling case. I thought little of this again until I saw Mark's !vote at AN/I to sanction Skyrise and Darker Dreams, but didn't have the time or energy to look into it then. When Pingnova (not an "off-wiki friend[ ]" as Corbie says, but a new user who had sought advice on Discord on writing about an LGBTQ topic) noted that the protector and main editor of Two-spirit were the same person, I decided to start looking into the claim I'd heard. I could not verify the particular relationship alleged, but could verify that they knew each other pre-Wikipedia. I knew no specifics of the SPI's MEAT allegations, so I conducted a de novo review of Mark's edits, the results of which were unambiguous.
  As to Pingnova, I think simply looking at Corbie's interactions with them will substantiate my WP:BITE concerns, but that's small beans compared to what we're discussing here. Corbie attacking the motives of people calling them out for years of policy violations is not a suitable response under WP:ADMINACCT—nor is repeatedly acknowledging the violations but saying they were fine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: Thanks for the context. Is the implication there that the users' former usernames are suppressable information? I've been avoiding saying them as a courtesy, out of empathy as someone who's also experienced off-wiki harassment, but all 3 renames (2 for Mark, 1 for Corbie) are publicly logged and endure in years' worth of past talkpage edits, including both of their RfAs. (As noted above, Corbie logdelled the pagemove from their own rename, but the rename log itself remains public.) Without meaning to question the good intentions of any of our oversighters, who I'm sure were just trying to help two admins dealing with harassment, this seems like one of those cases where it would have been better to convey the hard truth that you can't make your identity private when you've already widely publicized it, rather than use oversight to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube, giving a false sense of privacy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• @Risker: The most recent instance of Mark intervening on Corbie's behalf in a matter is 21 August, 5 days before I first contacted ArbCom. I don't see where I've called anyone a villain or horrible admin, and older evidence has only been cited as pertains to recent misconduct. If an admin repeatedly using their tools and social stature to support their off-wiki associate, to the exclusion of almost any other participation outside of mainspace, "press[es] the right buttons"... well I'd sure hope it would. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by CorbieVreccan

I'm sorry this is long, but I've been accused of a lot. Things have been dug up from over 15, almost 20 years ago. I've been WP:OUTED and put in danger again.

The sometimes-shared IP was disclosed to Arbcom and multiple checkusers during the Starwood Arbitration in 2006, before our RfAs in 2007, and I've made sure to mention it when working with Checkusers ever since. Notably, when working with CU's to block the User:Ekajati, 30 account sockdrawer. No one ever said until Sunday night that we needed to disclose this publicly.

Arbcom knows the reason for my name change, it had to do with real-world violent stalkers and physical danger. It was done by 'crats for my and my family's safety, not for deception.

Skyerise, who I am certain is the ban-evading Ekajati sockdrawer stirred up a lot of this.

• Editor interaction tool Skyerise and confirmed Ekajati sock Hanuman Das
• EI for Skyerise and Ekajati

I have sent additional evidence to Arbcom and Mark says he will be posting his publicly as well. Skyerise has claimed I have a sock account. I do not. I've never heard of the account she linked at AN. I don't sock. I immediately recognized Skyerise's voice, personal attacks and editing patterns as Ekajati, as have others. I haven't posted the Ekajati/Skyerise stuff publicly before now because I knew she'd out me the way she and Tamzin now have. She knew it wasn't worth it to me to be outed again, as she participated in the stalking. The forgetfulness of others with the passage of time, her having relocated and everyone using new equipment now has made her over-confident.

Skyerise is now focusing on my COI on the CR article, which I disclosed at my RfA. When the COI template was created, I did not tag the article or list it on my talk page under my new name, again, due to the name change/safety reasons, and because, aside from reverting vandalism I mostly stay on talk these days.

She had this same focus on me with the Ekajati account: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood#Statement by Ekajati (Her statement about us is struck as the committee found her charges irrelevant).[1] She is still bitter that Mark filed the arbitration that led to the discovery and block of her and her 30 socks. As I write this, she is now slashing and burning her way through the Celtic reconstructionism article and lying about me some more. She's waited 17 years to do this.

The articles that I have semi-ed which I also edit have almost always been at the request of editors on talk. I have usually asked on talk first if that's what others think we should do, and always included a link where they can go to RFPP if they want it undone. Always. I have never had anyone request an undo. [Adding: I had noticed a number of other, very active and respected, admins doing this and no one seemed to take issue with it. Not an excuse, but a reason. I agree that, even so, we were all not in line with policy, even when requested, so I will go to RFPP in the future. Sorry. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)]

They mentioned Two Spirit because on the same day Tamzin emailed Arbcom, I had reverted someone on that article that she has a personal, off-wiki friendship with, who she then she came to the Indigenous wikiproject to defend.[2] She accused me of being bitey, but my initial replies to them were friendly and neutral.[3][4]

I have never been, nor am I now, anyone's Meat Puppet. As someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and an admin since 2007, I have gotten to know a number of Wikipedians. I've met some offline, as well. Some I've stayed in touch with, others have fallen out of touch. The Wikipedians I have connections with, we've bonded over shared interests. We have the same articles on our watchlists. If activity on an article, or an XfD happens, we both/all may well show up. We may well have similar opinions. We may say, "Per that person", if they make a good argument. There are many people over the years I've said, "Per this person" about. Many more than the one that's been singled out here.

10 or 15 years ago, Mark was one of the people I had the most in common with. Not so much now. So, aside from a couple mistakes that we have apologized to Arbcom about, any agreements in XfDs are extremely old and were largely in the 17 years old Starwood AfDs where the only opposing !votes were one person - a sockdrawer. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to Tamzin's point 8: I did explain at AN. Twice. And apologized:

• I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel - CorbieVreccan^☊ ☼ 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. I've reverted and I apologize. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

_________________________________

Skyerise has posted on my talk page saying she can't be Ekajati because she removed spam links from the Starwood article.[5]

She was very patient and ignored most of the articles for 4 years or longer with the Skyerise account.

• Then she showed up on Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE) to remove the COI template: "Rosenbaum is deceased, no further need for a COI watch"
• And then to do 30 more edits, largely to improve refs.
• I returned the flags, saying "Group of articles still not sufficiently cleaned up for citespam, advert tone, lack of inline cites, etc. It's not just a warning about one user, but that the effects of his editing are still present."
• Then she started removing promotional content, in 8 edits on ACE.
• Then she went to the Starwood article where she did mostly improvements, in a series of 5 and then21 edits.
• She only removed the spammy lists after I said they were a problem in this 27 March exchange on my talk page. She then removed the spam on 29 March, in a series of 38 edits, for a total of 64 edits on Starwood, if my math is right. Skyerise also admitted on the talk exchange to attending the Starwood festival. I believe she knew at this point I knew who she is and she started cleaning up the sock spam to try to keep me from pressing the matter.

Note the identical wording and phrasing in the edit summaries here: https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Starwood_Festival&users=Skyerise&users=Ekajati&server=enwiki

There are 27 more to go through.

I believe she knew this was coming and, especially given the Starwood-related "evidence" and outing, this is co-ordinated retaliation. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to @GeneralNotability:, I'm not going to throw other admins under the bus here, but I was encouraged to do privacy-protecting revdels, and others did some for me, as well. This is the first time anyone has said there's an issue with it. Again, I'm sorry, but I was doing the best I could with a crappy situation. If I knew this would happen, of course I would have done a clean start. But I think it's really unfair that I'm being punished for protecting myself, and others for protecting me, for retaliation that came at me from criminals because I protected the 'pedia. We have a whole new Arbcom now, so apparently what they did for me doesn't matter. And yes, I've worked with Trust and Safety, they make consoling sounds and refer you back to Arbcom. You have no idea how betrayed I feel right now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'll say it again, Mark and I have not been coordinating. I haven't even seen his emails with Arbcom, and I haven't shown him mine. I immediately volunteered an iBan and apologized for any lines crossed. Our sometimes-shared IP has been on record with Arbcom and CU as long as we've been Wikipedians and before our RfAs. We were given assurances that our names would be largely hidden, even if not everything from the past could be hidden. Yes, in almost 20 years on the 'pedia I've made some mistakes. I guess every single one of them is being dug up now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: I have gradually come to the painful realization that you are correct - in limbo. Not good. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: This will probably require me going through my old email account. I am exhausted right now so it will probably have to wait till tomorrow. I know I sent some things during the private correspondence. If I send you the Trust and Safety correspondence, can you pass it on the General Notability? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Indigenous girl

Well, this is certainly interesting. I'm not sure what's being asked of me, why am I here? Is i because of the issue with CV, Buffs and myself in the past? That's the past, I don't even remember what the outcome was but Buffs and I no longer cross paths. I stopped editing a handful of articles he and I both edited. There was more to that whole story. Boy oh boy was there but not even Truth and Safety did anything because this occurred shortly after the Fram incident. Is it because CV and I very often edit the same articles? Well, Indian County is only so big. I edit what I know. I am not comfortable editing in spaces where I am ignorant. That would not benefit the 'pedia (though I have done minor fiddly fixes on topics that I'm ignorant of). I've voted per a number of other editors because, as I've said else where, I am inherently lazy. If they've said what I intended to say or something close enough, it's per so and so. Is it because CV and I both live in the same state??? Golly, forgive me for choosing to go to college where I chose to go. I would prefer to go to Cornell so if you'd like me to change location you can pay for my education. I don't know what else to tell you all.

I've run EI on a number of folks participating here and y'all should be thanking all that's good that you don't live in glass houses. It's incredibly hypocritical. I used to follow CV around like a sad puppy, it's super pathetic, but I was a child when I started editing and they were kind to me. Was it wrong of me? Yes, of course it was, I recognize that now.

So now I'm going to talk about the Indigenous articles. Tamzin, in the future, please capitalize Indigenous. It's proper and respectful. Thank you. Some of the issues stem from editing Indigenous articles. It is incredibly frustrating having to deal with bullshit day in and day out (I'm just going to let my freak flag fly at this point, I no longer care). New editors show up boldly colonizing Native articles when they have no idea what the hell they are talking about AND THEY LIE. They lie about their experience and they lie about being part of the community. They sing the tonto speak songs with all the colors of the arctic wind up in Alaska. And people believe them. And they damage the 'pedia. So called friendly folks from Minneapolis come in and make changes to articles when they very obviously know jack shit. The more experienced editors have to clean up their messes. We have to correct things and revert and then we get into trouble because we are not nice. They claim to work with members of community, bold faced lying to admins because if they actually did they would not post pictures of sacred things and call ceremonial items peace pipes. We are constantly shit on and expected to smile and accept it. We are not to be allowed to edit drafts about our own community because non-Natives are. We are expected to sit on our hands when they add inaccuracies, misinformation and things about Germans. And if we get the least bit frustrated or bothered look where we end up. I'm not going to bother with diffs. I simply don't care anymore. Why should I, this place has no integrity. It gives no fucks about peoples safety, I learned that the hard way.

I am out of town and it took me forever to be able to get signal. If you want a response from me it may not be until Saturday but hopefully it will be sooner. Indigenous girl (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Skyerise

For what it's worth, I'm happy to make a statement. I kind of cycle through topics, some of them fringe, weeding out unsourced and badly sourced stuff. On and off I've come across articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs). The first time I did this, around 2016 I think, I watchlisted a bunch of them from his user page and addressed them as they came up in my watchlist. More recently, in March, I tackled Association for Consciousness Exploration and Starwood Festival, cleaning up COI that had been left for years. In the process I read Rosencomet's talk page and noticed the frequent posts from CV and MI under their previous usernames. It all seemed a bit over the top, but when I looked the editors seemed not to be here anymore so... Anyway, someone in the ANI thread brought up the previous usernames and that rang a bell, I noticed Rosencomet didn't have a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template, revisited his talk page, and followed up on a thread that indirectly led other editors to discover the COI, which I've since been working to clean up. Skyerise (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Addition: CV suggests here that I was expected to remember something about her changing her username due to being stalked. It's possible that I should... but I just don't. I had early COVID and have the long-COVID brainfog problem. I don't remember much of anything about any Wikipedia drama from prior to 2020. What I've said above about earlier dates I gathered from old talk page posts. Skyerise (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to @BilledMammal: I was about to ask that myself. I think I'm being accused of OUTING but that was Shells-shells here. For the record, I'm neither Tamzin nor Shells-shells, nor am I in communication with either. Skyerise (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion from Serial Number 54129

...that Barkeep49 be careful what he wishes for; several editors at AN/I queried the recent role of the committee in this issue's previous incarnation. Should the committee list itself as a party?

At the same time, it is impossible that this case would not be accepted; the alleged issues—admin meat puppetry, wp:involved, misuse of blocks etc.—make ArbCom the only possibly fair venue for a hearing, let alone the only one with the remit to do so. But it's true: the committee's role was brought up several times at A/I, so that should be addressed somehow. If only to alleviate any underlying concerns the community may have. SN54129 20:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

I did a fairly cursory audit of CorbieVreccan's revdels after the AN-notification revdel, and two items stood out:

• Following on from the logdel in Tamzin's #6, there's also a number of revdels in CorbieVreccan's userspace, apparently in an attempt to obscure these birthday-committee edits which could conceivably have led back to their previous username; I didn't mention them at WP:AN since nobody had brought up the username change there yet, and I wasn't going to be the first to do so.
• The revdel visible in the logs for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie may or may not have been proper - again, no OS access, so I can't say - but what is visible also looks bad.

—Cryptic 20:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Moxy

Looks very bad as per WP:STEALTH, but there has to be a good reason. Let's make sure Wikipedia:SHARE is adhere to so the community can have some confidence in these administrators.Moxy- 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by AntiCompositeNumber

I would suggest that ArbCom and/or the Oversight team more broadly, if it has not recently done so, evaluate whether the suppressed revision(s) of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie should remain suppressed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Regarding the suppression of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Ironie, this was discussed on the Oversight mailing list at the time (January 2020) but spent more time discussing associated issues rather than the question itself so did not reach an obvious consensus (Arbs let me know if you want me to submit the thread as private evidence). The reason it was suppressed was because it included the former usernames of both Mark and CV. I can't see any issue with restoring it but with those names redacted, which matches a suggestion in the list thread (which went unresponded to at the time). I'm not going to do that unilaterally though, especially now the matter is here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting I didn't see Barkeep's comment on this until after I hit save. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: It was noted in the OS thread that there is a mix of public and suppressed/revdelled links between the old and new names, and that the connection can be trivially traced based on the public information if you go looking for it, and this was one of the points in favour of unsuppressing and a suggestion similar to your "hard truth" option was also made. The harassment received and previous suppressions were the main arguments for continued suppression.
Some context for anyone not familiar: Oversight is a tool of first resort - i.e. we suppress and then discuss, unsuppressing or downgrading to revdel if that's the conclusion. There is no formal policy regarding no consensus, but most often the suppression remains.
I would recommend not sharing the old usernames here unless ArbCom say you can, because that is definitely not going to make anything worse while the alternative only probably won't. In the case of the SPI, including the old names is not necessary for the context so there isn't a clear benefit to restoring without redaction. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I just wanted to get some clarity as to the scope here, if this case is accepted. I'm aware of and have been party to some issues relating to CorbieVreccan's conduct on several other articles within the GENSEX content area. While she didn't, to my knowledge, use the admin tools in relation to these other issues, would these conduct issues be in scope of this case request? Diffs can of course be provided if this is within scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal

I believe she knew this was coming and, especially given the Starwood-related "evidence" and outing, this is co-ordinated retaliation. CorbieVreccan, are you suggesting that Tamzin and Skyerise coordinated to make this report - and that both of their motives were retaliation?

If you are not suggesting Skyerise coordinated with Tamzin, then who are you suggesting that she coordinated with? 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

I have told this to the arbitrators in another forum, and I will repeat it here. This case doesn't show that the two main alleged villains in this case are horrible, bad admins. It shows that one admin who specializes in knowing how to press the right buttons can drag up diffs from 15 years ago, and get a case accepted. Arbcom is being played like a fiddle here. The most recent diff that anyone has come up with is from 2 years ago; Arbcom would normally never even consider a case that doesn't show recent issues. The closest thing to a "recent issue" is the revdel of a diff that the user genuinely believed was something that had already been addressed privately with Arbcom. Why Arbcom is deciding to really hang these two out to dry, after they had already discussed this matter privately, is disturbing. The username changes were done back at a time when we did not have the privacy-protecting tools we have now, and when the policies were radically different. This could all have been handled very neatly by Arbcom saying "okay you two, act like any other users who share an IP and don't comment on the same XFD/RFA/whatever," and then shutting down this nonsense. Simple solutions work best. Risker (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, that's the first I saw of that diff. Still doesn't change my opinion. The solution is as I have stated above. Risker (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

Two comments on this:

1. On the oversighting and privacy of renames: the current portion of the OS policy that says they will not be granted was drafted by me and submitted to the OS list because people getting renamed for various reasons and requesting suppression had become a trend in the 2017-2020 era of the project and various oversighters had interpreted it different ways and it was starting to make its way on-wiki as a point of disruption with various users claiming outing based on revealing renames and clean starts even though the whole of our policies related to these items does not support such a position. One of the changes made in the drafting and subsequent discussion was that a clause about exceptional circumstances was removed to prevent people from claiming their circumstance was exceptional. It was acknowledged we could do it by IAR or similar discussion and seen as unneeded. The addition to the policy page additionally is not an actual core piece of the policy but the standing interpretation by the Oversight team of what we would ordinarily consider as being supressable, but documented publicly so that people know not to ask us. It was put where it was geographically on the page so as not to be a part of the core criteria. All this to say: while that is the norm on suppression of renames, it isn't as cut and dry and when I added the change to the page in July of 2020 the talk page post explaining that was a shorter version of the above paragraph. If what Risker is saying was true and due to previous technical limitations this was what was available, this really isn't what that section of the OS page was intended to address.
2. On the 2020 list discussion: Risker's proposed outcome was also my proposed outcome of that OS list discussion; I can understand if no one followed up on it given the timing and world events, but if functionaries and arbs were aware of this (which I think its reasonable to assume that the parties here thought) and no one reached out to them to give a private note, then that really is on the 2020 ArbCom. If this committee wants to formalize it, I don't think anyone would really oppose an IBAN, but part of the context here is that you have people acting in a way where they think others are aware and not acting is an implication that their actions are okay.

I don't have really have that strong of an opinion on this case, but since this type of thing has historically been one of the issues I've been more vocal on as a functionary, I figured I could provide context. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Tamzin - your request for an additional 250 words for replies is granted. firefly ( t · c ) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Indigenous girl added as a party per request from Arbitrators, notification to follow imminently. firefly ( t · c ) 19:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Skyerise added as a party per request from Arbitrators, notification also to follow imminently. firefly ( t · c ) 19:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Additional parties notified, sections created. firefly ( t · c ) 19:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept I was and am concerned about a variety of elements around this case and had been suggesting, from the start, that while some elements needed to be handled in private, and those elements still need to be handled in private, overwhelmingly this can and should be handled publicly. We should do so now. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  And while I've wasted no time voting to accept, I very much want to hear, especially from the parties, about what the scope of this case should be and who other parties to the case should be. ArbCom has identified one other potential party already (which as with WP:HJP doesn't mean they will be a party, just notified that they're being considered at this stage) but depending on the scope I could see the need for others. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I feel like be careful what he wishes for implies I wouldn't want ArbCom to examine its own decision making; far from it I have already posted onlist an examination of where I could have been more effective in expressing my opinions. And that's hardly unique; ArbCom regularly examines its own conduct and decisions. I would be very surprised if there isn't some of that assuming this becomes a case. I also think it appropriate for the community to give feedback on decisions, or potential decisions, which is one reason that I had felt this should be public all along. At the same time I am also mindful that we represent the entire enwiki community, not just the people we hear from who are angry with a decision (and thus far more motivated to offer feedback). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @AntiCompositeNumber: ArbCom has begun to discuss that. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  One note which is that the current wording in OSPOL about renames was added after the OS discussion about the SPI. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  @CorbieVreccan speaking only for myself I think this ArbCom has to be careful against changing the agreements reached by previous ArbComs. It can be done but generally shouldn't be done. That said I'm unaware of ArbCom issuing you advice in this instance. I have also not completely read the archives as they relate to you. So you telling us more about who encouraged you to do what would be helpful - it's not throwing other admins under the bus in my eyes, it's setting an appropriate context to understand what happened and why. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Accept While I think there may be innocent explanations for some of the issues we're seeing, there are clearly enough problems and overlap to warrant a structured look. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Accept Per others, and subsequent discussion at ANI shows a case will be needed here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Accept, the private evidence already received makes this unavoidable. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Accept --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Accept with the usual GeneralNotability wall of bullet points:
  • I should have suggested that this go to full case when we were still in private discussion – something more needed to be done than what was done, and this was not a blatant WP:LEVEL2 situation, but I didn't say anything. Basically a mix of me being concerned that I was overreacting and real life generally getting in the way. The private evidence clinches the existence of off-wiki connections, but the publicly available evidence that Tamzin laid out was more than enough to get us to an ADMINCOND case anyway.
  • I don't believe the Skyerise ?= Ekajati situation should be in scope for this case, nor do I think that CorbieVreccan should be spending the overwhelming majority of their section making that argument. I currently am imagining the scope of ADMINCOND of CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie, with a specific eye toward inappropriate off-wiki coordination between the two. Unless Skyerise/Ekajati was forcing the two of them to collaborate, I don't see their (Skyerise's) behavior as likely to be mitigating.
  • I have significant ADMINCOND concerns about the revdels/logdels that Tamzin mentions. While some are very old, some are as recent as 2021, and I think there is enough of a pattern of behavior for that to be something we consider as a committee.
  • No matter how carefully we treat the privacy-sensitive aspects of the case, we crossed into Streisand territory quite a while ago. The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is too busy clawing at our faces to go back into the bag, and we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Take your pick of idiom.
  • GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  CorbieVreccan, if T&S is sending you to us when you are concerned for your real-life safety, that is unacceptable and I will be in touch with them about it. But the fact of the matter is that any rename leaves a trail, and even if we suppressed every mention of your names there would still be ways to figure it out. What we have right now is privacy limbo: not enough to actually protect you from someone who seriously wants to find it, but just enough to impede accountability to the community, and so this benefits nobody. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)