The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request.

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

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

• Not a question, more of a request. One question I know Aoidh is interested in answering is "How does WP:INVOLVED interact with the WP:OVERSIGHT policy?" I would be interested in reading any draft principles that answer this question from the perspective of the community; multiple perspectives were offered during the case request so I think ArbCom has the chance to interpret existing policy and guidelines. One caveat - if we find Primefac was not INOLVED under policy this question becomes much less interesting to me given the length of time both the policies have existed without tension before this. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have my own opinions on the matter but I'm more interested in how the community feels about the issue, since the only editors that can properly review an oversight block are other oversighters. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fram there is an argument the scope should be broader than it is right now and better capture the BYU issue. I asked ArbCom if it wanted to do that (I abstained given a part I played in a discussion of the COI of one such editor 3 years ago) and for now the answer is no. If the answer were yes your assertion would be more compelling to me. But given the actual scope, could you please post analysis of your evidece to explain why it's further involved editing. It does not involve a party to the case. Instead it involves a different editors potential COI related to COI a party to the case has, but it is one of many such COIs that Nihonjoe has. This feels like too far a stretch for me on first inspection but I am open to having my mind changed. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When a discussion related to the ongoing case is raised as evidence at that case, and then a party to that case (because of involved tool use) goes on to use their tools at that discussion, even after it has been pointed out that the two are related, then how is this not problematic, and evidence of a lack of insight in how tool use may be perceived as being involved, lacking in objectivity, taking sides...? Please explain how, after posting "Ah, yes, I just saw the most recent evidence presented by Fram tying it to the case. I somehow missed the original BYU connection. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 ", further tool use on the same issue is not a clear WP:INVOLVED issue? Never mind their quite staggering claim "I am not involved in that case" (referring to this very ArbCom case to which they are a party). All this indicates to me a very dubious or clouded judgment about what things they should avoid and leave to others. Fram (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still not there, so let me try and explain my thinking in a different way to see if it helps one of us align more closely with the other. Nihonjoe is clearly in scope. Therefore Nihonjoe's activities at BYU and AML are clearly within scope. But that doesn't make the scope of the case BYU and AML. And further the content in question isn't either of those things it's another editor's association with BYU/AML. So we are, in my mind, two leaps beyond the scope. Do we just see this differently or am I missing something (entirely possible)? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's at most one leap away, not two, as I have e.g. included in that section of evidence the case of Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe working in tandem to promote a page to GA (I also note the three of you at Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1 by the way). There are also issues like Rachel Helps having a close COI with an organization giving an award to a book with which Nihonjoe has a very close (financial) COI, or (if I have the timeline correct) Rachel Helps being in the jury of the 2019 AML novel awards, where D.J. Butler was a finalist. Yes, that same D.J. Butler with whom Nihonjoe had a COI at the time he created it, despite his claims that that COI only came later. That article creation happened accidentally between the announcement that Butler was an AML Award nominee, and the announcement of the eventual winner.[1].

These issues and editors are closely intertwined, and while it is probably good to keep the Nihonjoe case separate as it also involves other issues, it doesn't seem realistic to consider the Rachel Helps situation as a separate situation. And it definitely wasn't acceptable for Primefac to use his tools on that discussion hours after it was raised in a case where he is included for very similar tool use, and again after this situation was explicitly explained to him. People get blocked for not being careful enough when pointing out the obvious as long as it meets the letter of the outing policy, but an oversighter who is included in a case for being at the very least not careful enough with using the tools when involved, can continue in the exact same vein while the case is ongoing and after the problem is pointed out explicitly? And, let's be clear, for edits which stretch the definition of outing to the very limits. In my case, pointing out the link between an editor and a real person who had used his Wikipedia handle offwiki, about who he had made countless COI edits over 15 years, including creating a Wikidata item for that very person; in the current case, "protecting" the identity of an editor who, let's say as a comparison, has the handle "Franklin Delano" while editing the exact same characteristics and very specific interests as "Franklin Delano Roosevelt", going so far as to plagiarizing research done by "Franklin Delano Roosevelt", but who somehow may not be associated with that full name; and "protecting" another COI editor who uses his wikipedia handle on other sites and as series title for some of his books. Fram (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously remembered the Rachel Helps GA, which is what I was referring to when I wrote a part I played in a discussion of the COI of one such editor 3 years ago. I had not recalled that Nihonjoe weighed in on that so thanks for pointing that out (though I would have gotten there after I re-read it when closely examining your evidence). But the suppression we're talking about is not about Rachel Helps. It's about yet another editor. The argument you're making seems stronger in suggesting that Nihonjoe should not take administrative action in regards to that editor rather than Primefac because as things stand from how I'm understaning you, the suggestion is that Primefac has the same COI as Nihonjoe. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac is a party here because he used the tools while involved. He became involved because he first unsuccessfully tried to end the discussion of the COI edits of this LDS editor, then feigned ignorance of why he would have a COI. He then indef blocked me for pointing out the obvious, despite his involvedness. Now the editor who he blocked points to another discussion about LDS editors with a problematic COI editing history, links it directly to the case by pointing to common editing: so what does the involved party do? He goes to that linked discussion and starts with the same chilling behaviour protecting the COI editors (who did everything they could to reveal their real life identity apart from literally posting it completely), meanwhile claiming that they didn't know that they were involved with this ArbCom case (right?), and continuing to use the tools after the link was explained to them and acknowledged. I don't know why Primefac does all this, and I don't claim that he has "the same COI as Nihonjoe", perhaps he has simply fallen down the rabbithole of trying to protect a fellow oversighter, perhaps he has other reasons, perhaps it's simply a CIR issue on an admin level: but it should have been obvious to them that they should have stayed away from that discussion (in their admin/oversighter capacity, not as a regular editor). Fram (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram: You write that Primefac feigned ignorance of why he would have a COI. There are many ways to be INVOLVED other than having a conflict of interest. I think it's entirely possible for the committee to find that Primefac should not have oversight blocked you because he was INVOLVED (not saying that the committee will find this, but only saying this outcome is clearly on the table) but I don't think the committee will find that he has a conflict of interst with you. I have seen zero evidence that Primefac has a conflict of interest, as defined in the guideline with BYU or AML which is at the heart of the evidence you've recently submitted. The way I'm reading what you write leads me to believe it's not that you used the wrong word (COI when you meant INVOLVED) but that you really do think Primefac has a COI with those topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pronoun referent misunderstanding, I wasn't clear. The "he" in "why he would have a COI" refered to Nihonjoe, not to Primefac. I was refering to Primefac's 28 February statement "Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing. Adding someone's book isn't exactly violating WP:COIU, in that it is an unambiguously uncontroversial edit." I hope that makes this clearer? Fram (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and I think I finally understand you. Your contention is that because you, as another party, introduced a discussion into evidence that this made Primefac INVOLVED in that discussion and any offshoots of that discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nihonjoe: You haven't had a lot to say so far. Now that we're coming to the end of the evidence phase, is there anything you'd like to say? For example, is there anything in the evidence that you want to rebut or refute or that you feel has been mischaracterised? Is there any evidence you want to present about other parties or to exculpate yourself? Do you wish to share any thoughts on the evidence presented so far? How do you feel your editing compares to policies, guidelines, and community expectations (with which, as an active admin and bureaucrat, you should be familiar and up to date, even as they change subtly over the years)? Do you feel you have been as candid as required or expected? And related to my parenthetical comment, do you feel that your conduct has been in keeping with the expectations of admins and bureaucrats? If the answer to any of those questions is no, do you plan to do anything different from now on if you wish to retain those positions? You can treat these questions as rhetorical if you prefer but it seems only fair to tell you what will be weighing on my mind when it comes to making a decision and to give you a chance to respond. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nihonjoe your evidence addresses some of these questions but not all. You've said nothing about how you view your conduct through the lens of the expected standards of administrators and bureaucrats. You hold positions of trust on this site. Whether you're acting in those capacities or not, your words carry weight and your edits to mainspace attract less scrutiny. As such, we expect candour from people who hold these positions, not prevarication. This (to my mind at least) is a major part of why the community is so concerned and why we're now having an ArbCom case, and carries more weight (to me) than a handful of poor uses of the tools. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins and 'crats are expected to follow the policies and guidelines. I failed to follow the COI guideline by not disclosing the various COIs (and potential COIs) for a small number of articles on which I worked. That was a mistake (as I've already mentioned). I should have disclosed them. It's as simple as that. I'm human, and I make mistakes. Now I'm learning from some of them, and I plan to be more forthcoming regarding any potential COIs in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fram: It's clear that you disagree with where Primefac and (later) the oversight team drew the line between outing and COI. To be absolutely clear, I am not, and nobody should be, faulting you for your honestly held opinions. But if you disagreed with the decision, why did you not attempt to contact ArbCom to seek to have it reversed? Or submit your evidence by email to ArbCom? Why did you instead post further non-public (for which read "off-wiki" if it's unclear) information to ANI? What did you expect the result would be of doing so? What is stop you from doing so again in a hypothetical future case? Or violating any policy you disagree because you believe your cause is more important? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't contact ArbCom because there were plenty of ArbCom members already in the discussion, including you and the blocking admin. And I don't and didn't believe that my "outing" was serious enough to warrant removal and blocking (never mind the claims of "think of the safety of family and children" some people raised without any actual reason for it), as a) Nihonjoe had made the connection themselves, in multiple ways (using the same handle elsewhere, or his Wikidata creations) and b) the cat was out of the bag anyway, oversighting the supposed outing was more of a "look at how pure we are" action than anything actually useful. The insistence on private evidence makes it a lot harder and less efficient to battle problematic COI and paid editing, as every editor now needs to do the same research and can't use the work already done by others, the links others may have found which can lead to new findings, and so on. We are talking about many thousands of edits (certainly with the ongoing issues about some other BYU editors) with multiple COI angles, with editors who are extremely reluctant to declare their COIs (it's amazing how many of them "forgot" some COI edits, didn't "understand" the COI rules, or just happened to only make apparent COI edits right outside the bad timeframe, until you actually check their claims). And ArbCom has made it perfectly clear, at the ANI discussion and afterwards, that they will not be doing any research themselves, ignoring previous emails others said to have sent, ignoring the very stuff they have oversighted, ... All of this gave the strong impression that we shouldn't rely on ArbCom to do the right thing, but instead that they (or the visible members at the time) were actively trying to protect Nihonjoe (not from outing, but from repercussions for their COI and Paid edits and other issues), to silence critics and to shut down all discussion.

  Perhaps that image was wrong, perhaps the continued pressure and the outings had success, perhaps the until then silent members of ArbCom have reined in the other ones, I don't know, but somewhat reluctantly ArbCom eventually did the right thing. As long as the believe is there that ArbCom will do what it needs to do, then there is no need to WP:IAR things in such situations and I have no issue with following policy (though it would be good to get some clarification on the questions in my " 08:47, 19 March 2024" post on this page). Fram (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This strikes me as a very long-winded way of saying "the ends justify means". There has been a prohibition on posting another editor's personal information on the wiki for at least twenty years. In more recent years, channels have been established to report misconduct that can't be known about without information the editor doesn't willingly disclose. Your lack of faith in those channels does not give you licence to ignore the harassment policy, any more than (for example) a lack of admins at the edit warring noticeboard is licence to continue reverting past 3RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) An editor having a conflict of interest with an article subject does not mean that all their edits to that article are non-neutral, just that they cannot reliably determine whether they are or are not neutral. This is also why edit requests are recommended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It feels to me that this is an important principle that is sometimes overlooked in discussions of COI editing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. COI editing is not banned, it is discouraged. COI should be declared and ideally COI edits of anything the least bit controversial should be reviewed by a non-COI encumbered uninvolved editor. But just as biographical subjects are in the best place to rectify errors of fact — which is the main thing, that our output be factually correct and neutrally phrased — a COI editor related to an institution or firm or product may well, and often is, in the best position to remedy errors in fact. It's something that must be delicately balanced but a reality that should not be denied. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) The purpose of a COI disclosure is so that independent editors know which edits need review to determine if they are or are not neutral.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This feels overly simplistic, and I do not think this is the only reason English Wikipedia has COI disclosures. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with a conflict of interest are not the only ones that introduce non-neutral content. I don't think having a COI or not is the determining factor in whether an edit should be reviewed, as conflicts of interest are not the only type of bias. - Aoidh (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment above as on re-reading, it's not as relevant to this proposal as I had initially intended. While neutrality is a major issue with COI editing, there are also other reasons COI editing may require review, and disclosure is not done only to determine the neutrality of edits made, as some edits are either strongly discouraged or should not be done, per WP:COIEDIT. - Aoidh (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With the likely discussion about whether disclosure was or was not done (fully and/or correctly) and any impacts of failure to do so, I feel it is important to state up front why COI disclosure is required in the first place. I debated whether this should be principle or finding of fact but plumped for principle in the end. I have not problem if this is incorporated in the decision as a FOF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a narrow view on COI disclosures. In the context of this case, wouldn't other reasons for disclosure by someone with advanced permissions include:

• to tangibly demonstrate that they have both considered their own potential for bias and also that they view compliance with these sorts of policies as important;
• to engender trust in their objectivity when counselling / advising / warning and even sanctioning other editors or contributing to discussions of policy etc (whether formally using permission or not);
• to facilitate others being able to provide feedback – a quiet talk page question about whether some edit is fully NPOV, for instance – and so potentially prompt refection and a minor adjustment before a misjudgement spirals away from a minor issue;
• to obviate the need for off-wiki investigations that can result in situations like the present case, and in so doing, to assist in protecting privacy; and,
• to help normalise recognition that all editors likely have some (at least potential) biases and that viewing a COI declaration as a need for review of their every edit is counter-productive?

As Thryduulf has noted (below?), if having made a COI declaration is seen as a scarlet letter then editors are disincentivised to make them, which then risks making even inadvertent non-disclosures appear sinister and deceitful. The present case looks far worse (IMO) because of the response to questions and the apparent dissembling, which appears to arise in part from recognition that a COI declaration is a huge red flag that is applied to people being paid to add promotional drivel and lies to WP. Yes, such editors need to be identified and dealt with, but the existence of genuine COI issues and the need for sensible disclosure by Wikipedians genuinely motivated by the project's goals is being lost when anyone making a disclosure risks being grouped with those who are trying to make money through scams, manipulation, and promotion and who are rightly seen as NOTHERE. Editors who are genuine and long-term contributors will understandably feel "I'm not like them" when reflecting on the scammers and paid shills, but that doesn't mean that a COI disclosure isn't warranted. However, if the purpose of a disclosure is to label an editor as needing their edits checked, then genuine contributors will be less likely to self-disclose as the label does not align with whatever COI disclosure they do feel is appropriate. Pinning a label to oneself that says "Hey, I recognise my judgement could be a little off about topic X, please let me know if you think there's an issue with an edit I've made" is a lot more comfortable than one that says "Hey, I'm in the same bunch as scammers and others who don't give a damn about Wikipedia... but I'm only in this group because I recognise that I may have a COI here and am trying to do the right thing... so I'm not at all like those who are trying to game the system by pretending to be compliant to hide my disruptive editing, please believe me." If COI self-disclosure feels like the latter, can we be surprised that relative few disclosures are made? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur-in-part. While I completely agree that the principle of "independent editors know[ing] which edits need review" is a tad restrictive of a definition, I'm not sure that a change of policy is under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? However, I agree that a recommended policy review about how a non-paid COI flag may be a "scarlet letter" would be wise. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if neutrality reviews by independent editors is the only reason for a COI flag? For example, WP:COI lists some broader reasons (i.e. edit warring, overuse of inappropriate sources, undue weight to certain ideas—in addition to neutrality); disclosing COI flags potential violations of Wikipedia's content and behavioral policies. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 21:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this simple statement of purpose. Yes, there are many related underlying benefits of disclosure to the encyclopedia and to the discloser, but the overarching reason: to make other editors aware that the edits may need checking. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the case doesn't need an elaboration of every possible reason, I think writing The primary purpose or an equivalent could prevent being misleading, and perhaps future wikilawyering. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilettante and Aoidh: "Primary purpose" works as while there are indeed multiple things prohibited or advised against, the underlying reason for all of them is to ensure that the article is neutral (due weight is one aspect of NPOV). Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary purpose" works for me. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes sense to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) Editors are only required to disclose conflicts of interest they have which relate to topics they edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would be willing to accept this principle, or something worded similarly. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with this but I note Fram's caveat—there's more to worry about than just editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As long as "topics" and "edited" is interpreted broadly. We e.g. have had editors claiming that source X or website Y was a reliable source, without disclosing that they were seriously involved with the source or website (as admin, contributor, ...). Even if they don't personally add the source to an article, it still is a clear breach of COI. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram. Perhaps instead of "topics they edit" it's something like "topics they engage with", etc.? Editing isn't the only way of influencing article content (and is certainly potentially sneakier.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, I had difficulty deciding between principle and finding of fact for this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "topics they engage with" to my wording, as long as its interpreted with common sense. For example if someone's entire interaction with a source is to note it's copyright status or correct the spelling of the author's name it doesn't matter if they have a COI with it or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this makes sense. One point that might get lost is the tense. I took down a more detailed COI notice about UV once I had quit editing in that area, although I ended up putting a small notice the other day, due to this case. I don't think I (or others) need to have a notice up about past activities, but anything that you have worked on in the last year, or are currently editing, needs a notice of some kind. Other conflicts of interest do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a freely-accessible and freely-reproducable compendium of information which is factually correct and neutrally phrased.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd argue neutral phrasing is not equivalent to NPOV. Every sentence in an article could, if taken individually, seem neutral but the article as a gestalt could have WP:DUE issues. I'd prefer neutral over neutrally phrased though it doesn't flow as well. Also, don't we prefer verifiability over factual correctness? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel safe in saying we are a decade past the sinister Orwellianism of "Verifiability Not Truth". My short statement here is actually intended as an alternative simple phrasing to that discredited slogan — which it is now even more necessary to renounce decisively in the wake of AI-hallucinated content on the internet. I hope Arbcom will use this line or something very similar when outlining basic principles. Carrite (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Bad Conflict of Interest editing is not resolvable without first connecting real life identity to real life relationship to, employment by, or payment from the subject in question. At issue is how this is to be properly handled on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think this is necessarily true. For most spam and single purpose accounts showing up to edit a particular article, a real life connection doesn't need to be established to block/sanction them or leave a COI notice. However, when it comes to more complex or longer-term COI/spam issues, making a real-life connection might be needed to fully bring a picture. There's obviously a limit of what can and can't be discussed onwiki, and this has understandably been a historically difficult subject. These cases are what the Functionary team exists for, and evidence should be sent to them per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. Arbcom and functionaries need to take action on these cases, whether that is something or indicating that they do not consider the evidence actionable. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree, as I think this can be resolved without connecting real-life identities. For example, if an editor is adding promotional material because of a COI, connecting the real-life identity is not necessary to address the promotional text. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to know their identity, it's necessary (in cases like this) to know whether they have a relationship with the subject (ie a COI) and it might help to know the nature of the relationship—casual acquaintances are obviously a long way apart on the spectrum from a company one manages or owns. Per Dennis Brown, it can be difficult to pinpoint where exactly on the spectrum something falls—owning a small percentage of a large company is very different to running a small business, and fixing a typo is very different to writing lengthy paragraphs of company history. The issue we have is that many (possibly most?) potential COIs (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) fall somewhere between those two points on the spectrum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is only necessary to state/establish that a conflict of interest exists. What the nature of it is (e.g. whether the editor is an employee/owner/fan/etc) is not (in almost all cases) necessary, although there is obviously no prohibition on voluntary disclosure of this information. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if the bad COI editing is undisclosed, it really is not resolvable without first connecting real life identity to real life relationship to, employment by, or payment from the subject in question. I've encountered multiple COI editors refusing to disclose and flat-out lying about their COI. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

1. Public information about a user is defined as:
   • Any information the user posted on his/her user page, on any Wikimedia wiki, and is still there.
   • Any information the user posted recently <exact definition of recently should be given> on any Wikimedia wiki.
   • Should the user self-identify, as above, as a specific real person, then any public information about this person.
   • Should the user self-identify, as above, as an account on any web site, then any information on that web site as parallel to the above.
2. Formerly public information is defined as information which at any time in the last would have been considered public as stated above, and is still visible to the general public in page histories.
3. Private information is information which is not included in the above definitions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure that I agree with #1, bullet point 4: If someone says they are the same person as an account on a website, I do not think it is appropriate for another editor to post information on Wikipedia revealed by the account on the other website. Users can forget what they have posted on other websites, and digging through old posts to post COI information might still be OUTING. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it seems patently ridiculous to me that someone posting under the same handle in multiple places in a way that suggests they are the same person can't be used (and I strongly feel that anything we post on a WMF project should be fair game); on the other, I don't want to get to a point where the default response to a content dispute is to go looking for dirt on your opponent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

1. Paid editing is any modifications to Wikipedia for which one has been paid or expects to be paid in the future. Thus includes both direct payment for the edit(s), and any editing which is considered part of the job.
2. Conflict of interests is any modifications to Wikipedia where one has any interest in the related content being present or absent other than Wikipedia's own interests.
3. That having been said, merely removing blatant copyright violations, and blatant attacks, or tagging pages which are primarily copyright violations or attacks for speedy deletions as such, is not considered paid editing or conflict of interests. On the other hand, using any admin tools to hide the content from normal users is not excluded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per 1: Per WP:PAID, paid editing also includes receiving compensation that is not money, including additional benefits, time off of other tasks, or gifts. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per 2: This definition is too broad and I think WP:COI will be a better starting point for this. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per 3: Some COI editors cannot distinguish the difference between a blatant attack and acceptable, notable coverage of a topic. This might need to be reworded Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) In most situations, users may not reveal any information about other users unless either it's public or the user gave permission to have it revealed. However, when evidence in COI or paid editing, formerly public information may also be used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last question is, by my reading of things, undoubtedly fine. The other two are more nuanced. Given the evidence we have, I'm also not sure we have enough evidence to pass an FoF/remedy that interpets policy about them. I will review the evidence specifically to see if there's enough to support an FoF (and if that FoF would then support a remedy). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What about questions to others to determine COI / to ask for COI disclosure? "Hey, I noticed that the site X you used has an admin with the same username as you, are you that editor?" "Hi, user "X Y", I notice that you used information posted elsewhere by similarly named person "X Y Z", is that you?" "Hi, I see you post a lot about person X, their companies and other endeaavours, do you have a COI here?" Are we allowed to post such questions? Or how should COI questions be formulated in those instances? Fram (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) If a user believes that he/she has evidence to an other user's COI or paid editing, but the evidence relies on private information, the evidence should be emailed to ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, this should be emailed to associated Checkuser lists. Although we established this in the past I don't think it's universally known to the community so we should take the opportunity to clarify it here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: my understanding is different than yours. While ArbCom was aware of the COI article on WPO, the only person who brought it up to us was an Arb. For me ArbCom acting on its own initiative should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, and this wasn't it. So I was waiting for the community to ask for me to consider it before doing so and that consideration came in the form of a public case request rather than private email to the committee. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that there was a report of Nihonjoe to ArbCom prior to the case request. This happened when I was inactive and so I had missed it while catching up. Apologies for any confusion I've caused. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We (community, committee, functionaries) need to be slicker in dealing with these sorts of reports instead of leaving it to malcontents elsewhere on the Internet. Of course, it's disappointing that these sorts of investigations are necessary and we can't rely on editors, even admins, to be candid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

(reply to the Jessintime/Thryduulf posts below): and yet here we have evidence by JoelleJay saying that "ArbCom alerted to LDS/AML COI editing 2 months ago", we have the issue raised externally in February and then on ANI at 22 feb, we have Arbcom HJ Mitchell rapidly dismissing the issue as if COI and paid editing only have become a serious issue recently (?). Another Arbcom member, Primefac, tried to shut the discussion down and attacked Levivich when it was reopened (but claimed that these actions were as an admin, not as an arb, as if that makes any difference here).

Sagflaps stated "Not an arb, but I sent the private evidence in question to them, and they replied that they are looking into it. Sagflaps (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2024 ", yet 5 hours later Arbcom member Primefac stated "Speaking with my Arb hat on, and asking a genuine question - Nihonjoe has declared their COI; what more do we need to tell him? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)" Er, you have received the evidence, look at it instead of dismissing things? So people finally started the Arbcom case the 29th, because there was no indication that ArbCom would really do anything about this, and clear evidence that at least some Arbs prefered to silence the whole thing. It would be rather ridiculous for everyone to "email and ask" ArbCom what they were doing with the evidence when they were well aware of the discussion, at least three arbs had participated in it, and could just have clearly told the community that they were looking into things. Instead, even when the case was opened, when they had both the offwiki blog post (as acknowledged by Maxim) and the many things raised in the ANI thread, they were still inclined to decline a case, and only changed opinion when the same evidence was privately emailed to them. Fram (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm neutral about whether or not ArbCom should have remedies such as this, but if so, then the remedies need to be harmonized with existing policy pages; please see my evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the policy is, it should be stated explicitly in this case. ArbCom probably shouldn't make the policy here, but they should ensure that there is no confusion what it is. Animal lover |666| 23:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what if arbcom does nothing once that evidence has been submitted, as was the case here. Jessintime (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be taken as evidence that either (a) inquiries/investigations are still ongoing, or (b) no action needs to be taken. If it is unclear which then email and ask. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: My apologies, I misread Moneytree's statement on the case request page. Though I would still like to know what the community should do if arbcom has apparently not taken action in a similar situation. Jessintime (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thank you for the further clarification. Jessintime (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral about this proposed remedy, but could we change this from that he/she has evidence to that they have evidence? Singular they is more inclusive towards non-binary folks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not bad advice, but this looks like Arb would be creating policy or declaring policy, which isn't allowed. Needs to cite existing policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because of the limited situations where materials may be suppressed, most uses of the tool occurs in straightforward cases where any reasonable oversighter would come to the same conclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am posting this in order to get community feedback on the idea, not because I actually am proposing or consideirng proposing this as a principle (as things stand I think the idea at play is far more likely to end up affirmed or contradicted in an FoF than a principle). I will admit I'm predisposed to thinking this is true. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what I have seen in the past 2 1/2 months since I have received the Oversight tool, I believe this is true. Z1720 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was an oversighter for nearly a decade before being elected to ArbCom and was at various times one of the most active members of the team. This statement accurately summarises my experience. Borderline decisions are usually discussed on the mailing list, and self-requested reviews are encouraged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Because oversight is a tool of first resort (and if principle 1 is true: and use of the tool normally occurs with straightforward cases) and because all oversight blocks are reviewed automatically by the oversight team, oversighters may place blocks even if they might be considered INVOLVED in a non-oversight context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am posting this in order to get community feedback on the idea, not because I actually am proposing or considering proposing this as a principle (as things stand I think the idea at play is far more likely to end up affirmed or contradicted in an FoF than a principle). I will admit I'm predisposed to thinking this is not true. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I touched on this during the case request portion, and I broadly agree with the principle If we accept that suppression is a tool of first resort (which in practice it is; the term of art is very frequently used on oversight-l), then INVOLVEDness becomes a secondary consideration given the urgency of removing material that is typically suppressed. Accordingly, an oversight block, which is an uncommon occurrence reserved for either very egregious cases or reposting of the suppressed material, is an urgent matter where INVOLVEDness must also be a secondary consideration. If there's another oversighter available to sort things out, great. If there isn't, and the oversighter who first sees the situation may be INVOLVED if it was an ordinary administrator action, then that's not great but not terrible either. I suppose it's worthwhile mentioning that oversight is a position of particular trust; vexatious suppression (or oversight-blocking) while involved is a bigger deal than a poor (ordinary) block while involved. Maxim (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm with Trypto on this. Most oversight blocks (non-IP) happen after multiple instances normally spread over days of posting OS'able material. Rare is the oversight block that is so urgent in the way a vandalism block might be. So the idea of someone going to the OS list saying "I'm INVOLVED but have suppressed X. If I weren't INVOLVED I would block." feels reasonable. In fact typing this out, it makes me think that if someone is INVOLVED but relying on the "any reasonable oversighter would have done this" that should have to go to list in the same way blocks do. That's a change which could happen outside of this case, of course. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Thryduulf's 22:18 comment, including the agreement with Barkeep's 21:42 comment. An INVOLVED Oversigher should feel empowered to suppress information, and they should avoid making the INVOLVED block unless there is continuous posting of information that needs to be suppressed over a short period and other OSers are unavailable. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to a judgement call—is the material likely to be re-posted while waiting for another oversighter to block? This is almost (but not quite) academic; oversight blocks are vanishingly rare, even more so of long-term good-faith editors. I don't know if stats have been compiled or are kept anywhere but my experience as one of the more active oversighters and an admin who makes a lot of blocks is that I don't think I've made a dozen oversight blocks ever whereas I could easily make a dozen blocks in an hour at AIV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since you asked for community comments, I'll say that I tend to agree with you that (1) is generally true, and (2) is not generally true. If I look at the two assertions together, the fact that oversight is generally for clear-cut reasons and generally not for reasons that would be a matter of debate amongst oversighters, does not lead logically to the conclusion that it doesn't matter which oversighter makes the block. A more logical step from (1) to (2) would be that any oversighter who has an issue of being INVOLVED can easily step aside and let another, uninvolved, oversighter make the block. (A good case can be made that oversighting the edit is urgent in a way that issuing the block is not quite as urgent, assuming the editor isn't spamming harassing information all over the place and needs to stopped quickly.) A helpful analogy is that we generally ask INVOLVED admins step aside because there will always be an uninvolved admin who can take care of the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going on what Maxim said, I think the issue of an INVOLVED block is a function of how urgent the need is to prevent continuing harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Barkeep's 21:42 comment, but I can envisage a scenario where someone is going on a vandalism spree posting material that needs to be suppressed (what first comes to mind is something like the AACS encryption key controversy key spamming, but where the spam needs to be suppressed for some reason). In such a case we would want the block to be done by the first person available, even if they are involved. These scenarios are going to be extremely rare though, so an "almost never" would be fine just not an "absolutely never". Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of urgency and definite review by others is what allows the direct use of the Oversight tool to be used in COI cases. Blocks, however, are less likely to be urgent, so they should be done by a non-COI oversighter. Animal lover |666| 06:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is only definite review if there's a block. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instituting a policy that oversight actions undertaken when one has a COI must be reviewed could be easily done though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just wanted to make sure there wasnt confusion about what's happening now given that I wasn't sure @Animal lover 666 was speaking about current or proposed practice. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood this to be current practice that all oversight actions are reviewed by other oversighters. Certainly any COI oversight actions should be. Animal lover |666| 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All oversight actions can be reviewed by other oversighters, but because the vast majority of suppressions are clearly good and in accordance with policy ("routine" isn't quite the right word, but it's close) not every action is reviewed. When I'm not the first person to see a ticket but it is still recent I will sometimes take a look to see if I agree with an action that has been taken. I have no idea if anybody else does anything similar. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of strict rules, random spot checks, and the difficulty in getting the Oversight right in the first place, is probably enough safeguards when COI is not an issue. When it is, there should be a guaranteed review. Animal lover |666| 08:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is common practice but not currently a firm requirement, though the vast majority of suppressions are extremely obvious (ie anyone reviewing the edit can very quickly tell that the content is libellous or contains personal info). I would be very disappointed to see an oversighter suppress something in a borderline case where they could be accused of having another agenda if they didn't request review of their actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice, this isn't so controversial, but it looks like Arb is trying to create policy here, so I wouldn't support that wording. "oversighters may place blocks" is granting permission, which is a problem because that is a policy permission, not just interpretation. Saying "oversighters will sometimes place blocks" with "but should immediately email Arb / Functionaries" would be a better solution. ie: Accepting that it is inevitable, but they are responsible for taking extra steps, even though it is already seen by others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) The conflict of interest guideline mean that it is a set of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow it, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is another one where I post it more for feedback than because I expect to use it. It is not clear to me reading much of the commentary around this case, what weight, if any editors are placing on COI being a guideline rather than a policy. That is what situations - because the commentary in this case suggest it's not it - would merit "common sense" and/or an "occasional exception". Instead I see many editors suggesting a level of rigidity to the enforcement I would expect around a policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is true as it's written. This is part of what I was getting at in my comment at ANI about attitudes changing. Ten, fifteen years ago "it's just a guideline" might have been enough to deflect attention; even five–eight years ago COI editing might not have been as much of a problem as it is today if it had stopped there. But these days the community's expectations are higher and disclosure is a de-facto requirement. A new editor could get away with the "it's not a policy" argument but I expect admins (and 'crats probably even more so) to keep up with changes in the community's attitudes. And to hold themselves to a higher standard than not violating the letter of the law. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I've also been seeing what you've been seeing. It seems to me that the harassment policy, of which the outing section is a part, is unambiguously regarded by the community as policy. The COI guideline is just that, a guideline. If the community wanted it to be, instead, a policy, the community could have made that decision, but that hasn't happened yet. And, per the evidence that I submitted, the COI guideline says explicitly that the outing policy takes precedence over the guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID is a policy though. And regardless, while I don't disagree with your observation here, what's the relevance? What common sense would support Nihonjoe not following the COI guideline? The only reason I've seen given, by him or others, for him not disclosing, is to avoid outing itself. But that would by definition apply to any pseudonymous editor with a COI – so hardly exceptional. – Joe (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, but this should go without saying, so not sure of the utility. But it isn't controversial, to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at the evidence in detail, so I don't actually have an opinion. However, I would like to remind Arbcom to resolve the salient questions posed by me & Ymblanter in the preliminary statements.

1) One is a paid editor if and only if one is paid by a third party related to the subject of the article to edit Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) One is a paid editor as long as one is paid by a third party related to the subject of the article, even if editing Wikipedia is not part of one's job scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is actually a core problem with defining COI editing. There is a large cohort of competent, well-meaning editors who do not recognise that their subject knowledge is poor. Let's take a concrete example of articles relating to mathematics. Who would be a paid/COI editor?

1. All university and school employees and former employees of departments including mathematics, physics, engineering, computer science and similar.
2. All Government employees and former employees of agencies or departments primarily engaged in mathematics, physics, engineering, computer science and similar.
3. All employees and former employees of all firms or parts of firms primarily engaged in mathematics, physics, engineering, computer science and similar.

Frankly, that doesn't leave any domain experts.

We need to be clear that very nearly every domain expert potentially has a conflict of interest. It's nearly impossible to clearly define COI, and in my opinion the COI guidelines are extremely poor, but about as good as is possible. AKAF (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally nobody is suggesting that we prevent domain experts from editing or that being a mathematician is a 'conflict of interest' with regards to mathematics under any reasonable, common sense understanding of that term. People have being making versions of this slippery slope argument from the very first attempts to address COI editing on Wikipedia and it's as fallacious now as it was then, because we don't need to define concepts with total logical precision to use them in policy (see also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, etc.). We've been able to effectively identify and prevent COI editing based on the working definition given at WP:COI for over a decade, and precisely zero innocent mathematicians have been caught in the crossfire. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't exactly the same, something that I've seen come up over the past few weeks more than once (and that has been addressed at me, about interacting with the Association for Mormon Letters in an academic capacity) is a sentiment that 'if it's on your CV, you have a COI'. This was well taken with jobs and educational institutions; okay, so past jobs and schools are COIs, as well as current jobs and schools. But what about other things on a CV? If I were to present at the American Historical Association conference, am I COI editing if I add to articles citations to the AHA-run American Historical Review (the journal of record for historians in the United States) or say on a talk page that it's a reliable source? What if I were to submit an article to AHR and get published, or to the Journal of Anime and Manga Studies, or the Journal of Women's History, as part of the normal practice of participating in academics—do I gain COIs for those periodicals? If I register for a paid membership with the Society of Nineteenth-century Americanists in order to receive a hard copy of their J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-century Americanists, and I note my membership on my CV (a common academic practice), is it a COI for me to say on Wikipedia that I think J19 is a reliable, academic secondary source? (Mind that journals in the humanities are generally considered secondary sources, as they usually interpret data from archival or literary evidence; unlike journal research papers in the hard sciences, which are often generating data by observation or experimentation.) A professor of mine recently was on a volunteer book award committee for an academic organization, as part of her trying to be a contributing member of the academic organization; does she have a COI for that academic society and its journal?

People may not be going around saying that being a mathematician is a 'conflict of interest' with regards to mathematics—but if publication, conference presentation, and/or academic society membership or participation—practices that go on CVs as part of the typical life of an academic—generate conflicts of interest, that starts to amount to the same thing, because how is a mathematician (or historian, or anthropologist) to avoid COIs when making statements about source reliability or adding citations or writing content pertaining to their domain knowledge if the relevant conferences, journals, or academic organizations they participate in are COIs? Is that something that would be worth the committee addressing? It's a question I'd be grateful to have clarified, because I'm left wondering about what will or won't need disclosure going forward in various topic areas. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide exclusively talks about "Article subjects or company owners", which is definitely too permissive, and perhaps a source of confusion.AKAF (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have a COI with regard to journals that have published your work, societies you're a member of or, for that matter, places you've studied. Even if you did, the COI guideline doesn't apply to discussions. I'm not breaking in any rules if I say on a talk page "I think Joe Roe is a very reliable source", as long as I'm not editing articles about myself. The "if it's on your CV, you have a COI" rule of thumb is a new one for me, and it doesn't sound like a very good one. For one, it seems to overlook the difference between a normal professional resume (which primarily lists jobs) and the conventional academic CV (which is much more comprehensive).

But getting back to the point at hand, there is no reason to discuss hypotheticals and edge cases here. None of the parties to this case work in academia, as far as we've heard, and the COI edits at hand relate to employee/employer and close personal relationships – the kind of thing explicitly stated to trigger a COI in our policies and guidelines. Yet as with nearly every high-profile dispute involving COI, we're dragged into discussing "but what if I...?"s and "doesn't that mean everyone who knows something about a thing has a conflict of interest with that thing??". What do these hypotheticals have to do with this case? Or actual conflict of interest of editing at all? – Joe (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do these hypotheticals have to do with this case? Or actual conflict of interest of editing at all? I suppose it was to some extent a selfish question on my part and may have been a stretch to bring up on this workshop page for the case about Fram, Kashmiri, Nihonjoe, and Primefac. While all this has been going on, Fram averred that my having made claims about the reliability of the AML as an academic organization on a project page a couple years ago means I should disclose about connections to it. The mix of things going on around and adjacent to this case rattled me, and I'd like to become a lot surer than I've been the last couple weeks about what the community will or won't consider a COI. I had been thinking along your lines—that being published by an organization's periodical, or attending a conference—doesn't a COI make, but getting asked about it left me wondering. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Nihonjoe had / did not have good reason to not disclose his conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The FoF suggested by AKAF would be terrible. Not only does it not apply in this case specifically, but as a general principle it just means "let's delete our COI rules completely". If one has such a pressing need to maintain pseudonymity (which isn't apparent in this case), then one should avoid COI editing at all costs. And no, that's not the strawman COI posted by AKAF above, taking an extremely broad topic and using that to make some point, but the COI of posting about one's employer, company, publications, good friends, ... Fram (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would strongly suggest to the arbitrators to make a finding of fact that "Nihonjoe has a very good reason to not disclose their conflict of interest, which is to preserve their pseudonymity". This is the core reason why editors do not declare a COI, and it should be recognised. AKAF (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Nihonjoe's edits to the articles show / do not show a clear bias towards / against the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re:"Nihonjoe has a very good reason to not disclose their conflict of interest, which is to preserve their pseudonymity". Preserve your pseudonymity and don't edit where you have a COI, or disclose and edit. Pick one. No one is required to edit a topic where they have a COI. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A mathematics professor who edits the article on natural numbers has a low potential for their COI to impinge on their capacity to uphold P&G given this is not an area of high contestibility, relatively speaking, whereas that same professor who publishes that they have shown there are no further answers possible to Brocard's problem, has a very high potential for their COI to impinge if they edit that latter article. We should avoid trying to perfect the definition of COI/paid editing etc since this will necessarily exclude matters. *Applying* COI policy will always be contextual to the issues at hand and managed over a spectrum of risk potential - this does not discount the need for it. COI policy is necessarily axiomatic to promote and ensure independent-decision making in so many areas of general life, no less here and needed far more than ever. Concur with Valereee. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. AKAF (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AKAF, so just to clarify, I think what you're getting at is that we should recognize there are reasons not to disclose a COI? You aren't arguing that it's okay to make COI edits without disclosing? I don't think anyone is proposing we all have to disclose our COIs to edit at all. Only if we want to edit where we do have a COI. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't wish to encourage COI editing (thanks for assuming my good faith), but I wished to encourage a finding about the (sometimes difficult) tension between acknowledging COI and remaining pseudonymous.AKAF (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1) Nihonjoe is topic banned from (Aquaveo/Hydrology). This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Administrators are accountable for all of their own actions relating to Wikipedia and are responsible for promptly and adequately addressing queries and concerns raised regarding their conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators are accountable only for their own actions, not all actions. I know this is what you meant, but it's best to be clear. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... good catch there. Noah, AA^Talk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Due to their advanced permissions, administrators are often held to higher standards regarding their conduct and abidance of Wikipedia policy than regular editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Administrators are involved editors regarding articles in which they have a conflict of interest and thus should not perform administrative actions there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Oversight is a tool of first resort due to the sensitive nature of issues where it's applied.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is correct and relevant. Suppression can be undone completely or changed to revision deletion if review determines that is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5) Oversight is seen as superior to WP:INVOLVED since there are greater ramifications associated with the issues it involves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This should be a case of do first, ask questions later. An Oversighter should not be hesitant to act despite COI, but there should always be a review of such actions by other Oversighters. Animal lover |666| 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically stating in an issue where oversight is needed, involved is on the backburner. Noah, AA^Talk 23:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like above, this would have Arb setting policy, which isn't a good thing. That is best left to the community as a whole. I think a statement can be made that clarifies the priorities, but it wouldn't be worded like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I think here, the key word is "seen" which is different from me bluntly saying it is superior. This reflects a belief rather than an actual codified order of precedence. Noah, AA^Talk 00:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you can't slide with giving the appearance that Arb is granting Oversight greater than WP:involved, it needs to be policy based. As worded, it wouldn't work, including the end that is vague justification. I get the idea, but not this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6) Bureaucrats are a user group where a higher level of trust is required from the community than an administrator due to the abilities granted by the user right and their role in determining the outcome of RfAs within the discretionary zone. As a result, the standard of conduct and policy abidance expected from a bureaucrat is even greater than that of an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just nitpicking, I would change "bureaucrats" in the final sentence to "a bureaucrat".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noah, AA^Talk 14:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7a) An undisclosed conflict of interest is incompatible with both adminship and 'cratship since there is an expectation of transparency, starting once the candidate accepts the nomination and continuing as long as the editor possesses these user rights. For example, candidates often disclose all prior usernames they have edited under. Failing to disclose conflicts of interest violates the expected transparency and at worst, is outright deception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7b) An undisclosed conflict of interest regarding articles in which an editor has produced significant changes (anything other than minor edits and vandalism reversion) is incompatible with both adminship and 'cratship since there is an expectation of transparency, starting once the candidate accepts the nomination and continuing as long as the editor possesses these user rights. For example, candidates often disclose all prior usernames they have edited under. Failing to disclose conflicts of interest violates the expected transparency and at worst, is outright deception.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since some people supported the original wording, I left it be but have proposed a second version here per Thryduulf's comments on the talk page that makes it exclusive to topics in which a sysop/'crat edits. Thoughts on 7b? Noah, AA^Talk 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8) An editor should disclose that they have a conflict of interest the first time they make a substantial edit (anything other than vandalism reversion and minor edits) to an article where a COI would exist for them. They are not required to disclose the relationship of their conflict of interest, simply that they have one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thank you for including the last sentence. I think it's important to note that we don't expect a lot in terms of disclosure, just enough that the edits (hopefully) get more eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) The standard of disclosure for paid editing is much higher. Editors possessing a conflict of interest who were paid for their edits must disclose who is paying them, on whose behalf the edits were made, their affiliation with the individual or organization, and any other relevant information. Payment is not limited solely to monetary compensation and includes any benefit, gift, or perk received that would have otherwise not been given. Protecting pseudonymity is not an excuse for failing to disclose this information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10) Evidence obtained from other Wikimedia projects would not violate WP:OUTING if it is both publicly obtainable and connected to the global account of the individual (or any declared alternate accounts) in question via their own edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hurricane Noah, how does this work with socking? If I have a sock, User:Dilettante's Malicious Undisclosed Sock for example, that is confirmed via SPI, is it connected via my own edits? One could argue yes given that my edits reveal my IP (at least to a checkuser) and provide behavioral evidence. Once could also argue no on the basis that it's not connected by [my] own edits, but rather by my edits in conjunction with the CU's tools and (and the filer's) perception.

Socking's not necessarily applicable to this case, but I believe the wording Evidence obtained from other Wikimedia projects would not violate WP:OUTING if it is both publicly obtainable and connected to the global account of the individual (or any declared alternate accounts) in question via explict statements on any Wikimedia project would make the latter interpretation clearly true whereas Evidence obtained from other Wikimedia projects would not violate WP:OUTING if it is both publicly obtainable and connected to the global account of the individual (or any declared alternate accounts) in question via public evidence on any Wikimedia projects the former. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of EN wikipedia, it's highly likely only thing that would be used here would be that an editor is blocked on another wikimedia site for sock puppetry. By virtue of having an attached account there with edits, the connection by edits is satisfied automatically for any blocks received there. Checkuser evidence would of course remain private as always. Whatever public evidence was used to make the block for sock puppetry on that site would have little to no relevance here since we don't police those sites. This principle does not cover the connection of sock puppetry on EN wikipedia at all. Noah, AA^Talk 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11) Editors in positions where an exceptionally high level of trust is required, such as functionaries, should avoid the appearance of impropriety as much as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The one exception to this is the hiding of OVERSIGHT material, due to its urgency. Such actions may be done even in COI situations. The need to prevent the appearance of impropriety, is handled by the fact that other OVERSIGHTERS approve or revert the action adter the fact.

1) Nihonjoe failed to disclose multiple conflicts of interest until concerns were raised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Nihonjoe repeatedly performed administrative actions on articles despite being involved as a result of his conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Primefac was not involved while performing oversight actions since the latter policy is superior to the former one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) Nihonjoe is desysopped for failing to abide by admin conduct and accountability expectations. Nihonjoe may regain this user right following a successful RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Nihonjoe's bureaucrat user right is likewise removed. Nihonjoe may regain this user right following a successful RfB.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) To prevent the appearance of impropriety, Arbitrators should refrain from participating in or attempting to close discussions regarding administrator misconduct in case the community is unable to solve the problem and the issue is advanced to Arb Com. If the problem does advance, any arbitrators having done either of the two aforementioned actions should recuse themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As both an Arb and a Clerk, there's an incentive to avoid not just admin conduct discussions but discussions in general that might end up in front of Arbcom (will that make people interested in running? lol...) I don't think this needs to be codified per se, I think it's an Arb's discretion on commenting in these discussions, but I think Arbs need to keep in mind their position and the context of the dispute to avoid any issues for if/when something ends up in front of us. Like I don't think anyone had an issue with the clarifying comment I made at AN for example. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I already follow this because AN/ANI/AE concerns could come before ArbCom. On the other hand, I don't want to strongly discourage arbitrators, some of our most experienced editors, from commenting on those threads. I also think that a minor comment at AN shouldn't stop an arbitrator from participating in a case. What is a minor comment? Well, I hope I know it when I see it. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am putting this here since this was a concern raised on the evidence talk page by multiple people. Even if you don't have actual biases or involvement after having participated in discussions, people still believe that you do which has been shown by this case. It makes people skeptical of whatever outcome is achieved since they feel bias was involved in some manner. At least take this into consideration for the future. Noah, AA^Talk 18:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that arbs should refrain from participating in or closing discussions or that doing so should always lead to recusal. If an arbitrator believes that their comments will help resolve a situation then it would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia to prohibit such comments. If they have had involvement then they should consider recusing, but only if their involvement was significant or partisan should they be required to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this would be controversial but this case had where multiple people asked arbs to recuse themselves and it pretty much got shot down immediately. Arbitrators participating in or attempting to close a discussion and then arbitrating the case makes them seem like they are participating while also being involved as others had articulated. Noah, AA^Talk 19:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my time as an arb I avoided directly weighing in on a lot of noticeboard discussions for precisely this reason. Ultimately those issues very often come to the Committee (or they get resolved, in which case my commentary wasn't necessarily useful), and inserting oneself into a discussion (and, to be clear, not just opining but trying to squash discussion of the topic entirely, overnighting content repeatedly, blocking editors, and then getting into recusal disagreements) is essentially giving a massive sign that you cannot be counted on to judge the situation fairly. Because after all, if arbs who said 'nothing untoward is going on here!' in noticeboard discussions had done that in the first place, this never would have escalated to arbitration at all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4) The Arbitration Committee will inform an editor (either on wiki or as a reply to the evidence email) whether or not it is taking action regarding private evidence submitted by that editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) If an arbitrator states their refusal to recuse from a case on any of the pages relevant to that case when a request has been made there, the arbitration committee should consider the first step for recusal as having been satisfied and consider taking up a subsequent request for a full committee vote on the matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee. Actions which may justify such sanction or removal include misuse of administrative tools, other problematical behavior, whether on or off Wikipedia, and failure to conform with the expectation that administrators fully and frankly explain their actions, especially during community noticeboard discussions or Arbitration Committee proceedings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is taken broadly from WP:ADMINACCT.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Bureaucrats are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. Expectations for bureaucrats are higher than for administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have also been struck by just how light our policies for crats are myself. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's because we have so few 'crats and the nature of RfB is that these are largely uncontroversial (often semi-retired) editors who don't attract much attention. As far as I can tell, only one 'crat has ever been removed for cause (Nichalp, 15 years ago); resignations under a cloud are harder to track but the only one I'm aware of is Andrevan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is what can be gleaned from WP:BUR, which doesn't seem to have been written with this situation in mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might word it slightly different, but the sentiment is good. "The community has shown it has higher expectations for bureaucrats, including in a higher standard to pass a RFB when compared to RFA" is how I might word it simply because policy does NOT state that Crats have higher expectations explicitly, but experience here has shown this to be the case, and not just in RFB. RFB is just a tangible metric that is in policy, and demonstrates this is a long existing accepted norm, and not a new "policy". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) Since their actions and conduct may demoralize other users who lack such tools, administrators and bureaucrats, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee, need not actually use their user rights for there to be a violation of WP:ADMINACCT and similar policies. Uncalled-for warnings, questionable closure of discussions, and similar conduct that uses one's position to chill discussion, especially in areas where there is a conflict of interest, may violate those policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Conflict of interest edits undermine the neutrality of the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is too cut and dry, and oversimplifies the problem. I have a COI in some areas I've edited in, and I've not undermined the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Conflict of interest includes but is not limited to financial conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In the case of a regular conflict of interest, there wouldn't be a financial incentive such as additional money. It would be more a case of WP:PAID editing where there are additional considerations other than financials. Noah, AA^Talk 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this needs stating, and if it did need stating, this is too narrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) Administrators and bureaucrats are expected to model good conduct both as editors and as members of the community, including being responsive to queries and criticisms (Admin accountability, Communication is required).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is in line with a broad reading of ADMINACCT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) The nature of Wikipedia as a community and as a wiki includes an expectation that editors, in particular holders of advanced permissions, counsel peers on adherence to policies and guidelines, and call them to account publicly or privately when they fall short of expectations. This mutual responsibility extends to the operation of the functionaries and of ArbCom as teams.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Raising an issue of administrator conduct at the Administrators' Noticeboard is a recommended step after asking the administrator at their user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This should probably be rephrased to note that AN(I) is only appropriate if discussion at user talk has not been productive after a reasonable length of time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6) Community discussion is expected before opening a request for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this case since community discussion did indeed occur at an AN/I and there are cases where community discussion would be inappropriate (ie most of the evidence can't be posted on wiki). Noah, AA^Talk 12:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are also cases when community discussion couldn't help because the issues is something only arbcom can deal with, or because prior community discussions make it clear it would be fruitless. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) No evidence of misconduct by Kashmiri has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Kashmiri arguably violated OUTING and part of their noticeboard post was suppressed but they didn't re-post it or post or post anything else that required suppression. I'm not sure a finding that they did nothing wrong is strictly accurate but I won't be voting for any serious remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Nihonjoe edited articles on subjects with which he had personal, professional, and monetary conflicts of interest, and made edits adding material with which he had a conflict of interest, without disclosing the conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Nihonjoe used admin tools on an article where he had an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Nihonjoe omitted conflicts of interest in his disclosures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Nihonjoe was untruthful in some of his responses to questions about conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Nihonjoe made a false accusation of harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

7) The repeated closures of active discussion at AN, in the absence of either a formally closed proposal or removal of discussion to a better venue, choked off legitimate concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

8) The participation of arbitrators in discouraging discussion at AN had a chilling effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) Primefac's closure of discussion at AN was dismissive of legitimate concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

10) Primefac's suppression at AN and block of Fram brought into doubt ArbCom's ability to rule fairly on the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There seems to be widespread support for the suppression. And indeed for the block, but a feeling that that should have come from a different oversighter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't see any evidence for this. At most it impacted Primefac's ability to be seen to be able to rule fairly, but not that of the Committee as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thryduulf. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11) Primefac's continuing activities to redact and suppress information concerning a COI possibly involving Nihonjoe after recusing from the case appear to violate the spirit of the recusal and have brought into doubt ArbCom's ability to rule fairly on issues relating to Nihonjoe's conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not great optics, definitely. I very much doubt that was PF's intention, but recusal should mean keeping as far away as possible from anything remotely connected to the matter you're recused on (barring case participation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, I see no evidence that Primefac's actions impact the ability of the Committee as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree again. This is a bit of an unprecedented situation, so I'm not surprised if we see some actions that, in hindsight, might not have been a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12) ToBeFree's dismissal at AN of concerns about possible undisclosed COI on grounds that COI is not a policy brought into doubt ArbCom's ability to rule fairly on issues of administrator conduct with respect to COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

13) Firefly's reversion of a question about COI at Nihonjoe's user talk and failure to respond in a timely manner and fully to my request that they self-revert discouraged discussion of whether Nihonjoe had such a COI, and brought into doubt ArbCom's ability to rule fairly on issues concerning Nihonjoe's conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

14) The committee failed to respond to private submissions before and after (Serial Number's inquiry) the opening of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

15) The committee failed to take private action when it was first made aware of the likelihood that Nihonjoe had undisclosed conflicts of interest that affected his on-wiki conduct; private action in advising Nihonjoe of community expectations regarding conflicts of interest that might have rendered this entire episode unnecessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Undoubtedly this is something we need to improve on. It's too easy at the moment for things to fall between the cracks unless one arb actively takes ownership of an issue and shepherds it to a conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I formatted all 15 original ones into their sections to allow response (from myself and others) and left the one marked already proposed below. Noah, AA^Talk 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be said somewhere prominently in the case, for sure. This was a failure. If we want to learn from it, we need to acknowledge it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nihonjoe did not disclose his conflicts of interest until asked. (already proposed).

1) The committee commits to instituting a system whereby private submissions of potential evidence outside a case receive an immediate response and are flagged to all members of the committee as belonging to case evidence once a case is opened to which they relate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good intent, but assumptive. Only good if they follow through, and maybe something more concrete would be better. But the idea is valid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) The committee formalizes the expectation that e-mails to a particular member of the committee relating to a case are shared with the entire committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not unless "the entire committee" is changed to something like "all non-recused members of the committee". Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) The committee notes that as the only body empowered to formally censure or desysop administrators; and the body with which editors are expected to share identifying and otherwise private information in cases where it is germane to judging their conduct, including COI and shared IPs, and thus privy to editors' identities and shared living circumstances in most such cases; in cases where the committee becomes aware that an administrator is not following suggested best practice under current policies and guidelines with respect to COI and shared IPs, the committee is expected to preemptively avoid OUTING situations by communicating privately with the administrator in question with information on current expectations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) ArbCom also reaffirms that its members have a collective responsibility for adherence to best practices regarding recusal, avoidance of potentially prejudicial statements, and deferral to other members of the functionary team where their actions could potentially be seen as prejudging a case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ditto here. Noah, AA^Talk 14:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nihonjoe is desysopped for failing to abide by admin conduct and accountability expectations. Nihonjoe may regain this user right following a successful RfA. (already proposed)
• Nihonjoe's bureaucrat user right is likewise removed. Nihonjoe may regain this user right following a successful RfB. (already proposed)

Yngvadottir (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

In this evidence: [2], Serial Number refers to my evidence as having "identified" COI misuse. Perhaps I'm just misreading that, but I don't think that my evidence does this. My evidence traces the development of current policy on COI reporting, but it takes no position on conduct by Nihonjoe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you're right Tryptofish, I did misread; or perhaps misidentified my sources—something that was not even done 51 years ago today. And apologies for 'Trypotofish' too  :) Arbs, replace Tryp. with 'Everything per Fram' in your heads re. my statement there. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just wanted things to be clear. And I hadn't even noticed the misspelling. My username gets misspelled quite often, so I'm used to it. I've also been called Typofish, which has a strange logic to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1213362982 has been given by a few editors in the Evidence section, and I wanted to clarify those statements. When I said I was "not involved" I meant that I was not acting as an Arbitrator (i.e. I read HEB's comment as "you might already have this information"). I was asked about a COI regarding BYU/LDS, which in my mind did not correspond to a case about the COI disclosures of Nihonjoe (as I was recused from the get-go I was not following the case). So yes, I would probably qualify it as "careless", but nothing more (or nefarious) was intended. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"as I was recused from the get-go I was not following the case" nicely skips over the fact that you are one of just four named parties to the case... And you again used the tools in that discussion after this had been pointed out to you and you had acknowledged it. This is not careless, this is being completely indifferent to how things might be perceived or to what is expected of admins in such cases. Fram (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the actions to which you refer are related to Nihonjoe. As to your second point, the evidence phase of this case doesn't close until 20 March, and with my involvement in the events preceding the case not being a significant factor in the case being opened I figured I did not need to be frequently checking for new developments. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you really just want to make this about me, I get it, but it's not about me" You are a party to the case, the section is about "evidence about Primefac", and it is about actions you took and comments you made. "my involvement in the events preceding the case not being a significant factor in the case being opened " only shows the complete lack of self-awareness and of the problems you caused. And you still ignore why you continued to use the tools even after the issues people perceived were pointed out to you and acknowledged by you. Even if you don't believe you were involved, taking into account the perception people had of your actions at a time you already were a party to a related case because of involced actions would have shown the conduct becoming of an admin, arb, oversighter... instead of the "I don't care at all what people think, I obviously know better" attitude you have displayed right from the start, while at the same time feigning ignorance of e.g. further Nihonjoe's COI issues at the ANI discussion even after these issues had been mailed to ArbCom and after you had oversighted other mentions of these issues. You have tried your hardest to protect Nihonjoe, and then you have tried your hardest to protect other BYU COI editors after that issue was raised at the case you were a party to (but which you clearly don't care about at all). So yes, this is about you. Fram (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll protect you if someone outs you on this platform. None of the edits you're worried about with the other BYU editors has anything to do with anything other than protecting their personal information per our policies. Nihonjoe has a COI with BYU, yes, but that doesn't meant that I am suddenly involved in any matter related to BYU; I can't have involvement-by-proxy. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the "protecting" to someone else. And please don't propagate the false belief that any editor outed by me or others needed "protection" either, these editors had done everything but put their real name in Hollywood-sized letters on their user page. Their identity didn't need "protection", they clearly weren't worried about discovery of their real identity, seeing how e.g. Nihonjoe promoted himself, his jobs, his company, his friends... over and over again here, creating a Wikidata item for himself, using the same handle in conjunction with this real name elsewhere... You didn't protect their identity, you protected their onwiki reputation, which is not what the outing policy is intended for. And then you did the same with others who e.g. edited under a clearly recognisable part of their name, about the same subjects (using even the same phrases) as in publications they hade made under that real name. How you can with a straight face equate "any matter related to BYU" with the one discussion raised on this case, about people very closely related to the whole mess, people who collaborated with Nihonjoe on the same articles (Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe together even organised a editathon to get more of their "Mormon foremothers" on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Foremothers Edit-a-thon), and who had the same case of serious COI issues and the painful process of getting them to acknowledge these, is beyond me. Fram (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that keeps using the word "protecting", not me. The outing rules are very clear, so yes, I can very easily say with a straight face that if someone hasn't disclosed information and it is posted on-wiki by someone else, I will suppress it as a violation of the policy. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• "The D. J. Butler article was first edited by me in 2019, two years before I had any COI regarding that subject", "At that time, there was no COI at all regarding Butler" and "I am not close friends with any of them (other than perhaps Butler, now)" (emphasis mine). You called Butler "my good friend" in September 2018 (evidence privately sent to ArbCom)
• "The ISFDB is not a wiki. It's a database with a wiki attached to it, but the database is not the wiki." Tell that to the ISFDB[3]: "The ISFDB is an online open-content collaborative bibliographic database, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an account, an Internet connection, and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate, or reliable information." The database = the wiki, by their own words. You as an admin there should know that. And you still haven't listed your COI with the ISFDB at your COI page.
• "Regarding Wikidata, they do not have the same requirements for inclusion that enwiki has, and many things with an entry there would not qualify for an article here. So, having information there that doesn't meet enwiki notability standards is really irrelevant." The mention of those Wikidata pages was not about notability at all, nice strawman. The mention of these Wikidata entries is to counter your "I think an editor's real-life identity should be off limits unless they share it themselves." claim: if you make a Wikidata page for your real life identity, then what's the issue with anyone else mentioning it? If you cared so much about your privacy, you would make sure not to connect your real name to your Wikipedia handle (in which case you should get WP:OUTING protection): but if you don't care about it at all, onwiki (by creating Wikidata entries for yourself, your colleagues, your company, your publications, ...) and offwiki (by e.g. using your Wikipedia handle as the email address for your real name), then don't complain or hide behind wp:outing concerns. Again, the evidence for all of this has been sent privately to ArbCom.
• "Again, I have no COI with BYU or the Lee Library." Well, you are the anthology editor of the Life, the Universe, & Everything (symposium), which is organised by the BYU (well, officially the Utah County Events LLC, but the history makes it clear that this is a BYU organised symposium, the chairperson is a BYU employee, the original people behind it were all BYU people, at the time you started there it was a pure BYU organisation, see e.g. this 1998 article when you were already involved with the symposium for nearly a decade). But it's probably the least important of your COI issues here.
• "I don't see anything I did at Japanese archipelago or Takao Yaguchi as abusing any tools at all." I hope that Arbcom will take a close look at this. Most admins and arbs consider protecting an article in your preferred version, with false claims of vandalism to support your action, as tool abuse. You clearly don't.

I'll let others check how well your other replies match reality, these ones at least still seem to downplay or outright ignore the many clear issues. Fram (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, regarding Nihonjoe and his connections to BYU and Rachel Helps and so on. At the start of the GLAM for the BYU Harold B. Lee Library in 2016, there were 2 participants: Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe[4]. Fram (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

For what it's worth, I also had a reaction to the Wikidata evidence that notability seemed a very odd thing to be talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: