This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
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-bwikimedia.org).
Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
Since we quibble over quibbles in policy discussions, I note that INVOLVED does not mention functionaries. It talks about admins first, and at the end says the same principle, not policy, applies to discussion closers. The oversight policy does not talk about Involvement. Oversight isn't even an admin tool. It is our practice, not policy, to not give non-admins oversight. Involved does not apply to non-admin tools. On the flip side, we don't have anything that says ovesightable information is an emergency situation. There are no special allowances made for oversight blocks either. It is only a template and the only policy it prescribes is that the block may not be adjusted or vacated except by oversight team and arbcom. Ultimately, I see no policy basis for most things that are taken for granted in this area. Not everything needs to be written, or can be written, but when we have no written guidance on matters that have become controversial, every position becomes defensible. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This comment moved from in reply to HJ Mitchell's question to Nihonjoe, as El C is not a party nor was he who the question was directed towards. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Un/related, who here remembers the WP:AMA? El_C 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone wants to propose any principles about:
I'd also be interested to hear any more thoughts about oversight blocks vs INVOLVED.
I considered proposing some principles myself but I'm actually more keen to hear opinions from within the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
User:AKAF has proposed a finding of fact that Nihonjoe had a good reason for not disclosing a conflict of interest, which was in order to remain pseudonymous. Their proposal has had two different interpretations, both of which were reasonable interpretations of the words, but one has an unreasonable implication, and I think that it is important to discuss the two alternate interpretations. The first is that an editor may avoid disclosing a COI in order to protect their pseudonymous status, and so may make undisclosed COI edits. The second is that an editor may avoid disclosing a COI in order to protect their pseudonymous status, but must completely avoid any edits in any way affecting that COI. The first is a completely terrible idea, because it would allow spammers to conceal their vested interests so as to preserve their pseudonymity. That seems to be what AKAF wrote, but we can assume good faith and assume that is not what they meant.
However, there is also a proposed principle by User:Hurricane Noah that undisclosed conflicts of interest are incompatible with the trust of an administrator and a bureaucrat. That principle would mean that administrators who use pseudonyms must disclose their conflicts of interest anyway, so that the community can maintain trust. The ArbCom does need to decide whether undisclosed COIs by pseudonymous admins are permitted as long as the pseudonymous admin is careful to avoid any COI edits.
So there are three possible principles on COI by pseudonymous admins, one of which can be discarded:
So ArbCom should decide whether it is 1 or 2. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"this outs them, so we should never ask!"is in response to my comment, then you have misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is always inappropriate to ask whether someone has a COI (although there are times and ways it can be), I'm saying it is inappropriate to preemptively require admins to disclose COIs they have regarding areas they do not edit/admin in. This not relevant to situations where an editor is editing/admining in a given area despite claiming not to. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Since the workshop hasn't closed yet, making a section here on my proposed principle
Conflict of interest includes but is not limited to financial conflict of interest.
This has apparently gone over like a lead balloon, but if COI that doesn't involve money is either seen as unimportant or not classed as a COI at all, then aspects of this case, and the cases of many other editors who've been accused of COI editing on noticeboards and at ArbCom, will be judged very differently. (e.g.: Using self-authored online documents as major references; Creating articles about family members.) If the only COI we really care about is COI involving money, then there will be some degree of difference in how we judge editors who don't work in business. Different viewpoints about non-financial COI have been a source of disagreement before and during this case, so to contextualise whatever the Arbs decide, I do think it's necessary for them to speak to how seriously we take COI that cannot be called paid editing. Yngvadottir ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Could an arb or clerk please sign the most recent comment made by Animal lover 666? Didnt want to do so since editing is forbidden at this point. Noah, AA Talk 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Before realizing that the workshop is now closed, I reflected on @ Barkeep49:'s trial principles and thought the idea behind them, as well as some of the issues with several parties' actions in this case, might be better served by a principle like the following. If this is out of order and I'm late to the party, so be it, but pasting here in case someone finds it useful. It would put the onus on advanced permissions holders how to meet expectations of transparency and ensure review of urgent noncompliant actions rather than trying to prescribe/describe exactly what WP processes, like oversight, have or don't have adequate review.
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
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-bwikimedia.org).
Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive:
Recused:
Since we quibble over quibbles in policy discussions, I note that INVOLVED does not mention functionaries. It talks about admins first, and at the end says the same principle, not policy, applies to discussion closers. The oversight policy does not talk about Involvement. Oversight isn't even an admin tool. It is our practice, not policy, to not give non-admins oversight. Involved does not apply to non-admin tools. On the flip side, we don't have anything that says ovesightable information is an emergency situation. There are no special allowances made for oversight blocks either. It is only a template and the only policy it prescribes is that the block may not be adjusted or vacated except by oversight team and arbcom. Ultimately, I see no policy basis for most things that are taken for granted in this area. Not everything needs to be written, or can be written, but when we have no written guidance on matters that have become controversial, every position becomes defensible. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This comment moved from in reply to HJ Mitchell's question to Nihonjoe, as El C is not a party nor was he who the question was directed towards. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Un/related, who here remembers the WP:AMA? El_C 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone wants to propose any principles about:
I'd also be interested to hear any more thoughts about oversight blocks vs INVOLVED.
I considered proposing some principles myself but I'm actually more keen to hear opinions from within the community. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
User:AKAF has proposed a finding of fact that Nihonjoe had a good reason for not disclosing a conflict of interest, which was in order to remain pseudonymous. Their proposal has had two different interpretations, both of which were reasonable interpretations of the words, but one has an unreasonable implication, and I think that it is important to discuss the two alternate interpretations. The first is that an editor may avoid disclosing a COI in order to protect their pseudonymous status, and so may make undisclosed COI edits. The second is that an editor may avoid disclosing a COI in order to protect their pseudonymous status, but must completely avoid any edits in any way affecting that COI. The first is a completely terrible idea, because it would allow spammers to conceal their vested interests so as to preserve their pseudonymity. That seems to be what AKAF wrote, but we can assume good faith and assume that is not what they meant.
However, there is also a proposed principle by User:Hurricane Noah that undisclosed conflicts of interest are incompatible with the trust of an administrator and a bureaucrat. That principle would mean that administrators who use pseudonyms must disclose their conflicts of interest anyway, so that the community can maintain trust. The ArbCom does need to decide whether undisclosed COIs by pseudonymous admins are permitted as long as the pseudonymous admin is careful to avoid any COI edits.
So there are three possible principles on COI by pseudonymous admins, one of which can be discarded:
So ArbCom should decide whether it is 1 or 2. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"this outs them, so we should never ask!"is in response to my comment, then you have misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not saying that it is always inappropriate to ask whether someone has a COI (although there are times and ways it can be), I'm saying it is inappropriate to preemptively require admins to disclose COIs they have regarding areas they do not edit/admin in. This not relevant to situations where an editor is editing/admining in a given area despite claiming not to. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Since the workshop hasn't closed yet, making a section here on my proposed principle
Conflict of interest includes but is not limited to financial conflict of interest.
This has apparently gone over like a lead balloon, but if COI that doesn't involve money is either seen as unimportant or not classed as a COI at all, then aspects of this case, and the cases of many other editors who've been accused of COI editing on noticeboards and at ArbCom, will be judged very differently. (e.g.: Using self-authored online documents as major references; Creating articles about family members.) If the only COI we really care about is COI involving money, then there will be some degree of difference in how we judge editors who don't work in business. Different viewpoints about non-financial COI have been a source of disagreement before and during this case, so to contextualise whatever the Arbs decide, I do think it's necessary for them to speak to how seriously we take COI that cannot be called paid editing. Yngvadottir ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Could an arb or clerk please sign the most recent comment made by Animal lover 666? Didnt want to do so since editing is forbidden at this point. Noah, AA Talk 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Before realizing that the workshop is now closed, I reflected on @ Barkeep49:'s trial principles and thought the idea behind them, as well as some of the issues with several parties' actions in this case, might be better served by a principle like the following. If this is out of order and I'm late to the party, so be it, but pasting here in case someone finds it useful. It would put the onus on advanced permissions holders how to meet expectations of transparency and ensure review of urgent noncompliant actions rather than trying to prescribe/describe exactly what WP processes, like oversight, have or don't have adequate review.