Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page ( Talk) — Preliminary statements ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Target dates: Opened 6 March 2024 • Evidence closes 20 March 2024 • Workshop closes 27 March 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 3 April 2024

Scope: The intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy, in the frame of the conduct of the named parties.
Public evidence is preferred whenever possible; private evidence is allowed (arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org).

Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflicts of interest

2) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject or they are involved with the subject in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyone has conflicts of interest. In many ways, Wikipedia is built on them. Look at the coverage of any American university with a large computer science program, for example. What we expect is that those conflicts are managed to make #Purpose of Wikipedia happen. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per Guerillero. Editors write about what interests them and some of these outside interests can conflict with Wikipedia's. It's not a problem as long as long as it's managed properly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
While I agree with Guerillero & HJ's comments, editing with a COI places a question mark over a user's judgement. The mark fades very slowly and can be revived and raised at inopportune moments. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

3) Paid editing, which involves editing Wikipedia in exchange for money or inducements, requires proper disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation. Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. The last sentence is something worth keeping in mind particularly. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing. seems to be a problem that the community has when talking about this issue -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. The basis for the second sentence is from Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Additional notes on who must disclose. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor privacy

4) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. policing real or imagined conflicts of interest does not give users a licence to dig publicly into other users -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. A suspicion of misconduct is absolutely not a licence to post other people's private information on the wiki. Full stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. While protecting the encyclopaedia is a laudable goal, the ends do not always justify the means. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats

5) Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this and they are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Oversight/suppression

6) Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. The English Wikipedia has generally kept the use of "Oversight" despite the technical name (and MediaWiki extension) changing some time ago. I would say that there is a generally strong peer review system in place for Oversight. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Removal of administrative tools

7) As provided by the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to handle requests for the removal of administrative tools. While such requests have usually been in relation to the administrator user rights, the Committee may hear requests for the removal of any advanced user right, which includes but is not limited to the bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight user rights.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this is a plain read of arbpol -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. I disagree with Sdrqaz in the oppose section, although this might be semantics. I think clause 3 gives ArbCom the authority to remove any user rights it deems appropriate. Z1720 ( talk) 13:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. While I think that the end result of this principle is correct (the Committee can vote to remove bureaucrat), the logical reasoning doesn't hold up to a plain reading of the policy – in my opinion, the Committee derives its authority to do so from the first item of " Scope and responsibilities": it naturally follows from its responsibility to "act as a final binding decision-maker", just as how we don't need the arbitration policy to specifically say that we can impose interaction bans or other restrictions. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests

1) Since the vote to open this case, Nihonjoe ( talk · contribs) listed a number of conflicts of interest. The Arbitration Committee affirms this disclosure and also notes that Nihonjoe has a conflict of interest with Hemelein Publications (private evidence).

Support:
  1. Ultimately I found Joe quite open and honest with the committee in our private correspondence around his COIs. However, getting to that point was hard. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. More specifically, the disclosure came after 10 of the 11 arbitrators who voted to accept the case had already done so. - Aoidh ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Agreed with Barkeep49 - the openness came, but it required a long road to get there, which is far from optimal. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Fine as far as it goes. The point (for me, at least, others may read things differently) is that Nihonjoe has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into disclosing multiple, extensive conflicts of interest. Polite enquiries have been fobbed off, the list linked in the FoF was past the eleventh hour, and it took being confronted with the private evidence for Nihonjoe to disclose yet more conflicts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I agree with Barkeep49. I also understand why someone would not be candid about these issues in public, but that leads one down a less-than-pragmatic path—at some point the law of holes applies. Maxim ( talk) 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. In addition to the above, as I stated in private I can understand why the conflict of interest with Hemelein was not disclosed, as Hemelein Publications is currently red. However, the lack of disclosure in this case is important due to the nature of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest, which in some ways is more of an issue than the one with Aquaveo. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Getting to the disclosures took too long and if they had happened within a few days of the COIs becoming public knowledge, I'd like to think we would have avoided the AN discussion and this Arbcase. But, who knows... Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

2) Nihonjoe edited multiple articles where he had an undisclosed conflict of interest (Jessintime and private evidence).

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The main issue. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Not really disputable at this point. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's paid editing (I)

3) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing at Aquaveo (since deleted), GMS (software), and SMS (hydrology software) while employed at Aquaveo.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    To elaborate on this, I do think that private information we have received shows paid editing as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. We don't examine editor's contracts of employment or their job descriptions. An employee has a financial interest in the continued wellbeing of their employer. Editing articles about your employer is imo paid editing. Cabayi ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm supporting this per Aoidh and principle 3 very slightly. I'll add that I don't think editing an article about your employer is paid editing in all circumstances, and neither is editing something when you have a financial COI. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. From the totality of the evidence I've seen, Nihonjoe was not paid in anyway for publicity but instead had a more internal and technical role. As such I think this was "merely" COI and not paid editing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The submitted evidence shows that Nihonjoe has a robust COI on these topics, but does not meet the definition of a paid editor as it is currently outlined in policy. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Based on the evidence, the threshold for 'paid editing' wasn't reached here, however a clear COI does exist. firefly ( t · c ) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. It's a stretch to call it paid editing. At a minimum, it does not seem meet the "paid in exchange specifically for make edits" definition, and if we consider principle 3 more carefully, the evidence suggests that Nihonjoe was not specifically paid to promote or publicize Aquaveo in general. Maxim ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Merely because you work somewhere does not make editing about them paid. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've examined the reasoning behind Aoidh's vote more closely and I understand why he believes that Nihonjoe fits this description. However, my interpretation of "publicity efforts" (reinforced by looking through several dictionaries) is that they must have been done with the intention of getting public notice and I don't think that Nihonjoe's conflict of interest meets that bar. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Nihonjoe has a COI with these topics. However, the evidence submitted does not show that Nihonjoe's COI meets the threshold of WP:PAID. Z1720 ( talk) 13:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I'm in to minds here. Ultimately I think you could probably argue a breach of the letter of the law but not the spirit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Nihonjoe's paid editing (II)

3.1) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing when making edits related to Hemelein Publications.

Support:
  1. I think the private evidence we received shows they are compensated to promote Hemelein Publications and all of their edits related to this constitute undisclosed paid editing. Aoidh ( talk) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I want to be convinced that what Maxim writes is true, but no matter how beneficial I find the edits to the project (and I do) it also feels unequivocally like UPE. Nihonjoe should have known better and there were too many of them for me to close my eyes to it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The edits here are far from the most egregious example of paid editing I've seen. However that does not change the fact that they do meet the definition in my opinion. I would expect an administrator to know the boundaries around paid editing, and avoid even the appearance or suggestion of such. firefly ( t · c ) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I've reviewed the public and private evidence thoroughly and I am marginally here because I believe that Nihonjoe was paid to promote Hemelein. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Cabayi ( talk) 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per Aoidh and Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. From what I read in the private evidence, this meets the threshold of WP:PAID. If Arbs would like me to expand upon this, please email me. Z1720 ( talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. While I think that the argument for Hemelein edits to fall under PAID is better than those for Aquaveo, I feel it's still a stretch to make this conclusion. Maxim ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The phrase "Hemelein Publications" is mentioned on a mere three articles on all of Wikipedia. Now, I agree that Nihonjoe seems to have a hand in each of those mentions, which doesn't look good. But there is no page for Hemelein itself, and I struggle to see how he got paid to edit about Hemelein. I think a COI is a better way to characterize this, in that it appears he knew the authors personally and that's why he wrote about them. Now, did he know about them because of Hemelein? Well, it sure looks that way. But was he being paid to edit? In only the vaguest sense. This stretches the definition of paid editing in a direction that risks muddying its previously straight forward meaning. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I can see both sides here. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Nihonjoe's tool use

4) Nihonjoe used his administrative tools to apply full protection to two articles and later disclosed a conflict of interest with both articles (DanCherek evidence).

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Regardless if there was a COI, I don't think these protections were warranted. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I agree with money -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I would file this under "irregular" rather than "abusive" but it's still worth noting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. firefly ( t · c ) 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Factual, but similarly to HJ Mitchell, I'd call one protection cheesy and the other misguided; the protections outside the COI context aren't something any admin would get dragged to us for, as a talkpage note would suffice. Maxim ( talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. The Wolverton protection was clearly out of policy, but the Torgersen protection was murkier. Either way, Nihonjoe should not have protected them due to his conflicts of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Z1720 ( talk) 13:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

5) The evidence presented suggests that Nihonjoe's editing while having a conflict of interest did not, in general, violate other content policies or guidelines.

Support:
  1. I think it's important to remember why we have COI: to produce neutral encyclopedic content. The problem, for me, was not the edits themselves but that the community was deprived the chance to subject the edits to the stricter scrutiny they deserved to ensure they were in compliance with our content policies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I haven't seen any evidence that the edits were problematic in and of themselves. If Joe had disclosed his COIs at the time, there wouldn't have been much to worry about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. In general, the COI edits in question were not remarkable. I methodically went through any post-2014 COI edits (the last 10 years), and the big themes are software version and bibliography updates. The page protections, already mentioned above, struck me as the most remarkable actions. Jessintime's evidence is about spammy edits from 2008; I don't feel that it renders false the "in general" qualifier, nor am I entirely keen on strongly weighing something from 16 years that does not seem to be a trend (specifically, the spammy edits; the COI edits indeed are a trend). Maxim ( talk) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. COI edits are not inherently bad. Indeed, an experienced Wikipedian is probably the best suited to edit about a COI because they understand the rules. But of course the key rule is that COI must be disclosed...and that rule did not get met. I think the edits themselves were fine. If there is any problem, it is that I'm not sure that D.J. Butler would have gotten an article without Nihonjoe's intervention. With regards to Micheal Collings, maybe he wouldn't have gotten a page without Nihonjoe, but I'm generally not gonna question something from 2008. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep articulates it well, it's an evasion of scrutiny. Cabayi ( talk) 07:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I think Jessintime's evidence shows significant NPOV issues with some of the edits, no matter how long ago they may have been. That we have so many examples of COI editing that by the numbers these additional content issues may be a smaller portion of those COI edits is not a point in favor of adherence to other policies or guidelines. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I don't feel confident enough to say they didn't, even ignoring the really old edits. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Moneytrees. firefly ( t · c ) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Agree with Moneytrees; when looking through Nihonjoe's edits of the articles they declared a COI in, I found some instances of edits that I would have probably declined due to promotional language. They were not obvious promotional or spammy language, but I do not think I can support this clause due to those findings. Z1720 ( talk) 14:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I think that the thrust of this finding is probably correct (that the issue with this case has been with the lack of disclosure and denial, as well as Nihonjoe's response to queries). What keeps me from supporting outright is the use of DYK for articles with which Nihonjoe had a conflict of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:
On reflection, I'm not actually sure this is entirely true, and so am at least pulling support. firefly ( t · c ) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations

6a) Nihonjoe initially denied having several of these conflicts of interest that he later admitted to having.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is an important factor for me as I weigh the correct remedy. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. This is also a key factor for me. There were various opportunities to make a full disclosure, but as noted in FoF 1, this only came very late in the day. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Per Firefly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. (sighing and shaking my head) Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. This wording is clearer. Z1720 ( talk) 14:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Pursuant to my comment below, I've proposed an alternative finding. It doesn't seem like there were outright denials of several conflicts of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Could someone point me to the several denials? The Butler denial is one, but the others seem like skipping around the question rather than outright denials. Thanks, Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sdrqaz: I think the initial response in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaveo meets this description, as their response to Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. was It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). They did later clarify their association with the company, but their initial comment was a denial of the association. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I view initial comments at AfD to be a denial of paid editing but not an outright denial of conflict of interest. As I write above, on the question of COI generally, he seems to skip around the question, as noted by Sojourner in response to Nihonjoe. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations (alt)

6b) Nihonjoe was initially evasive when he was questioned about his conflicts of interest, which included denying having one on at least one occasion. He later admitted to having several of those conflicts of interest (Jessintime evidence).

Support:
  1. I believe that this better represents the evidence that was received. See my comment at the original finding. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice to the above. Z1720 ( talk) 14:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This feels like splitting hairs to me -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Prefer original finding. Maxim ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Cabayi ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I don't think this is substantially more accurate than 6a. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Feels semantic. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. firefly ( t · c ) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Mechanisms for COI reporting

7) Private reporting of conflict of interest and paid editing, especially when the accused editor is a long-time editor, has not consistently worked (David Fuchs evidence). There also is contradictory and confusing guidance for what editors are supposed to do with reports of conflict of interest editing or paid editing that involve private information (for example see COI noticeboard header, COI guideline, and harassment policy). A 2022 RfC found that the community prefers off-wiki information to be only handled by functionaries.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This hasn't been working for a while. I've been aware of numerous discussions about how it hasn't been working, and have participated in some, but we haven't ultimately moved to changing things. I hope that this case, for the reasons listed here, cause us to not just acknowledge the problem but to fix them. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The community needs to have confidence in our methods for reporting COI/paid editing - it appears that they do not. This needs to be remedied. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. This has always been a sort of awkward area. Really, it's frustrating for both functionaries and non-functionaries; unfortunately, most cases of COI and PAID editing are not so clear cut. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Links formatted to internal ones (no change to rendered text). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. This has felt like a sore point ever since I was first elected an arbitrator. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. I'm not sure that ArbCom can singlehandedly fix this, but it is certainly a problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Though I think that calling it "contradictory and confusing guidance" is a little over-the-top, as they agree on the fundamentals of what should be done (do not report on-wiki). After reading through the links several times, I'd say that the COI guideline should mention the paid-en-wp queue specifically, as should the harassment policy (though keeping in mind that the latter is a more general policy dealing with other instances where private information may come into play). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. I blundered into this myself and was called out for it several years ago. The enforcement of COI policy without doxxing anyone is problematic when you're new to the area. Some clarity is needed. Cabayi ( talk) 07:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kashmiri

8) Kashmiri nominated Aquaveo for deletion. Included in the nomination report was a link in violation of the OUTING policy. About an hour later this link was removed and subsequently suppressed. During the following discussion Nihonjoe disclosed his conflict of interest in the company. Kashmiri subsequently made a report to the administrators' noticeboard detailing Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing without further OUTING Nihonjoe ( archived thread).

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The AN thread was not outing, to clear things up. That said Kashmiri, the google maps link you included in the initial AN post, while not outing, wasn't needed-- can you please not do something like that again? Thanks. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. This shows that it was possible to handle the matter without posting private information on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 07:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Z1720 ( talk) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I don't like the reference to the off-wiki report when Kashmiri opened the AN thread. Nor do I like the Google Maps link, as I said to Kashmiri on the talk page. Having read the initiating statement again and the outing policy again, I cannot say in good faith that Kashmiri did not further out Nihonjoe. The references to the "external analysis" and its actual content were not necessary and arguably cross the line into outing. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Per comments here. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Use of suppression

9) Two edits by Fram that disclosed private information and were made two days apart were suppressed by Primefac. After each suppression, Primefac requested review by the Oversight team. The oversight policy provides for suppression as a tool of first resort for the disclosure of non-public personal information.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Note that having their edits removed and suppressed once was not enough to prevent Fram from positing more non-public information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. This was disappointing to me. Fram should have known better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. The 28 February edit summary suggests to me that it was a deliberate action. That coupled with the repetition of the prior behaviour from Fram was highly disappointing. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 14:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fram

10a) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{ OversightBlock}} by Primefac, which was later assumed by Dreamy Jazz, and which was sustained by the Oversight team as an appropriate block. Fram subsequently made a broad commitment to refrain from posting material in contravention of WP:OUTING. During this case, Fram has submitted private evidence and consulted with the Arbitration Committee before posting some evidence publicly.

Support:
  1. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I want to underscore that we received no evidence about Fram outside of what was there before the case opened. I also found Fram's discussion with ArbCom during the case to be productive and would hope that is the norm on both ends of this going forward. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. What Barkeep49 said. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Fram had a good conversation with us. But I'll also point out that the block got upheld by the OS list: Fram screwed up. He accepted that, but I'm still rather unthrilled that it happened at all. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Second choice per below. Z1720 ( talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This finding lacks important context, unfortunately. I support the alternative instead. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Fram (alt)

10b) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{ OversightBlock}} by Primefac, which was later assumed by Dreamy Jazz, and which was sustained by the Oversight team as an appropriate block. Fram subsequently made a broad commitment to refrain from posting material in contravention of WP:OUTING, though they later qualified this commitment. During this case, Fram has submitted private evidence and consulted with the Arbitration Committee before posting some evidence publicly.

Support:
  1. The qualification in response to HJ Mitchell is an important part of this puzzle, as well as Fram's comments on the talk page. However, it is important to note that there were improvements in how Fram dealt with the private evidence of this case. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) – updated at 04:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Sure. This is probably better. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. First choice, the qualification should be noted for context. Z1720 ( talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I think the key parts in the latter part of this finding are the original commitment to stop posting OUTING material and that Fram consulted with us moving forward. If we add the context of the later response, which to me is of less importance, should we not then also be adding some context about the present difficulties in dealing with COI issues? Maxim ( talk) 23:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Maxim. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. It doesn't seem necessary to emphasize this comment, as this still falls within the broad commitment description in 10a. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I am not sure yet if I am going to support the new remedy for Fram, but I think this FoF is needed to justify it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've added a new link for the commitment and changed the placement of the qualification, as it was slightly misleading. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac's AN participation

11) Primefac first attempted to close the thread started by Kashmiri and then participated several times in the discussion. During this discussion Primefac made reference to acting as both an administrator and Arbitrator while weighing in with their opinion about the topic. During the case request, they stated I do not want to use the "any reasonable admin" clause of [the administrator policy about involvement].

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Better to stick to one hat at a time and (if possible) be clear about which hat you're wearing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. This isn't Team Fortress 2. One hat a time, please. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Z1720 ( talk) 14:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Links: close, references to being an administrator and being a Committee member, statement at ARC. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac's block of Fram

12a) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversighter would reach the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. However, Primefac should not have been the oversighter to block Fram because neither provision applied in this situation.

Support:
  1. Oversight is a tool of first resort, but an oversight block would only be a tool of first resort if there was active ongoing behavior that required immediate action to prevent further disruption. I do not think this circumstance met that standard. - Aoidh ( talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I basically agree with Aoidh. There are scenarios where there is enough urgency that an OS block would be OK even if someone is involved or INVOLVED. This was not that situation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. There was no urgency to make this OS block. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Would have been better coming from another oversighter, if only for optics. With some oversight blocks, speed is absolutely of the essence but in this case it was unlikely Fram would post further oversightable material before another oversighter could be alerted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. It comes down to the optics, at least. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've been stuck on this throughout the case. I continue to think that the harassment policy's provision for involved redactions is a stronger basis for the suppressions, especially since one of our findings is that Primefac doesn't want to use the "any reasonable administrator" clause. With that being said, I believe that Primefac should not have been the one to block Fram, taking into account the circumstances here (Fram is a very experienced editor and was unlikely to repeat the action quickly, especially given how it took Fram two days after the first suppression to post something suppressible; the event did not take place during a time where Primefac was the only available member of the Oversight team).
    I think that it's also important to note that the "any reasonable administrator" clause is worded in the way that it is ("the community has historically endorsed") for good reason: citing precedent is not a full-throated endorsement of involved actions in obvious circumstances – rather, it is a description of our Community's history (see my comments from 2022). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. If we treat Oversight as a tool of first resort, then {{ OversightBlock}}s are part of the toolset to prevent the continued posting of oversightable material. It would have been better if someone else had blocked Fram, but it is not unreasonable that Primefac did it, so I cannot support a finding that states that Primefac should not have done it. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. OS is a tool of first resort, and one of the few places where we shoot first and ask questions later. Was Prime the ideal person? No. Was he an acceptable person? Yes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The deliberation by the OSers makes me think that the block falls under the "any reasonable oversighter would reach the same conclusion" exception. Now, should PF have made the block, no. I land here because the two options conflate "can" and "should". -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. If the oversight tool is a tool of first resort, then blocking to prevent OUTING is also a tool of first resort. Z1720 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

12b) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversighter would have reached the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. Further as a tool of first resort, the need to stop the publishing of oversightable material creates an exception to the INVOLVED policy which also allowed Primefac to appropriately block Fram.

Support:
  1. Per my comment above. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. OS is a tool of first resort. If it was wrong, the OS list could have easily undone it. The list did not, and in fact upheld the actions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. 100% support. Preventing OUTING trumps making an involved block for OSers. The appropriate sequence of events is to suppress the material, block an editor if they are continuing to post OUTING material, inform the OS group of the block and ask them to review and assume responsibility for the block. If the block is inappropriate, it will be reversed. An editor inappropriately being blocked for a short time is less disruptive than a user continually posting OUTING material, and an OSer cannot stop them because the OSer is involved. There is no guarantee that there will be a second oversighter available at all times to assume the block, so this carve out is appropriate. Z1720 ( talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is too big of a carve out for me to be comfortable with. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Per my 12a vote. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. This wouldn't be outside a reasonable reading of the policies but for the sake of avoiding drama, it's better to hand things off after a certain point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. It was both policy compliant and a boneheaded thing to do. PF, in general, should probably allow the rest of the team to share some of the OS load and step back some. I land here because the two options conflate "can" and "should". -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. See my comment above. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

New VRT queue established

1) The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I note Barkeep's comments and this shouldn't be taken to mean that I wouldn't support an alternative solution if a better one comes up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Weakly. The backlog at paid-en-wp needs more people to deal with reports. I sympathise with Tryptofish's slight concern that maybe administrators should not be given access too (I brought it up in the drafting process), but only 12 of our Oversighters are not CheckUsers. I am concerned that only adding 12 potential people to deal with the queue would be insufficient for our problem, so am willing to expand the possible pool to administrators who have undergone scrutiny by the Committee and are bound by the confidentiality agreement. If there are better ideas out there, I will gladly listen, but this right now is an improvement. I hope that it will be enough. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) – updated at 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. There seem to be some support and some concerns, as there should be about any kind of new enforcement process, about this new queue. On the balance, and for the reasons I note below, I think that we need to try this. If this doesn't work I hope a future ArbCom tries something else because we need to get this right. However I think there's a real chance this could be a meaningful improvement and so I enthusastically support it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I believe this is worth trying. If it does not work we can iterate on it, or rescind it entirely. firefly ( t · c ) 15:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Worth a shot. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. A bit reluctantly; I feel like we're going back to the status quo pre 2022 "private blocks" RFC, which I don't think is bad though? Just pretty ironic. Hopefully we can move off of VRT in the near future-- I believe the interface is a major barrier to work in the area. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Sure. Z1720 ( talk) 14:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm waiting to read any feedback from the community before supporting this. Per my vote on "Mechanisms for COI reporting" I feel it incredibly important we do somethign in this case to fix a broken system. So if this isn't it I would want to support some other remedy and so if someone is inclined ot give negative feedback to this remedy I'd ask that they suggest some alternative way to fix what's broken. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fram reminded

2) Fram is reminded about the policy against harassment and its provisions against outing other editors.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice to admonishment, but I think it's too weak. Z1720 ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Far top weak to use the mildest option of the ladder you all voted for earlier this year. Fram was decided in the recent enough past that we can't be starting afresh. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Fram has been quite responsive to the specific issues from the relevant FoF, and at this point it's closer to water under the bridge than something worthy of a formal remedy, as mild as it is. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Even putting Fram's history aside, a remedy as tepid as a reminder is laughable for two intentional policy violations, especially given Fram's "ends justify the means" answer to my question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I don't think this is the right response to Fram's conduct. Either I'm going to believe their commitment to not repeat the mistakes in which case the FoF suffices for me or I don't in which case I will vote for the admonishment. As it stands I'm leaning towards accepting the commitment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Per Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Also per Barkeep. firefly ( t · c ) 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Ultimately insufficient to the admonishment; see my comments there. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I don't think Fram's ArbCom case is stale, but it was ~4.5 years ago. It was long enough ago that only 5 current Arbitrators were administrators at the time. At the moment I see me voting for equal sanction for Fram and Primefac, as I see them as equally culpable here and I'm currently inclined to just let the FoF be the final word in this case, but I am still thinking this over. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fram admonished

2.1) For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia (" outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.

Support:
  1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is not Fram's first rodeo. Fram was desysopped (by the WMF, which we ultimately assumed) in part for harassment...and now here we are again, talking about Fram and harassment. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Fram's response to HJ at the workshop asserting that repeated outing on-wiki is justified by their mistrust of off-wiki processes is tone deaf at the least. Cabayi ( talk) 18:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Yes, Fram promised to not do this again. However, it still happened. Sending a clear statement, and consequences for not following policies of submitting private evidence is better than hoping for the best. Hopefully this will never be needed. Z1720 ( talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I find my colleagues who trust Fram's commitment to follow a core behavioral policy to be hopelessly naïve in light of his response to HJ Mitchel. I fully expect that Fram will out someone again if it furthers his goals. When it happens, I also expect members of the committee to find new and exhilarating reasons to protect him from the consequences of his actions. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've read Fram's reply to Barkeep on the talk page many times. While it is an improvement on what they said earlier in the case, ultimately I am concerned that Fram will be before the Committee again, having violated a policy in the name of the encyclopaedia. While having principles and sticking to them are admirable traits to have, there are limits to those bounds and I am wary that Fram is unaware of where those lines are (or worse, chooses to cross them, as I believe they did on 28 February). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Per my vote for the reminder. Maxim ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I lay out my thinking in depth on the PD's talk page in Fram's section in trying to decide which way to go. Ultimately I've decided that the commitment will be a credible one and so this is more than needed based on the evidence we have in this case which is pretty limited. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I support the reminder but I don't think this is necessary. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Unnecessary per Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I can certainly see the point of view of my colleagues in the support section, but ultimately I do not think this is required based on the evidence we have and Fram's committment. I sincerely hope I am not proven wrong. firefly ( t · c ) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments
Proposed as a stronger alternative to 2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Aoidh, Guerillero, and Maxim: FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am interested in seeing Fram's response to Barkeep's statement on the talk page before voting on this. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe: removal of permissions

3) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. My thinking is very similar to Maxim's thinking from 4 April below. Once the case was opened, I can't imagine what more Joe could have done as he has been honest, thoughtful, and contrite. I don't find any bad intent either in the past or during the case. I find lots of love for Wikipedia, no intention to harm it, and a desire to help our readers. For all these reasons I wanted to find reasons not to be support the desysop. The problem is Nihonjoe found himself between a rock (confirm personal details that OUTed him) and a hard place (lie) but he put himself there. If the COI was Nihonjoe edited his university page and hadn't disclosed, I would be an easy oppose even if he'd lied about it initially (I strongly agree with Guerillero's note that In many ways, Wikipedia is built on conflicts of interest). If Nihonjoe had only made the Aquaveo edits I'd be torn. The problem is that there are also the edits that touch on Hemelein which are both entirely devoid of objectionable content (for most authors having a complete list of their publications is appropriate and helps our readers) and are also UPE. And there is also the deception of the community which was eventually rectified but only eventually so. I think the only reasonable option Joe had when confronted with Aquaveo was to either admit to it right away or say nothing. Saying nothing still likely leads us here, but would have allowed me to focus on the positive behavior I noted and perhaps not support this remedy. In this case even with no bad intent there were some bad actions that have harmed the community, including the paid editing. And that paid editing happend at a time that an administrator should have known how little tolerance the community would have for it. My heart really wants me to be in opposition to this remedy but ultimately I feel like I was elected to vote with my head and so here I am. But given where my heart's at, given the balance of evidence around the harm and the positives done by Nihonjoe, and were I to participate in future RfAs I would be incredibly inclined to support a new RfA for Nihonjoe even if I don't know that 70% of the community would agree with me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I might have split this into two separate remedies if I had been drafting but it wouldn't change my vote. Ultimately, this has to happen. Joe has lost the trust of the community to function as an admin and bureaucrat, even though he hasn't (in my opinion) outright abused either set of tools—two questionable protections would not merit a desysop for an admin with no other major issues. Administrators need to set an example, bureaucrats even more so. It would be hypocritical of me to expect perfection, but part of maintaining the community's trust is learning from your mistakes. You can't do that refuse to admit that you've done anything wrong. I do understand why Nihonjoe was reluctant to disclose his conflicts of interest and I'm not unsympathetic but nobody was asking for great detail. Something like the list of disclosures we now have would probably have been sufficient. The lack of trust comes from the extensive editing of articles where he had an undisclosed interest then fobbing off civil, good-faith enquiries. His conduct at the Aquaveo AfD was disingenuous at best. It took the acceptance of this case for him to produce a list of disclosures and even that was found to be incomplete. That is not the level of accountability I expect of someone in a position of trust. It just saddens me that Nihonjoe let things get this far—for anyone wondering how they could avoid the same fate, early and candid disclosure would probably have avoided the need for a case at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I land here essentially because of the paid editing around Hemelein (however minor, paid editing is rightly a serious matter), the lengthy evasiveness when confronted with the conflict of interest issues (the Aquaveo AfD being a particularly egregious example), and the fact that there is quite a long list of cases where Nihonjoe has edited with a conflict of interest. Unfortunately these together are incompatible with the trust required for adminship. For the record, the bureaucrat flag doesn't factor into my decision directly - however of course if someone does not have the required trust to be an administrator, they do not have the elevated trust required to be a bureaucrat. firefly ( t · c ) 20:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per my comments below. Maxim ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I don't see a viable alternative. Given his adjustment of his permissions earlier today it would appear that Nihonjoe doesn't either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. I found the editing itself to be pretty fine. The real issue is that when asked, he flat out denied his COI. I understand it is hard to affirmatively disclose a COI, and am on the more lenient side of that issue. Indeed, disclosing some COIs risks self outing. But when someone presses about a COI, you need to be an adult and either own up, or talk to ArbCom about it in private. Getting to that point was like pulling teeth. I'm sad to have to end up here, but ultimately, we're here because NihonJoe just wouldn't disclose. And that's all the rules require: disclosure. He could have still edited those articles and there'd be no issue...if he just was honest. At the end of the day, we have the COI rules because our readers have to trust us. If one of our own admins can't follow the disclosure requirements, we can't trust them. Adminship is built on trust, and NihonJoe has lost that trust. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. More than anything, I think this comes down to a loss of trust and poor decision making. My colleagues have said the rest well. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Admin are expected to know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nihonjoe has shown that they do not understand the fundamentals of COI policy guidelines, and therefore should not have the tools. Z1720 ( talk) 14:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. While thinking about this desysop and examining my own thresholds for them, I looked back at my election statement and my reply to a question about desysops. My summary at the time was that "it depends on how the administrator reacts to the feedback and criticism that they receive, and how likely the behaviour is to recur". Nihonjoe responded poorly to questions about COI initially before improving and making a commitment to do better and apologising. I also think that the likelihood of recurrence is extremely low.
    In light of the improvements both prior to this case and during it and the low likelihood of recurrence and the fact that the issues in this case are more editorial than administrative (see that reply), this remedy's lack of preventative effect in my eyes means that I cannot support it (which is a very surprising result for me, if I'm honest). However, given the trust that was palpably lost by Nihonjoe in this case (I believe that adminship is a position of responsibility and trust), I will not oppose it either. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:
I understand why someone would not be candid about COI matters—it forces a link to one's real-world identity in public, and while that's a consequence of previously undisclosed COI editing, it's a tough pill to swallow. Following email exchanges with the Committee, Nihonjoe did make, in principle, a fulsome COI disclosure, notwithstanding the additional note we make in FoF 1. For better or worse, that shows substantially more responsiveness to concerns raised during the arbitration processes than we typically have seen with administrators. That Nihonjoe's edits were generally unremarkable, aside from the undisclosed COI, is something important to consider as well.
Yet on the other hand, the breach of trust would seem to have occurred at the point of making undisclosed COI edits. In other words, I wonder whether a fulsome disclosure when first asked could have overcame that breach of trust. As such, I am leaning towards supporting this remedy, but I still have some hesitation in light of the first part of my comments. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe admonished

4) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe is admonished.

Support:
  1. Second choice to desysop/decrat. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I could support this in addition to the desysop/decrat. That deals with the loss of trust required for those permissions but Nihonjoe's conduct still wouldn't be acceptable if he wasn't an admin/'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Second choice to desysop. Z1720 ( talk) 14:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. See my comments at the removal remedy; I feel that this is the more appropriate remedy. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This is not a sufficient remedy for what has been shown in this case. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Insufficient. Cabayi ( talk) 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Unneeded Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I think an admonishment is warranted regardless of Nihonjoe being an administrator. While I understand it's very unlikely we would be here without the ADMINCOND dimension, we are here, and I would expect any experienced editor of Nihonjoe's tenure to know better regardless of tools. firefly ( t · c ) 08:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac reminded

5) Primefac is reminded against acting when involved.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. It's not always easy to see the line between observation and participation so I wouldn't support anything harsher than a reminder. We need oversighers to be decisive and the suppression log is private so it doesn't really matter who does the suppression but there was time to wait for another oversighter to make the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 11:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. As per my votes on the associated FoFs. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The case for involvement was weak in the first place, and we need OS'ers to be able to take decisive action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. per my votes on FOF 10 -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I continue to think Primefac was the wrong person but I stop short of this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I think Primefac's involved actions were justified, and they did the right thing when they disclosed the involved block to the OS team. Z1720 ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I understand why Primefac took the actions that they did and I believe them to have been taken in good faith, especially given the self-requested reviews of their actions for both suppressions, as well as the block. Given Primefac's statement at this case, I do not think that this reminder is necessary. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I think it's better to remind Primefac about optics and how actions will be perceived-- I think it's easy to forget your position as a functionary and the associated weight and perceptions sometimes. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) by Firefly. reply

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict of interest 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Paid editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Editor privacy 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Oversight/suppression 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Removal of administrative tools 10 1 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Nihonjoe's paid editing (I) 3 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.1 Nihonjoe's paid editing (II) 7 2 1 PASSING ·
4 Nihonjoe's tool use 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing 6 4 1 PASSING ·
6a Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations 10 1 0 PASSING ·
6b Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations (alt) 2 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass 1 second choice to 6a
7 Mechanisms for COI reporting 11 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Kashmiri 9 1 1 PASSING ·
9 Use of suppression 11 0 0 PASSING ·
10a Fram 10 1 0 PASSING · 1 second choice to 10b
10b Fram (alt) 3 3 0 NOT PASSING 3
11 Primefac's AN participation 11 0 0 PASSING ·
12a Primefac's block of Fram 6 5 0 PASSING ·
12b Primefac's block of Fram 3 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 New VRT queue established 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Fram reminded 2 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass 1 second choice to 2.1
2.1 Fram admonished 6 5 0 PASSING ·
3 Nihonjoe: removal of permissions 10 0 1 PASSING ·
4 Nihonjoe admonished 5 5 0 NOT PASSING 1 Two votes second choice to (3) above.
5 Primefac reminded 3 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. I'm sorry for how long this has taken and for my part in that delay due to off-wiki circumstances. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 10:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Z1720 ( talk) 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Aoidh ( talk) 14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision&oldid=1218753692"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page ( Talk) — Preliminary statements ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Target dates: Opened 6 March 2024 • Evidence closes 20 March 2024 • Workshop closes 27 March 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 3 April 2024

Scope: The intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy, in the frame of the conduct of the named parties.
Public evidence is preferred whenever possible; private evidence is allowed (arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org).

Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflicts of interest

2) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject or they are involved with the subject in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Everyone has conflicts of interest. In many ways, Wikipedia is built on them. Look at the coverage of any American university with a large computer science program, for example. What we expect is that those conflicts are managed to make #Purpose of Wikipedia happen. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per Guerillero. Editors write about what interests them and some of these outside interests can conflict with Wikipedia's. It's not a problem as long as long as it's managed properly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
While I agree with Guerillero & HJ's comments, editing with a COI places a question mark over a user's judgement. The mark fades very slowly and can be revived and raised at inopportune moments. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

3) Paid editing, which involves editing Wikipedia in exchange for money or inducements, requires proper disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation. Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. The last sentence is something worth keeping in mind particularly. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing. seems to be a problem that the community has when talking about this issue -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. The basis for the second sentence is from Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Additional notes on who must disclose. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor privacy

4) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. policing real or imagined conflicts of interest does not give users a licence to dig publicly into other users -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. A suspicion of misconduct is absolutely not a licence to post other people's private information on the wiki. Full stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. While protecting the encyclopaedia is a laudable goal, the ends do not always justify the means. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats

5) Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this and they are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Oversight/suppression

6) Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. The English Wikipedia has generally kept the use of "Oversight" despite the technical name (and MediaWiki extension) changing some time ago. I would say that there is a generally strong peer review system in place for Oversight. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Removal of administrative tools

7) As provided by the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to handle requests for the removal of administrative tools. While such requests have usually been in relation to the administrator user rights, the Committee may hear requests for the removal of any advanced user right, which includes but is not limited to the bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight user rights.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Aoidh ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this is a plain read of arbpol -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. I disagree with Sdrqaz in the oppose section, although this might be semantics. I think clause 3 gives ArbCom the authority to remove any user rights it deems appropriate. Z1720 ( talk) 13:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. While I think that the end result of this principle is correct (the Committee can vote to remove bureaucrat), the logical reasoning doesn't hold up to a plain reading of the policy – in my opinion, the Committee derives its authority to do so from the first item of " Scope and responsibilities": it naturally follows from its responsibility to "act as a final binding decision-maker", just as how we don't need the arbitration policy to specifically say that we can impose interaction bans or other restrictions. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests

1) Since the vote to open this case, Nihonjoe ( talk · contribs) listed a number of conflicts of interest. The Arbitration Committee affirms this disclosure and also notes that Nihonjoe has a conflict of interest with Hemelein Publications (private evidence).

Support:
  1. Ultimately I found Joe quite open and honest with the committee in our private correspondence around his COIs. However, getting to that point was hard. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. More specifically, the disclosure came after 10 of the 11 arbitrators who voted to accept the case had already done so. - Aoidh ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Agreed with Barkeep49 - the openness came, but it required a long road to get there, which is far from optimal. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Fine as far as it goes. The point (for me, at least, others may read things differently) is that Nihonjoe has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into disclosing multiple, extensive conflicts of interest. Polite enquiries have been fobbed off, the list linked in the FoF was past the eleventh hour, and it took being confronted with the private evidence for Nihonjoe to disclose yet more conflicts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I agree with Barkeep49. I also understand why someone would not be candid about these issues in public, but that leads one down a less-than-pragmatic path—at some point the law of holes applies. Maxim ( talk) 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. In addition to the above, as I stated in private I can understand why the conflict of interest with Hemelein was not disclosed, as Hemelein Publications is currently red. However, the lack of disclosure in this case is important due to the nature of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest, which in some ways is more of an issue than the one with Aquaveo. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Getting to the disclosures took too long and if they had happened within a few days of the COIs becoming public knowledge, I'd like to think we would have avoided the AN discussion and this Arbcase. But, who knows... Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

2) Nihonjoe edited multiple articles where he had an undisclosed conflict of interest (Jessintime and private evidence).

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The main issue. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Not really disputable at this point. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's paid editing (I)

3) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing at Aquaveo (since deleted), GMS (software), and SMS (hydrology software) while employed at Aquaveo.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    To elaborate on this, I do think that private information we have received shows paid editing as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. We don't examine editor's contracts of employment or their job descriptions. An employee has a financial interest in the continued wellbeing of their employer. Editing articles about your employer is imo paid editing. Cabayi ( talk) 07:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm supporting this per Aoidh and principle 3 very slightly. I'll add that I don't think editing an article about your employer is paid editing in all circumstances, and neither is editing something when you have a financial COI. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. From the totality of the evidence I've seen, Nihonjoe was not paid in anyway for publicity but instead had a more internal and technical role. As such I think this was "merely" COI and not paid editing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The submitted evidence shows that Nihonjoe has a robust COI on these topics, but does not meet the definition of a paid editor as it is currently outlined in policy. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Based on the evidence, the threshold for 'paid editing' wasn't reached here, however a clear COI does exist. firefly ( t · c ) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. It's a stretch to call it paid editing. At a minimum, it does not seem meet the "paid in exchange specifically for make edits" definition, and if we consider principle 3 more carefully, the evidence suggests that Nihonjoe was not specifically paid to promote or publicize Aquaveo in general. Maxim ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Merely because you work somewhere does not make editing about them paid. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've examined the reasoning behind Aoidh's vote more closely and I understand why he believes that Nihonjoe fits this description. However, my interpretation of "publicity efforts" (reinforced by looking through several dictionaries) is that they must have been done with the intention of getting public notice and I don't think that Nihonjoe's conflict of interest meets that bar. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Nihonjoe has a COI with these topics. However, the evidence submitted does not show that Nihonjoe's COI meets the threshold of WP:PAID. Z1720 ( talk) 13:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I'm in to minds here. Ultimately I think you could probably argue a breach of the letter of the law but not the spirit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Nihonjoe's paid editing (II)

3.1) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing when making edits related to Hemelein Publications.

Support:
  1. I think the private evidence we received shows they are compensated to promote Hemelein Publications and all of their edits related to this constitute undisclosed paid editing. Aoidh ( talk) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I want to be convinced that what Maxim writes is true, but no matter how beneficial I find the edits to the project (and I do) it also feels unequivocally like UPE. Nihonjoe should have known better and there were too many of them for me to close my eyes to it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The edits here are far from the most egregious example of paid editing I've seen. However that does not change the fact that they do meet the definition in my opinion. I would expect an administrator to know the boundaries around paid editing, and avoid even the appearance or suggestion of such. firefly ( t · c ) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I've reviewed the public and private evidence thoroughly and I am marginally here because I believe that Nihonjoe was paid to promote Hemelein. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Cabayi ( talk) 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per Aoidh and Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. From what I read in the private evidence, this meets the threshold of WP:PAID. If Arbs would like me to expand upon this, please email me. Z1720 ( talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. While I think that the argument for Hemelein edits to fall under PAID is better than those for Aquaveo, I feel it's still a stretch to make this conclusion. Maxim ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The phrase "Hemelein Publications" is mentioned on a mere three articles on all of Wikipedia. Now, I agree that Nihonjoe seems to have a hand in each of those mentions, which doesn't look good. But there is no page for Hemelein itself, and I struggle to see how he got paid to edit about Hemelein. I think a COI is a better way to characterize this, in that it appears he knew the authors personally and that's why he wrote about them. Now, did he know about them because of Hemelein? Well, it sure looks that way. But was he being paid to edit? In only the vaguest sense. This stretches the definition of paid editing in a direction that risks muddying its previously straight forward meaning. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I can see both sides here. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Nihonjoe's tool use

4) Nihonjoe used his administrative tools to apply full protection to two articles and later disclosed a conflict of interest with both articles (DanCherek evidence).

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Regardless if there was a COI, I don't think these protections were warranted. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I agree with money -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I would file this under "irregular" rather than "abusive" but it's still worth noting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. firefly ( t · c ) 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Factual, but similarly to HJ Mitchell, I'd call one protection cheesy and the other misguided; the protections outside the COI context aren't something any admin would get dragged to us for, as a talkpage note would suffice. Maxim ( talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. The Wolverton protection was clearly out of policy, but the Torgersen protection was murkier. Either way, Nihonjoe should not have protected them due to his conflicts of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Z1720 ( talk) 13:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

5) The evidence presented suggests that Nihonjoe's editing while having a conflict of interest did not, in general, violate other content policies or guidelines.

Support:
  1. I think it's important to remember why we have COI: to produce neutral encyclopedic content. The problem, for me, was not the edits themselves but that the community was deprived the chance to subject the edits to the stricter scrutiny they deserved to ensure they were in compliance with our content policies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I haven't seen any evidence that the edits were problematic in and of themselves. If Joe had disclosed his COIs at the time, there wouldn't have been much to worry about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. In general, the COI edits in question were not remarkable. I methodically went through any post-2014 COI edits (the last 10 years), and the big themes are software version and bibliography updates. The page protections, already mentioned above, struck me as the most remarkable actions. Jessintime's evidence is about spammy edits from 2008; I don't feel that it renders false the "in general" qualifier, nor am I entirely keen on strongly weighing something from 16 years that does not seem to be a trend (specifically, the spammy edits; the COI edits indeed are a trend). Maxim ( talk) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. COI edits are not inherently bad. Indeed, an experienced Wikipedian is probably the best suited to edit about a COI because they understand the rules. But of course the key rule is that COI must be disclosed...and that rule did not get met. I think the edits themselves were fine. If there is any problem, it is that I'm not sure that D.J. Butler would have gotten an article without Nihonjoe's intervention. With regards to Micheal Collings, maybe he wouldn't have gotten a page without Nihonjoe, but I'm generally not gonna question something from 2008. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep articulates it well, it's an evasion of scrutiny. Cabayi ( talk) 07:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I think Jessintime's evidence shows significant NPOV issues with some of the edits, no matter how long ago they may have been. That we have so many examples of COI editing that by the numbers these additional content issues may be a smaller portion of those COI edits is not a point in favor of adherence to other policies or guidelines. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I don't feel confident enough to say they didn't, even ignoring the really old edits. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Moneytrees. firefly ( t · c ) 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Agree with Moneytrees; when looking through Nihonjoe's edits of the articles they declared a COI in, I found some instances of edits that I would have probably declined due to promotional language. They were not obvious promotional or spammy language, but I do not think I can support this clause due to those findings. Z1720 ( talk) 14:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I think that the thrust of this finding is probably correct (that the issue with this case has been with the lack of disclosure and denial, as well as Nihonjoe's response to queries). What keeps me from supporting outright is the use of DYK for articles with which Nihonjoe had a conflict of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:
On reflection, I'm not actually sure this is entirely true, and so am at least pulling support. firefly ( t · c ) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations

6a) Nihonjoe initially denied having several of these conflicts of interest that he later admitted to having.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is an important factor for me as I weigh the correct remedy. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. This is also a key factor for me. There were various opportunities to make a full disclosure, but as noted in FoF 1, this only came very late in the day. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Per Firefly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. (sighing and shaking my head) Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. This wording is clearer. Z1720 ( talk) 14:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Pursuant to my comment below, I've proposed an alternative finding. It doesn't seem like there were outright denials of several conflicts of interest. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Could someone point me to the several denials? The Butler denial is one, but the others seem like skipping around the question rather than outright denials. Thanks, Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Sdrqaz: I think the initial response in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaveo meets this description, as their response to Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. was It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). They did later clarify their association with the company, but their initial comment was a denial of the association. - Aoidh ( talk) 23:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I view initial comments at AfD to be a denial of paid editing but not an outright denial of conflict of interest. As I write above, on the question of COI generally, he seems to skip around the question, as noted by Sojourner in response to Nihonjoe. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations (alt)

6b) Nihonjoe was initially evasive when he was questioned about his conflicts of interest, which included denying having one on at least one occasion. He later admitted to having several of those conflicts of interest (Jessintime evidence).

Support:
  1. I believe that this better represents the evidence that was received. See my comment at the original finding. Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice to the above. Z1720 ( talk) 14:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This feels like splitting hairs to me -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Prefer original finding. Maxim ( talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Cabayi ( talk) 07:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I don't think this is substantially more accurate than 6a. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Feels semantic. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. firefly ( t · c ) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Mechanisms for COI reporting

7) Private reporting of conflict of interest and paid editing, especially when the accused editor is a long-time editor, has not consistently worked (David Fuchs evidence). There also is contradictory and confusing guidance for what editors are supposed to do with reports of conflict of interest editing or paid editing that involve private information (for example see COI noticeboard header, COI guideline, and harassment policy). A 2022 RfC found that the community prefers off-wiki information to be only handled by functionaries.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This hasn't been working for a while. I've been aware of numerous discussions about how it hasn't been working, and have participated in some, but we haven't ultimately moved to changing things. I hope that this case, for the reasons listed here, cause us to not just acknowledge the problem but to fix them. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The community needs to have confidence in our methods for reporting COI/paid editing - it appears that they do not. This needs to be remedied. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. This has always been a sort of awkward area. Really, it's frustrating for both functionaries and non-functionaries; unfortunately, most cases of COI and PAID editing are not so clear cut. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Links formatted to internal ones (no change to rendered text). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. This has felt like a sore point ever since I was first elected an arbitrator. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. I'm not sure that ArbCom can singlehandedly fix this, but it is certainly a problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Though I think that calling it "contradictory and confusing guidance" is a little over-the-top, as they agree on the fundamentals of what should be done (do not report on-wiki). After reading through the links several times, I'd say that the COI guideline should mention the paid-en-wp queue specifically, as should the harassment policy (though keeping in mind that the latter is a more general policy dealing with other instances where private information may come into play). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. I blundered into this myself and was called out for it several years ago. The enforcement of COI policy without doxxing anyone is problematic when you're new to the area. Some clarity is needed. Cabayi ( talk) 07:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 14:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kashmiri

8) Kashmiri nominated Aquaveo for deletion. Included in the nomination report was a link in violation of the OUTING policy. About an hour later this link was removed and subsequently suppressed. During the following discussion Nihonjoe disclosed his conflict of interest in the company. Kashmiri subsequently made a report to the administrators' noticeboard detailing Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing without further OUTING Nihonjoe ( archived thread).

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The AN thread was not outing, to clear things up. That said Kashmiri, the google maps link you included in the initial AN post, while not outing, wasn't needed-- can you please not do something like that again? Thanks. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. This shows that it was possible to handle the matter without posting private information on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 07:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Z1720 ( talk) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I don't like the reference to the off-wiki report when Kashmiri opened the AN thread. Nor do I like the Google Maps link, as I said to Kashmiri on the talk page. Having read the initiating statement again and the outing policy again, I cannot say in good faith that Kashmiri did not further out Nihonjoe. The references to the "external analysis" and its actual content were not necessary and arguably cross the line into outing. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Per comments here. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Use of suppression

9) Two edits by Fram that disclosed private information and were made two days apart were suppressed by Primefac. After each suppression, Primefac requested review by the Oversight team. The oversight policy provides for suppression as a tool of first resort for the disclosure of non-public personal information.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Note that having their edits removed and suppressed once was not enough to prevent Fram from positing more non-public information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. This was disappointing to me. Fram should have known better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. The 28 February edit summary suggests to me that it was a deliberate action. That coupled with the repetition of the prior behaviour from Fram was highly disappointing. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Cabayi ( talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Z1720 ( talk) 14:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fram

10a) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{ OversightBlock}} by Primefac, which was later assumed by Dreamy Jazz, and which was sustained by the Oversight team as an appropriate block. Fram subsequently made a broad commitment to refrain from posting material in contravention of WP:OUTING. During this case, Fram has submitted private evidence and consulted with the Arbitration Committee before posting some evidence publicly.

Support:
  1. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I want to underscore that we received no evidence about Fram outside of what was there before the case opened. I also found Fram's discussion with ArbCom during the case to be productive and would hope that is the norm on both ends of this going forward. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. What Barkeep49 said. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Fram had a good conversation with us. But I'll also point out that the block got upheld by the OS list: Fram screwed up. He accepted that, but I'm still rather unthrilled that it happened at all. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Second choice per below. Z1720 ( talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This finding lacks important context, unfortunately. I support the alternative instead. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Fram (alt)

10b) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{ OversightBlock}} by Primefac, which was later assumed by Dreamy Jazz, and which was sustained by the Oversight team as an appropriate block. Fram subsequently made a broad commitment to refrain from posting material in contravention of WP:OUTING, though they later qualified this commitment. During this case, Fram has submitted private evidence and consulted with the Arbitration Committee before posting some evidence publicly.

Support:
  1. The qualification in response to HJ Mitchell is an important part of this puzzle, as well as Fram's comments on the talk page. However, it is important to note that there were improvements in how Fram dealt with the private evidence of this case. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) – updated at 04:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Sure. This is probably better. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. First choice, the qualification should be noted for context. Z1720 ( talk) 14:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. I think the key parts in the latter part of this finding are the original commitment to stop posting OUTING material and that Fram consulted with us moving forward. If we add the context of the later response, which to me is of less importance, should we not then also be adding some context about the present difficulties in dealing with COI issues? Maxim ( talk) 23:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Maxim. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. It doesn't seem necessary to emphasize this comment, as this still falls within the broad commitment description in 10a. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I am not sure yet if I am going to support the new remedy for Fram, but I think this FoF is needed to justify it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've added a new link for the commitment and changed the placement of the qualification, as it was slightly misleading. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac's AN participation

11) Primefac first attempted to close the thread started by Kashmiri and then participated several times in the discussion. During this discussion Primefac made reference to acting as both an administrator and Arbitrator while weighing in with their opinion about the topic. During the case request, they stated I do not want to use the "any reasonable admin" clause of [the administrator policy about involvement].

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Better to stick to one hat at a time and (if possible) be clear about which hat you're wearing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. This isn't Team Fortress 2. One hat a time, please. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Z1720 ( talk) 14:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Links: close, references to being an administrator and being a Committee member, statement at ARC. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac's block of Fram

12a) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversighter would reach the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. However, Primefac should not have been the oversighter to block Fram because neither provision applied in this situation.

Support:
  1. Oversight is a tool of first resort, but an oversight block would only be a tool of first resort if there was active ongoing behavior that required immediate action to prevent further disruption. I do not think this circumstance met that standard. - Aoidh ( talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I basically agree with Aoidh. There are scenarios where there is enough urgency that an OS block would be OK even if someone is involved or INVOLVED. This was not that situation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. There was no urgency to make this OS block. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Would have been better coming from another oversighter, if only for optics. With some oversight blocks, speed is absolutely of the essence but in this case it was unlikely Fram would post further oversightable material before another oversighter could be alerted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. It comes down to the optics, at least. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've been stuck on this throughout the case. I continue to think that the harassment policy's provision for involved redactions is a stronger basis for the suppressions, especially since one of our findings is that Primefac doesn't want to use the "any reasonable administrator" clause. With that being said, I believe that Primefac should not have been the one to block Fram, taking into account the circumstances here (Fram is a very experienced editor and was unlikely to repeat the action quickly, especially given how it took Fram two days after the first suppression to post something suppressible; the event did not take place during a time where Primefac was the only available member of the Oversight team).
    I think that it's also important to note that the "any reasonable administrator" clause is worded in the way that it is ("the community has historically endorsed") for good reason: citing precedent is not a full-throated endorsement of involved actions in obvious circumstances – rather, it is a description of our Community's history (see my comments from 2022). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. If we treat Oversight as a tool of first resort, then {{ OversightBlock}}s are part of the toolset to prevent the continued posting of oversightable material. It would have been better if someone else had blocked Fram, but it is not unreasonable that Primefac did it, so I cannot support a finding that states that Primefac should not have done it. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. OS is a tool of first resort, and one of the few places where we shoot first and ask questions later. Was Prime the ideal person? No. Was he an acceptable person? Yes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. The deliberation by the OSers makes me think that the block falls under the "any reasonable oversighter would reach the same conclusion" exception. Now, should PF have made the block, no. I land here because the two options conflate "can" and "should". -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. If the oversight tool is a tool of first resort, then blocking to prevent OUTING is also a tool of first resort. Z1720 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

12b) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversighter would have reached the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. Further as a tool of first resort, the need to stop the publishing of oversightable material creates an exception to the INVOLVED policy which also allowed Primefac to appropriately block Fram.

Support:
  1. Per my comment above. Maxim ( talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. OS is a tool of first resort. If it was wrong, the OS list could have easily undone it. The list did not, and in fact upheld the actions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. 100% support. Preventing OUTING trumps making an involved block for OSers. The appropriate sequence of events is to suppress the material, block an editor if they are continuing to post OUTING material, inform the OS group of the block and ask them to review and assume responsibility for the block. If the block is inappropriate, it will be reversed. An editor inappropriately being blocked for a short time is less disruptive than a user continually posting OUTING material, and an OSer cannot stop them because the OSer is involved. There is no guarantee that there will be a second oversighter available at all times to assume the block, so this carve out is appropriate. Z1720 ( talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is too big of a carve out for me to be comfortable with. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Per my 12a vote. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. This wouldn't be outside a reasonable reading of the policies but for the sake of avoiding drama, it's better to hand things off after a certain point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. It was both policy compliant and a boneheaded thing to do. PF, in general, should probably allow the rest of the team to share some of the OS load and step back some. I land here because the two options conflate "can" and "should". -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. See my comment above. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

New VRT queue established

1) The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I note Barkeep's comments and this shouldn't be taken to mean that I wouldn't support an alternative solution if a better one comes up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Weakly. The backlog at paid-en-wp needs more people to deal with reports. I sympathise with Tryptofish's slight concern that maybe administrators should not be given access too (I brought it up in the drafting process), but only 12 of our Oversighters are not CheckUsers. I am concerned that only adding 12 potential people to deal with the queue would be insufficient for our problem, so am willing to expand the possible pool to administrators who have undergone scrutiny by the Committee and are bound by the confidentiality agreement. If there are better ideas out there, I will gladly listen, but this right now is an improvement. I hope that it will be enough. Sdrqaz ( talk) 03:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) – updated at 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. There seem to be some support and some concerns, as there should be about any kind of new enforcement process, about this new queue. On the balance, and for the reasons I note below, I think that we need to try this. If this doesn't work I hope a future ArbCom tries something else because we need to get this right. However I think there's a real chance this could be a meaningful improvement and so I enthusastically support it. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I believe this is worth trying. If it does not work we can iterate on it, or rescind it entirely. firefly ( t · c ) 15:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. Worth a shot. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. A bit reluctantly; I feel like we're going back to the status quo pre 2022 "private blocks" RFC, which I don't think is bad though? Just pretty ironic. Hopefully we can move off of VRT in the near future-- I believe the interface is a major barrier to work in the area. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  11. Sure. Z1720 ( talk) 14:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm waiting to read any feedback from the community before supporting this. Per my vote on "Mechanisms for COI reporting" I feel it incredibly important we do somethign in this case to fix a broken system. So if this isn't it I would want to support some other remedy and so if someone is inclined ot give negative feedback to this remedy I'd ask that they suggest some alternative way to fix what's broken. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fram reminded

2) Fram is reminded about the policy against harassment and its provisions against outing other editors.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Second choice to admonishment, but I think it's too weak. Z1720 ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Far top weak to use the mildest option of the ladder you all voted for earlier this year. Fram was decided in the recent enough past that we can't be starting afresh. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. Fram has been quite responsive to the specific issues from the relevant FoF, and at this point it's closer to water under the bridge than something worthy of a formal remedy, as mild as it is. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Even putting Fram's history aside, a remedy as tepid as a reminder is laughable for two intentional policy violations, especially given Fram's "ends justify the means" answer to my question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I don't think this is the right response to Fram's conduct. Either I'm going to believe their commitment to not repeat the mistakes in which case the FoF suffices for me or I don't in which case I will vote for the admonishment. As it stands I'm leaning towards accepting the commitment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Per Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Also per Barkeep. firefly ( t · c ) 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Ultimately insufficient to the admonishment; see my comments there. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I don't think Fram's ArbCom case is stale, but it was ~4.5 years ago. It was long enough ago that only 5 current Arbitrators were administrators at the time. At the moment I see me voting for equal sanction for Fram and Primefac, as I see them as equally culpable here and I'm currently inclined to just let the FoF be the final word in this case, but I am still thinking this over. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fram admonished

2.1) For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia (" outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.

Support:
  1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. This is not Fram's first rodeo. Fram was desysopped (by the WMF, which we ultimately assumed) in part for harassment...and now here we are again, talking about Fram and harassment. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 22:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Fram's response to HJ at the workshop asserting that repeated outing on-wiki is justified by their mistrust of off-wiki processes is tone deaf at the least. Cabayi ( talk) 18:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Yes, Fram promised to not do this again. However, it still happened. Sending a clear statement, and consequences for not following policies of submitting private evidence is better than hoping for the best. Hopefully this will never be needed. Z1720 ( talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I find my colleagues who trust Fram's commitment to follow a core behavioral policy to be hopelessly naïve in light of his response to HJ Mitchel. I fully expect that Fram will out someone again if it furthers his goals. When it happens, I also expect members of the committee to find new and exhilarating reasons to protect him from the consequences of his actions. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I've read Fram's reply to Barkeep on the talk page many times. While it is an improvement on what they said earlier in the case, ultimately I am concerned that Fram will be before the Committee again, having violated a policy in the name of the encyclopaedia. While having principles and sticking to them are admirable traits to have, there are limits to those bounds and I am wary that Fram is unaware of where those lines are (or worse, chooses to cross them, as I believe they did on 28 February). Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Per my vote for the reminder. Maxim ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I lay out my thinking in depth on the PD's talk page in Fram's section in trying to decide which way to go. Ultimately I've decided that the commitment will be a credible one and so this is more than needed based on the evidence we have in this case which is pretty limited. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I support the reminder but I don't think this is necessary. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Unnecessary per Barkeep. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I can certainly see the point of view of my colleagues in the support section, but ultimately I do not think this is required based on the evidence we have and Fram's committment. I sincerely hope I am not proven wrong. firefly ( t · c ) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments
Proposed as a stronger alternative to 2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Aoidh, Guerillero, and Maxim: FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am interested in seeing Fram's response to Barkeep's statement on the talk page before voting on this. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe: removal of permissions

3) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. My thinking is very similar to Maxim's thinking from 4 April below. Once the case was opened, I can't imagine what more Joe could have done as he has been honest, thoughtful, and contrite. I don't find any bad intent either in the past or during the case. I find lots of love for Wikipedia, no intention to harm it, and a desire to help our readers. For all these reasons I wanted to find reasons not to be support the desysop. The problem is Nihonjoe found himself between a rock (confirm personal details that OUTed him) and a hard place (lie) but he put himself there. If the COI was Nihonjoe edited his university page and hadn't disclosed, I would be an easy oppose even if he'd lied about it initially (I strongly agree with Guerillero's note that In many ways, Wikipedia is built on conflicts of interest). If Nihonjoe had only made the Aquaveo edits I'd be torn. The problem is that there are also the edits that touch on Hemelein which are both entirely devoid of objectionable content (for most authors having a complete list of their publications is appropriate and helps our readers) and are also UPE. And there is also the deception of the community which was eventually rectified but only eventually so. I think the only reasonable option Joe had when confronted with Aquaveo was to either admit to it right away or say nothing. Saying nothing still likely leads us here, but would have allowed me to focus on the positive behavior I noted and perhaps not support this remedy. In this case even with no bad intent there were some bad actions that have harmed the community, including the paid editing. And that paid editing happend at a time that an administrator should have known how little tolerance the community would have for it. My heart really wants me to be in opposition to this remedy but ultimately I feel like I was elected to vote with my head and so here I am. But given where my heart's at, given the balance of evidence around the harm and the positives done by Nihonjoe, and were I to participate in future RfAs I would be incredibly inclined to support a new RfA for Nihonjoe even if I don't know that 70% of the community would agree with me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. I might have split this into two separate remedies if I had been drafting but it wouldn't change my vote. Ultimately, this has to happen. Joe has lost the trust of the community to function as an admin and bureaucrat, even though he hasn't (in my opinion) outright abused either set of tools—two questionable protections would not merit a desysop for an admin with no other major issues. Administrators need to set an example, bureaucrats even more so. It would be hypocritical of me to expect perfection, but part of maintaining the community's trust is learning from your mistakes. You can't do that refuse to admit that you've done anything wrong. I do understand why Nihonjoe was reluctant to disclose his conflicts of interest and I'm not unsympathetic but nobody was asking for great detail. Something like the list of disclosures we now have would probably have been sufficient. The lack of trust comes from the extensive editing of articles where he had an undisclosed interest then fobbing off civil, good-faith enquiries. His conduct at the Aquaveo AfD was disingenuous at best. It took the acceptance of this case for him to produce a list of disclosures and even that was found to be incomplete. That is not the level of accountability I expect of someone in a position of trust. It just saddens me that Nihonjoe let things get this far—for anyone wondering how they could avoid the same fate, early and candid disclosure would probably have avoided the need for a case at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. I land here essentially because of the paid editing around Hemelein (however minor, paid editing is rightly a serious matter), the lengthy evasiveness when confronted with the conflict of interest issues (the Aquaveo AfD being a particularly egregious example), and the fact that there is quite a long list of cases where Nihonjoe has edited with a conflict of interest. Unfortunately these together are incompatible with the trust required for adminship. For the record, the bureaucrat flag doesn't factor into my decision directly - however of course if someone does not have the required trust to be an administrator, they do not have the elevated trust required to be a bureaucrat. firefly ( t · c ) 20:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Per my comments below. Maxim ( talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I don't see a viable alternative. Given his adjustment of his permissions earlier today it would appear that Nihonjoe doesn't either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  8. I found the editing itself to be pretty fine. The real issue is that when asked, he flat out denied his COI. I understand it is hard to affirmatively disclose a COI, and am on the more lenient side of that issue. Indeed, disclosing some COIs risks self outing. But when someone presses about a COI, you need to be an adult and either own up, or talk to ArbCom about it in private. Getting to that point was like pulling teeth. I'm sad to have to end up here, but ultimately, we're here because NihonJoe just wouldn't disclose. And that's all the rules require: disclosure. He could have still edited those articles and there'd be no issue...if he just was honest. At the end of the day, we have the COI rules because our readers have to trust us. If one of our own admins can't follow the disclosure requirements, we can't trust them. Adminship is built on trust, and NihonJoe has lost that trust. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  9. More than anything, I think this comes down to a loss of trust and poor decision making. My colleagues have said the rest well. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  10. Admin are expected to know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nihonjoe has shown that they do not understand the fundamentals of COI policy guidelines, and therefore should not have the tools. Z1720 ( talk) 14:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. While thinking about this desysop and examining my own thresholds for them, I looked back at my election statement and my reply to a question about desysops. My summary at the time was that "it depends on how the administrator reacts to the feedback and criticism that they receive, and how likely the behaviour is to recur". Nihonjoe responded poorly to questions about COI initially before improving and making a commitment to do better and apologising. I also think that the likelihood of recurrence is extremely low.
    In light of the improvements both prior to this case and during it and the low likelihood of recurrence and the fact that the issues in this case are more editorial than administrative (see that reply), this remedy's lack of preventative effect in my eyes means that I cannot support it (which is a very surprising result for me, if I'm honest). However, given the trust that was palpably lost by Nihonjoe in this case (I believe that adminship is a position of responsibility and trust), I will not oppose it either. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:
I understand why someone would not be candid about COI matters—it forces a link to one's real-world identity in public, and while that's a consequence of previously undisclosed COI editing, it's a tough pill to swallow. Following email exchanges with the Committee, Nihonjoe did make, in principle, a fulsome COI disclosure, notwithstanding the additional note we make in FoF 1. For better or worse, that shows substantially more responsiveness to concerns raised during the arbitration processes than we typically have seen with administrators. That Nihonjoe's edits were generally unremarkable, aside from the undisclosed COI, is something important to consider as well.
Yet on the other hand, the breach of trust would seem to have occurred at the point of making undisclosed COI edits. In other words, I wonder whether a fulsome disclosure when first asked could have overcame that breach of trust. As such, I am leaning towards supporting this remedy, but I still have some hesitation in light of the first part of my comments. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Nihonjoe admonished

4) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe is admonished.

Support:
  1. Second choice to desysop/decrat. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. I could support this in addition to the desysop/decrat. That deals with the loss of trust required for those permissions but Nihonjoe's conduct still wouldn't be acceptable if he wasn't an admin/'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Second choice to desysop. Z1720 ( talk) 14:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. See my comments at the removal remedy; I feel that this is the more appropriate remedy. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. This is not a sufficient remedy for what has been shown in this case. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Insufficient. Cabayi ( talk) 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Unneeded Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:
I think an admonishment is warranted regardless of Nihonjoe being an administrator. While I understand it's very unlikely we would be here without the ADMINCOND dimension, we are here, and I would expect any experienced editor of Nihonjoe's tenure to know better regardless of tools. firefly ( t · c ) 08:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Primefac reminded

5) Primefac is reminded against acting when involved.

Support:
  1. Aoidh ( talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. It's not always easy to see the line between observation and participation so I wouldn't support anything harsher than a reminder. We need oversighers to be decisive and the suppression log is private so it doesn't really matter who does the suppression but there was time to wait for another oversighter to make the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 11:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. As per my votes on the associated FoFs. Maxim ( talk) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. The case for involvement was weak in the first place, and we need OS'ers to be able to take decisive action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. per my votes on FOF 10 -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. I continue to think Primefac was the wrong person but I stop short of this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Not best practice but not wildly unreasonable either. Cabayi ( talk) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. I think Primefac's involved actions were justified, and they did the right thing when they disclosed the involved block to the OS team. Z1720 ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. I understand why Primefac took the actions that they did and I believe them to have been taken in good faith, especially given the self-requested reviews of their actions for both suppressions, as well as the block. Given Primefac's statement at this case, I do not think that this reminder is necessary. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I think it's better to remind Primefac about optics and how actions will be perceived-- I think it's easy to forget your position as a functionary and the associated weight and perceptions sometimes. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 05:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) by Firefly. reply

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Conflict of interest 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Paid editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Editor privacy 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Oversight/suppression 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Removal of administrative tools 10 1 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Nihonjoe's paid editing (I) 3 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3.1 Nihonjoe's paid editing (II) 7 2 1 PASSING ·
4 Nihonjoe's tool use 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing 6 4 1 PASSING ·
6a Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations 10 1 0 PASSING ·
6b Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations (alt) 2 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass 1 second choice to 6a
7 Mechanisms for COI reporting 11 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Kashmiri 9 1 1 PASSING ·
9 Use of suppression 11 0 0 PASSING ·
10a Fram 10 1 0 PASSING · 1 second choice to 10b
10b Fram (alt) 3 3 0 NOT PASSING 3
11 Primefac's AN participation 11 0 0 PASSING ·
12a Primefac's block of Fram 6 5 0 PASSING ·
12b Primefac's block of Fram 3 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 New VRT queue established 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Fram reminded 2 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass 1 second choice to 2.1
2.1 Fram admonished 6 5 0 PASSING ·
3 Nihonjoe: removal of permissions 10 0 1 PASSING ·
4 Nihonjoe admonished 5 5 0 NOT PASSING 1 Two votes second choice to (3) above.
5 Primefac reminded 3 7 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. I'm sorry for how long this has taken and for my part in that delay due to off-wiki circumstances. Sdrqaz ( talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  2. firefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim ( talk) 10:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  4. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  5. Z1720 ( talk) 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  7. Aoidh ( talk) 14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision&oldid=1218753692"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE