 | 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-b
wikimedia.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.
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .
Active:
- Aoidh ( talk · contribs)
- Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs)
- Cabayi ( talk · contribs)
- CaptainEek ( talk · contribs)
- Firefly ( talk · contribs)
- Guerillero ( talk · contribs)
- HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs)
- Maxim ( talk · contribs)
- Moneytrees ( talk · contribs)
- Sdrqaz ( talk · contribs)
- Z1720 ( talk · contribs)
Inactive:
Recused:
Following evidence which directly named me from something that happened 3 years ago, I felt it would probably make sense for me to step down as a drafter given the way INVOLVED will be important to this case. In discussing this with my arbitrator colleagues, the feedback I got ranged from "indifferent" to "don't step down". Given this feedback and because no one has actually requested my recusal I have decided to stay on as a drafter. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I know, I missed my chance, so I am just posting my short comment here and trust the clerks will move it somewhere if a move is necessary (I'd welcome a move to 'Preliminary statements' page, if possible). I think the main consideration should be WP:HERE, not WP:COI. If someone improves the encyclopedic content, their potential COI should be a non-issue (or, well, a very small issue). While I detest sneaky PAID spammers, I have no problem with the similar folks creating proper, neutral articles. And I said many times that we make big rucus about work ($$) related COI but ignore biases related to one's nationality or religious views. Frankly, I think there is a strong current of jealousy in our Wikimedia community directed at the small subset of editors who figued out how to combine their hobby here with something related to other aspects of their lives, in particular, work: "I do not get paid for my Wiki volunteering, so I will make sure those lucky few who are will feel the pain". Sigh. I have not delved into the particlar articles reported here, but I'd say that if the content has been improved, there is no case, outside of possible harassment of content creators. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Under the policy for recusal of arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee voted on recusals from this case for members Firefly ( talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs). The arbitrators subject to the vote recused on it. The committee voted against recusal for both. A vote on ToBeFree ( talk · contribs) was mooted after he recused himself from the case. Here are the vote counts:
Firefly:
Support:
Oppose: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Guerillero, Maxim, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, Z1720
HJ Mitchell:
Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, Moneytrees
Oppose: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Maxim, Z1720
From the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
| 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.
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .
Active:
- Aoidh ( talk · contribs)
- Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs)
- Cabayi ( talk · contribs)
- CaptainEek ( talk · contribs)
- Firefly ( talk · contribs)
- Guerillero ( talk · contribs)
- HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs)
- Maxim ( talk · contribs)
- Moneytrees ( talk · contribs)
- Sdrqaz ( talk · contribs)
- Z1720 ( talk · contribs)
Inactive:
Recused:
Following evidence which directly named me from something that happened 3 years ago, I felt it would probably make sense for me to step down as a drafter given the way INVOLVED will be important to this case. In discussing this with my arbitrator colleagues, the feedback I got ranged from "indifferent" to "don't step down". Given this feedback and because no one has actually requested my recusal I have decided to stay on as a drafter. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I know, I missed my chance, so I am just posting my short comment here and trust the clerks will move it somewhere if a move is necessary (I'd welcome a move to 'Preliminary statements' page, if possible). I think the main consideration should be WP:HERE, not WP:COI. If someone improves the encyclopedic content, their potential COI should be a non-issue (or, well, a very small issue). While I detest sneaky PAID spammers, I have no problem with the similar folks creating proper, neutral articles. And I said many times that we make big rucus about work ($$) related COI but ignore biases related to one's nationality or religious views. Frankly, I think there is a strong current of jealousy in our Wikimedia community directed at the small subset of editors who figued out how to combine their hobby here with something related to other aspects of their lives, in particular, work: "I do not get paid for my Wiki volunteering, so I will make sure those lucky few who are will feel the pain". Sigh. I have not delved into the particlar articles reported here, but I'd say that if the content has been improved, there is no case, outside of possible harassment of content creators. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Under the policy for recusal of arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee voted on recusals from this case for members Firefly ( talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs). The arbitrators subject to the vote recused on it. The committee voted against recusal for both. A vote on ToBeFree ( talk · contribs) was mooted after he recused himself from the case. Here are the vote counts:
Firefly:
Support:
Oppose: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Guerillero, Maxim, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, Z1720
HJ Mitchell:
Support: Aoidh, Guerillero, Moneytrees
Oppose: Barkeep49, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Maxim, Z1720
From the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)