Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Conflict of interest management		29 February 2024	0/0/1

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Conflict of interest management

Initiated by Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} at 09:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed parties

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Nihonjoe
• diff of notification Primefac
• diff of notification Fram (note that Fram is currently indefinitely blocked and cannot participate directly)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• AN : Nihonjoe and COI

Statement by Ritchie333

I have been reading the above thread involving conflict of interest editing from Nihonjoe for the past few days, and note that editors have attempted to close it four times without success. The key issue is a disagreement between the conflict of interest guideline and outing policy, and how they should be enforced.

Although some insightful comments were made earlier on, the later discussion hasn't felt as productive and I feel the useful parts of the discussion have now passed. This has now culminated in Fram getting an indefinite oversight block from Primefac.

I realise the Arbitrators and Oversighters are discussing this privately, and hoping for a diplomatic resolution. However, on the AN thread linked above, I see an admin and a former admin both publicly calling for an Arbcom case to sort this out, viz Wikipedia:A/G#Exceptions "Adjudicate an especially divisive dispute among administrators.". So you could consider this a procedural nomination.

@Dennis Brown: Yngvadottir has pretty much spelled out the underlying reasons for this. Essentially, the conversation at AN has become a train wreck, and I would like discussion of the issues to be shunted out of the public arena of AN, and moved privately where they can be discussed away from the spotlight. Potentially this would need to be an in camera case. I'm not calling for any sanctions or bits to be removed - hopefully that can all be avoided. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

Thanks, my initial statement: This case should look at

• the years-long and quite recent COI editing by Nihonjoe on topics where they seem to have a clear personal and financial interest, and their apparent lies about it this week on their user talk page
• the outing by me, whether it was warranted or not (based on on the one hand the cat already being out of the bag anyway, some of the COI already acknowledged, the fact that they didn't make a secret of the association between Nihonjoe and the supposed RL identity elsewhere, and their eleveated position in the enwiki hierarchy), whether it was correct or not, and whether the block should have happened and should be immediately indefinite
• the involved role of Primefac, who after repeatedly trying to minimize the issues (including prematurely closing the thread) and after baiting me into an outing reply by pretending that some obvious severe COI editing was no such thing (and using some very weird interpretation of the COI guideline and the English language to support their comment), then made a clearly WP:INVOLVED and heavy-handed block, while still failing to address the actual issue of the COI editing to boot
• I guess the completely unnecessary and short-lived removal of talk page access by User:Ingenuity is peanuts in the light of all the above, but some acknowledgment that it was unwarranted and that talk page access shouldn't be removed on such a flimsy basis would be welcome as well

General discussion of COI vs. outing can happen as well of course, but for me the above is sufficient to keep me busy I guess. Fram (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(copied from user talk page Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC))

Statement by Dennis Brown

I'm a little confused. Are you asking for Nihonjoe's admin or crat bits to be removed? Are you saying the community tried but can't manage the case? The reason I ask is you are saying "you could consider this a procedural nomination." but I don't get what procedure you are following, or what you hope Arbcom to do? As to what POLICY should be when balancing the two policies, that is normally left to the wider community (which hasn't attempted to modify policy yet), as Arb doesn't create policy. This seems to be throwing gas on a dying fire, unless of course you clearly state that you think he needs to lose the admin/crat bits over the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• If Arb has actual evidence of paid editing, rather than a simple COI, then of course a case makes sense (in private), but would have made more sense a week ago, due to outing concerns. I would argue that outing is a more important concern than COI when it comes to PUBLIC discussions, because the damage isn't reversible. In the absence of actual paid editing (ie: COI), are we are saying that non-disclosure of a COI (due to fear of outing) is grounds for losing the advanced bits? I don't know of any precedent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I don't consider editing about your employer as "paid editing" unless that is a function of your job, which is impossible to prove. When I think of "paid editing" (and I have done a GREAT deal of SPI work in my early days of adminship on this topic), I think of 3rd parties who have no conflict of interest, they are just paid to edit. Maybe I haven't looked to see where this changed, but there is a huge difference, in my eyes, between the two. One has a conflict, the other is a mass spamming machine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by 0xDeadbeef

I concur with what Dennis Brown has said above. The request as of writing this does not make it clear what exactly is up for arbcom for consideration. If the scope of this request is about COI management, I would see Fram's oversight block as tangential to the discussion. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

After reading the AN section I think I can understand the scope of this request. I'd urge Arbcom to accept this case and consider whether actions (if any) are necessary based on private evidence and our COI policy. I have no opinion on Nihonjoe or Fram, but I believe a case could set a good precedent for how our COI and outing policies should be enforced, as this is indeed a divisive issue. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Joe Roe

I've been loosely following the AN thread, mostly with a feeling of "what's the point?" There is clearly not—despite the efforts of several closers to find one—going to be a consensus that Nihonjoe's COI editing is nothing to worry about. At the same time, there is an ironclad policy basis and precedent for paid editing being incompatible with adminship (see WP:PAY, WP:TOOLMISUSE, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Administrators, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors#Salvidrim!_and_admin_tools and Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_17#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools) so if there's even a reasonable suspicion that has happened, a desysop must be on the table and therefore it's out of the scope of AN. So thanks to Ritchie for finally bringing it where it belongs. An accusation that an admin has editing where they have a financial conflict of interest is a serious matter that threatens the integrity of the entire project.

I think it's in everyone's best interest that ArbCom accepts and moves quickly to establish the facts. There's been enough airing of opinions at AN and elsewhere; what we need know is to find out exactly what Nihonjoe did, what his COIs were at the time, and whether this is compatible with the community's expectations of advanced rights holders. Even if this mostly happens behind closed doors, having a parallel public case so that the rest of us can follow what's happening and offer what evidence can be offered publicly. – Joe (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: As I understand it, Nihonjoe has now admitted to editing article(s) about his employer. In day-to-day COI enforcement, we usually consider this "paid editing", and disclosure is required by the Terms of Use. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Question by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Are the propriety of the various closes and reopenings of the AN thread, and the question of how much private (or not) information can be shared during a COI investigation in a public venue like AN, also part of the case request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Fram has posted their statement on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir

As Ritchie333 notes, the disagreement arises in large part because of a conflict between the COI editing and OUTING policies. The guideline speaks of a personal connection, not merely of a financial interest in a topic, and therefore the suspicion of a conflict of interest will often touch on aspects of an editor's off-wiki identity. The guideline page states that the first step on suspecting that editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest has taken place is to raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, but there is a tension between that statement and When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. The case scope should include both Nihonjoe's editing and his response to two editors who made such inquiries, from the perspective of the behavioral expectations of admin accountability, and also the conduct of Primefac and others in the AN discussion with respect to those two editors. ArbCom can usefully clarify how best to raise an issue of suspected COI in a user of long standing or holding advanced permissions, such as at what point editors are expected to e-mail ArbCom to avoid harassment. The guideline may no longer reflect best practice. As such, ArbCom should take this case. The community has not been able to resolve the impasse at AN. If the committee does so, the repercussions of the week's fruitless discussion make it necessary for it also to consider civility in the discussion, and whether Primefac's block of Fram violated INVOLVED. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Conflict of interest management: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conflict of interest management: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse, obviously. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• I wrote this last night and fell asleep before I could put it on wiki, so I'll say it here: So to clarify my comment about what we received, @Yngvadottir and others, I'm saying we weren't informed of this beforehand, not that we weren't informed. I actually informed Arbcom about this not long after the inciting offwiki post and was the first person to do so. The thread did not get many comments and there wasn't a consensus for anything. Now personally speaking, I think a quiet note from an individual Arb to disclose COIs and be mindful of COI rules would've been a good idea and probably could have avoided this thread, but there was no consensus for that. After this went to ANI, Nihonjoe made his above COI clarification/declaration, which made an Arb sending a note feel moot/redundant. We haven't been sent further evidence other than the inciting offwiki post, so nothing is really happening right now unfortunately. If people have further evidence of COI stuff, please email it to Arbcom or otherwise file a case request. And please, really, do email us-- we know a lot, but we don't know everything that's happening. If you see something, email us something. There have been much more problematic editors over the years that were never reported to us, and it seems like no one sent us anything because it was assumed someone already told us/we must know about it.

The issue of reporting COI vs outing is one that has been relevant for years (see The issue isn't really reporting of COI/UPE, it's communicating when functionaries have decided to do nothing about a report or didn't really get a response in. Plus, the ~paid Checkuser queue is backlogged and most offsite issues being reported to Arbcom unfortunately take longer to resolve for various reasons...

Now for accepting/declining this case? I don't know, I think it really depends on the evidence we get emailed. The community has admonished Nihonjoe via the AN thread, and the Oversight team has endorsed Primefac's block upon review. This should probably be In Camera if we are to open it, this should've stayed behind the scenes in the first place. But it didn't and we're in a bit of a mess and here right now. So, let's try and find the best solution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)