Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed decision

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages. From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present. However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline. No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

@Courcelles: Respectfully, there's a lot more to this than a six-year-old CU finding. I was unconvinced at first, but if you dig deeper it's clear that Wifione's editing fits the pattern of a campaign that has been going on for many years under many accounts. I know you're more familiar with the limitations of checkuser than I, but WP:CHK actually says a negative finding by a checkuser rarely precludes obvious sock-puppetry, because it's not that hard to obfuscate the connection if you know what data CU provides—which simply means we have to rely on behavioural evidence. I think there is adequate evidence to conclude that the burden of proof has been satisfied if we use the standard of "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt" (to continue your legal analogy). "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in criminal cases because the defendant's liberty is at stake; in civil cases, "on the balance of probabilities" is considered adequate. Given that all that's at stake here is somebody's ability to participate in a website, "on the balance of probabilities" seems a reasonable standard. Besides that (continuing the analogy yet further, apologies!), Wifione is not on trial for socking, rather it's being presented as a matter in aggravation—there's ample evidence for a siteban even without the socking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Courcelles, for badgering, but I think "slightly weighted coin flip" massively understates the level of evidence. But perhaps you could call it a finding of the most plausible explanation or the drafters could add wording to that effect into the FoF? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, HJ Mitchell, I don't think it actually matters. At SPI, this would be an  Inconclusive (not an  Unlikely), but if you look at how I've voted on the remedies themselves, the problems are deep enough without proving the socking accusation. Focusing on whether the account was created in violation of a block that was lifted five years ago is far less important than a) what the account has done, and b) has the user operating the account been socking in the last four+ years since creation. Part a is bad enough for a site ban, and no one has shown any evidence for b. Courcelles 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Courcelles, a well-formed, complete case at SPI might result in {{proven}} (if they have such a thing). The evidence for Empengent/Mrinal = Wifione should have included the behavioural evidence from article talk pages, the evidence that Iipmstudent9 = Mrinal, and the trajectory over time of Iipmstudent9 → Mrinal → Wifione. These weren't presented before the evidence phase closed, but the article talk page evidence and the evidence for Iipmstudent9 = Mrinal is discussed in this thread on the workshop talk page. The idiosyncratic expression shared by Iipmstudent, Mrinal, Mrinal's socks and Wifione - and only them - is pretty stark, as is the shared IPs used by Iipmstudent9 and Mrinal. The timeline/trajectory of Iipmstudent9 → Mrinal → Wifione is laid out here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People took the time to write the evidence, and summarizing it as a "coin flip" is a poor assessment. If there is even a chance that it is true, we should take the effort to look into it instead of dismissing it. And not everything goes based on the technical connection, as you well know. Anthony has provided even more evidence (even though it's not officially linked). I'd encourage you to reassess. It also does matter as it shows a continuing issue of double standards and evasion of scrutiny, which may be taken into account for a ban appeal or removal of a topic restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there seems to be an effort to refine a geography. If a contributor has proven themselves to be irresponsible when editing the articles of currently existing institutions and/or BLPs, it really shouldn't have anything to do with geography. One certainly can have a strong POV about a person or institution in another part of the world, and if it really is an SEO effort such things can be sourced to anyone anywhere by anyone anywhere. IOW, K.I.S.S. ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further; headquartering is barely a verb. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put a geographical and a timespan limit in at the request of another arbitrator as they feared the restrictions were too broad. As we've got 6846872 articles, I'm not convinced that's an issue.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the number of articles has to do with it. It seems to me that a remedy that addresses the behavior broadly rather than the content is more appropriate for ARBCOM's purpose, because the worrisome issues here have to do with eroding neutrality and violating BLP, rather than India. OTOH it's probably a moot point here, since if Wifione continues to edit at all, it probably won't be under that name. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger, I often see alternatives voted on in remedies here. I agree with you, and SBJ, that the restriction would be more appropriate without the geographical/time limiters which anyway seem to be proving difficult to define. After return from any siteban, and a period of non-problematic editing, Wifione could apply for the restriction to be narrowly relaxed, if there was a particular, non-Indian, article or topic area they were interested in editing, but which the restriction prevented. As you seem not to be the only arbitrator who prefers the restriction without the geographical/time limiters, maybe voting on that, as an alternative, proposed remedy would be appropriate? Begoon ^talk 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a 1.1 for discussion; which is a much more ironclad topic-ban that 1. Courcelles 07:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for doing that. I hope it assists the committee while discussing the proposal(s). Begoon ^talk 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To go with the Endless Disputes finding of fact there should be a remedy encouraging editors to bring matters to arbitration after discussions have been attempted but fail to resolve a dispute. Experienced editors should be on the lookout for for such disputes and bring them to arbitration as a third party, to help limit the disruption caused by repeated discussions that may degenerate into personal attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think there is scope to include a principle about the use of dispute resolution similar (but not identical) to that proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop#Standards of conduct. I'm not immediately sure (either way) about including it as a remedy but it is certainly worth thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the finding of fact by itself accomplishes. Why have it unless there is a corresponding remedy or recommendation? Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface of it I can't see the point in this as a remedy, as it would simply enourage people to do what they should do anyway. There was an equivalent in the Gamergate remedies which had the right spirit but won't have any measureable impact. But happy to discuss if I've misinterpreted what you're proposing. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to bear in mind here is that taking an administrator to arbitration is a risky and intimidating affair. On community noticeboards, admins often close ranks. And if a dispute has simmered for a while, the chances rise that everybody involved in it has done something blameworthy somewhere along the line, something that can be construed to have violated one of Wikipedia's innumerable rules and guidelines.

In many historic cases the arbitration committee has ended up sanctioning both "sides". That this has not happened here is encouraging (although I am keenly aware that Makrandjoshi, who five years ago tried in vain to call out Wifione on his conduct – and received death threats on Wikipedia as thanks for his efforts – has been site-banned as a side-effect of this case: a decision I am really not sure about). But given the weight of history, the fear of being sanctioned yourself if you take a complaint to arbitration still exercises a chilling effect.

Wikipedia should perhaps institute some sort of whistleblower protection: if someone reveals major abuse, as in this case, don't throw the book at them if at some points over the past three years they have behaved in a way that could be construed as "battleground behaviour", or "uncivil". That will only discourage other people coming forward, and fostering such reluctance harms Wikipedia.

There has to be a sense of proportion focused on what the relevant abuse means to the reader of Wikipedia (especially in countries like India, where Wikipedia Zero may give free access to Wikipedia, but not to the sources an article is based on). Falsifying content should be a more serious matter than having been less than polite on Wikipedia talk pages to the person who engaged in said falsification. And there has to be a way to escalate such disputes to arbitration without going through years and years of ill-tempered sniping and complaints about incivility.

Given this background I believe there is merit to Jehochman's idea of a related remedy. Andreas JN466 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The arbs can handle the work, especially because it will make the eventual cases less complex. I feel to some extent responsible, because I've been aware of the problems in this area some times, and tried to deal with them by normal editing. I should have seen that it wasn't working, but I was going by the usual practice of assuming good faith among my fellow admins, in order to avoid the difficulties that would otherwise ensue among 700 or so people all thinking in different directions and all with equal powers. But those criticizing admins for this must remember the consequences if we spend even more time disputing each other. The community may need to reconsider the rule about wheel-warring to remove the present very strong second-mover advantage, by which an admin cannot restore a reverted admin action.

And in addition, I am extremely unhappy about the User:Makrandjoshi site ban. Had matters been more carefully addressed in 2009, this might never have reached the current stage. It's a long time now, and I doubt they will see it to appeal, but I think when this case is decided I will ask my colleagues if they want to rescind it, possibly noting it had been applied in error. I will recuse from the decision, as I am doing in this case. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing, Andreas, is gathering sufficient evidence first. Most of the discussions mentioned had more emphasis on ad hominem stuff, than diffs. That said, these kind of cases are always difficult to prove (remember this one?) as individual edits can be explained anyway.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that it was me who tried to attract the attention of the community to this case by growingly hysterical remarks on various highly visible Wikpedia forums, but I also believe that my complaints were always substantiated by diffs and relevant evidence. I've even resigned as an administrator in protest, but my complaints were ignored. I should think about the ArbCom possibility earlier, that's my fault. But I had no experience with the ArbCom proceedings. To be honest, I know very little about the mechanisms of ANI and other dispute resolution forums, because as an admin I focused more on the content and I've managed to resolve most of the disputes I encountered in a different way (on talk pages etc.), most of time. @DGG: I don't think you are responsible for the escalation in any way - nobody can watch and see everything, even editors working on such an enormously broad level with exemplary competence, such as you. You really shouldn't blame yourself for this. There's also nothing wrong when you trust your colleagues in good faith. As for the Makrandjoshi's block, I posted the following on the talk page of the blocking admin: "I was an admin up to August 2014. Since March 2012, I did very careful and repeated researches to assure myself that one editor's actions and edits here on en:wiki are dishonest and manipulative. I did the researches also because I wanted to be sure that I don't accuse somebody of wrongdoings without persuasive evidence. During my research work, I provided my conclusions repeatedly to a wider review to the "community". If I acted like you (as an admin), I would block the editor soon after starting my research, because from what I've seen in their contributions, it was clear to me that they are dishonest manipulators. Perhaps there would be no ArbCom cases and no time wasted, if I acted only in accordance with my own impressions and blocked immediately, like you." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had simply blocked Wifione, Vejvančický, I estimate that this would have been followed –

1. by an immediate unblock from one of many admins friendly with Wifione;
2. by a sprawling and hugely ill-tempered thread at the administrator's noticeboard in the course of which numerous admins friendly with Wifione would have condemned you and asked for your desysopping;
3. by an arbitration case in the course of which you would have been desysopped and possibly site-banned, with a far smaller likelihood of Wifione being sanctioned than in this present case.

That's the difference between blocking an admin on Wikipedia, and blocking an ordinary user.

Given your inexperience with arbitration, I am not sure you would have fared much better if you had brought an arbitration case yourself. Andreas JN466 08:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it would have caused one hell of a mess (my sincere apologies, Vejvančický, I missed that post—my talk page has been very busy lately so threads are archived very quickly), but I don't think Vejvančický would have been desysopped and banned. An admonishment wouldn't be out of the question but desysops for a single incident are rare; not unheard of, but you'd normally have to break a bright-line rule or do something extraordinarily stupid (or unblock yourself and revenge-block the blocking admin, which is both!).

What probably would have happened is somebody would have bee unblocked, there would have been a sprawling noticeboard thread in which anyone who's made 100 edits would feel the need to add their two cents, and somebody would probably have brought it to arbitration because arbitration is the only venue that can deal with admin misconduct. And that's not because of a cabal or admins having lots of friends, it's because the community is completely incapable of coming up with it own process, much as I'd like to see one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, Harry. I do have to ask you this, though: have you unblocked Makrandjoshi yet? A number of experienced editors have asked you to do that, or detail properly the pattern of disruption that led to the block. I really don't see where you've answered that properly at this point. Being an SPA isn't blockworthy in itself. We have any number of productive SPAs. This block has a bad taste for me. Begoon ^talk 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that request, Harry. You blocked Makrandjoshi on 2 February. On 3 February, you wrote on the Workshop page, in what I believe was your first contribution to this case, "The evidence that Wifione is Mrinal Pandey/Empengent is circumstantial. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that these are two distinct individuals (the abbreviations in edit summaries, for example, are not uncommon), but even assuming that all three accounts and the IP address are the same person, it doesn't appear to be especially relevant to the central allegations—at best, it's circumstantial background evidence. Assuming all the dots have been accurately joined up, none of the accounts are blocked, so we would at worst have a low-level evasion of scrutiny (though even that is debatable given the minimal overlap between the editing histories)."

Compare this to what you wrote one week later above: "I was unconvinced at first, but if you dig deeper it's clear that Wifione's editing fits the pattern of a campaign that has been going on for many years under many accounts."

It seems clear to me that you blocked Makrandjoshi at a time when your understanding of this case was still evolving. So please be so good as to unblock (the editor has not been active in years anyway), or at least open a thread at a suitable noticeboard so the community can review this block in light of this case's findings.

I will stress here that I have not looked into Makrandjoshi's edit history in exhaustive detail. I cannot assert with absolute confidence that the editor had no agenda of their own. But from those contributions that I have seen, he merely tried to call the community's attention to that conduct which has now been unanimously recognised by you and the arbitrators here. He may not have done so in the most appropriate way, but again: consider the effect on the readers this project supposedly serves.

Families in India have given up their savings and taken out loans to send their children to IIPM. Some have said that they feel misled, and that the expense has ruined them. Millions of users in India have free access to Wikipedia Zero, but lack such access to the rest of the Internet, as they cannot afford the data charges. Real lives may be affected when people trust Wikipedia, believing it to be an impartial source.

We have clear evidence that a trusted administrator worked for years, with some degree of success, to make a mockery of that supposed impartiality, and we have clear evidence that, five years ago, another editor worked hard to call the community's attention to what was going on. He received death threats and threats of violence as a result, here on Wikipedia. This is not a game.

In site-banning that editor five years later, at a time when your understanding of the case history was still evolving, you may well have added insult to injury. Please unblock and/or leave it to the community to look into the edit history, rather than taking the law into your own hands. And in weighing offences, don't forget the rights of the silent majority, the readers. The potential harm they suffer is far more substantial than the effect of a harsh word, or unsupported-by-a-diff accusation on a Wikipedia talk page. Andreas JN466 15:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the case was not "still evolving"; please don't insult my intelligence. I spent eight or nine hours reading through all the evidence, the editor review, the various threads at noticeboards and Jimmy Wales' talk page, and all the diffs; and another hour or so formulating and writing up my conclusions. I did not make the decisions I made on a whim. I do not do decision-making on a whim; I act only when I'm satisfied that it's necessary. I re-evaluated my opinion on the sock-puppetry because several editors thought I'd got it wrong. Upon re-evaluation, I concluded that the socking was significantly more likely than not, and no more-credible explanation has been forthcoming, so I believe it's a reasonable conclusion to reach. Short of an admission or discovery of new technical evidence, I doubt it will ever be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but as I said to Courcelles above, I believe it's proven by the standard of "the balance of probabilities".

I agree that the threats Makrandjoshi was subject to were abhorrent, but you don't get a pass just because the other guy is a nasty piece of work, and Wifione, it seems, is about to be banned for socking and abusive editing, albeit several years overdue. And to clarify, Makrandjoshi is not site-banned (DGG, with the greatest respect, I would an arbitrator to know the difference; even relatively new arbs should know the blocking and banning policies inside out and back to front—I do, and I'm just a humble admin who has no desire ever to serve on the committee), but indefinitely blocked and subject to the same review processes as any other block. I'm not infallible, and I'm always open to the possibility that I've cocked something up, but nobody has yet presented me with any argument that I've cocked this up. The closest I've seen, from Anthony, boils down to "Makrandjoshi is a POV pusher, but he opposed a worse POV pusher or he pushed a POV that we like"; what we need are objective editors, not opposing POV pushers. You, Andreas, again with only the greatest respect, appear to be making that same argument except you state that you haven't looked into Makranjoshi's contributions in detail. I believe that Makrandjoshi was dedicated not to neutrality but to an anti-IIPM POV (and no matter what we think of the IIPM, that is not neutrality); I based this on a thorough review of their edits and on analysis with tools like the edit counter, which strongly suggest to me that they were not here to strive for neutrality and had no significant interest in Wikipedia beyond that agenda. It's all very well people being "extremely unhappy" about it, but that's not an argument. Present me a compelling argument to the contrary and I promise I'll (re-)re-evaluate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "The closest I've seen, from Anthony, boils down to 'Makrandjoshi is a POV pusher, but he opposed a worse POV pusher or he pushed a POV that we like' what we need are objective editors, not opposing POV pushers." I never said he's a POV pusher. He has a point of view. Having a point of view is not the same as "point of view pushing". The latter is usually taken here as meaning breaching NPOV. Having a point of view and editing neutrally are not mutually exclusive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, you say: "I do not feel that this reaches the level of a site ban, compared to other cases". I find the socking evidence utterly convincing, yet, whilst you do not, you do support Findings 1, 2 and 3, which amounts to biased, tendentious editing over years, manipulation of articles contrary to multiple policies, evading scrutiny, and attempting to have critics sanctioned for asking questions. This editing pattern attempted to prevent prospective students from discovering balanced criticism of an organisation, from the only place such criticism could be found, so that they might invest thousands of dollars each for unaccredited diplomas from a mill. To say that the fact that you do not find that behaviour "reaches the level of a site ban" disappoints me would be a huge understatement. I really wish you would look again, carefully, and reconsider that position, and the message it could send. I'd also be interested to know which "other cases" you have in mind, in your comparison. Thanks for taking time to consider this. Begoon ^talk 11:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad somebody asked this and it wasn't just me being unreasonable. If abusing Wikipedia to promote commercial interests (and denigrate competitors) over a period of years—conduct that is fundamentally at odds not just with a policy or two but with the very purpose of this project—isn't worthy of a siteban then I'm at a loss as to what is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will relook over this --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being willing to do that. Begoon ^talk 03:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anybody disputes that Wifione has engaged in serious misconduct, but his most recent contributions to the affected areas were back in 2013. I can understand the position that a ban at this point would be more of a punitive measure than a preventative one. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In actu (Guerillero) - as I said when I voted just now, I wouldn't go for a site ban if Wifione wasn't an Admin. Hopefully in a year we can consider a return. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Dougweller, you wouldn't site ban me if it turned out I'd been biasing commercial articles and BLPs over 9 years, hiding a COI and socking with no insight or acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Isn't this about as bad as bad behaviour gets on a project pretending to be an encyclopedia? What would I have to do to get you to ban me? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Jehochman[1] is right and his last edit in the area was Feb 21 2013, that's virtually two years ago. So as Kurtis says, a site ban would be a punitive measure. So yes, if someone had behaved like that for over 9 years, but for the last 2 years had not, what would be the purpose of a site ban? But Wifione is an Administrator, and that is why I support a site ban. YMMV. And you can call me contradictory if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is preventative. If the editor had shown a glint of recognition I might agree with you. But he/she hasn't; he/she can't be trusted. Really. Lift your standards. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) My evidence points to an edit dated 27 August 2013. There is another one from 6 November 2013. Not to mention that the manipulation would probably continue if not revealed in a blog post on Wikipediocracy from December 2013, and later here in Wifione's editor review (January 2014). Please note the chronological order. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wifione's last edit to the topic was 6th November 2013. A week later, User:Peter Damian emailed Wifione with some questions for the upcoming Wikipediocracy exposé. That was why he/she stopped biasing those articles - harsh scrutiny. It does matter, Doug. It's about sending a message ... and other editors shouldn't be expected to have to deal with this kind of person. This kind of person doesn't fit in here and never will.

Wifione's last two edits in the topic are worth looking at. The penultimate is Wifione adding three more awards to the gorgeous hagiography, Arindam Chaudhuri, and the last is him/her pointing out that Amity University is not accredited by the bodies that oversee tertiary colleges in India. That's true of IIPM too but he/she fought tooth and claw to keep that out of the IIPM article over four years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't linked Wifione's ceasing to edit this area with the Wikipediocracy thing. In any case, I have voted for a site ban. I think my standards are high, as are my hopes that at least some people can reform. A year is certainly a message and there's no guarantee he'll be unbanned after that. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been the Wikipediocracy thing per se, but the mention of it in the Times of India. Andreas JN466 20:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is vague and weak, I would say. A possible explanation? High-budget advertising campaigns assigned by IIPM to TOI, such as this one. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the subsection "Search engine optimisation (finding of fact)" the words "Jehochman's evidence" presently link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence#Jehochman which is Wifione's rebuttal of Jehochman's evidence. Should it link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence#Wifione has been editing Wikipedia in a way that benefits IIPM's SEO and reputation management, which is where Jehochman outlines his SEO analysis? I have made that change and undone it. If that change needs to be made, you may just undo my undo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, your change was right, and I've undid the undo. Courcelles 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, the proposed site ban is passing by a pretty broad margin. My only problem with this is the fact that Wifione is being forced to wait a whole year before having the opportunity to appeal. I speak only for myself when I say this, but I think I'd be more comfortable with allowing him to appeal within six months of this case's closure. Honestly, aside from the indefinite topic ban that is also currently set to pass, the only precondition that I would have for allowing Wifione to return is an acknowledgment of what he has done wrong - the advocacy, biased editing, evasiveness, and attempts at discrediting his opponents - and an understanding that any return to his previous problematic behaviours will result in a long-term block. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How strict is ArbCom about requiring editors to wait until the allotted time of appeal? For example, let's say Wifione requests consideration prior to February 2016 (e.g. November of this year) and fully owns up to what he's done. I'd imagine the BASC or whatever else is in place to hear appeals would say: "No. Please wait until you are permitted to submit an appeal. We will not hear any requests for unbanning prior to February [case closing date], 2016." Kurtis ^(talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend, "...any article related to IIPM, its competitors, or any person associated with such entities." After this case, I am sure Wifione will be watched closely, and there won't be much opportunity for non-neutral editing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without the carefully acquired sysop tools, there's obviously little impetus or advantage for Wifione to ever edit again as Wifione, so topic ban arguments are probably somewhat moot at this point, except for dotting i's etc... We're just, I guess, left with the perennial wikipedia problem: vigilance for sock #102, and the fact that you can't really, effectively ban people, just anonymous accounts. Still, the overall message from this case result is good. I'm heartened by it.Begoon ^talk 14:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up an alternate proposal, similar to this. "any person related to such entities" though is too broad as the problem isn't with any students that have attended an Indian business school, but rather with the managers of the schools. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Wifione resigning the tools, in the face of certain, imminent removal, warrant a whole new "proposal" section, and votes? I'm baffled. And "voluntary?" Way to misuse a term. This seems truly bizarre. Begoon ^talk 17:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't desysop someone who isn't a sysop, so the decision needs to be updated to reflect the changed facts it is based on. Wifione asked the Committee a week or so back (I can't immediately find the exact date) whether he should resign his tools or not, and we advised him that doing so was not necessary and entirely up to him. Yesterday he chose, entirely of his own volition, to request removal of his admin bit before the case was closed - there was nothing involuntary about the request or it's timing, even if it was motivated by the imminent prospect of having it removed involuntarily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the committee has usually tried not to use the "cloud" terminology, preferring "under controversial circumstances" instead. There's also a related principle that should probably be added. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that we tried to avoid "cloud". Is this just an attempt to avoid jargon, or is there more to it than that? Also, thank you for suggesting the principle; I've added it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware we tried to avoid that either, but the edited versions convey the facts just fine, so I certainly don't object to them either. As to "voluntary", a BN request to remove tools is generally considered a voluntary request. Doing it at a time when involuntary removal is a reasonable likelihood does mean one must pass a new RfA to regain the tools, but that does not make the action itself involuntary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule that someone who relinquishes a permission voluntarily may have it back upon request, unless the resignation was "under a cloud," was announced by this Committee in the so-called Giano case at the end of 2006 (well before I, much less anyone currently on the Committee, was an arbitrator). Interestingly, this was probably the purest example ever of ArbCom just making up a new policy, contrary to the usual dictum that ArbCom doesn't make policy, but no one seems to have objected or even noticed—probably because the new policy so obviously made sense, and was what the community would have come up with on its own in any event.

As a spectator to the case, I was the one who objected to the term "under a cloud," because I thought it carried connotations of misconduct that might be worse than was actually involved. Speaking for myself, if I were an administrator under fire for alleged bad judgment, I might be more willing to step away (and eliminate the need for a dispute or a case—I almost wrote "for an RfC") "while in the midst of a controversy" than admitting I was leaving "under a cloud," which could carry the spectre of almost anything.

It's not the biggest deal in the world, but I do think we can do better than "under a cloud." "Under controversial circumstances" is longwinded in Newyorkbradish fashion, however. I've been trying to think of a better phrase for eight years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Pressure. Jehochman ^Talk 01:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild personal view: I'm with Begoon - I reckon the desysop motion was sufficient and we could simply have noted in the comment section that Wifione resigned prior to the case closing. I have supported the new principle and remedy as an obvious corollary of supporting the original desysop, but am unconvinced they add much to the outcome of the case. Other views welcome, and worth noting that its all a bit academic either way.. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Begoon and Euryalus on this, especially since Wifione noted in their resignation message that they were doing so under a cloud.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. But I don't see a particular issue either way. NativeForeigner ^Talk 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's academic now, and Courcelles took "voluntary", which was the bit that really grated for me, out of the wording, so that's better. Euryalus' notion seems good to me, for the future - proceed with the well-justified remedy, and note that a last-second "resignation" in the full glare of the oncoming headlights doesn't change anything except which day and time the bureaucrats flip the bit. Begoon ^talk 12:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of leaving a meaningful record behind, it's best of the desysop remedy stayed passing and was annotated. The reason is that only passing remedies end up on the case page, which sort of removes some of the committee's rationale. Anyhow, it's done now,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of leaving a meaningful record behind, it's best if the desysop remedy stayed passing and was annotated. Yeah, that was my concern. Still, it's not the end of the world, and I'm grateful to the committee for the remedies which passed. Unfortunate as these cases always are, this is a judgement which sends the right message. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And I hope Wifione has the sense not to submit another RfA should he eventually be allowed to return to active editing. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedians would probably never knowingly support him for any position of trust on this site again. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disturbed by this proposed principal:

"Paid editing 6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat...."

The WMF's Terms of Use are Wikipedia policy. See WP:Terms of use where it clearly states

"This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" and places the terms of use in the category of Wikipedia policies. This has been the case (except for a couple of days) since at least 2009.

While paid editing per se is not prohibited by this policy, disclosure is required (since June 2014), prohibiting undisclosed paid editing. Local communities have the option of creating "alternative policies" which en Wikipedia has not done. Since Wifione did not disclose his paid editing, he is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Just as arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat, it prevents the Committee from vetoing Wikipedia policy.

I'll suggest you just remove the offending principal, it is not needed to decide this case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use is not local enwiki community policy. It's certainly an interesting juncture of policy, but the (passed) principle is not incorrect. Although our ban was based upon other considerations, we are not vetoing policy. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have we ever sanctioned anyone for undisclosed paid editing? And I don't think we are vetoing policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are both missing the point that WP:Terms of use is en Wikipedia policy, and it says that the WMF's Terms of use are en Wikipedia policy. As far as "have you ever enforced this before?" I think that argument is irrelevant, if you have a policy you should enforce it. But the likely cause of Arb Comm not enforcing this policy yet is that a paid editing case hasn't come up since June 2014. The proposed principal, as I read it, says you can't enforce this policy except indirectly through other policies, an effective veto, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, in order to establish that someone is engaging in undisclosed paid editing (which the TOU prohibits), you first have to establish that they are engaging in paid editing (which the TOU doesn't prohibit).  Roger Davies ^talk 19:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My overriding concern here is the sentence "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies." I believe it does for undisclosed paid editors. I'm afraid this sentence might become one of those principals that are inserted as boiler plate in future ArbCom decisions. Roger's response doesn't address this concern - he seems to be saying it's not needed for this case. Or maybe he's even saying that he disagrees with the sentence. Just to keep things clear here, I'll ask any arb here to answer

• A) do you believe that WP:Terms of use and thus the WMF's terms of use are en Wikipedia policy?
• B) do you believe that ArbCom can sanction undisclosed paid editors (given that there is enough evidence)

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to see a policy regarding paid editing, that is up to the community to shape. I do think it's a conversation that needs to happen, so if you feel there should be such a thing, I would certainly encourage you in starting that conversation. But we can't do it by fiat, we can only enforce already existing policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that we do have a policy on paid editing, which we have via the Terms of Use - we do not permit undisclosed paid editing. We could have another policy that extends or restricts that, but there is an existing policy covering paid editing. Strictly speaking, the wording could be "the committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing", but the current wording appears to be misleading, as the committee does have a mandate to sanction editors for paid editing, if it is undisclosed. - Bilby (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is correct as written. There is no local policy on paid editing, disclosed or otherwise, and proposals for such have repeatedly failed. That suggest that there is no firm consensus on the matter. Note that the policy tag on WP:Terms of use does not contain the line "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". The WMF's TOU explicitly override community consensus, but it's up to the WMF to enforce them. Local admins and ArbComs shouldn't be enforcing the TOU—arbs and admins aren't lawyers, whereas the WMF has entire legal department, supported by the community advocacy team (who can translate wikispeak to legalese and vice versa), whose job it is to do that sort of thing and who are employed to give their expert professional opinion. We have admins and arbs to deal with disruption, which is what they do; there are plenty of disruptive editors who don't get paid, and I'm sure there are at least a few paid editors (disclosed or otherwise) who aren't disruptive. IF they're disruptive, the chances are they'll be dealt with pretty quickly, and if they're not ... where's the issue? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal policies
Child protection Copyright violations Copyrights Libel No legal threats Non-free content criteria Paid-contribution disclosure Reusing Wikipedia content Terms of use Privacy policy
v t e

The disagreement here appears to be that arbs do not accept Wikipedia:Terms of use as policy despite the fact that it says on that page that "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" and it is listed in both Wikipedia:List of policies and WP:List of policies and guidelines as well as being categorized in Category:Policies and on the legal policies list on the right. HJ Mitchell seems to think that it is not a policy because it does not say "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" on it. I'd think that the reason that phrase is not included is that it is a standard that all editors must follow. BTW, note that none of the policies listed on the right contain the phrase "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

The argument that arbs cannot enforce the ToU because it is a legal policy also doesn't convince me. Do arbs also refuse to enforce the policies on Child protection, Copyright violations, Copyrights, Libel, No legal threats, Non-free content criteria, and Reusing Wikipedia content? I don't think so.

"The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies," is simply false when it comes to undisclosed paid editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs don't enforce those policies per se. I'm not an arb, but I've been a front-line admin for five years. By front-line I mean I deal mainly with vandalism, long-term abuse, and other sorts of serious abuse. So as you can imagine, child protection, copyright, and libel are issues I encounter frequently, but I don't enforce those policies for their own sake, I do it to prevent disruption. Copyright violations are disruptive, libel is disruptive, use of Wikipedia for child-grooming is disruptive (and grotesque), children disclosing too much information is not disruptive in itself but obviously makes them vulnerable. The issues of whether the copyvio/libel is serious enough that the WMF could be liable, or the applicability of COPPA or other child-protection laws, are of secondary concern, and something that needs to be dealt with by WMF legal. Whether it violates the terms of use is also a matter for WMF legal, as the TOU are between individual users of WMF sites and the WMF, not between editors and the community. If somebody was doing something disruptive or harmful to the encyclopaedia (such as the things described above, or promoting a company—which is the main worry with paid editing), I'd deal with that as I saw fit, regardless of the legalities. If what they're doing isn't disruptive, I don't consider it my business to intervene. If the community consensus was that undisclosed paid editing was inherently disruptive, I'd enforce that as best I could, but the community has repeatedly failed to reach a consensus; though how we could enforce that without doing precisely the sort of opposition research that's generally considered grounds for an automatic siteban I don't know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smallbones here. When the Terms of Use were updated in regard to undisclosed paid editing, they became the defacto policy on en.wp as well. If the community so wishes we can propose an alternative policy in regards to paid editing, and if the community supports it the alternative policy can be listed at Alternative paid contribution disclosure polices. If we were to do so, the new policy would override the terms of use. However, to date the community has not chosen to do so, and without such a proposal the assumption must be that we are operating under a requirement to disclose paid editing].

At any rate, whether or not we are currently enforcing it, it is incorrect to say that we do not have a policy on paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"IF they're disruptive, the chances are they'll be dealt with pretty quickly": In this case it took the best part of ten years to stop the "disruption", whether paid for or not. Rather than being "dealt with", the user was made an administrator, and held that position for years and years.

"Where's the issue?" The issue is wilful blindness to facts, motivated by ideology and wishful thinking. Andreas JN466 00:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione's success at manipulating the system is a serious issue in that it shows that the vetting processes for admins, despite the rigour of RfA when it comes to all sorts of other things, is woefully inadequate because voters clearly aren't conducting serious reviews of candidates' long-term history. That comes back to the very low bar for suffrage, which means that the vote of a multi-year editor who has spent hours forming their opinion is equivalent to a drive-by vote from a 200-edit wonder who ragequits when they realise that they need to actually put some commitment into the project to become an admin or gets blocked as a sockpuppet the next week. But that's nothing to do with paid editing—Wifione could easily have non-financial motives for doing what they did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we're agreed then that this case (just like this one) demonstrates that long-term "disruption" – even of the clearest and most obvious kind, whether paid or unpaid – can go on for years in Wikipedia without being dealt with.

I put the word "disruption" in quotes, because I really do not like this word. It implies that something orderly and organised is being prevented from working as perfectly as it usually does. Wikipedia is not orderly, organised or perfect, and what we are dealing with in these cases is plain and simple manipulation. Andreas JN466 02:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only clear and obvious once you start to analyse it deeply; I mentioned above that my analysis was based on about eight hours' reading and consideration of the evidence and the various places this had been discussed. Unfortunately, the community processes are incapable of dealing with that sort of abuse, especially when it's cleverly hidden with a large volume of contributions elsewhere. Wifione was able to get away with it for so long because nobody spotted it, compiled the evidence, and presented it in a forum where it had a chance of being dealt with; if your point is that that reflects as badly on Wikipedia as it does on Wifione, I agree with you. If your point is that admins should be patrolling all four million articles looking for abuse and dealing with it on the spot, then my response is that we need a lot more admins, and even then you'd probably have to pay salaries for a dozen admins to do admin work full time. You'd get no objection to that from me, but where do we find these people? There are too few admins dealing with serious abuse (or who even know the difference between a bored schoolkid and somebody with seriously malicious intent) as it is; we simply don't have the resources to be everywhere all the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, the minimum solution would be to be proactively and ruthlessly honest about these failings to the public. I cannot recall a single time the Foundation has ever issued an official consumer warning, or publicised cases like the present one as a way to prevent the public from placing too much trust in Wikipedia. Where was such a consumer warning for example when the Croatian Wikipedia was overrun by fascists? It fell to the Croatian minister of education to issue one, while the Foundation, in my experience, restricts itself in cases like this to denials of responsibility like "It's the role of the volunteer editing community to manage [article content]."

What the public does hear from Foundation spokespeople, however, is how Wikipedia compares favourably to conventional encyclopedias and so forth (even though I'm hard pressed to imagine a case like this occurring in Britannica), how awesome it all is, that it is the "primary learning source" for people in countries in India, and how "instrumental" it is to young people there who wish to educate themselves.

In this case it clearly was "instrumental", but not in the way intended. I have been told by a correspondent that IIPM specifically used the Wikipedia article in India to encourage students: "It was the source that was being shown to all students seeking admission and coming with other forms of information."

Again, it is worth remembering here that Wikipedia Zero fosters a system whereby tens of millions of Indian Internet users have free access to Wikipedia, while having to pay (prohibitive, for many of them) data charges for any alternative sources of information. There is a reason why some Wikipedians are worried about Wikipedia Zero's fundamental incompatibility with the net neutrality principle – all the more so as it is well known that content on third-world matters is not Wikipedia's strength, given today's community demographics. Andreas JN466 03:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is allowed. Undisclosed paid editing isn't allowed. But pointing out that someone is engaged in paid editing when they deny steadfastly that they are so engaged is construed as "outing" and "harassment". Wikipedia is hoist by its own petard here, because it wants to have its cake (lots of editors with a conflict of interest making contributions and creating pages) and eat it (enjoy the reputation of being not undermined by undisclosed paid editing when in reality it's full of it). And an admin sees no problem in accepting an article like The University Network (TUN) at AfC, without so much as a question asked about disclosure even though the name of the user account that created it strongly suggests it was created by an employee. It's like bolting the front door shut while opening eight French doors on every other side of the house and laying out a red carpet for people to come in. Andreas JN466 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the fundamental contradiction. In this particular case things were simple because the evidence holds up regardless of whether it was paid or unpaid. Certainly an issue that needs to be addressed at some point, although I don't think arbcom will be the body that resolves it. We aren't going to make policy by fiat, and the community has seemed deadlocked for some time. Having a segment of the ToU which isn't very enforceable by the editing community makes little progress, unfortunately. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation is a major concern. That said, the main issue for the case remains that the findings are incorrect, in that we do have a paid editing policy, and therefore the committee does have a mandate to sanction editors for paid editing, if that editing is undisclosed. Whether or not they are then able to sanction editors is a separate issue, but the current wording is invalid either way. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were I not recused from this case (because of Wifone's request), I would have opposed the proposal as written. I would have proposed the alternative:

6.6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy. In addition, undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Wikipedia terms of use.' DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have proposed the principles:

X) The Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation are binding on all user of Wikipedia, to the extent they apply.

and

xi)Enforcement of the terms of use, to the extent the apply to enWP, is the responsibility of everyone at enWP, according to their roles. They in particular are the responsibility of administrators, to the extent that their administrative powers allow; to check users and overnighters, to the extent of their powers; and to the arbitration committee, to the extent that they are involved as the final body in disputes over user conduct.

The question of how they are enforced is a separate question. We can not enforce what we cannot make a realistic determination about, but we are obliged to enforce to the extent we have sufficient evidence for a reasonable judgment.

I agree that the conclusions hold up regardless of whether the editing in this instance was paid or unpaid, but the arb com should be expected to enforce the rule against undeclared paid editing, even when the degree of malfeasance is less than the outrageous expression of biased editing here. Whether the TOU require us to ban all undeclared paid editors as soon as there is reasonably confident evidence of this, or whether we ought to warn first, or block pending an explicit determination, is for future consideration. As with all other matters, the extent of sanction will presumably vary according to the circumstances. I think it is incumbent upon arb com to at least enunciate the principles in a case , like this one, where they clearly apply. The evidence here is in my opinion beyond probable doubt, to the extent that nobody has been able to suggest a plausible alternative explanation; it does not have to be beyond all possible doubt--we are not a criminal court and our sanctions are less drastic. It will always be a matter of judgement whether an explanation is plausible, and the Committee is specifically constituted to make such judgments. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lto reply to HJ Mitchell, it is obvious that the Foundation by itself does not have the resources to investigate and enforce by itself all provisions of the TOU, but requires the active cooperation of members of the various Wikiprojects. We share the responsibility to the extent it is pertinent, for such things as copyright, and BLP, and POV and the like. In at least two specific matters the WMF has agreed to take primary responsibility -- child protection, and enforcement of the WP trademark. In at least some others it leaves it up to the individual directly affected, for example enforcement of the free license of contributions. In at least one area, harassment, it seems clear that the community would like to give it a greater role in enforcement than it is currently prepared to accept; since we cannot compel them, and it is unfair & unreasonable to leave this solely to the editors affected since it affect the overall tone and free functioning of the community, we must fill the gap ourselves, to the extent we have powers to do so. Similarly here. I personally think we are in a much better position than they to deal with undeclared paid editing, at least initially, because we, not they, are aware of its results and can identify apparent cases; we are also in a good position because the effective remedy, of banning from WP , is within our powers. To the extent legal or quasi-legal action may be necessary, then we are indeed dependent on them, and I think all or almost all of us concerned about this would like them to be much more active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2015

With respect, my mandate as an admin comes from the community, not the WMF, as does ArbCom's so I don't see that I or ArbCom have any mandate to enforce a prohibition on undisclosed paid editing. If the community wants its admins and arbs to be mounting investigations into people's professional lives, it needs to pass a local policy outlining how it expects admins to do that and the measures they should take (should I be indefinitely blocking people I think are paid editors? Or just blocking them for 24 hours? Or asking them to stop accepting money? Do I have the power to summarily topic ban them? I suspect if I started doing any of those things the community would be up in arms). It also needs to resolve the contradiction between a desire to investigate people's professional lies (which, short of an admission, is the only way to prove "paid editing") and the harassment and outing policies. How is that any different from what Phil Sandifer or WillBeback were banned for? Or indeed Racepacket? I'm quite sure the list is a lot longer than that.

What I do have mandate for is blocking people who are only here to promote themselves or their company. I indef people for that multiple times a day. Whether they're paid to do it doesn't enter the equation. Based on the available evidence, I'd have indef'd Wifione by now were it not for the arbitration case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we disagree. The details of how enfacement functions on enWP is up to us, and the factors you mention will need discussion. The choice of what WMF policy to follow is not up to us. We are not in a position to say, this part of site policy we agree with and will enforce, this part we are undecided about and will not enforce. Arb com does not set basic policy, and basic policy here has already been set--it does take part in implementing the practices for dealing with them. As an exception to most policy, what the community can do if it wishes with respect to about this particular policy, is to modify it with uncertain not-yet defined limits, and if it does so modify it, then arb com would enforce it as modified. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a funny feeling we're going to spend the next two years respectfully disagreeing with each other! We of course don't have a choice but to comply with the WMF's terms of use, but the ToU don't obligate local project communities or their admins and arbitrators to enforce the ToU. Ensuring compliance with terms of service is ultimately up to the service provider, who can at their discretion suspend the service provision, place limit's on one's use of the service, or take other action, including ultimately pursuing somebody through the civil courts or even the criminal justice system (for violations that rise to the level of a criminal offence), to enforce the terms. I simply don't have the time, the tools, or the mandate to go round investigating people's motives for making particular edits, and I don't know of any way to conduct such an investigation that doesn't involve precisely the sort of conduct for which the three examples I listed above and plenty of others have been (quite rightly) banned. Frankly, I wish the people who are going on about this would pick up a mop and spend some time at the coalface; then they might appreciate the confines in which admins work on a day-to-day basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs: There comes a point at which a case is more of a hinderance than a help; Wifione should be banned and the details of any topic ban worked out if they're ever un-banned. The chances that they'd pass another RfA under that account are about the same as pigs mastering spaceflight and colonising Mars, so "under a cloud"/"in controversial circumstances" is a moot point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If people's professional lives revolve around getting paid to alter Wikipedia's content to suit those paying them then yes we have an obligation to look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

Just 4 points I'd like to emphasize:

• The ToU is official Wikipedia policy, as official as they come
• Saying that the community is deadlocked on paid editing is very misleading. The largest RfC in history [2] was conducted with 80% of users being in favor. Sure, it was conducted at Meta, with WMF legal acting as referee and the RfC was effectively "closed" by the Board of Trustees, but is that anything more than a technicality? The community overwhelmingly supports prohibiting undisclosed paid editing.
• Sure, this prohibition is difficult to enforce, but there are lots of thing on Wikipedia that are difficult to enforce, e.g. rules against sockpuppetry. ArbCom has many tools, e.g. checkuser, taking nonpublic evidence by e-mail, asking direct questions of those involved, and could probably develop more tools as needed. You don't need actual fingerprints and DNA evidence, along with a notarized confession. You mostly need good judgement.
• The principle starting "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies," is not needed to decide this case, and it is just not true for undisclosed paid editors. Just deleting it from the final decision is the obvious solution to the problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) This is...a catastrophically bad finding for Arbcom to have passed. By choosing, apparently very deliberately, to state that site policy does not prohibit "paid editing" (not disclosed or undisclosed paid editing, mind you, but any paid editing), you have explicitly negated local enforcement of the Wikimedia Terms of Use - which are listed as a policy here on en.wp, and which explicitly state "An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." You may be surprised, because I guess no one checked, but en.wp doesn't have a superceding policy that was explicitly adopted by the community to overrule the ToU, nor does it have a policy listed on the alternative paid editing disclosure page. That means that the ToU are English Wikipedia policy, unless and until the community votes otherwise and registers the change on meta.

  I could believe that this particular wording was just an oops, a product of many people trying to copyedit it at the same time, except that the Arbs speaking above seem to be saying that no, Arbcom very deliberately chose this wording, to say exactly what they mean. So I guess the questions that leaves me with are...Do you intend to desysop administrators who block for undisclosed paid editing, since they will apparently be creating policy from whole cloth in Arbcom's eyes? Making up policy that doesn't exist, especially with regard to blocking, would certainly be a sanctionable thing for any administrator to do. Will Arbcom, from now on, refuse to handle cases in which paid editing is privately reported to arbcom, since new policy doesn't allow them to do anything about such cases? Because as policy currently stands, we must rely on Arbcom to handle many of these, since they involve private, identifying information that cannot be discussed on-wiki. If this finding is policy moving forward - ironically, a policy created by Arbcom fiat that overrules previous policy - then I would very much like for Arbcom to write a complete policy covering what editors and administrators may and may not do in response to undisclosed paid editing. I'd like to be sure I'm following policy as Arbcom intends to interpret it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree with HJ Mitchell's argument above. To be honest the paid editing /ToU changes haven't been robustly enforced on any wiki. I can't recall any blocks for undisclosed paid editing. Sure, arbcom probably could but I'm reluctant to dive into enforcement of ToU. Especially because the foundation says "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms." Arbcom enforcement of paid editing is a pandora's box. There are several users who I think have engaged in paid editing. But in order to prove they were paid editing I'd have to do a number of things which the community has come down against. If the community put together some sort of local enforcement guidelines, I'd be much more willing. I don't believe arbcom has ever referenced the ToU in a sanction. Is the ToU policy? Yes. Is enforcement of the ToU in policy? No. There are local guidelines for enforcement of COI/paid editing, but no local policies for enforcement of ToU. Could arbcom deal with this by handling? Maybe. Based on my rough estimates of volume it would be a massive time sink, plus a huge possibility of things going to hell. Furthermore it would encourage the same outing behaviors we have banned for in the past. I'd rather ArbCom not be the analysis of doxing committee. That being said, Arbcom cannot create policy from fiat and I'm reluctant to create a threshold of adequate evidence for undisclosed paid editing, a procedure for submittal, and then an appropriate punishment/remedy. Frankly I have no idea how I'd deal with enforcement. Any enforcement would require private information which would probably be sent to arbcom. Assuming reasonable intent I very much doubt I would sanction an admin for using ToU for cracking down on undisclosed paid editing. Perhaps we should try and set these procedures up but I think this area is fairly grey, and the community should try to reconcile existing policies at play. That being said, maybe we are just kicking the can down the road. In this particular case this finding holds well. We do not need to address ToU or anything new because of hte nature of the behavior. However, in subsequent cases there may be a juncture at which we must make a decision. What we do/do not do there will be extremely impactful, but I'm not sure what it will be or what its repercussions wil be. I spoke to DGG about this issue in New York, and while his opinions are stronger than mine on the matter I do see where he's coming from. On the other hand, making ToU enforcement mandatory on those who use the site seems both overreaching, and potentially legally problematic (as a layperson). NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that enforcement is almost always a matter of discretion. For example, even for something like copyvio, even if one chooses to take part in activities where screening for copyvio is expected, such as NPP, omitting to check for it is poor editing, not improper behavior. But for an admin to refuse to delete a clear copyvio without giving a reason would if repeated possibly be grounds for enforcement. For arbcom to say it would refuse to deal with it would be inconceivable. For another example, I personally as an admin do not work on spi, but if someone calls it to my attention I must at least refer it, not ignore it. And those who do investigate it have wide discretion on what they think worth investigating. I would imagine the expectations here would need to be developed through guidelines and through cases, and the best advice I can give to those who would like to see arb com deal with it, is to try to develop cases.

@Fluffernutter, I do not know whether arb com would flatly refuse to consider the matter if it were presented to it in an unavoidable way. The case was as far as practical results go, avoidable, on the same sort of basis as the US Supreme Court usually trying to find am minimal basis to support a decision; I can therefore do not want to blame those of my colleagues who did not want to word things more clearly or expansively, though I disagree with them to the point I would have been willing to do the equivalent of filing a dissenting opinion. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A few points for Smallbones:

• We deal with the English Wikipedia, and it's the English Wikipedia I feel is divided, not the global community.
• Tools to look into sockpuppetry, harrassment, etc. > (by far) to look into paid editing. I don't even understand how we could use checkuser to investigate paid editing, unless we out what company they work for (or elude to it which is even more dangerous). Can we force a statement from someone? No. Can we desysop and ban them for not responding to a request? Yes, but since when has that been a English Wikipedia principle or rule? If you have any ideas for tools that may work, I encourage you to contact the WMF. As far as I understand it, the only tool we have is Checkuser, and I wouldn't use it at all to investigate paid editing.
• Maybe 'to enforce paid editing' rather than no mandate on paid editing at all, but I thought the point was getting across the first time.

A few points for Fluffernutter:

• My very last point seems to address your first paragraph.
• Do you intend to desysop administrators who block for undisclosed paid editing, since they will apparently be creating policy from whole cloth in Arbcom's eyes? I dare say I wouldn't even touch it if it came to us. While I don't think local admins should be blocking for undisclosed paid editing, it's not our job to enforce the editing, actions, or in-actions around paid editing. This is one hell of a ball to drop in the communities lap to enforce by the WMF (if that is what it is), and I would personally refuse to enforce it without local mandates.
• We don't have the time, the money, or the time to deal with any editor who sues us for making a declaration that they are paid editing (since we would have to prove it conclusively)...and dare I say this in public, but I doubt it would actually get enforced by ArbCom (for reasons i'm would be opposition to). I'm not going to expand further per the privacy guidelines I have to act within.

Taking on the additional mandate that seems to be left at our doorstep is a deathtrap, and if we had to investigate all claims of paid editing, you'd see my resignation on my desk. I'm not paid enough to investigate paid editing. It's a timesink, a major risk, something that would alienate us further from the community for what 'evidence' we do and don't take action on, and not our job. I agree with NativeForeigner's comments above, and of course then, to a degree if not all with HJ Mitchell. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mandate exists because the policy exists. If ArbCom chooses not to enforce the paid editing disclosure requirements, then that is ArbCom's choice - a mandate does not force action, so much as permit it. The error is in stating in the findings that there is no policy that manages paid editing, when there is, and that ArbCom cannot act on paid editing, when it can. All the rest - implementation issues, questions as to whether or not admins should be required to enforce the policy, and so on - don't speak to the error in the findings. - Bilby (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have the mandate to act on "paid editing" as a whole, not least because not all paid editing is prohibited. Opinion is divided about whether we do or do not have the mandate to act on a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing). It is the consensus position of the Committee that we do not. If you want to change this, then get consensus for a policy that explicitly gives us a mandate to enforce the ToU provision on undisclosed editing (or the terms of use more generally if you prefer) and we will. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the position here is "the policy may exist, but Arbcom will not be the ones to enforce it because while it might be policy, it's not policy this community chose, and we think we might lose our jobs if we enforce such a policy"? Leaving aside the arguable point of what constitutes "choice", would you (collectively) consider amending the finding you passed to make it clear that there is policy covering at least some types of paid editing, and that Arbcom is using its discretion to decline to enforce that policy (whether generally or in this case specifically)? I would be significantly less alarmed if the situation was "Arbcom's not going to stop people enforcing it, but it doesn't intend to be the enforcer" rather than a finding flatly stating "such a policy doesn't exist and therefore cannot be enforced". One is true and covered by any admin's choice to take an action or not take an action. The other is provably false and opens up a huge can of worms about whether anyone can take the action. We could argue all day about how you guys got from "there is enwp policy, on enwp, marked "policy", covering this" to "...but we're not allowed to enforce it", but at the end of the day I'm less concerned about that than about a situation being set up where no one can enforce it.

To get all reductio ad absurdum for a moment though, I can't help asking: does Arbcom see itself as not having a mandate to enforce anything that's in the ToU but wasn't explicitly adopted by the enwp community? For instance, would Arbcom decline to enforce a WMF global ban (or expect admins to decline to enforce one) placed on a user who wasn't otherwise under any sanction on enwp? What about handling a user who was amusing themselves by trying to DDOS the site - would Arbcom refuse to take first-line action there because it's the WMF's job, not theirs, to care about that? That is to say: is this issue coming from Arbcom feeling that they cannot or will not enforce the ToU, or is it coming from some particular rejection of the paid editing terms, specifically? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not take action against an enwp user enforcing the TOU who has not broken any enwp policies in doing so. If enwp policies were broken then it will depend on the individual circumstances and I'm not going to say I always will or always wont support action. Regarding other TOU transgressions, that depends on the transgression - I imagine someone DDOSing the site would get a swift block for NOTHERE and as that is well supported by the community I would have no hesitation supporting that. With global block evasion we have been asked to refer this to the WMF, which we would do. I would support a local precautionary block (a a global block may be for child protection issues and the blocking admin will not know whether this block was or was not) provided the blocking user forwards their evidence/suspicions to the WMF directly (preferably) or via us. If the suspicion is incorrect the WMF will unblock. In short it depends what the TOU violation is what the action should be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree totally with Fluffernutter (above) and Bilby (5 paragraphs above). By saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce our policy on paid editing WP:Terms of use, it is creating (or destroying - the same thing in this case) policy by fiat.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy states

"The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced."

Nobody is saying that ArbCom must enforce our current policy based upon any suspicion of undisclosed paid editing, but we are saying that ArbCom cannot say that it does not have a mandate to consider enforcing our current policy (and guidelines).

BTW, WP:COI, a guideline, does include the relevant portion of the ToU word-for-word in the first section after the introduction, referring to our current policy, stating that the ToU overrides any perceived contradictions between WP:COI and ToU. WP:Paid (part of WP:COI) also refers to the ToU.

The policies and guidelines are there. ArbCom can consider enforcing our policy against undisclosed paid editing. All I'm saying is that you must remove the principle in this decision, that says you can't consider this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones has a point. If this present case was a case of paid editing, then it was undisclosed paid editing, as there is no evidence of any disclosure. In such a case, then, it seems inappropriate to say ArbCom has no mandate to sanction editors for such activities due to a lack of relevant policies, given that there is a related policy. Andreas JN466 17:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, check their wording again. The committee avoided saying that. They simply didn't say anything about undeclared paid editing specifically or about the TOU specifically. They just said that there was no present agreed policy about paid eating in general, and they are right about that. We have never decided whether to prohibit it--among other reasons, because of our doubts that we had no effective way of actually doing so, & we would do better not to have policies that could not be enforced, and personally, I myself have never made up my mind on this either. They never said they would not enforce the TOU; they just avoided saying they would.

Myself, had I been voting on the case, I would have said both of these things. Though it was not necessary to decide the case--the conduct was sufficiently damning without it, it would have been a good opportunity, and set a course for the future. I can't comment here on the private views of my fellow admins, to the extent I know them. I cannot be sure what they will do when there comes a case that does depend upon whether the TOU are part of enWP policy generally, or more specifically whether undeclared paid editing is prohibited on the enWP.

We could wait for a case. There is obviously another course of action. We could bring a RfC to endorse either the fact that we have a role in enforcing the TOU generally, or more specifically and I think preferably, that we endorse their statement on undeclared paid editing as written, or alternatively that we wish to modify it. I would guess that especially in the wake of this case, there would be support for that, and I do not see any particular reason we would want to take the option to word it differently. (There is of course the obvious danger that if we do bring such an rfc, it might not succeed, just as there is the obvious danger that if we wait for a case, it might not have the hoped-for result. Deciding which course is most likely to succeed is not easy to predict. It is even possible that the apparent view of those voting at Arb Com is right, that it is best to make no definite statement either way, leaving complete freedom of action for the future. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So under what circumstances WOULD Arbcom believe that all of our policies apply to their work unless specified otherwise? Our COI policy says paid editors have to disclose (and it has said that since June of last year; it's not new). The global ToU says paid editors have to disclose (ditto and ditto). Do we literally need to have an RfC on "Should Arbcom abide by English Wikipedia and global policy in their decision-making?" Because I would have thought the answer to that was so obvious as to be laughable, but if you guys genuinely feel that we need to write a policy saying Arbcom should follow policy so you feel comfortable following policy...I mean I guess we can draft one of those up? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI guideline, not policy. Yet at least. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As decided, principle 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the case. It could be stricken by motion and have absolutely nothing to do with anything else. ANd I'm starting to think that's what we should do, for a myriad of reasons, especally Smallbones argument of 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC). Despite all the arguments over whether Whfione was a paid shill, it ultimately had no effect on the decision to ban them. Courcelles 19:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Indeed, Doug, I stand corrected: it is marked as a guideline. And since Arbcom has never recognized a mandate to enforce WP:CANVASS, WP:AGF, or WP:Disruptive Editing, either, it makes sense that they also wouldn't believe they could enforce conflict of interest. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the main reason for it was to justify the block in terms of the simplest/most core reasons. In this case we didn't see the need to address these questions. Mandate was a poor word. At least as I see it, given all of these other problems, there is no requirement arbcom enforce ToU/paid editing, especially because at the end of the day the solution turns out to be the same. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense, NF. Whether money was accepted or not was pretty much irrelevant to what you were doing here, and given that a lot of the community has spent the last few weeks castigating you guys for not taking things other than strict reading of policy into consideration in cases, we can hardly say now that we expect you to follow their literal wording at all times in all things. My concern is just that because that particular wording of the finding still somehow rode in on the coat tails of this case, and because arbcom cases tend to recycle principles from past cases, it may now become enshrined in functional policy not that Arbcom feels it doesn't need to handle all suspected paid editing violations without exception, but that no one on the community end is ever permitted to handle paid editing, because something something handwave ToU WMF. And I don't think that's the precedent you guys intended to leave for yourselves, and I don't think any of us think that just not doing anything about paid advocacy forevermore is a viable plan, so it seems like clarifying the finding now would be a better option than waiting for it to come up in a future case and going "...oh. Crap. We did say that, didn't we.". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with both NF and Fluffernutter!) A very big thank you to Courcelles. It must be very difficult to have every paragraph gone over by editors looking at its "precise meaning". I'm very glad to see that an Arb now sees much of what I see in that paragraph. IMHO it's a constitutional crisis for Wikipedia. That said this paragraph may have never been looked at again by anyone, so perhaps I've made too big of a deal over it. No matter what happens to it now, I'll make sure it is never cited again as a precedent without similar points being made clear.

I am simply asking that the unneeded paragraph be treated in any one of 3 ways

• just deleted, or
• have a majority of arbs state that I'm just misreading the meaning of the paragraph, or
• copy edit it to

"6) ... The Committee ...has... a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry ..." where the ... indicate words I've removed.

And a thank you to DGG. You and I read the grammar - and thus the meaning - of the paragraph differently, but if that is all there is - a simple misreading - then I'd be satisfied that there is no Wikipedia constitutional crisis.

• A purely technical issue - I started this thread 9 minutes after this page was marked "closed". I almost certainly was writing my complaint while this happened. I see from the "closing box" that there is a place to ask for amendments after the close Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Should I move this whole thread over there, or just leave it here? Yes, I'm still asking for an amendment. As far as I'm concerned everything that has needed to be said has been said here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones:, ARCA is the only place an actual formal request (and potental subsequent motion) would be in order. I'd imagine few arbs are even paying this page much attention now, whereas ARCA would pop up back on everyone's radar. If you do go to ARCA, please start the request only with a summary of the problem, and a link to this thread, please don't copy the entire thing over there. I'm not sure ARCA will actually do anything, but it at least has the advantage of potentially doing something. Courcelles 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll make a short request there. It may take some time - I've got a potential long trip and a snowstorm to work on right now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]