Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Proposed decision

"evidence of sockpuppetry"
The motion to close mentions "evidence of sockpuppetry" -- since nothing in that regards has been presented publicly, I assume this was based on private evidence. As part of the closure of the case, should the "sockpuppet accounts", if any, be disclosed? I assume they would've been as part of a full final deicision, had the case run its full course. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This revelation significantly concerns me, considering that until recently Technical 13 had access to the Account Creation tool (and was even a developer of the tool), which provides access to the IP addresses of new users, in order to prove that they are not actually sockpuppets of blocked users. He had access to private data, and meanwhile he was (likely) sockpuppeting and (definitely) making libelous accusations that had to be oversighted. I don't mean to offend those who I've worked with on ACC, but I've been concerned for a while that the standards for granting access to this private data have become very easy to meet and that almost everyone who applies and is willing to identify gets in. Perhaps it is time to evaluate the process and prevent stuff like this from happening again? Also, has WMF Legal been contacted about this, in case they need to take action (such as revoking his identification)? --Rschen7754 01:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While the requirements to gain access to the tool are perhaps easy, candidates are vetted for approval and watched. Being a developer also has no extra priviledge as infact some non tool users are developers. If you wish to start an evaluation, you're free to email the mailing lists or myself to provide resolutions and new possible requirements as a base line. John F. Lewis (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be following up with my fellow Arbs, but I'm pretty sure we will be disclosing it. Appropriate blocks are already in place. I also assume the method would be an open and shut SPI filing.
 * T13 was a contributor to the project's code, but not a developer (at least in the way I define it). Developers have access to the database and ssh access, whereas contributors do not. As far as I am aware, there has been no breach of private data and that access was suspended. Also, the project's private data is only available to the person actively handling the request, and tool admins unless the request has been closed. The data is also wiped in compliance with the privacy policy. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, an open-and-shut SPI wss pretty much what I was thinking of also. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain grounds to proceed
Regarding the proposal to enact a ban: this is a bit different than previous situations where a case was suspended, pending resumption if the editor in question returned. In those instances, the path forward to resume editing was clear: a case would have to be heard first. However with this proposal, it seems uncertain what is meant by allowing the editor in question to appeal the ban. As there has been no findings of fact, how would an appeal be structured? isaacl (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any appeal will be by email to the arbitration committee. If the committee feels there is merit in doing anything on-wiki then how that will work will be sorted out at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But without principles and findings of fact, there is no founding for the ban. Normally in an appeal one explains how one has a better appreciation of the underlying principles behind the ban remedy and how one is able to contribute again without violating them, making the ban unnecessary. It would seem more appropriate to suspend the case, and resume it if the editor returns. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The justifications for the ban are included in the motion to close. L Faraone  19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Quandry
Sorry if this isn't the proper venue, but I could use some advice on how to proceed. Technical 13 promised four and a half months ago to clarify the ambiguity left in the closing statement of this non-admin close. I've been waiting patiently, since he's been bumping the issue on his talk page, so I knew he hadn't forgotten about it. With the current state of affairs, looks like clarification from him is not going to happen. Any suggestions on how to proceed, or would it be best to just let it drop? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While I have not investigated this specific case in detail, at first glance it seems reasonable to request further comments at WP:AN. L Faraone  19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, either AN, or -- given half a year has gone by -- a new discussion would be good ways to proceed if you disagree with the close. Courcelles (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)