QUOTE(Beer me @ Thu 30th June 2011, 3:15pm)
A public dump of everything probably would not harm anybody.
Redaction would prevent researcher from pulling back the curtain on Arbcom.
As soon as its dumped people will go ZOMG for a few more weeks and it will sink back into obscurity and really only come up here on WR.
Bottom line, "redact what" Malice says to redact.
Redaction, per se, does not prevent legitimate research. If what I've suggested is done, any researcher may contact someone holding the archive to request further information. Malice may set standards for that.
Look, it is Malice's call. Malice could tell us all to take a flying leap.
If Malice has a private agenda, Malice could use possession of the archive to further it, we can't stop that. Malice could do all kinds of things. But if the possibility of Wikipedia reform is Malice's agenda, or at least exposing the reality of ArbComm practice, which could set the stage for reform, then Malice might consider expanding participation with this.
I disagree that the archive would disappear into permanent obscurity if the full archive becomes available (even if redacted, as long as redaction wasn't massive and without good cause). This could be used for research into Wikipedia practices that could be much deeper than possible from hitherto-limited public information.