The Evidence phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

History of policy on COI reporting and outing

I note that the case scope includes the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy, and that several Arbs commented on the case request page that they wish that editors would be more inclined to email the Committee instead of just assuming that ArbCom already knows.

The COI guideline refers editors to the outing policy as taking precedence, and the latter says in part: Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation. In context, please note that emailing ArbCom is not currently emphasized, and editors are likely to look elsewhere instead. It is also in terms of "nothing prohibits", rather than the importance of reporting. The paid editing page likewise only refers to emailing Checkusers or a "paid" email address, with no mention of ArbCom.

Circa 2015–16, the community held very extensive discussions on how to report COI editing, and there are walls of text in the harassment policy talk page archives. But for a tl;dr, I want to point ArbCom to this 2016 discussion: [1], which I think gets at what is most relevant now. I see (with a bit of embarrassment, now) myself and multiple other editors saying that emailing ArbCom sounds like a bad idea; there are also then-members of ArbCom saying that ArbCom doesn't have the resources to deal with private evidence of COI/paid editing. (There's also discussion of a failed proposal to set up a mailing list of functionaries, to whom private evidence would be emailed. The failed proposal is here: [2], and the RfC rejecting it is here: [3].)

WMF posted their position here: [4], and the community discussed it here: [5].

This case should be informed by this history, and this is a good time to reevaluate it for present-day needs. Since ArbCom sets its own policies and procedures, this case may be an opportunity for ArbCom to take, for itself, a more active role as someone to contact with private information about COI/paid editing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Editing with a financial conflict of interest is "paid editing"

"Paid editing" is how we usually refer to edits made for or with financial compensation; what the Terms of Use call paid contributions. It is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, because people sometimes take them at face value and assume it refers to only literally being paid to make an edit. However, the relevant policies make it clear that they are intended to apply to any contribution where there is a financial conflict of interest present. From Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Additional notes on who must disclose (emphasis added to this and subsequent quotes):

Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.

And Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing:

Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. [...] More generally, an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship.

This isn't the place to get into why the policies are worded in this way. Suffice to say, the basic principle, set out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § COI is not simply bias, is that COI is not just a problem of quid-pro-quo advocacy, but of a tendency to bias that we assume exists when [an editors] roles and relationships conflict.

An employee has a financial conflict of interest in relation to their employer

As specifically stated in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing:

[A close financial relationship] includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.

Edits with a financial conflict of interest must be disclosed

Immediately after defining edits with a financial conflict of interest as a form of "paid editing", Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing goes on to say:

The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed.

Using admin tools in paid editing breaks a bright-line rule

Community consensus clearly forbids the use of admin tools as part of paid editing:

Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
—  Wikipedia:Administrators § Misuse of administrative tools

If you are an administrator, you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity (except when related to work as a Wikipedian-in-residence, or as someone paid by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate).
—  Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § Paid editing

Administrators making paid edits are subject to the same disclosure requirements as all other users, and are not permitted to use special privileges for paid editing.
—  Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Administrators

Historically such actions, if substantiated, have led to a removal of tools by the Arbitration Committee (see e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors § Salvidrim! desysopped).

Policy on the above points has not substantially changed since c. 2014

In the case request, some suggested that Nihonjoe may have fallen afoul of changing (i.e. tightening) community expectations regarding the scope and management of COIs. This is not the case:

• The requirement to disclose paid edits was added to the Terms of Use in June 2014 [6] and incorporated into our local COI guideline the same month. [7]
• The concept of a broader "financial COI" that specifically includes paid advocacy but also e.g. edits relating to an employer was formulated in the aftermath of this change, and was present in essentially the current wording from June 2015 [8] (the COI guideline had the concept of a "financial COI" for many years before that, but it was less precisely defined and wasn't linked to a disclosure requirement).
• A rough consensus that paid editing is incompatible with adminship/cratship can be traced back to at least 2012, when Jimbo Wales' paid advocacy FAQ, which formed the basis for much of our current COI guidelines, stated: no editor can be an administrator or bureaucrat and a paid advocate at the same time. The bright-line rule was instituted in 2018, following a RfC requested by ArbCom.

To claim that any kind of COI automatically means "paid editing" is a can of worms you don't want to open. For example, I've worked in the UV industry for decades, and when making edits in that area, I had a disclaimer on my user page. Some of my work here included uploading example images of items that had the brand of the company I worked for. (example: [9]) Did it benefit the company? Probably not but some may argue it does. It provided an example image of a common product that was readily available to me, rather than me buying an outside product to photograph. The majority of my related uploads were not company branded. The goal was to expand the articles, provide examples and I managed the COI by not adding the company name, nor slanting my edits to make them look better, nor adding images just to upload the company logo. I am considered expert in the field, so the articles benefited from the work, the company did not directly benefit. But it is still a (then declared) COI. Saying any COI is paid editing would automatically disqualify me from having the admin bit, as true "paid editing" has a clear consensus to be incompatible with adminship, and would have far reaching, damaging effect here.

This means that a professor that makes an edit about the university they teach at is a paid editor, because that university pays his salary, so he can not continue to hold the admin bit. You can't just carve out exceptions for professors over us lowly businessmen, after all, a job is a job, and making edits relating to your source of income the same. Some universities are FOR PROFIT, after all. What if the professor makes edits related to their FIELD, but their university is known as the only university studying that field? Isn't that a COI similar to mine, where it may incidentally promote their university? They indirectly benefit, so if COI is the same as paid editing, they must hand in the admin bit. COI is a fuzzy line, not a clear cut thing, and it is more common than most think. It is also manageable.

Most everyone has a COI of some kind, because most of us have jobs or affiliations that create the conflict of interest. Whether you belong to a social club (Lions Club, Optimists Club, etc), work at any job with any level of expertise, or a barista at Starbucks, any edits you make to either the company or related articles are a conflict. How we manage those conflicts is what matters. This is NOT the same thing as plain speak "paid editing" as a traditional 3rd party contractor, nor is it the same as working for XYZ, Inc. and part of your job title includes managing social media and thus making edits on Wikipedia (paid but in between "contractor" and "simple COI", as the damage is limited in scope) If you decree that a simple COI is the same as paid editing, you are going to need to desysop a lot of people, including me. Many have minor COI and don't think to declare because it isn't abused, but you will see cases popping up if you overreach here.

Note, this doesn't speak to the merits of this particular case, which I am not privy to all the details of, as most is private. I just don't want to see Arb shoot itself in the foot by declaring "COI == Paid editing". If anything, it needs to clarify that they are not the same for the purpose of adminship. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• One last note: I own stock in AT&T and I have edited History of AT&T (plus other examples). Is this paid editing? The fundamentals are the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe denied having COIs until this case was filed

Heritage Internet Technologies (formerly Heritage Web Solutions)

In 2008, while Nihonjoe was an admin, he inserted text about the above named company into the Provo, Utah article [10]. An editor later removed that information from the article, saying it seemed like advertising and non-neutral [11]. Nihonjoe reverted that editor within hours [12].

The same editor who tried to remove the information then raised concerns about the HWS article on that talk page [13] and would express concerns that someone with ties to the company had contributed to the article [14]. Nihonjoe's response was that "any article about a company is going to be somewhat promotional" [15] and then he turned up at the user's talk page to accuse that other editor of having a blatant POV [16].

Auquaveo

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaveo in February, Nihonjoe said simply that the article in question was about "one of many topics I find interesting" and asked for the page to be userfied, without admitting he worked for the company in question [17]. He would later accuse the editor who nominated the page for deletion of harassment [18]. (Nihonjoe would later change his tune and admit he only began working on the article after he started working for the company [19])

D. J. Butler

Nihonjoe in February denied having any conflict of interest with Butler [20]. After some prodding by members of this committee while the case was pending, Nihonjoe listed D. J. Butler as one of several articles for which he has a conflict of interest -- see User:Nihonjoe/Contribs/Intro -- because he "published a collection of his short fiction."

Nihonjoe and WP:DYK

Nihonjoe has gotten both the Butler article and the now deleted Aquaveo article on the main page through WP:DYI. See Template:Did_you_know_nominations/D._J._Butler and Template:Did you know nominations/Aquaveo. Neither of those are listed at User:Nihonjoe/DYK.

-- Jessintime ( talk) 15:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The D. J. Butler article was first edited by me in 2019, two years before I had any COI regarding that subject (I published a collection of their work in July 2021, and they had a story they donated for a charity anthology published in February 2021). It's not uncommon for me to submit a DYK for article I create or greatly expand, either. Them not being listed at User:Nihonjoe/DYK is likely just an oversight and completely irrelevant.

Regarding the timeline presented by AddWittyNameHere, the person who created the article was a friend who knew I edited Wikipedia. He wanted help getting it to the point where it could be published in mainspace, so I worked on it prior to it being moved as well as afterward. This was no different than any other collaboration during an edit-a-thon or other project. At that time, there was no COI at all regarding Butler. For the edits in 2021 and 2022, I should have declared a COI. That was my mistake. However, I stand by the edits made and think they meet all the requirements for solid edits. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Aquaveo article has already been discussed elsewhere, and I see no need to rehash things here.

The Heritage Internet Technologies entry on the Provo, Utah page followed the same format as other entries there (a link to the article and an explanation of why the company was notable, supported by reliable sources), and all of the information in that paragraph was supported by the included article from Inc., which is considered a very reliable source for business information. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Regarding this edit, I stand by my assertion that those two sites are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used in the Heritage article. These edits were tagging the article as needing work, which it clearly did. All of my edits there were to make the article meet WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Regarding conflicts of interest for authors who have contributed to anthologies I edited (including Butler), I think COI in these cases is tenuous at best. I don't gain any direct or indirect financial (or really any other) benefit from editing their pages here. I am not close friends with any of them (other than perhaps Butler, now), and many of them I have not ever met in person. I never edited them with any goal other than making sure the articles were accurate, neutral, and used solid (reliable) sources of information. I think this fits into the same area discussed by Dennis Brown, above. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Regarding Action Target, I was temp worker there for a few months. Yes, I was still there when I first created the draft in my user space, but I stopped working there very shortly afterward and have not had any professional or other interaction with the company since then. When the draft was completed and moved to mainspace, I did not work there and had no COI.

Regarding Serial Number 54129's claims, I was trying to avoid being outed. There seemed to a coordinated and concerted effort to out me here, and I made mistakes when responding to people in an effort to try to protect myself from that. I should have been more forthcoming and addressed the COI issues eight away. I did not, I should have, and I apologize for that.

Regarding the full protection of the Dave Wolverton article, I had seen many other such protections for the few days following a celebrity's death (no, I can't think of any off the top of my head), so I thought it was appropriate given Wolverton's celebrity within the science fiction community at large. Spencer disagreed and unprotected about 1.5 days later. I was fine with that. Regarding the Torgersen, there was a slow edit war happening, and I protected it and advised them to take the concerns to the talk page. That's it. In neither case do I think it was an abuse of admin tools to do so.

Regarding Fram's comments:

• I think an editor's real-life identity should be off limits unless they share it themselves. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion.
• My edits that could be considered COI were basically due to an internal misunderstanding on my part. For the companies, none of the edits were made at the request or direction of any of them, and they were done on my own time. I didn't get paid to make any of the edits, so (in my mind) there was no COI at the time. I see now that was an incorrect understanding. In all cases, however, I was working to improve the articles to meet or exceed the standards established here for articles. I added reliable sources, removed unsourced information, reworded content to be more neutral, and so on.
• Regarding Wikidata, they do not have the same requirements for inclusion that enwiki has, and many things with an entry there would not qualify for an article here. So, having information there that doesn't meet enwiki notability standards is really irrelevant.
• The ISFDB is not a wiki. It's a database with a wiki attached to it, but the database is not the wiki. The wiki part is used mainly for discussions among participants there. And I have no COI with Brandon Sanderson (whom I have met briefly a couple times, but I don't even think he qualifies as an acquaintance). I've no COI with Brigham Young University, as I've never attended there or been employed by them. As for having a COI because someone is Mormon, I don't see how that would make a COI. There are millions of Mormons all around the world. I wouldn't accuse someone of having a COI with someone else simply because they were both Catholic, or Baptist, or Jewish, or whatever else.
• I don't see anything I did at Japanese archipelago or Takao Yaguchi as abusing any tools at all. And as for things being reverted back again and my not doing anything about it, I have nearly 20,000 articles on my watch list, so it's very easy to miss things.
• Again, I have no COI with BYU or the Lee Library. I've visited the BYU campus, and I've used the services on occasion at the library, but those don't make a COI. I've only recently (last few months) had a COI with the Association for Mormon Letters and its AML Awards, but I haven't edited either of those articles for years. I've met Rachel Helps because I helped her with an edit-a-thon (I gave a short presentation on why reliable sources were important and what constituted a reliable source). She's the only one of those editors I've ever met or interacted with in anything more than an in-passing fashion.
• Regarding the William Bliss Baker article, I became interested in him when I saw his masterwork hanging at a museum at BYU. That article took years of research to find all that information. Again, I've never attended or worked for BYU, and I don't see how visiting a museum creates a COI. I am not a "BYU editor".

Regarding Horse Eye's Back comments, I still believe what I wrote there. I don't think Rachel Helps is doing anything other than trying to improve content, and I think SlimVirgin got out of hand in her hounding of Helps. I also think HEB has been going to far in their comments toward Helps. They seem completely unwilling to work toward common ground, and instead seem to be acting not in the best interests of the project. But that's not a discussion for here.

Regarding Yngvadottir's comments, I interpreted Sagflaps (and Kashmiri's and several other's) comments there as worded in a disingenuous way. They seemed to be weasel worded inquiries, and they seemed coordinated. As I mentioned above, I felt attacked and felt like people were trying to out me (and several people did, and had their contributions oversighted, both on my talk page and elsewhere). So, feeling somewhat panicked, I chose to waffle in how I responded. That was the wrong choice, and I should have been more forthcoming right away. Again, I apologize for reacting that way.

Regarding the Association for Mormon Letters, I've added that and AML Awards to the list, though I haven't edited either article for years. That COI was only very recent (end of 2023).

Regarding COI editing in general, I think the most important thing is the quality of the edits. If there is no substantive problem with the edits being made, I am much less concerned about any potential COI an editor may have. As the three of the five pillars state, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute", and "Wikipedia has no firm rules".

Now, I did make a mistake and violate the "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" part by not disclosing my COIs. I admit that was my error. I was wrong, and I should have been forthcoming about that. The COI guideline also allows people with a COI to edit topics where they may have a COI, as long as you "follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously". The main thing I did here was not disclose the COIs. I did, however, try to make all my edits so they met WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. I believe in the mission of Wikipedia to provide a free, accurate, and reliable encyclopedia that anyone can access and edit. I am sorry for the mistakes I've made, and I plan to do better in the future. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Timeline of Nihonjoe and D. J. Butler

• April 2019: Nihonjoe starts editing a pre-existing AfC draft and subsequently moves it to mainspace and nominates it at DYK.
• May-June-July 2019: a number of additional edits to the article.
• 2021: Per Nihonjoe's own explanation in the section above, in 2021 he developed a COI in regards to the article's subject. (At very latest by July 2021, but in practice--between the charity anthology and the fact that publishing does not happen from one day to the next--most likely several months before). He did not declare this COI.
• 2022: Several more edits to the article: a string of 4 edits on 6 January 2022, a string of 3 on 15 June 2022, followed by a string of 6 on 27 June 2022. He did not declare this COI.
• February 2024: When asked about a COI with D. J. Butler, Nihonjoe denied this.
• March 2024: Nihonjoe lists D. J. Butler as one of several articles on which he would have a COI now due to publishing work [he has] done, but not when they were created.

Considering Nihonjoe has identified the relevant publishing work as having taken place in 2021, his 2022 edits were therefore done with an (at the time undeclared) COI. AddWitty NameHere 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Representing evidence of now-(rightly) blocked sock. Interesting points in the chronology are raised, unfortunately questioning much of the accepted chronology, and probably require further investigation in the context of the broader narrative. ——Serial Number 54129 21:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

More than just COI or tool misuse

The former identified by e.g. Trypotofish, the latter by e.g. Fram. All of them are, of course, severe breaches of policy, guideline, terms of use, and etiquette, to say the least, on Nihonjoe's part. But what is worse for the project and its members is the breach of trust. Nihonjope has lied to people, either outrightly or by omission. Poor lack of candour from a holder of permissions; needs examination. ——Serial Number 54129 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's full protection of Dave Wolverton in 2022

• On 13 January 2022, Nihonjoe applied indefinite full protection to the article Dave Wolverton. The protection reason was: still waiting for a confirmation source, but he just passed away according to several well-known authors, protecting to prevent vandalism. There was no recent history of vandalism [26].
• This prevented anyone who wasn't an administrator from being able to directly make updates to the article, and led to edit requests on the talk page from several editors.
• On 15 January 2022, another administrator lifted the full protection. The unprotection reason was: revert application of full protection per WP:PREEMPTIVE...I can't think of any other deaths that were full protected, and not sure why this would be any different (no recent history of abuse).
• Nihonjoe listed this article among his COIs in March 2024.

DanCherek ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's full protection of Brad R. Torgersen in 2021

• On 11 August 2021, Nihonjoe applied full protection for two weeks to the article Brad R. Torgersen. The protection reason was: Persistent disruptive editing: Slow edit war happening. Take it to the talk page and come to a consensus rather than arguing via edit summary..
• There indeed had been an edit war prior to the full protection [27]. Several IP editors and one registered editor – who was autoconfirmed but not extended-confirmed – were in dispute over the inclusion of details of Torgersen's military service. Some of the disputed content had previously been removed or edited by Nihonjoe in his earlier edits to the article [28] [29].
• Nihonjoe listed this article among his COIs in March 2024.

DanCherek ( talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Things we can't discuss

It is rather ridiculous that we still have to pretend that Nihonjoe's real life identity is off-limits here, making it much harder to have a practical discussion of his COI edits, where editors (not just passive ArbCom members) may have a meaningful discussion, elaborating (or contradicting) claims made by others. Worse, people can continue to proclaim that we should be very careful and vigilant about outing, for the sake of their privacy, safety, family...

In reality, Nihonjoe has edited about things very close to his life and work for at least 15 years, with many COI and PAID issues, and at least from time to time in a problematic manner. But we are not allowed to mention his name, company, publications. So I can't link to his own Wikidata creations of entries for his supposed real name, own company, other employees of the company, publications from the company, and people they published. Because, well, despite the few reluctant COI declarations, they haven't outright stated that they are that person, so we should pretend that it is some dangerous secret (well, I guess it is a somewhat dangerous secret for them, it would be quite embarassing if people found out that they were giving themselves glowing reviews on review sites with the nihonjoe handle I guess). Which also makes it impossible to provide evidence in public that e.g. already in 2018, the year before Nihonjoe created the DJ Butler article, they called Butler their "good friend" elsewhere.

His incomplete User:Nihonjoe/Contribs/Intro COI declarations seem to indicate a lack of knowledge, even now, of what COI editing is, with the weird repeated insistence on whether they created an article or not, as if that change the nature of the COI in any way.

Missing, for example, is an online wiki where they are an admin, and where they have not only used it often as a source here, but insisted in a discussion that it is a reliable source (contrary to the own claims of the site) without as far as I can see disclosing his COI while doing this. There is quite a big difference between "as a neutral observer, I consider this a reliable source" or "as a major contributor and admin to this source, I consider it to be reliable". But even though they use the same handle there as here, I may not link to it, as, you guessed it, that would presumably be outing somehow, and a blockable offense. Fram ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh well, no reason to be coy about it. Nihonjoe brought Brandon Sanderson, BYU alumnus, to GA status, in part by adding numerous citations to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database [30]. The ISFDB is a wiki, see their general disclaimer. The information on Brandon Sanderson, which Nihonjoe used to turn the page into a GA, was verified on the ISFDB during the same period by an admin named ... nihonjoe [31]. Now, I have no way to know if they are the same or not. Would be quite an unhappy coincidence if not. But if they are the same, then there isn't much outing involved if they use the same username and adds links to the site. And if this is considered outing, then our outing policy truly needs adjustments. Oh, and the above mentioned discussion about the reliability of the ISFDB is at Talk:Dan Wells (author)#cns and bsns. An article about a Mormon and BYU alumnus of course, extensively edited by BYU editors (see my new section below), and where Nihonjoe has a direct COI (not declared at the time, declared now on his user page). Fram ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Tool misuse

Apart from instances mentioned by others, and ignoring perhaps barely acceptable protections like at Takao Yaguchi, where an IP had dared to format references differently, there also is what seems to be much more obvious misuse at Japanese archipelago. In June 2021, an editor removed the claim that part of the Japanese archipelago was Russian [32]. Half a year later, another editor adjusted the text as well to align with this [33]. Months later, Nihonjoe reverted the June 2021 edit [34], but was reverted a week later by an IP [35] with an edit summary showing that this was not some vandal edit, but part of an ongoing content dispute. So, the next day Nihonjoe reverts again [36] and then protected the page in their preferred version [37] because of "persistent vandalism", depsite there being no evidence of vandalism or persistence (two edits and editors nearly a year apart?). And sure enough, the "vandalism" was reinstated by yet another GF editor [38] and remains in the article as of now. It may deserve a talk page discussion, but it isn't or wasn't any kind of vandalism or protect-worthy. Fram ( talk) 14:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The walled garden

The more I (and others) look into it, the more clear it becomes that beyond the individual problems of Nihonjoe and his COI/PAID editing, we seem to have an issue with a walled garden of Mormon editors associated with the Brigham Young University (BYU), the Harold B. Lee Library of that university, the Association for Mormon Letters and its AML Awards. Some of the editors involved (those openly associating with Wikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee Library and with (BYU) in their user name) at least do some effort to abide by the WP:PAID rules, although even those are e.g. very reluctant to post COI notices on article talk pages. Others, like Nihonjoe, Thmazing, or P_Makoto, seem to do everything they can to disguise the association and pose as editors without a COI. At Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 77#Wikipedia in Residence: is this a way around conflict of interest rules? a number of issues have been raised. One can also see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Dayton where Thmazing votes keeps without disclosing his clear COI, or Template:Did you know nominations/Coriantumr (Last Jaredite King) where P-Makoto gives the article a pass without indicating any COI they may have (it later got rejected by a uninvolved editor). Later discussions at Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer) are also of the same variety. Or when Nihonjoe edits and Rachel Helps reviews to get an article to pass GA (about an artist whose masterpiece hangs in the BYU, of course) at Talk:William Bliss Baker/GA1. Other editors have expressed concerns about the promo nature of the articles, DYKs and GAs from the BYU editors, see e.g. Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1. See also the Dan Wells issues highlighted in an above section. This is just from a cursory glance through some pages, I guess more examples can easily be found. Fram ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Continued involved use of the tools by Primefac

I'll not elaborate on how Primefac was using their admin and oversight tools in an involved way in the build-up to this case, I guess that bit is well-known by now.

12 March, at 10.33, I posted about a discussion at the Village Pump as part of my evidence [39]. 4 hours later Primefac suddenly turns up at that discussion to oversight posts "outing" an editor [40], a part of the "walled garden" my evidence talked about (please note that the bits they redacted were not posted by me). Primefac, as a party to the case (because of involved actions no less) was probably the least appropriate person to perform these actions.

Discussion followed at User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2024/March#Comments directed at other users where Primefac claimed not to be involved in the ongoing case despite being one of the only four named parties(!), claimed not to have noticed that the posts they suppressed had to do with BYU ("I somehow missed the original BYU connection.") and that they hadn't seen the post I made at the case.

Even if one believes all this to be true, they were after that discussion clearly aware that this all tied in to the case they are a party to (for involved actions). Nevertheless, they again felt the need to be the one to pull the trigger [41]. (the above was sent privately to ArbCom yesterday, with some more private elements: Primefac has since again oversighted things in that and related discussions). Fram ( talk) 08:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

ArbCom alerted to LDS/AML COI editing 2 months ago

I don't know if this is the right place or if it's particularly germane to bring this up, but given Fram's expansion of his evidence to include PAID/COI editing by other AML-affiliated editors, I want to note that I emailed ArbCom about this in mid-January. This was the report I was referring to in my prelim statement (arbs can repost my email if they want). I don't know what the normal timeframe is for these reports to be discussed and actioned by the committee, but perhaps some of the drama and outing could have been avoided if ArbCom had put out some public statement that they would be looking/had already looked into allegations of COI editing among LDS (or some other appropriately vague descriptor) editors so that those of us who were aware of it could know it already had ArbCom's attention. I think that would have made it less likely that the problem would escalate into on-wiki conflicts so quickly. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Intimidation and running interference for paid editor

Nihonjoe appears to have a history of using their "admin presence" to intimidate other editors and to run interference for a paid editor with whom they had an undisclosed COI.

On December 2020 SlimVirgin (dec.) went to User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU) to discuss concerns around "COI and PAID." But it wasn't Rachel Helps who responded, it was Nihonjoe immediately steps in with a full throated defense of Rachel Helps [42] without disclosing a COI. These concerns were then dismissed by Barkeep49 [43] with what is in hindsight a great deal of naiveté. Nihonjoe then continues, making claims like "As I've pointed out before, Rachel has no dog in this fight." which we now know in hindsight are false and given their inside knowledge Nihonjoe would have known was was false at the time. Slimvirgin, Nihonjoe, Barkeep49, and Rachel Helps sparred over this for a few days before Rachel Helps put an end to the discussion by declaring that she was "Resigning" [44] rendering the discussion more or less moot. In hindsight SlimVirgin was right. This resignation was apparently temporary, Rachel Helps unresigned five months later [45]... By which time SlimVirgin was conveniently incapacitated so unable to raise any objection. Part of me suspects that if SlimVirgin's illness had not progressed this issue would have been addressed before I ever came across it.

In December 2022 COI and PAID concerns were again raised on User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU) (by yours truly), again Nihonjoe stepped in to strongly defend Rachel Helps (BYU) with comments like "You're beginning to sound like a witch hunter here." [46] without disclosing a COI. They also appeared to deliver an administrative warning against "harassment." In hindsight we know that the concerns raised were legitimate. They made statements like "She's a model editor with a very long track record of excellent edits." without declaring a COI. In hindsight we know that such claims were false, Helps was never a model editor and their entire track record is littered with bad edits. Nihonjoe would have been in a position to know that such claims were false, they would have been aware of Rachel Helps (BYU)'s undisclosed COI editing. That to me looks like they were actively covering up issues they knew existed and which directly involved them. Nihonjoe does not appear to habitually gatekeep user talk pages, User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU) has the second most edits of any besides his own. At the time I wondered what made Rachel special, why did she get a Admin bodyguard? Well now we know, so what are we going to do about it? Its not an abuse of tools but its definitely an abuse of the trust the community placed in them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This evidence involves @ Barkeep49: Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Private evidence

I have also submitted private evidence to @ Primefac: ‎in a related discussion, I trust that if there is anything relevant to this case which the committee was not already aware of that they have passed it on. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The inquiries to Nihonjoe were civil

• Sagflaps asked Nihonjoe on his talk about Aquaveo, as directed at WP:COI: [47] (Feb. 15, "hypothetically"). (Justification at AN: [48].)
• Kashmiri created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaveo on Feb. 18 (closed as delete without relisting). Philknight suppressed part of the rationale, then at Kashmiri's request restored all but the off-wiki link: [49]. (Feb. 19)
• On Feb. 20, Kashmiri nominated WMS (hydrology software) for deletion (closed as merge); early on Feb 21, they asked Nihonjoe about COI, saying "I certainly don't want this old story to overshadow your 18+ years of contributions": [50].
• On Feb. 22, Kashmiri started the AN section, with a long summary with diffs: [51], and politely responded to arbitrator HJ Mitchell's objection: [52].

Nihonjoe's responses fall below standards expected of administrators

• First response, at the Aquaveo AfD, denies COI: [53] (Feb. 19, "It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting"). At his talk, twice deflects, saying he was not paid to edit the article: [54]. Later at the AfD admits to having worked there: [55] (Feb. 19, 22:11).
• Accuses Kashmiri of harassment for pressing on whether there are sources for an assertion: [56] (Feb. 19, 20:06)
• Responds to Kashmiri's message dismissively: [57]
• On Feb. 22, makes a single post in the AN thread, admitting fault on Aquaveo alone: [58].
• In response to now globally locked Mother of Jabbas, minimizes COI with CONduit, denies COI with D. J. Butler: [59] (last response, Feb. 28)
• On March 4, starts a list of COI pages at User:Nihonjoe/Contribs/Intro: The latest version lists 4 companies and 2 conventions including CONduit, also authors whose work he has edited including Butler, showing that previous declarations were inadequate (in addition to varying accounts of when his work and editing at Aquaveo started). Does not declare for what publisher he worked.

Those raising the COI issue have been treated with ABF

• Concern about outing expressed as belittling: [60] "as long as you actually find a speck of dirt in their past" (Rhododendrites); [61] "just don't seem to give a damn if an editor keeps getting outed" (Dennis Brown)
• ABF: "just trying to get a pound of flesh" [62], "assuaging some egos" [63] (HandThatFeeds); [64] "blown way out of proportion the proverbial mob with pitchforks and torches" (Ad Orientem; later strikeout)
• Aspersions, general and specifically against Kashmiri ("frivolous and vindictive"): [65] (JzG, partly redacted by non-admin).

Excessive gatekeeping including ArbCom members Primefac and Firefly

• The repeated closures at AN suggest community discussion is unwelcome. After the last, Star Mississippi characterized discussion as "get[ting] in the last word": [66] (Feb. 29)
• Primefac's first closure cited lack of formal proposals: [67]. Responding as an Arb to my proposal that Nihonjoe be admonished on ADMINACCT grounds, Primefac ignored the ADMINACCT issue: [68]
• Primefac suppressed material posted by Fram: after Primefac's edit: [69] (26 Feb). A diff remaining in Fram's post shows it concerned D. J. Butler. After another post by Fram, with suppression by Primefac ( after Primefac's edit, Feb. 28), Primefac blocked Fram: [70], with some appearance of INVOLVED; block taken over by Dreamy Jazz.
• Primefac has continued to suppress edits related to Nihonjoe and COI, including in another discussion of possible COI where Nihonjoe has commented ( after Primefac's edit, March 14)
• Fram's evidence includes Primefac denying involvement in this case: [71] (March 12). Either careless or deflecting.
• Firefly, an Arb (and a clerk on this case), reverted a COI inquiry by Master of Turks at Nihonjoe's talk: [72] (March 2, not revision-deleted). On March 4 I asked whether the question could be restored (wrongly conflating with Mother of Jabbas); Firefly's response did not answer the question: [73] (March 5). During a case request, for an arb rather than another admin to remove a germane question suggests the committee is not disinterested. (I failed to get an extension to raise this.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 10:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Clarification and addition

• My concern is with the propriety of arbitrators performing such administrative actions on an issue that's before ArbCom.
• When asked, Nihonjoe continues to admit COIs that he does not list: [74] (March 12). His not answering the earlier question and the incompleteness of the list are part of my contention of ADMINACCT failure; his COIs not constituting PAID is irrelevant. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Views differ

All of the recent relevant discussions of COI (like this one at AN prior to this case and this one that's ongoing at ANI) indicate that some members of the community feel that any editing in the presence of a COI is inherently problematic, while others feel that editing in the presence of a COI is only problematic if there is a substantive problem with the edits being made (e.g., see Piotrus' statement). For many people (perhaps especially in the first group), these feelings are quite strong. One thing the discussion at AN illustrates is the lack of an obvious compromise position between those two views, and the inability for many people with one view to understand or appreciate the other view. -- JBL ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Not all financial COIs are paid editing

Both a plain reading of the text of the COI policy quoted by Joe Roe and basic common sense indicate that a key conclusion of his evidence (the relevant policies [on paid editing] ... are intended to apply to any contribution where there is a "financial conflict of interest" present) is entirely wrong: the evidence here is the exact text he quotes, which directly contradicts the conclusion by unambiguously drawing a distinction between paid editing and editing with a financial conflict of interest. ArbCom should reject any reading of policy that suggests that a distinction being drawn between X and Y, and a statement that X is a special case of Y, actually means that X and Y are the same; and therefore should also reject any conclusions that are based on this line of reasoning. -- JBL ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BYU nexus and broader context

Following several evidence submissions above; following the ANI thread titled "Follow up from VPM" ( live, permalink) and other project page discussions; following several WPO threads — there is a broader issue pertaining to some BYU-affiliated editors. This primarily concerns them failing to either disclose their WP:COI, and do so fully, as well as once the disclosures have been provided, to actually adhere to the COI and/or WP:PAID rules.

BYU also stands in contrast to conventional academic institutions in that there is no academic freedom — because religion is compulsory, an expressed requirement for both work and study. Which, in my view, does not represent freedom of religion but the tyranny of religion. This problem is further compounded when aspects for-or-against that religion, it being the LDS Church, are soft-promoted ( WP:PROMO) by COI-violating, BYU-affiliated editors. My position is that, regardless if the community addresses this, ARBCOM should strive towards more holistic coverage.

Responsibility when COI-editing and OUTING

I am strongly against Risker's position that seemingly opens the door for WP:OUTING to be used as a device to evade and avoid scrutiny of COI-violating editing by COI-violating editors. I especially disliked the hyperbole about safety in this particular instance, since it does not involve a contentious topic, so it's highly doubtful there are fanatics out there to whom any of this might serve as a call to action (be it hydrology or LDS-driven, which to credit the latter, little violence is attributed to in the modern age).

Private evidence is all well and good—if it gets a proper review, at least—but I also think that, within reason, one ought to take some responsibility when COI editing. OUTING should not be a cure-all or loophole that facilitates COI (and/or PAID) violations. Especially when it concerns habitual violators. Needless to say, this issue has made this case especially challenging to navigate.

More recusals are due

While arbitrator Primefac has rightly apologized and recused—though not from additional LDSuppression actions—I believe that arbitrator Firefly should also recuse ( Yngvadottir's evidence)

Arbitrators ToBeFree and HJ Mitchell should also consider recusing since their comments in the original (Kashmiri) AN thread appeared reflexively supportive of Nihonjoe, despite evidence that even-at-the-time was highly concerning. In contrast to arbitrator Moneytrees who, from the outset, treated the subject matter with the seriousness that it deserves (evidence mostly suppressed).

Obviously there will be no such recusals, but I doubt I am the only who thinks this. Critically, there is a loss of confidence which is not insignificant, and one which, in my view, extends to much of the remaining committee. El_C 07:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Private evidence submission hasn't worked

The Foundation's own guidance on the subject specifically suggests that OUTING concerns cannot be used to avoid COI disclosures:

We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed [editing ...] It's also important to remember that WP:OUTING can't be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use.

(It's worth noting that ArbCom published essentially their own dissent on the broad strokes of the Foundation's view, which brings us to now.)

As presented in evidence above, the attitude by the Committee when informed of the COI was not to do anything or at best maybe give a quiet word to Nihonjoe, in which case the more broad COI problems would not have surfaced; and arbitrators specifically tried to shut down any discussion on wiki without even a promise to investigate privately. Without the potentially-outing post on-wiki, Nihonjoe would still be editing without any of the disclosures he has since fessed up to. The very real damage of a user with advanced permissions would continue; meanwhile, there's no actual evidence this "doxxing", if it can be considered such, came with external harms.

This is just the latest in a long series of situations where it took outside, public pressure for the Committee or functionaries to take corrective action, from Laura Hale to Qworty to Tenebrae. Fundamentally if Wikipedians are expected to abide by OUTING without regard to the fact that COI editors use it as a screen to avoid scrutiny, the private channels to report said editing need to actually result in action, and judging by Moneytree's comments on the case request that cannot be expected in the present climate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Below is a partial list of diffs which were shared as part of private evidence. February 19, 2016 February 19, 2016 October 28, 2019 August 25 2023 March 5 2024

Links that would have directly or indirectly OUTED any editors are omitted from this list. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply