Yesterday, I noticed a Wikidata Bot when discussing a statement about Wikidata here (where I also discussed two other Wikidata bots]. I then researched this bot a bit further, and posted my conclusions here: a new user created a spambot, using his own site as a reference, to get it into Wikidata (and into enwiki). I noted this as an example of the problems we face with Wikidata, where other policies and culture apply than here; we struggle with spam as well, but the BAG would never approve such a bot without questions asked, with only three test edits, without an editor history, without checking the reference used...

The editor who gave the bot its botflag is User:Ymblanter, an admin on enwiki and an admin and bureaucrat (one of three) on Wikidata. They reacted vehemently to my indication of his role in this, first at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#An example of how Wikidata works and less than 15 minutes later, before I even had responded to his first posts in that discussion at WP:AN[2], in a section which had nothing to do with Ymblanter or the edits under discussion.

They claimed there that my post about the bot and his role in it "goes in the direction of stalking" and that I "should be topic-banned on mentioning Wikidata.". Another editor replied[3] that "that one individually seems reasonable and raises a serious concern about Wikidata" and "it doesn't seem unreasonable to have raised it on this project."

From there on, things escalated, with Ymblanter in their next edit claiming that I made a "fucking lie" to "the audience which is not familiar with the subject?" (it was on a page dedicated to scrutinizing the use of Wikidata on enwiki, not some unrelated page filled with newbies). I asked them here (and multiple times afterwards) to retract the claims he made or to provide evidence for them, all to no avail (he presented one quote I made as if one quote about one event can be turned into stalking somehow). Further replies by Ymblanter at AN stated "you apparently unable to write about Wikidata without breaking English Wikipedia policies". His parting shot at AN was [4] "this one, to be honest, reminds me "Pls remind me why I should care about your opinion", after which one user was indefblocked". This has a rather chilling effect, an admin commparing comments I made with comments he was reminded off which ended in an indefblock.

Seeing that nothing good would come of further discussion at that time, when Ymblanter was clearly upset, I waited until the next day to discuss his statements further. User talk:Ymblanter#Please retract some statements, which was mainly fruitless. They eventually admitted that "After reading Stalking, may be indeed you actions are not yet to that level." May be, not yet? No retraction of the claims that I told "fucking lies" to an audience unfamiliar with the sitation, that I needed to be topic banned, and that my comments reminded him of another situation where another editor endd up indef blocked. Instead, they simply removed the whole section at AN[5] with the edit summary "Fram insists they have right to throw mud at me, but I must "retract" my response; fine, let him continue to throw the mud, this exchange is not so much important to be in archives", which is just adding more personal attacks while removing the previous ones. Meanwhile, at Wikidata, they start blackening my name at the Project chat, section "Bots": "This was discovered at the English Wikipedia by an opponent of Wikidata, and quickly escalated in a serious of personal attacks against me", but where they otherwise continue to defend the bot they approved as making good edits.

All this results in an enwiki admin I can't trust to be level-headed, able to defuse situations, or able to handle criticism, who seems to lack the basic knowledge of some core policies (what are personal attacks? what is stalking?) or how and where to present a case if you do want a sanction against someone. An admin who sees fit to make chilling statements about indef blocking and who sees no problem in editors spamming their commercial website to Wikidata and enwiki, and even facilitating it. Whether this just needs an admonishment or a full desysop is up to ArbCom to decide, and their position at Wikidata is out of scope anyway (and it is unlikely that they would have a problem with their actions over there anyway). Fram (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can now add "contacting an editor utterly unrelated to the current situation but with a known history with me" to the list of admin-unworthy actions (in their statement below). Fram (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Apparently a new editor adding links to their own commercial site (still in beta, with no history of trustworthiness, ...) is not spamming then? This is just standard acceptable behaviour which presumably would be approved at enwiki as well? Never heard of WP:REFSPAM? That the end result of their edits was that we get the exact same data at e.g. 2017 J1 League but that in their version the link to the official website is replaced with a link to their site, is not spamming? That the spam links afterwards changed to even worse spam links (directly to their cryptocurrency-selling page) doesn't mean that the original bot wasn't a spambot and the editor a spammer (who is using his "partnership" with Wikidata as a selling proposition on his website!). Fram (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@InvanVector: see my reply to Ymblanter. "Valid info" from a commercial site in beta, without any history of factchecking, accuracy, ..., is spamming a website. Allowing a brand-new editor to do this based on three example edits and without further limitations, questions, ... is bad, still defending this after it has been pointed out is the worrying aspect though. Fram (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: while every aspect deserves scrutiny, I don't see how this one aspect decides whether we have a case or not. The defense of spambots is one aspect only, the accusations of stalking and so on are at least equally important (and e.g. the canvassing in this very arbcom case by pinging LauraHale). An admin with such a tenuous grasp of so many basic and varied policies, an admin who wants actions against another editor based on absolutely nothing, goes beyond "was the bot spamming from the start, or was he spamming terribly from the start"? If you allow editors with zero history at any wiki to start a bot to link to their own website, should you then really be surprised if it turns out to be a problem from the start and a much bigger problem later on? Pretending, as ~~Ymblanter and other bureaucrats and~~ admins at Wikidata still do, that this issue could have happened here as well, shows a complete misunderstanding of the bot approval process here. Perhaps we should contact some BAG members to give their view on this. Fram (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih; I agree with your last point of your post at 16:55, 31 October 2017, and should not have made that sarcastic remark. Fram (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I have struck out my incorrect statement above, it were two other admins who said that it could have happend on the wikiprojects as well, not you. (See here for where this happened) Fram (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the case name: I specifically did not choose "Ymblanter" because there has been a push against cases named after editors, which would supposedly prejudge the outcome. Perhaps the current name isn't good enough, feel free to suggest something better. Fram (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I can not "continue" doing things I haven't done yet. Furthermore, what part of this is wrong? if your statement here[6] was not intended to defend the Wikidata infobox version, then what exactly was your intention with that statement? When it has been made very clear that the things that get reverted are not improvements at all, to then state out of the blue "Reverting improvements is vandalism." is either adding a completely unconstructive, unconnected policy summary which doesn't help the discussion one bit but just adds noise, or a defense of these "improvements" and the infobox under discussion. Apparently I was wrong to assume that your comment would actually have some point to it, and instead you claim that I should AGF that it was just an utterly pointless thought that popped into your mind and you felt the need to share with the world there and then, even if it had no bearing on the actual discussion. I'll let the character assassination in the remainder of your reply for what's it worth, as it seems no one who commented here but you so far has read this ArbCom request as "a blanket, aggressive assumption of bad faith" instead of what it is, a fact-based assumption of either general incompetence or of temporary incompetence when your own actions and/or Wikidata are concerned. Fram (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel. All very nice, but can you perhaps provide some evidence for your claims? Otherwise it is just some unfounded opinion by someone who just happens to be aligned with Ymblanter and against me on most things regarding Wikidata on enwiki, and should probably be disregarded by the ArbCom as a case of sour grapes from someone who just lost an RfC I initiated (but still wants to keep his template which has just been rejected). Fram (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel. You mean Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#Relevant_discussion_at_Portuguese_wikipedia? You really believe anything in there is ArbCom-material? I invite all ArbCom members to read that discussion and point anything truly problematic they can find in it. Or else to urge Mike Peel to come up with something somewhat more convincing. Fram (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKI: "It seems to me like the argument of Flam is because Wikidata allowed a bot who created items about Japanese sport scores that don't get imported anywhere into Wikipedia and the bot takes the data from a startup (and thus messed up their urls for a week) this shows that editoral judgements at Wikidata are so bad that Wikipedia shouldn't use Wikidata and the person who's responsible for allowing that bot to operate should be desysopped. " First, they did get imported into enwiki (by the same editor), so you start of on the wrong foot already. Second, taking stats from a startup is stupid: taking stats from a startup through a bot operated by the startup, who has shown no interest in helping Wikipedia until they wanted to make money by providing a cryptocurrency, is just helping a commercial startup gets its spamlinks on Wikidata and on as many Wikipedias as possible (as that is the huge benefit of Wikidata, remember, adding info once and getting it in 200 wikis simultaneously). This (and the defensive reactions at Wikidata about this, not seeing any problems with what happened), and many other issues, indeed make me believe that enwiki shouldn't use Wikidata. But that is, as far as I am concerned, not the scope of this ArbCom case (although obviously, if ArbCom would decide to have a case about the use of Wikidata, I would participate). This case is about the actions and comments Ymblanter made on enwiki in response to my criticism of that bot. He has shown on enwiki a profound misunderstanding of basic things an admin should know, and no indication that he is really learning from his misunderstandings. While his actions at Wikidata may show that the problems are not limited to this, they are just background information, not the core of the case. Fram (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJMitchell: basically, I'm almost the only editor who has presented any diffs, but apparently not enough for you? Even though you don't present a single diff to support your allegations? Very convincing... Fram (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter. Thanks for the apology. It still isn't clear to me what "incorrect statement" I am presumed to have made, unless you still maintain that a user adding links to his own commercial site (with info you could also get from e.g. the official page) isn't spamming. I attacked the general culture of Wikidata and its admins and bureaucrats, who defend such edits and bots (even now: "actions I performed on Wikidata in good faith, according to Wikidata policies, and which had no immediate relation to Wikipedia (I never imported the data or facilitated the import)" shows a misunderstanding of what Wikidata is apparently intended for, i.e. importing data to wikipedia, and at the same time one of the reasons I made that section, i.e. to highlight the (for enwiki) highly problematic Wikidata policy and its uncritical application by admins and bureaucrats). If you can't stand fair criticism of your actions, you shouldn't be an admin or bureaucrat (or you shouldn't make the actions that get criticized for causing problems). But this case is not about your actions at Wikidata; it is about your actions here, at enwiki. Anyway, you are free to start a case about my "systematic behavior of Fram below standards expected for administrator" (as with all such claims here, again fully without any evidence; but seeing the editor you tried to canvass in your first statement in this case, I think you better think twice about bringing that up if you don't want that editor getting widely criticized for the BLP violations I undid and which are apparently "stalking" and not simply doing what any admin should do). Fram (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia Regalis: yes, I meant this to be an admin-conduct case only (but thought that "admin conduct" wouldn't be a good casename either). A enwiki vs. Wikidata case may be fruitful, but perhaps should start different from this one. All I want here is some clear indication that admins shouldn't make accusations like "stalking" lightly but have a duty to provide good evidence or retract such claims; and some clerking or arbcom action to maintain some standards at an ArbCom case: not the easy "count the word limit", but the harder things like "no canvassing by pinging uninvolved editors with a known bias" or "no accusations with some evidence provided", which are both pretty basic policy violations. If people can get away with such things at an ArbCom case, then why should we try to enforce these policies anywhere else? Fram (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Wikipedia doesn't equal enwiki. Wikidata is nearly always promoted here, by Wikidata-enthusiasts, as "it is used to provide info at once to all wikipedia languages" and so on; but when there is criticism of the contents, quality, sourcing, then your line suddenly is the official line: it is not for providing info to Wikipedia languages; they may do so, but it is not our goal or core business. Which, coupled with the "we use poor sources and will deprecate them once we get better ones" and so on is exactly one of the reasons I'm opposed to any use of Wikidata on enwiki. Anyway, let me quote what the WMF two months ago said about Wikidata: "Then that's an incomplete understanding. See e.g. [1]: "Wikidata will support the more than 280 language editions of Wikipedia with one common source of structured data that can be used in all articles ". Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "[7] As long as this is the official line on Wikidata and the way it is promoted at enwiki, you shouldn't claim that "Your edits show, as usual, misunderstanding of what Wikidata actually is. Many users tried to explain this to you, but you were not really interested in listening." but instead you should realise that depending on what the intention is (promoting Wikidata vs. minimizing the problems with sourcing and so on) two different positions are taken about what Wikidata is for. As it stands, Wikidata is a source of structured data that may not be used in all articles as it fails our basic standards of sourcing and so on. That is not a misunderstandng on my part or a refusal to listen, that is a vast gap between the WMF spiel and reality. As for your second point, "spambot is a bot which adds spam and does nothing else.": no, a spambot is a bot which adds spam. Camouflaging or sugaring this by adding information doesn't mean that it isn't a spambot. Fram (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel; now that a second Portuguese Wikipedian has commented, and basically supported my view and indicated that your description of their way of thinking was wrong (" I'm appalled by the impression Mike Peel has of our community" were their actual words), perhaps you would like to strike that example of how I should look at the mirror? Fram (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I intend to stop responding to statements like "I struck my only example but my point still stands" or "you should really look at Fram's behaviour, see e.g. this case from 5 years ago which ended at ArbCom and where Fram didn't even get an admonishment and the other side was nearly banned, and this more recent case where the filing party against Fram was shoo'ed away by ArbCom because they basically had no case". It shouldn't be too hard to find a few people who want to combine their grudges and present a case about me, but take your time and find some real evidence instead of this "let's randomly throw out some names, perhaps some people will believe us" approach)

@Opabinia Regalis: fair enough. It would seem strange to have a general case about Wikidata on enwiki starting with this case request, and with me and Ymblanter as involved parties. I think that either you would have a case with no parties (i.e. a case which only looks at the policy questions, some kind of mega-RfC where the ArbCom could act like judges and maintain some order during the proceedings, as a somewhat impartial or at least acceptable party to all sides), or some case with the main vocal parties on both sides (people like myself, Alsee, Jytdog, Mike Peel, PigsontheWing, RexxS, ...) where you look at conduct. But if you intend to have a case which looks at policy about Wikidata, and conduct surrounding the dispute at the same time, I think it will become a massive mess with lots of fallout but no resolution at all. Just my gut feeling, and you are free to deal with this as you see fit of course. Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I obviously gave that impression, but I wanted Ymblanter to be either admonished or desysoped, depending on how severe others judged his actions on enwiki; and considering a recent case about an admin not willing or able to provide evidence for their accusations, which first took up a considerable amount of time and energy at AN only to inevitably end up at ArbCom anyway, it seemed more logical to go to ArbCom directly. This may well have been a wrong choice of course. But again, my goal was not necessarily to see Ymblanter desysoped, but to at least send a strong signal that such actions and accusations are unacceptable: how strong that signal needed to be was (and is) up to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I just listed 6 of the more vocal people at the Wikidata discussions from the top of my head, there are plenty of others who have participated in a more or less frequent and constructive manner (including some with (WMF) or (WMDE) in their name). I guess if someone provides enough recent evidence of who are the most problematic and should be parties in a case (assuming prior attempts at conflict resolution have been tried or aren't necessary), that such a case would be possible. To go from a case about one incident to a case about a much larger issue, involving one of the parties, perhaps not the other from this case request, and a host of others, without any evidence being presented (just some "look at these discussions"), seems to be very unusual, and more based on some pre-conceived ideas of the problem than on anything that has actually been presented here (I mean, I e.g. added RexxS name because of some earlier disputes, but I don't believe they have been very involved with these discussions here for quite a while now). What, in my opinion, would be much more fruitful would be one or a series of RfCs abotu the use of Wikidata on enwiki, based on the current situation, and overseen by a group of neutral editors who can enforce some semblance of civility and rationality to it (with the understanding that civil bollocks should be adressed as well, as that as often the cause of a lot of contention: editors remaining calm and civil, but just sprouting nonsense which they can't back up with any evidence). There is already a draft RfC about one specific issue (Wikidata in infoboxes) in the making, but I think a general one would be more useful (after all, why would we have one RfC for infoboxes, and another for things like official websites and twitter accounts, and yet another for listeriabot-like articles, and then another for Article Placeholders, and so on, when a lot of the issues (like sourcing requirements, lack of some policies, ...) are identical anyway). Tackling the core issues instead of the people discussing (sometimes too heated or too personal) these issues seems the best solution; and certainly when no actual case has been presented against any of the 6 I named (or some others) which would actually warrant an ArbCom case. Perhaps such a case can be made for some of them; but already accepting it seems premature. Fram (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

Concerning stalking, I am sure User:LauraHale will have smth to say. What I had to say about it is on my user talk page linked above. I must add two things. First, this encounter is one of the top five the most unpleasant ones I ever had in Wikimedia projects. I do feel seriously offended, and I do not see even a bit of good faith from Fram's side. Second, my limited experience with Fram shows that they never listen to their opponent, they in fact never make any effort to listen to their opponent, but they maintain that they are always right, whereas the opponent is right only when they are fully aligned with Fram's opinion. I believe Fram should at some point look at the mirror. I do not see any merit for accepting the case to be honest. Note also that what they want from me is to edit a closed section of AN. I tried to remove it to avoid being arxived but was reverted.

May be just to make it clear, since Fram continues to maintain this accusation even after I gave clear explanation. I never promoted a spam-bot. I promoted a bot which worked properly [8], and continued working properly, and at some point references which the bot added earlier were changed on the upstream site so that they appeared as spam (after which I took the flag down and cleaned up the edits of the bot example). Accusing me in "promoting spam-bots" is as meaningful as to accuse a Wikipedia crat here who promoted INC to admins in "promoting vandals" because INC started vandalizing Wikipedia much later. This information has been provided on my talk page in the discussion Fram linked above, as well as on Wikidata Project Chat discussion also linked by Fram.

~~Note that Fram continues misleading the community: I never said "this could happened here as well", nor implied this, nor I actually think this way.~~ Resolved.

Now I am not sure what is going on. If this is the case about my behavior - well, I believe it does not have merit, but at least it is a legit reason to file a case, and it is not up to me to decide what the outcome is. If this is the case about general relations between Wikidata and Wikipedia - I do not understand why it was filed against me. I do not think I ever modified Wikipedia infoboxes to include Wikidata, I left my opinion several times on discussion boards (often to correct incorrect statements about Wikidata), but this is it, unless of course somebody believes that I approved a Wikidata bot on purpose to harm Wikipedia (for the record, I learned only yesterday in the discussion that the results of the bot are being used in Wikipedia). If the case is accepted to investigate connection between Wikidata and Wikipedia I do not see why I should be a party of such a case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Lugnuts has been indeed long time upset with my existence on Wikipedia - I am not sure why, I apparently even never blocked them - to the point that they mention me in situations I have absolutely no relation to (this is stalking, right?), such as here, so that they were suggested by an uninvolved user to stop it or face a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fram continues to make deliberately wrong statements about me [9]. Even though I said clearly that I do not care which version of the infobox stays, and I did not vote in the RfC they continue to maintain that I have a "preferred version" thus pretending to know what I think better than I know. This is a blanket, aggressive assumption of bad faith, smth which can be easily traced in Fram's behavior over the years (and which an opening of this case and the statements which preceded it give an excellent example of).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which they now continue to do in the body of the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that some users do not understand what I say, let me try again, more clearly. (i) Concerning behavioral issues, what happened was that Fram aggressively attacked me (technically speaking, Wikidata crats knowing the only two are active, and I currently assign a vast majority of the flags). The attack contained an incorrect statement. I overreacted, which I should not have been done, and I apologize for that. Fram attacked me again. Then they requested that I "retract" my statements. I asked them to cross out their statements which caused my reaction in the first term, they refused. Then I refused as well. This is not my typical behavior, I usually manage to stay cool (I can remember four instances when I lost my temper, in five years, and this was the worst one). (ii) I believe Fram has a consistent pattern of assuming bad faith towards multiple users, I fully agree here with Mike Peel (talk · contribs) and HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs). I actually believe that Arbcom should not accept the case, but if it does, I am sure we will find quite some evidence showing systematic behavior of Fram below standards expected for administrator. (iii) If the case is accepted to investigate general relations of Wikidata and Wikipedia, I do not see why I should be a party of such a case. I never imported data from Wikidata to Wikipedia in any way, and, contrary to what my opponents imply, I believe that both Wikipedia and Wikidata are not currently ready for massive import and integration, in particular, because many Wikipedia users do not understand what Wikidata actually is, and Wikidata has some systemic problems which need to be addressed first. (iv) If somebody wants a case about me for actions I performed on Wikidata in good faith, according to Wikidata policies, and which had no immediate relation to Wikipedia (I never imported the data or facilitated the import) - well, there is little I can do about this, but I believe this is far outside the scope of Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Your edits show, as usual, misunderstanding of what Wikidata actually is. Many users tried to explain this to you, but you were not really interested in listening. I will only make two points relevant for this case, and will likely abstain from commenting on your points in the future, since this seems to be useless. (i) Wikidata is not necessarily to provide data for Wikipedia (aka English Wikipedia), it is for all external reusers. Wikidata has, in particular, data of lower quality (no provenance, or provenance not reliable for Wikipedia standards), which are still added and later can be deprecated if there is better data. It is up to reusers how to use the data. (ii) spambot is a bot which adds spam and does nothing else. On Wikidata, as elsewhere, being a spambot is a block reason. This one also added useful info, thus it is not a spambot. This is likely my last response to Fram, otherwise this case would become another wall of text.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

The internet is 95% eggshells armed with hammers (the other 5% are hammer salesmen). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I reverted Ymblanter's removal of the AN thread, it was later collapsed by another user. In my opinion there's no rationale for removing postings from administrative noticeboards rather than allowing them to archive, excepting situations covered by WP:DFTT perhaps. Removing a thread in which one's own conduct is being discussed is particularly inappropriate, it gives the impression of trying either to silence criticism or to bury evidence. You can search an archive, you can't search a revision history.

Regarding the case request, if the folks who approve bots are so reckless in their reviews that they approve a spambot as obvious as Fram makes it out to be, those folks should probably be removed from that responsibility. It does direct harm to English Wikipedia notwithstanding that the actual editing occurs on a sister project, and so it is within this community's remit to object and certainly not "ridiculous" to bring it up on this project. This particular bot introduced to this project obvious reference spam in the form of links to a clearly promotional website, which were also factually incorrect in that the links referred to none of the information supposedly referenced.

I was with Fram's post up to the last paragraph: this was clearly an error. If an admin has made an error in approving a bot, it must be a simple matter to inform them, block the bot and clean up its edits. It's pretty easy to clean up that sort of mess on this project, anyway, I really don't know much about Wikidata. However, I do think it's a pretty big leap for Fram to then say, based on this one incident, that all of Wikidata should be delinked from enwiki and abandoned. Ymblanter may have been justifiably upset that Fram's comment came in the form of an attack on their record, but then again, if Ymblanter's defense of this course of action is an indication of the way things are expected to work at Wikidata, then perhaps Fram has a point.

At any rate I don't think there's a case here. A couple of admins got shouty with each other; we're not expected to be heartless robots. Both seemingly moved on (er, notwithstanding this case request). And as for whether or not to continue linking with Wikidata, that's not something for the Committee to rule on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter added some info after I posted this, which deserves comment. If the sample edits made by the bot linked to valid info at the time of approval and were changed on the external site after the fact to point to spam, then obviously Ymblanter shouldn't be expected to catch that at the time of approval. However I did not see where Ymblanter provided this sensible explanation before posting it above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

(edit conflict) I am unfamiliar with Wikidata, but it does appear there needs to be a lot more oversight. To comment purely on the AN/I thread, I am going to echo the observations made by Ivanvector. I think it would be helpful if Ymblanter could substantiate the timeline of the bot in the forms of diffs in his statement, and then we'll be better informed to look at the exchange between these two editors to determine if there is a case. My opinion is, not really. Alex Shih (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I do agree with your points. If the committee decides that actions at Wikidata should be subject to review here, I wouldn't have any objections. And I agree it would be helpful if some BAG members can offer their views; I do want to note that (not endorsing) that different wikis have different standards, so I think that could be taken into consideration. On a last note, I would like to ask if it was entirely necessary to make sacarstic remarks ([10]) after you knew the editor was upset by the way you presented your (valid) points ([11]). Just a thought. Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Even though it will be the case from hell, I urge the committee to accept this even though it may not follow the format of a typical case; while the conduct of a couple of admins may be the trigger, someone needs to address the underlying issue. The social interaction between pro- and anti-Wikidata editors, and between the Wikipedia community and the WMF, regarding the Wikidata issue has broken down almost completely, and as I'm sure you're all aware is spilling onto multiple talk pages; at a minimum read this thread (and ideally the whole page, if not the archives as well) to get a feel for just how strained the three-way dispute is getting.

As Fram points out above, the disruption caused by Wikidata is now beginning to impact on Wikipedia articles themselves, but because of Wikidata's fiercely-defended independence there is no mechanism by which we can currently order Wikidata not to take actions that disrupt Wikipedia. (It's also starting to have potential for serious reputational damage to en-wiki, as Google Knowledge Graph et al are starting to draw data from Wikidata but they generally credit it to "Wikipedia"; our reputation for accuracy isn't great as it is without Wikidata doing our legs by refusing to comply with policies on accuracy and sourcing.)

For whatever reason (some would say it's the community's inability to agree, some would say it's intentional stonewalling by the WMF) the community has been unable to agree on the appropriate level of input Wikidata should have on Wikipedia. It needs a structured and moderated discussion to agree on how on-wiki disruption originating at Wikidata is to be handled; the usual methods of RFCs won't be able to handle this, and unless Jimmy has the masochistic urge to take direct control of the debate Arbcom is the only body with the ability to moderate such a discussion and to make whatever conclusions it comes up with binding. (The flow in the other direction, of how information gets from Wikipedia into Wikidata, is their concern and we shouldn't be telling them what level of sourcing etc they should consider appropriate, although that's not to say we should rule out "unless you comply with Wikipedia standards data can't be imported back from Wikidata to Wikipedia" and making the flow of data one-way.) ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I have not read the statements, but looking at the title of the case and having been a steward, and a current admin on both enwiki and Wikidata (and former oversighter at the latter) I anticipate having something to say. --Rs chen 7754 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have read the opening statement, and it was disappointing. tl;dr: why is this case request as framed called "Crosswiki issues" instead of "Ymblanter"? That's what the request seems to be about. Injecting the word "Wikidata" into this request seems to be some rallying cry and some sort of trying to pick a fight with WMF (similar to the words "Visual Editor"), as unfortunately Alex Shih and Iridescent's statements have caved in to. --Rs chen 7754 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I think there are some valid points in your statement, but I don't see how they are relevant to this case as currently described by Fram. I could see a request going forward based on the battleground behavior that took place at some of the links you gave. I also agree with the points raised of ArbCom not being a policy making venue, and not a battering ram to be used against WMF/WMDE/Wikidata. --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC) also @Opabinia regalis: --Rs chen 7754 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

Endorsing the conclusion from Iridescent. We should be enforcing our standards as we envision them. Wikidata can do whatever the hell it wants. If there's a bot that is making edits automatically to en.WP by importing wikidata content, it should be de-authorized and re-scoped to permit only the most uncontroversial changes (Website of an organization, birth, death, etc.). I do see the case for a set of scripts that editors can use that can incorporate data from Wikidata after the editor has verified the content (much the same way the reFill works). The editor importing the data assumes responsibility for errors or spam sites being inserted into the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I grimaced when I came across this request this afternoon, but I think there is a case to answer for some of the problems Wikidata has imposed on this project. The reports of vandalism going undetected and left to fester are worrying, and the trench warfare and divisive rhetoric exhibited at the TfDs for Template:Infobox person/Wikidata ([12], [13]) and Template:Cite Q ([14]), plus the related ANI thread clearly demonstrate that this is an intractable dispute that is going to require Arbcom to look at. And it tangentially involves infoboxes, which is probably the mother of all WP disputes of all time. So I'm afraid there is a requirement for a case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: There are more substantial grounds for a case, but it's spread out over more users. See the four debates I linked to here, plus this infobox discussion,this other ANI thread (where the closing administrator suggested Arbcom), and this AN discussion, plus mild edit-warring on Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs. In all cases, discussions start off sensible but end up with deeply-entrenched bickering. I could go on if you need more, but I'd rather not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: In the ANI thread I mentioned here (in archive 945), you said "IMHO this situation is getting awfully close to something for ArbCom to handle" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: It's not really fair to single people out - though there have been multiple contentious discussions, the participants are not consistent. However, if I had to pick two editors who just cannot get along, it would be Fram and pigsonthewing. Recent examples include the edit-warring I mentioned above and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Further pointy behaviour by Pigsonthewing which was hatted by Primefac, who admonished the pair of them with "ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better". Yet in the past couple of days I can see "Get the beam out of your own eye" and "Yes, improving articles is such a POINTy action, perhaps you should report me to the wiki-authorities for my actions." I don't think an interaction ban between the pair would work as they are pretty much the strongest pro and anti Wikidata proponents on the whole project, and it would probably send a chilling effect to everyone else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Fram started the case specifically because they wanted to desysop Ymblanter : "I'll think about it and let you know if and when I start an ArbCom request (no sense going to ANI as they can't desysop anyway)." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: In their latest statement, Fram has identified six editors as potential participants in a "conduct in Wikidata discussions" case - that might be a suitable starting point. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

If this is to be a desysopping case, then I believe it is premature and not sufficiently serious to merit opening a case. The discussion was unpleasant, but I don't see any claim in the complaint of such a significant pattern of departures from minimum standards of administrative conduct that desysopping would ever be merited. Thus, I believe any aspect of Ymblanter's conduct could and should be addressed first in the context of an AN/ANI thread.

If, on the other hand, this is to be a case about Wikidata, I believe there has been insufficient policymaking activity at the community level that the Committee could render a decision on Wikidata's use without exceeding its jurisdiction with respect to rulemaking (see WP:ARBPOL#Policy and precedent).

That said, there may be sufficient grounds to hold a case focused on individuals' conduct in the context of Wikidata policymaking discussions. If the Committee chooses to accept such a case, I would respectfully suggest that the scope be tightly limited to prevent disruption and chilling of policymaking discussions that should happen.

Statement by ChristianKl

I think it's completley unfair to call the bot in question a spam bot. As far as I'm aware no involved party made a claim that data added by the bot in question was wrong. What is this bot about? Scorum is a new website that stores sport statistics and that wants to use the blockchain while doing so. The bot did 605 edits on Wikidata. During the edits it created items like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q38073146 which are about the scores of Japanese football teams. This is not information that gets automatically imported by enwiki without the additional template that the user created. Whether or not enwiki wants such templates is a pure enwiki issue that's beyond Wikidata's policy decisions.

As every good bot, the bot in question provides references. Unfortunately, Scorum changed their internal URL layout and as a result the references didn't point anymore to the sport data but to their front page with makes a sales pitch for their for a cryptocurrency that backs the website. When we noticed the change, we blocked the bot. A few days later the website fixed their internal links and as a result all the links now go to the correct page that lists the correct data and that doesn't try to sell you on the cryptocurrency.

It seems to me like the argument of Flam is because Wikidata allowed a bot who created items about Japanese sport scores that don't get imported anywhere into Wikipedia and the bot takes the data from a startup (and thus messed up their urls for a week) this shows that editoral judgements at Wikidata are so bad that Wikipedia shouldn't use Wikidata and the person who's responsible for allowing that bot to operate should be desysopped. ChristianKl (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

While I'm not sure if this is the best interaction to bring this to the forefront, the relation between editors in support of Wikidata and those who find some aspects of that project troubling has been problematic for a while. I urge the Committee to accept this case with a relatively broad scope that focuses more on the topic area than individual editors. In particular, I've seen quite a few editors in support of Wikidata that seem to prefer trampling over the community when expanding Wikidata integration. I've seen quite a few editors opposing Wikidata who respond to those attempts in wholly uncivil manners. The problematic behavior needs to stop from both sides. I would also not oppose a motion to apply discretionary sanctions to the topic area without a full case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: The policies are not in your purview. The conduct during discussions of policy (and policy creation) very much is. I think this case can and should proceed very similarly to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. (See, I can be brief!) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Just a few things.

1. ENWP has no authority to tell Wikidata how to run its own shop. If an admin/editor there takes actions on Wikidata within its own (lack of) policy framework, that is Wikidata's problem.

2. If the actions the admin/editor make on wikidata impact on ENWP content, it is perfectly acceptable to take them to task here if they break ENWP's policies.

3. If the admin/editor on wikidata knows *in advance* that something they approve on wikidata which is in line with wikidata (lack of) policy framework, but is prohibited on ENWP and *will* impact on ENWP, then there is no reason they cannot be sanctioned for it. The ENWP editor has taken actions off-wiki that has directly affected on-wiki content.

4. Given the above 3 points there is a case for looking at the behavior of various editors heavily involved in Wikidata and their pushing of Wikidata material onto ENWP. Specifically in relation to templates, unsourced/unacceptably sourced material, edit-warring, tendentious editing around infobox/templates etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I think this case request, and many of the disputes surrounding it, boil down to this question:

Since content from wikidata is imported into en-wiki articles, where is the policy boundary between en-wiki and wikidata?

This is a difficult and complicated policy question and the community is showing signs of being deeply divided over it in a way that makes it unlikely to be readily resolved by consensus.

To relate this question to the case request, one way of looking at the facts described is that the owners of a startup commercial sports statistics website inserted links to their website as references on the English wikipedia. It seems pretty clear that if an editor had done this directly, by hand, they would be swiftly blocked for refspamming (IMO the external link restructuring that resulted in links to cryptocurrency sales is a distraction here). It follows that any request for this task to be done by a bot on en-wiki would be refused.

The complexity comes because those references were inserted on wikidata, where (apparently) this sort of thing is in line with policy. Someone else independently used a template on en-wiki which imports live data and references from wikidata - not those refspam data and references specifically, but a much wider category of data and references which encompassed the refspam. It is very likely that this template was added to articles before the refspam was added to wikidata.

Given that the refspam is unacceptable on en-wiki, how do we deal it? Some options I can see are:

Blame the person who made the actual edit on en-wiki using the template, even though when they made the edit, the content on wikidata may have been compliant with en-wiki policy. This would effectively ban templates that import data from wikidata, but is attractive because it's the easiest to implement and involves no questions of cross-wiki policy. This approach is evident in the discussion around {{Cite Q}} linked above.
Blame the person who made the edit on wikidata. This would mean exporting en-wiki policy to wikidata, in this case requiring that all sourcing on wikidata comply with WP:RS. This gives us maximum benefit from wikidata in return for maximum cross-wiki policy headaches. We have no practical way at present of doing this and it raises even more complicated questions when other wikis get involved.
Blame the person who authorised the bot task because they happen to edit actively at en-wiki and so can be sanctioned here as a proxy for being sanctioned there for violating en-wiki policies at wikidata and didn't respond in the absolute best possible manner to hostile questions about it. This is a fairly course caricature of this dispute.
Accept that content that comes from wikidata doesn't always meet our policies on sourcing and make an exception to those policies for it.

Like it or not, option 4 is pretty much how things are in practice now. It strikes me as a theoretically-unjustifiable-but-pragmatic solution if wikidata keeps their house in reasonable-enough order. The disputes are coming because, on the one hand, people are only just realising that this is how things are and starting to object and, on the other hand, disruptive editors of most types are realising that wikidata is a less-monitored way of getting their particular disruptive material (such as refspam) onto en-wiki.

These are hard questions to answer and on the one hand I don't think the committee ought to answer them while on the other hand the community seems unable to answer them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 makes a good point above that, whatever you think of the policy questions, editor conduct around those questions has been suboptimal. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I said above that I don't think the committee ought to answer these questions and the more I think about it, the more I am of this opinion. In particular (and I think the last part of your comment is on the same general lines of thought), I think there is a real danger that, if the committee accepts this case with a scope that includes answering any of the questions above, the resulting answers will, in large part, be determined by the committee's inability to create policy. These are questions that need to be answered with all possible answers on the table, as far as possible; having arbcom answer them takes too many possible answers off the table before we even begin. On the other hand, of course, arbcom has a substantially better chance of actually, you know, arriving at any answer at all. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Just a note that User talk:ScorumME suggests that the stats company in question is engaged in some sort of legal issue relating to ~~Wikipedia~~ WMF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArthurPSmith

I operate a bot on Wikidata (also I am a property creator), and I spoke (in 3 sessions) at the 5-th year birthday Wikidatacon last weekend. I have occasionally contributed to the bot approval process on Wikidata where Ymblanter has done stellar work for years as our main bot approver. His work would be FAR easier if there were more eyeballs there to help. Every English wikipedia editor is welcome to review Wikidata bot proposals and provide their votes on the matter, this would be a tremendous improvement on the 2 or 3 people we have now who take an interest in this. Wikidata is a worldwide open community, there is no reason why English wikipedia editors cannot have a significant influence on how it progresses and improves. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lugnuts

Wikidata aside, there's the main issue with WP:ADMINCOND, which states "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another" and WP:ADMINACCT: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions". Ymblanter removed the section from ANI, which contains the incivil comments of "aka fucking lie" and "Ok, go fucking ahead to arbcom", which fails both of the above. Now Ymblanter knows this kind of languge and behaviour is not acceptable, as when it's done to him, he requests that someone should teach them manners. If admins are allowed to speak to other users/admins like this, it sets a worringly bad trend and gives a strong message to the rest of the community about what type of individual they are. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ymblanter has tried the old stalking card (he's already used this against Fram!) with his retort, above, which contains this link, which also contains a reply from Fram calling admins who beg for thanks "pathetic", which is what Ymblanter did when he was bemoaning cleaning up backlogs and not getting the appreication from his peers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I urge the committee to look into this issue; particularly the conduct on all sides of the wikidata dispute. There is a bull in a china shop approach that I am seeing from several people that gives me the feeling of Deja Vous.

I will remind everyone that our sister projects are not subservient to us. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I think this needs to be taken as a case, regardless of the scope that ArbCom is capable of. Iridescent probably covered most of the issues above, but the very simple fact that the processes (and in some cases those administering them) at Wikidata are clearly not fit for purpose needs to be addressed. We cannot allow enwiki to be a target for possible spam and vandalism due to the poor processes at another project. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

OID's statement above says everything I would have, in more compact form. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observation and suggestion by Dax

This appears, at first glance, to be a GovCom-esque situation. Since ArbCom's jurisdiction does not reach beyond the realm of enwiki, I suggest that they accept and directly refer to the WMF board to make the binding decisions as to the interaction of enwiki-wikidata policies and/or craft policies dictating that data changes imported from wikidata be subject to PC1/PC2 before it is shown to readers. Dax Bane 20:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: The wikidata community has approximately zero interest in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:refspam, or anything else. Hence my suggestion to punt this case up to the WMF board. They can, and should, create Wikidata:BLP, Wikidata:V et al to curb this (in as much as the Five Pillars here are WMF policy and not really subject to revision by the community (correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am) Dax Bane 06:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Points taken, then I guess the only remaining option is to subject Wikidata to the same criteria that we apply to the likes of the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, etc (and the same sanctions should people violate it) - surely someone at the foundation would notice that one of their largest projects (enwp) has refused to use a sister project because it's considered an unreliable source

Statement by Hawkeye7

ENWP has no authority to tell Wikidata how to run its own shop. (WP:CONEXCEPT)
While ArbCom has sanctioned admins for actions taken outside ENWP, it is wrong to do so for decisions taken in good faith under the policies and procedures of another project.
Commons remains by far the worst offender.
While ArbCom could develop procedures for interaction with WikiData, ~~I do not feel that this would be the best venue for what would best require considerable discussion.~~
~~I believe Mike Peel has his Wikidata ID tattooed on him.~~

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of further comments, I have struck two of mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Ymblanter should never have approved the bot at Wikidata in the first place and their actions at ANI and god knows where else haven't helped but for me atleast the main issue in all of this is Wikidata and the fact it's so "understaffed" (yes we're volunteers but I can't think of a better word!) - I believe only a year or 2 ago Wikidata ended up at ANI because of page vandalism over there, Something needs sorting but dunno what or even how. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Three things lead me to ask the committee to take this case 1) the EN community is institutionally ignorant of Wikidata, because it is not us; 2) the importation of content onto ENWP is a conduct matter, and systematic importation is a "serious" conduct issue; and 3) per ARBPOL: "The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated."

We, the ENWP community, need a systematic investigation, which only this committee is set up to provide - and we should not wait around for more disputes to arise, as that is prizing bureaucracy above just helping us out, here. Sure, the committee may fail in their investigation, and sure, the committee may not arrive at good proposals for RfC's and the like, and sure, you may not love this work, especially if it leads to nothing immediately useful. But, I ask that you try. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Beyond My Ken

Guerillero: I will remind everyone that our sister projects are not subservient to us.

True, but neither are we required to accept content from them if that content violates en.wiki policies. I would encourage everyone to remember this, and keep alive the possibility that a potential solution if Wikidata doesn't serve its customer (us) properly, is to simply cut them off and not allow Wikidata content on en.wiki.

Of course, that's not in the remit of the Committee (although the behavior of editors and admins in relation to the WD controversy obviously is), and has to be determined by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike Peel

I'm afraid that my view of Fram vs Ymblanter here is that it's the pot calling the kettle black. Ymblanter summarised the situation extremely well by saying about Fram that "they never listen to their opponent, they in fact never make any effort to listen to their opponent, but they maintain that they are always right, whereas the opponent is right only when they are fully aligned with Fram's opinion. I believe Fram should at some point look at the mirror." As someone that's been on the receiving end of this *a lot* over the last few months, I can vouch for the fact that it's extremely frustrating, and can seriously wind up the other party (for me it lead to me posting [15]). However, Ymblanter's responses are clearly inappropriate and should not have been posted. If this case is investigated, then I think that the behaviour of both parties needs to be equally looked into.

There is also the wider question about Wikidata usage, which I don't think should be included here. There is a draft RfC on Wikidata usage being drafted at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft that will hopefully ultimately lead to consensus between the different perspectives here. The behaviour around this work could be investigated (a good place to start to see the hostility involved is Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs), but I think that's a separate/wider case than the one described in the first few statements here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: BTW, I'm not aware of anyone with a Wikidata tattoo. I'm personally against tattoos. Mike Peel (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I think the evidence here is clear on the pages I've linked to above. In particular, see the discussion on the 2017 State of affairs page - I quite liked the way you were insisting that things were happening on the Portuguese Wikipedia in a certain way *despite* a Portuguese Wikipedian explaining that you were wrong! I don't have sour grapes over "losing the RfC", as demonstrated by my ongoing engagement there at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#Implementation_of_RfC where I've proposed an interim solution while the full implementation is discussed/carried out, although you're continuing to not listen to what I'm saying there (which has been consistent in all of your posts in the RfC discussion). Mike Peel (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I've partially struck my comment there, but that still doesn't change the point I made in my previous comment. You always think you are absolutely right, and ignore any opinions to the contrary. That's not healthy/constructive. Mike Peel (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: You seem to be ignoring the cleanup work I did at the same time as switching uses of Infobox World Heritage Site to use Wikidata, at the same time as I was making sure that the info on Wikidata that was being used in the infobox matched what was being displayed on enwp and what UNESCO's records specified. This is one of the main reasons that I'm resisting simply reverting the edits I made before, as doing so would re-introduce a lot of errors to enwp - it's better to substitute the corrected data instead, which I've offered to do in good faith by coding up a bot that could substitute the Wikidata values. Of course, there are still several hundred WHS infoboxes that I hadn't managed to clean up before the RfC intervened, which should be the priority! If you can point me towards useful content that was actually deleted then I'm happy to restore it... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fram's behaviour is continuing at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_15#Template:Authority_control, which they nominated for deletion. It closed with a snow keep, so Fram's continuing to argue about it and asking for it to be re-opened, without listening to opposing views. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Harry

I have no dog in this fight; I can see both the usefulness and the pitfalls of Wikidata. I just feel compelled to point out that Fram has a long track record of railroading projects and groups and particularly editors he disagrees with and this case is perfectly on form: a wall of text, lots of allegations, and just a handful of diffs which show an editor with a good track record getting a bit terse. As usual, Fram starts with a legitimate point (in this case, that there are problems with [some of] the content being imported from Wikidata) but advocates for an extreme solution and bludgeons the process and drowns his opponents in walls of text across multiple venues, all the while refusing to assume good faith or budge an inch from his position. In other words, the kind of thing that leads normally level-headed editors to despair. If there is to be a case, I would ask that Fram's conduct be very closely examined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: A few diffs would not illustrate the pattern because there's nothing obviously wrong with any of Fram's individual comments, but look at his interactions with Rich Farmbrough. With Magioladitis. With Cwmhiraeth. With the entire DYK project (and I'm sure I've missed some). Compare and contrast that with his conduct here. I don't question the purity of Fram's motives; I expect he feels he's doing what's right for Wikipedia and to a certain extent he has a point. The problem is with the wars of attrition he wages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank

What jumped out at me as I read the comments was that almost everyone either wants Arbcom to take this case or doesn't express a strong preference. Generally, you don't get people agreeing on anything when tackling these issues. And within the last day, two arguable no votes have clarified their positions: Hawkeye has now struck (in part ... thanks Hawkeye), and GoldenRing gave me an explanation of his position (worth reading) on his talk page.

Repeating what I said there: Arbcom is much more likely not to fix something that they could actually fix than the other way around; there is little chance that they will go all bull-in-a-china-shop. They may go the other direction, and do something minimal and limited to just the two principal parties. But even a minimal ruling can be one important step along the way, as people grapple with this very extensive and tough problem. Arbcom is hesitating, and I can understand that ... they're not masochists. But I think it would be good to apply peer pressure to get them to step up and do the right thing, the necessary thing [I mean taking the case, not deciding in a particular way ... that's not my call], and a unanimous case request would be a suitable form of peer pressure. IMO, Arbcom is a kind of single point of failure for Wikipedia ... if they turn away from disputes that can legitimately be framed as ongoing policy violations and that can't be solved elsewhere, then the whole dispute-resolution system fails.

Statement by Beetstra

I applaud the system of WikiData, but do see some large problems with the system which are hard to resolve. Either we live with it, or we act against it. I do not think that the community will be able to resolve this, though I think also that this would not be a case for ArbCom to resolve. However, it affects the community's, and (previous) ArbCom decisions.

My largest issues with WikiData are the ones regarding to whom actions are attributed, ban/block evasion effects, 'editor choice' and plain disruption.

One can perform edits on WikiData which change data on en.wikipedia which do not get 'recorded' (they may get noticed by editors who have a page here watchlisted and see 'changes on WikiData'). Some of that data gets only 'recorded' upon the next edit performed to the page (most notably: transclude an external link from WikiData, change that on WikiData to a new link which matches an en.wikipedia ~~or global spam-blacklist~~ rule, and the next editor who edits the page here on en.wikipedia (even if they just add a space, or correct a typo) will run into an edit failure that is caused by the blacklist block, and their failed edit will be recorded as their edit in the spam blacklist log.
Automated transclusion of data could have editors who are banned/restricted on en.wikipedia to perform certain actions (or all, if blocked/sitebanned), to de facto edit en.wikipedia (their edits on WikiData directly changes the content displayed on en.wikipedia). (note that to a much smaller extend, that could happen through commons as well, though the effective changes are limited to changing images on other wikis, here the effect can be much larger).
If local editors chose to override data of WikiData, it gets flagged as 'incorrect', 'dissimilar' etc. Choose to blindly transclude from WikiData, then policies on WikiData could enforce their format in conflict with local formats. (follow changes to Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia‎‎ for an (unenforced) flavour of this).
Bot edits on WikiData can disrupt local watchlists to a maximum - if an editor (like me) ~~decides~~ needs to check both bot edits ánd WikiData edits, watchlists can become utterly useless if a extremely high-speed bot on WikiData (hundreds of edits per minute) is running through articles of your interest (I know that I can turn both off, but that also means I do miss pertinent data in my watchlist).
(added 10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)) Going back to blacklisted links. Links get blacklisted either locally or globally, generally because of abuse). There is now one case where any link to bestwestern.de is globally blacklisted (diff), and locally overridden on WikiData's whitelist (d:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist). That means, that one could create properties on WD with the link, which then get globally used, 'overriding' the global blacklist. No en.wikipedia or meta.wikimedia editor (admin, whatever) has any power to override that type of problem except for hacking the template transcluding the offending links (I think this link could be removed from the global blacklist, but that is besides the point
(added 10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)) 'pending changes' protected page transcluding data today can have data changed through the protection without anyone noticing (which could very well be exactly the data that one would want to protect a page from, e.g. any biography of a living person could contain at the top '{{infobox person/Wikidata|fetchwikidata=ALL}}' - and all of the BLP-sensitive data in the template could be edited at will).

en.wikipedia is not prepared for this, does not have procedures in place. In the meantime, we do run into arguments that practically say 'we need to do this on en.wikipedia because we need the data to make WikiData better', are strongly pushed to use WikiData for data (or simply it is implemented 'because we can'), and are strongly pushed to streamline to improve WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (added 2 points. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Somewhat related is this discussion by User:Simon Villeneuve. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how transclusions of {{Wikidata property}}, either in mainspace (see .e.g. Author#References) or in meta-namespaces (diffs by User:Pigsonthewing) in any form contribute improve articles on en.wikipedia. diff by User:Magioladitis is of a similar nature. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In how far is this yet another drive of the WMF pushing something onto a community, like the MediaViewer, Flow, ...? Is this running into yet another fait accomply, where we will have massive problems returning back to a time 'before' WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wnt

From what I've seen, Wikidata has a history of not doing things we want and doing things we don't want. Therefore, I think it is a no-brainer that material should not be transcluded from Wikidata into Wikipedia except in tightly limited cases where we have pretty solid assurances that they will be up to Wikipedia standards, with prior (Wikipedia) community approval. Editors should be encouraged to subst Wikidata templates where they provide useful information now, with the editor responsible for checking the substed content before saving. Editors might be discouraged from transclusions by having an edit filter warn them before proceeding or having it flag their edits for some kind of review. Editors should be encouraged to link to Wikidata, in whatever format, as an external resource; specifically, substed Wikidata links should contain an update link that editors or Wikipedia-authorized bots can use to resubst them with new data. That said, I am not sure ArbCom has much role in doing all of this; I'm putting this idea out there as an idea in case this all finds a community RFC at some point. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alsee

Note on User talk:ScorumME's legal issue: I reported the company to WMF legal for trademark concerns. Their main page was advertizing that they had a "partner" relationship with Wikipedia. Apparently anyone who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedia-partner, chuckle. I think this helps illuminate this company's edits.

Iridescent and GoldenRing have given excellent summaries of the situation, as well as Ritchie333 who provided important links.

Defining the scope of this case will be difficult. In the narrow scope, Ymblanter's accusation of "stalking" was an unsupported accusation due to repeated natural encounters. The escalation with things like "go fucking ahead to arbcom" was clearly inappropriate, but in isolation it's rather small for an ARMCOM case.

In a wierd bit of defence of Ymblanter, the bot which they approved at Wikidata was probably acceptable by wikidata-community-norms. However this "defense of Ymblanter" is really just a condemnation of the wikidata community. The bot was a blatant refspambot even before it was approved. The bot was spamming self-promotional refs to a dubious startup company. As GoldenRing notes, it's mere distraction that the referenced website changed after approval. This instance perfectly illustrates the problem. EnWiki has no business controlling wikidata, but if we auto-import wikidata then this is the kind of thing we have to expect. The wikidata community has approximately zero interest in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:refspam, or anything else. A bot approved at wikidata can fill wikipedia articles with predatory references. And that's without even considering issues with wikidata content itself.

The WP:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft in theory could help sort out how to handle wikidata. However I anticipate the RFC will land us close to where we are now. Consensus has heavily shifted against wikidata since the initial deployment. However people who aren't closely familiar with the issue tend to seek a theoretical middleground. Unfortunately the benefits and problems of wikidata are an inseparable package. If the middle-voice of consensus seeks a middleground, it will just leave enthusiasts and critics battling endlessly.

At Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site we are dealing with over 1400 articles that need cleanup. This is no routine infobox squabble. Wikipedia content was massively deleted from these infoboxes to clear the way for auto-display of wikidata values. It now appears intractable to recover the deleted content from article history. The person who deleted it certainly isn't interested doing the work of digging through article history. Instead they propose adding insult to injury. Their "cleanup" solution is to run a bot which would simply overwrite all of the deleted wikipedia content with wikidata content.

I don't know if or how ARBCOM can address the broader issue, but I plea for something. Wikidata-enthusiasts think it's find to boldly show up at a random template and "improve" it with wikidata, no consensus needed. The disruption of converting just ONE template to wikidata, and converting it back, can be massive to the point of irreparable. Alsee (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dax Bane: I think it would be dubious to ask the WMF board to order Wikidata to create polices. First, having policies means squat if the community's mission and culture have little genuine interest in doing the work to enforce them. Second, I think it implausible they would apply the range policies and criteria-level we would want. Is the WMF-board really going to order Wikidata to define&prohibit refspam? Third, EnWiki isn't the only wiki involved. I believe some language-wikipedias have partial or strict requirements that sources be in their own language, or other random policies. Fourth, having such policies enforced effectively at wikidata would be an improvement but it still leaves a mess of other issues. Fifth, the Wikidata community is too small to police vandalism on their content as-it-is. They have a ridiculously high bot-percentage, and the supposed "wikidata editor count" is massively bloated with people who don't actually edit wikidata. When anyone moves or deletes a page, the software generates a matching edit at wikidata. All of those people get fictitiously added to the count of active wikidata editors. Alsee (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

The general principles for use of Wikidata in Wikipedia are very much undefined. Fwiw i started an essay Wikipedia:Use of Wikidata in Wikipedia that i hope can be developed into a guideline and maybe policy eventually. But there is nothing close to consensus (i.e. policy) on this now. Arbcom doesn't make policy, it interprets and applies it. There is really nothing for Arbcom to do on this general issue, since there is no real policy to interpret.
With regard to the conflict between Fram and YMblanter... in my view YMblanter lost it a bit in the conflict with Fram. Admins are human, and this happens. With an acknowledgement from them that they lost it and did things they have sanctioned others for, this should be let go, with an admonishment. If they won't do that.. well, that is over my paygrade.
With regard to YMblanter's bad judgement in approving a spambot in Wikidata -- and their refusal to even acknowledge that this was bad judgement -- I remain aghast, but this is not a matter for en-WP Arbcom. (Fwiw, I believe their claim that the cryptocurrency scam was not apparent at first, but the CORPNAME of the account, the stated intention to use the bot only to add links to their own website, and the newness of the company and its website, were all very apparent, and the decision to approve that bot remains incomprehensible to me. There is a discussion at the WD Chat page, here about that decision, where the initial approval is getting some support, which is ... very disheartening. And to me, speaks to whether the en-WP community and the other WMF projects and users of WD, should trust the WD community to keep rank spam out of Wikidata... but this is a matter for our eventual "Use of Wikidata in Wikipedia" policy)
There ~may~ be an Arbcom case, with respect to behavior/process of those deploying Wikidata in en-WP. In my view, two existing policies are not being followed in these efforts, namely WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOT. The latter, due to the automated nature of the way that Wikidata is deployed via templates and infoboxes, such that changes to Wikidata can affect many articles, all at once. CONSENSUS, with respect to the general norm that we ask people to get prior consensus before making systematic changes. This place is a balance between BOLD and CONSENSUS - between libertarian and communitarian ideologies... and the Wikidata advocates are being overly BOLD in making changes that have widespread effects. If Arbcom does go in this direction, in my view WMF employees with en-WP accounts should be made parties to the case, due to their choices to display Wikidata content on en-WP articles on mobile and in the apps - systematic changes to en-WP content.

The outcome of such a case would, I would hope, establish a more clear process for pre-approving uses of Wikidata which ~should~ calm things down, and would also set up a situation in which common themes and decision-bases will eventually emerge and be identified in the specific discussions, that will become the living en-WP policy on "Use of Wikidata in en-WP". Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callencac, If there is a case about conduct, I was looking to the outcome there, and imaging what "principles" and "findings of fact" would emerge. I reckon that issues of civility will arise as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This should be declined. The first word of the request says it all:

Yesterday...

If something that happened yesterday is deemed to be beyond the community's ability to resolve, then Heaven help Arbcom! (And Heaven help us all.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Jc86035

This whole thing is a mess, and shows why this page has already gone back to the same editors yelling at the same WMF employees and developers because the people who don't like yelling as much are probably ignoring these discussions on the village pumps and elsewhere, because of the toxic environment and the low probability that they're actually going to solve anything out of arguing with mostly the same people.

Putting aside the discussion between the two editors in question, it's clear that there does need to be improvement in Wikidata policy, particularly in regards to sourcing statements from RSes and the bot approval process (and a myriad problems unrelated to this particular case). I think ArbCom should take this case, if only to spare editors from 50KB of arguing about the same old things. I also agree with the initial statements of BU Rob13 and Alanscottwalker. Jc86035 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Some examples of the same argument about the same thing (although not necessarily involving WMF employees on the pro-Wikidata side) are this TfD discussion and the one below it, this AN/I discussion, and probably more in the history of this page. (Toxic/unwelcoming environment includes Wikidata forums at times, but out of scope for this case.) Nothing gets resolved, because there is community consensus that Wikidata can be used, but there are issues which have obviously not been solved yet and which will probably be slowly fought over until the heat death of the universe at this rate. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Wikidata but I would hope that things improve on Wikidata as well. Jc86035 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

@Rich Farmbrough: That is a point, but, you see, at that time:

All our troubles seemed so far away

Now it looks as though they're here to stay

Sorry, couldn't resist. More seriously, this is a long term, issue affecting the entire project, with an argument between experienced editors, and one important party being an administrator accused of using their powers to intimidate. No endorsement of whether that's the actual situation, but if there has ever been a case description that had Arbcom written all over it, that's it. Time for them to don their powdered wigs and earn their high pay. --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni (Cross-wiki case)

Per my statement below, I encourage the committee to hear this as a full case within the confines of existing policy, as a longterm dispute that the community has been unable to solve and will likely be unable to solve regardless of whether or not an RfC is launched. I think there is likely a case that can be addressed here within existing policy, and I urge the committee to look at it rather than pushing this off into what will likely be an RfC that gets little input beyond people already involved in the dispute. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to further add here that I fully endorse Iridescent's comments below, and I think that a case would likely be the simplest way to address this, but whatever is done, it should be moderated and under the aegis of in some way ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

I think Arbcom should decline this case and simply state that the filing party and the party filed against need to remain civil. This issue is actually a WMF versus en.wiki situation and as such is beyond the purview of what ArbCom can do. To save time, I can almost guarantee what they WILL be stating two months from now:

They will remind everyone of the civility policies
They will admonish both parties and most likely caution multiple other participants for uncivil behavior
They probably will have to ban someone who won't drop the stick
They probably will impose some superficial restrictions on some of the other players
They will say that use of wikidata-compliant syntax is to be decided on an article-by-article basis based on consensus of contributing editors
They will say that WMF projects and tech are outside their scope of authority to address

So, I suggest that ArbCom cut to the chase, decline the case, issue trout at both parties and tell them to cool their jets and avoid the topic and each other for a week or two. As for Wikidata, there is a screaming need to make it something that normal editors can easily access and repair from article space without needing a computer science degree. I'm personally for the concept in theory, but implementation in practice has been a problem, most of which has been discussed exhaustively elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

Simply stating that the current status quo of not seeing the issue at hand and implying it's not there or much bigger, is very problematic. It's understandable that both enwiki and Wikidata have equal footing on the WMF platform, so I believe editors are expecting AC to largely look into the conduct side of things and maybe make a rule of thumb to use for when cross-wiki issues arise — since it's not a very clear-cut issue always.

As mostly, I'm hopeful this committee will be constructive with its efforts. Thank you. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I think it might be best if the committee took the case. If nothing else, it might give any arbs whose terms expire and are not running for reelection something to think about if they ever decide to run again. 😜 And, more seriously, when the matter is presented before the foundation, it would help to have issues summarized a little to prevent the weight of comments from terrifying the individuals who have to look over the matter and leading to their doing nothing about it. I personally seriously doubt a regular RfC of any sort would be succinct enough to get a response. Of course, what I propose might not technically be within the scope of ArbCom activities, and you all might ask for volunteers from outside the committee to take on the role, but would any person willing to do that specific task, presumably knowing what a bear it would be, be someone whose judgment on the matter would be something that would be likely to be trusted? And, at the very least, conduct on ArbCom pages is generally subject to a bit tighter control than RfCs are, and I think that sort of control might well prove required. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clerk notes

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

Recuse since I've made a statement. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting any additional statements, which should not contain this metaphor, which now comes into my head every time Wikidata is mentioned. More seriously, I'd appreciate thoughts on what a case could properly resolve. Would this be a user-conduct or admin-conduct case, or a "how should Wikidata be used on En-Wiki?" case? If the former, is there enough fodder here for a case? If the latter, would we be able to decide anything without creating policy, which ArbCom is generally not supposed to do? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet there's someone out there with their favorite Wikidata item number tattooed on themselves... Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have outlined a possible motion for consideration, in the section just below. Comments on the proposed motion, from both arbitrators and other editors, would be welcome. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Floq's just here trying to market his eggshell-armor business. I wonder why that stuff doesn't sell nearly as well as the hammers? ;)
I agree that it is rather unclear as written whether this is intended to be a user-conduct case or a more general one about wikidata - the title suggests the latter but most of the text seems focused on the details of one very recent (and perhaps stressful, but not, to my eyes, particularly arbcomworthy) disagreement. If this is meant to be a user-focused case, then it seems thin despite the length - in the absence of evidence of problems beyond "we had an argument the other day and it got heated", I'd decline that case. If this is meant to be a more general case about wikidata-related disputes, I am not sure the issue really falls under our purview, but could be convinced by a good (and please, brief) argument in favor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fram: Fair enough on the case name issue. I gather from your post that you did intend this to be a narrower, user-focused case? Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fram: Thanks for the reply. I am still not convinced that a user-conduct case is necessary based on a single heated disagreement, and I am rarely further convinced by citing responses to a case request as evidence that the case is needed. I would decline a case about Ymblanter in particular. However, I am leaning toward accepting a case about the broader Wikidata dispute - comments in favor, by people who rarely turn up to advocate for more arbcom cases, are persuasive. But that's a bit awkward because I don't think Fram should have to stand as the filing party for a case with a significantly different scope than the one he envisioned (though I suppose the designation doesn't matter all that much in the end). Fram, what do you mean by your comment that such a case should start differently?
  On the subject of a potential "Wikidata integration dispute" case: I realize the scope is unclear, but nevertheless, there is a lot of commentary here that is unambiguously off-topic. If you think that Ymblanter made an error in his capacity as a bureaucrat at Wikidata, you're in the wrong place. If you think that Wikidata's bot approval process should be different, you're in the wrong place. If you think that Wikidata's sourcing policies should be different, you're in the wrong place. Those are Wikidata issues and you should take them up there. This is not wikidata:Complaints Department. A case request is supposed to be an opportunity to discuss whether we should take the case, not a forum in which to advocate for your side of the dispute
  The Wikidata issue is absolutely my least favorite kind of on-wiki dispute - the kind where two sides both have reasonable points, but have dug their heels in so hard that they've convinced themselves they're objectively correct and the other side is full of idiots. (If you're thinking "Well, I'm not like that! Maybe there's been a few regrettable mistakes on my part, but they're forgivable considering how unreasonable the other side is", then yes, I'm talking about you.) I'm not sure if that dynamic means we should take the case, because it's obviously not getting solved on its own, or that we should decline it, because the notoriously adversarial environment of an arbcom case will just make it worse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just jumping in here to pick up a point raised by Fram and OR. Firstly, though I think OR's comment about what this request are and are not is spot on (and I wish I had thought to say it :) ) as well as her comments on the nature of this dispute. Back to the reason I'm jumping in, my intention, if we are to open a case, would be a general case about conduct in relation to this case and not about the policy question itself (which we'd probably need to step around anyway). My intention here would be that we 'break the back of the dispute' by removing those who are most disruptive and railroading the process and maybe authorising some editors/admins to conduct a "moderated discussion" (possibly under discretionary sanctions) like we've done in the past (I think with the Tea Party Movement). I don't really have a problem with opening a case on somewhat of a tangent ("Wikidata integration dispute") to what was originally proposed (Ymblanter) as long as we're open with what our intention is and that we're seriously considering (and deciding on) the scope and parties (Fram's suggestions, plus maybe Ymblanter, look like a good starting point, remembering that we can add more as we go if needed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested in a general case but like Opabinia I'd have to be convinced that it is something within our remit. I don't yet see a compelling need for a user-related case. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think GoldenRing's comments on the policy-related issue is pretty accurate, but is IMHO outside of the Committee's jurisdiction to decide (if there are other policy implications, that could obviously change my opinion here). I haven't yet read enough to decide whether there are sufficient conduct issues that the community has either tried to resolve or would be unable to solve. That's the direction I'd recommend statements go in. However, if there are already policies which might address the questions GoldenRing has raised, comments indicating them and their relevance would be useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been grappling with whether the Committee should become involved in this for a while. There are two areas which need to be considered, the first is whether the Committee has a part to play in the Wikidata on Wikipedia discussion/issue, and the second is whether there are sufficient behavioural issues which are serious enough or that the community is unable to solve.

GoldenRing's comments on his talk page (thanks for the link Dank) are interesting (and I, personally, largely agree with his analysis), however, I don't see the Committee passing a final decision which effectively bans the use of content from Wikidata because it isn't verifiable. That's a decision which needs to be made by the community and ArbCom isn't going to wade into that before the community has discussed it and a consensus has emerged. That is, a proposed decision is eminently more likely to say 'the community needs to discuss this' rather than 'under current policy the use of Wikidata info is [not permitted / questionable]'. Based on all of that I don't see a part for ArbCom to play at this stage (maybe after the 2017 RfC, if there behavioural issues or if the issue still can't be resolved).
The second consideration is whether there is a conduct issue which the community is unable to solve. Part of that consideration is also whether anyone actually breached a policy or guideline, the lack of policy concerning the inclusion of stuff from Wikidata on enwiki makes that murky. Whether or not WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOT have been broken is a difficult question and one which an arbitration case could address, but I'm not sure that that's something the Committee could address as a decision in that direction would likely have the effect of creating policy about Wikidata on Wikipedia. Another element in this consideration is whether the behaviour of Ymblanter and Fram, plus anyone else people can demonstrate have edited disruptively in relation to this dispute, is serious or long-term enough to warrant a case. The big thing here is evidence as some comments don't prove that a case is necessary as they lack substantiation in the form of diffs and links.

Now that I've said all of that, I'm voting to accept a case so that we can examine the behaviour of involved editors and remove (or restrict, etc) any editors who are disrupting the process. Having read and re-read the evidence and links from Iridescent and Ritchie333 (among others) I agree that there are enough behavioural issues (particularly around battleground conduct), and unsuccessful attempts by the community to resolve them, that the Committee's involvement could help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for individuals:

@Jytdog: How would a case "establish a more clear process for pre-approving uses of Wikidata" without creating policy by fiat?
@HJ Mitchell: Could you please provide evidence to support those aspersions?
@Ritchie333: You say that there are "more substantial grounds for a case, but it's spread out over more users", to assist with the development of a more comprehensive list of parties, who do you think should be parties to the case? This is really @everyone to provide evidence (diffs/links & explanation) of other editors whose conduct also bears examination.

Thanks all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog.

Thanks Ritchie333. Unfortunately by their nature (can't make findings against non-parties) arbitration cases really need to single people out. Sometimes that will develop as evidence is submitted and editors are added as parties during the case, other times (especially when the case which is opened isn't exactly the same as the request) cases start additional parties. In fact, in a case like this, it might be better that the case is opened with more parties is at the start as that is closer to what the purpose is looking like it'll be (break the back of the dispute rather than focus on two editors specifically).

Thanks for your comments Jc86035, your first paragraph is one of the big reasons I accepted the case. As I said above though, I'm interested in who the "same editors yelling" are, if you're willing to present that with some evidence it would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Since the conduct issue has been raised, it should be discussed, but the main point is the effect of edits made on enWP from another Wikiproject. I think the policy is clear that we run our own project at enWP just as much as they do atWikidata, and the question of what data should be imported here is for enWP to decide. The question of whether someone making edits on another project with the knowledge and intent of their being entered on enWP againsy enWP policy can be dealt with here if they happen to be here, is involved in other situations also. I think we have previous decided that we can in extreme situation, and the question of whether this is one of them is a proper one for arb com. (and yes, I would say the same about Commons). DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - MontanaBW highlights the course accurately I think. Am considering the motion below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a bit for some more comments on Newyorkbrad's motion below before making a decision on whether to accept this case. While it does seem that there may be some conduct problems here that we could address, a lot of the bigger problems here are problems we cannot solve. As a few people have already pointed out, we can't tell Wikidata how to run their shop. We also can't decide how Wikipedia should incorporate information from Wikidata—that kind of policymaking is up to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible motion for discussion

Please see the motion which has been proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please note that at this time, I am posting this as a possible motion for discussion purposes. It is not yet ready for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible motion: The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Cross-Wiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened. This RfC should be led by a team of three experienced, uninvolved administrators who are not currently identified with any "side" or position in Wikidata-related disputes, should be reasonably publicized, and should be open for at least 30 days.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are expected to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion. The administrators leading the RfC may excuse any editor who repeatedly or severely misbehaves on the RfC page(s) from further participation in the RfC.

(E) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC, or if the RfC is not opened within 15 days after this motion passes.

Comments on possible motion by arbitrators

I've proposed the above for consideration and comment. It is not yet ready for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree pretty much with points A, B, C, D and E - D can be addressed by structuring the RfC well with maximum scope for quantifying succinct points of view accurately, and minimum scope for walls of text, and admins prepared to collapse walls of text that detract or obfuscate the process and hinder further discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: - we can remedy the wall-of-text or discussional mush at the outset by establishing firmly that these sorts of posts will be collapsed if the moderators feel they detract from or obfuscate discussion or discourage other posts. One could even put this in bold text for emphasis.... or a different colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the concept, suggest hosted on (for example) a subpage of WP:ACN with non-threaded discussion and clerking. Adjudicated by three unaligned editors, need not be admins. Risks setting a precedent for other controversial RfCs - but we're not otherwise going to get to a coherent position on this topic, so it's worth a try. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather just have the case and try to solve the conduct issues as I believe that it would better position the RfC in the best way to succeed.
If we are to go down this path though, I agree with A, B, C and E. However, I don't agree with the wording of D. "Expecting" that people will participate is maybe pushing a bit too hard on a voluntary project. Also, if we're going go down the RfC path, where going to need to moderators some serious backing to deal with the conduct issues we'll be pushing onto them. My preferred way to do this would be to authorise the moderators to either use discretionary sanctions or specify a more limited version. That limited version could look something along the lines of moderators being authorised to issue section (specific parts of the RfC), page (whole RfC) or topic (Wikidata on Wikipedia in general) bans (and they can block to enforce those), plus they have full authority over the RfC itself, which includes the ability to unilaterally close (determine consensus), hat or remove comments, discussions and threads. Decisions they make would be covered by the standard enforcement and appeal provisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I don't see a reason to accept a limited case, which would be about one particular admin losing his cool once or twice and being generally difficult to work with, if I may summarize the charges thusly. The larger case would be...well, probably not something for ArbCom. Beetstra, a certified geek, makes a valuable ~~insult~~ comment below, that many of us probably just don't get it--painful but true, and I myself barely grasp the finer points, though I can follow the ins and outs for this case well enough.
I would volunteer Beetstra or a similarly-minded technocrat to write it up for us, in a paragraph or two: what does Wikidata do? Who can do what there? How does it affect Wikipedia? How does it get in? How can we get it out? Can we get individual things out that we don't agree with or that run counter to policy, or is it a package deal? For instance, I found that at least for the mobile view of Wikipedia I can screw with a protected BLP pretty good just by messing with Wikidata. I constrained myself, but only barely--and this is clearly a danger. So, somebody write up the primer, in language that regular users can understand, in a document that a couple of different editors agree on. Short and sweet. Let that be a preface to an RfC. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, and expect we'd have a large structured RfC on the subject eventually even if we started with a case, so we might as well do the part that matters now instead of throwing mud for six weeks first. I prefer NYB's proposal to appoint a team to oversee the RfC over some of the suggestions that arbs themselves do it, just for the sake of maintaining independence. I also prefer that these people be admins - I'm all for minimizing the social significance of adminship, but just as a practical matter, they need to be able to protect, block, and revdel promptly.
I agree with Drmies and others that one feature of this dispute is that the participants are not always working from a common understanding of the facts. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the issues should consider writing up a neutral description. (If you've already identified with a "side" in this dispute, please consider the possibility that you may not be the best person to write such a document even if you're absolutely certain you're right about everything.)
Callanecc, I take it you see the behavior issues as likely to repeat themselves during the RfC. You may be right, but I suspect that the moderators could manage these problems effectively if the RfC is set up well. The GMO RfC a couple of years ago might be a good precedent; for an area that was full of conduct problems even after the case, the moderated RfC went surprisingly smoothly. Disclaimer: I'm recused on GMOs as an arb, so this is from the perspective of a participant in the RfC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with OR, etc. Including NYB's proposal to appoint a team to oversee an RfC. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this can not be decided at enWP alone, but requires some degree of negotiation with Wikidata, to avoid working at cross purposes. We do nto really have a structure for that. DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on possible motion by other editors

I really like this because it seeks to avoid the undesirable situation where a policy decision is made by getting the other side topic banned or blocked rather than actually refuting the arguments. It really happens far too often that a policy or content dispute gets couched as behavioral. I hope this motion is successful and leads to more resolutions like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like this in a way, but I also think that like whatever the bot policy RfC(s) that have been at the root of some of the recent ArbCom cases, what you're going to get is the overwhelming majority of the editing community with their eyes glazed over at this RfC because most of us simply don't care or know enough to care about Wikidata, and its going to turn into a complete mess with the different sides of the dispute making their points and arguing to a stalemate while the rest of the community ignores it because its both 1) extremely boring to most people 2) difficult to comprehend whether it is the end-of-Wikipedia-as-we-know-it® in a good or a bad way and 3) full of editors who have very strong opinions on it so it makes neutral editors simply not want to be involved.
Because of these factors, I think sorting out some of the broader issues within the framework of existing policy and looking at how it affects behavioral issues on the English Wikipedia are better examined in an ArbCom case, because the community has failed to effectively deal with this itself, and the community is unlikely to be able to deal with it through an RfC. A structured format such as a full case would be beneficial here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to comment: Iridescent said what I was thinking better than I ever could, and I fully endorse that view. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Callanecc: I think your conditions are right as to what would be needed for the RfC to be successful, at the same time, as you mentioned a case would be a more straightforward way of addressing the conduct issues. It also has the benefit of already being structured and everyone knowing the rules. The main reason for my comment though is this: any moderators that would be appointed would be acting on authority delegated from ArbCom and would be unelected by the community (and even if we had an "RfC to advise on the appointment of moderators" it would likely suffer from the same problems I noted above about a general RfC). While the committee may be criticized (often times unfairly in my opinion), it is still the single body on the English Wikipedia that is elected by over 1000 members of the community and thus has been entrusted with the ability to run a structured dispute resolution case by the community as a whole. This is in many ways a moral authority that no group of moderators could possibly have, and helps to ensure the outcome is seen as legitimate, which is an issue we have many times with RfC closes, even when done by a closing panel. While I agree with you 100% on the steps that need to be taken if an RfC is to be done, for all of the reasons I mentioned above, I think a case is vastly preferable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. I support the principle of forcing all those involved in this discussion to lay their cards on the table and come to an enforced consensus rather than fighting an ongoing guerrilla war across project space in the hope of getting each other blocked. Per my comments above, I don't believe a traditional RFC is the way to go; a discussion will need to be moderated to prevent it degenerating into two camps posting walls of text at each other (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop for an idea of what an unmoderated RFC would look like), and it ought to be on the understanding that "whatever is agreed here will be enforced" to prevent endless appeals and wikilawyering. Whether or not it's done as a formal case or as an arbcom-controlled Royal Commission Under Warrant From King Jimmy in the shape of a glorified workshop doesn't really matter, but it needs someone with the authority to issue arbitrary "shut up and get to the point" warnings, and IMO only either the arbs themselves or a group of neutrals explicitly given dictatorial powers over how the RFC is conducted would have a hope of preventing it becoming a back-and-forth between the usual suspects. ‑ Iridescent 18:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber Which is precisely why it needs to be a formal process under either Arbcom's or the WMF's aegis, and the WMF won't touch it. Unless someone is explicitly mandated to hat or remove anything they feel needs hatting or removing, to say "shut up, you've said enough" and if necessary to impose word limits, any collapsing will just either be reverted or followed by an endless stream of "and another thing…"s. It's not ABF on my part to presume this, when we know what a discussion between just a small subset of the people likely to participate in any RFC looks like if it's allowed to run unmoderated (and note that you're just seeing the current threads there, there are ten archives as well). ‑ Iridescent 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens, then it might be worth noting that a draft of an RfC already exists at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft - this was started by me a month ago, and it's still iterating towards something usable (it's far from ready yet). TBH, I quite like the idea of this being taken over by a team of three uninvolved admins. However, I'd suggest saying a month (at least) rather than 15 days to prepare it, given the complexities here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan -- (as I said, ENWP is institutionally ignorant of Wikidata) we simply do not have an agreed upon factual understanding, eg. - what wikidata is, what happens with it and why, what has happened on ENWP as a result, etc. -- if we had an agreed upon consensus on the underlying facts (or at least an assembled agreed body of evidence) - we might be able to then go forward, profitably. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Iridescent's comments Dax Bane 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about this some more, the ideal location to host such an RFC - as proposed - would be within a variant of an ArbCom case (skip the evidence phase, run the workshop for the usual time plus whatever time the evidence phase would run as [minimum] as the RFC space with AC clerks doing the moderating - they're already empowered as such within ArbCom cases anyway, and if it does get too far out of hand the ArbCom itself would be on-hand to deal with it) and the final decision can simply summarize whatever consensus has come out of the workshop. Dax Bane 09:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that most editors are too ignorant to understand the effects of transcluding information from outside, and the extend of that. All of that is 'case-by-case', but the case-by-case results in fait accomply situations already that are hard to return back on (it likely will need massive bot runs to keep/get data, followed by massive cleanup). My expectation is that an RfC will not result in a consensus situation (hard push from hardliners on each side, with the general public considering 'mwaagh, it is fine, I don't see problems'), and that we will return here (not that that will resolve anything, ArbCom will only decide on editor conduct). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies and Goldenring: I can have a go, but I have, per OR, probably become too one-sided. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth a shot. The RfC which is being drafted is not comprehensive, but some ideas from it may be used of course (I may perhaps draft an RfC in my userspace to give an idea of what I would consider the necessary questions). I would ask ArbCom, if this motion would get accepted, to make an exception for a) infobox world heritage site, where a RfC has just concluded that it should no longer use Wikidata and where we are working on changing the articles to non-Wikidata infoboxes: stopping this until the end of the proposed RfC seems unproductive; and b) the discussion which is ongoing about the use of Wikidata descriptions in mobile, for which an RfC was had in March(?) but where the definitive solution is now being discussed with the WMF. Halting that discussion, which has already been painfully slow, for another two months or so would be a pity. Apart from those, I guess there is no need for new fragmentary discussions when a general RfC is happening. Fram (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: If Dirk wants to write up such a statement then all power to him. But the difficulty with anything of that sort is that the links between wikidata and enwiki are implemented by templates that call Lua modules and can be made to function in literally any way you like. I suspect that some of the frustration felt by anti-wikidata folk is because just about any objection that is made is almost immediately answered with, "Well, I can just make a change to Lua code over here that makes one of the examples you've cited go away so there's that complaint dealt with." What we end up with is a system with so many overrides and local exceptions and per-article configurations that the average editor has little hope of understanding it all and actually making it work is way more effort than it's worth (see the last few comments on my user talk for an example of someone who thinks that having a list of blacklisted fields that has to be configured for each article is somehow better than just not filling in those fields). Part of the problem is that definitively stating how wikidata and enwiki interact is not really possible; indeed, it's part of what we're trying to figure out in all this. For a summary of what wikidata is and some idea of how links work currently, the initial sections of this RfC draft are not too bad. GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoldenRing: I'm the person who thinks it is actually an improvement to have the ability to force a particular field in a particular article not to display. Your mischaracterisation of what I tried to explain to you is a direct result of your lack of experience in editing in difficult areas, where sometimes we have consensus not to include a field, but drive-by editors repeatedly add that field, blissfully unaware of the amount of debate that's happened on the article talk page. The problem of deciding issues by appealing to uninformed opinion is a big one, and any RfC that aims to provide a definitive solution is going to need a lot of careful exposition in the preamble if it's to stand any chance of achieving that. The lasting solution to the date delinking wars did not arise from sanctioning multiple good-faith editors, but from several large, well-planned, well-attended RfCs, (see: WP:MOSNUM/RFC, et al), culminating in one editor, Ryan Postlethwaite investing a lot of time in setting up a conclusive poll WP:DATEPOLL. Those debates addressed all of the issues and established the consensus on each of them, but needed a lot of work to agree wording and set out background. That was just to settle the unbelievably trivial issue of whether or not we link dates. If you limit the timescale too strictly, what chance have you got of settling an issue as big as under what conditions the English Wikipedia should be able to embed data from a sister project (just as it embeds media from another sister project)? --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming the last sentence is a reference to commons, its very simple, like commons Wikidata would need to have local policies that are equal to, or stricter than ENWP allows as well as an active enough pool of editors to enforce them. Since the local community at Wikidata is vehemently opposed to doing that, the conditions are unlikely to ever be met. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it seems that commenters either want Arbcom to take the case or don't care ... so what I'm wondering is whether this satisfies the people who have commented already. For me, it counts as doing something, and that's all I'm asking for. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it (RfC). It can't be worse than not doing it at this point. This is a contentious issue that could be very divisive, and is already polarising Wikipedians against Wikidata, to nobody's benefit. We need to establish some boundaries here. Fram and Ymblanter's squabble is worthy of a couple of trouts, The underlying issue is important. I think even Fram and Ymblanter would agree on this. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest arbitrators (in their ArbCom capacity) *not* interfere with community proceedings at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft and its talk page. No top-down decisions in this sense were requested in this ArbReq, nor is overriding the way the editor community proceeds towards WP:CONSENSUS warranted at this point. Thanks for the vote of no confidence in community consensus proceedings–which may be excused for perhaps not being aware of what was already going on. You're welcome to participate in such preparations without wearing an arbitrator hat, but no need to jump to a high-level ArbCom decision (sort of leaving no further resort in the eventuality this would go south).

If a few participants in the Wikidata-related debate need to be trouted (or worse) at this point for having lost their cool (or worse), then proceed with an ArbCom case on that specificity: but if no more than a more or less explicit "please behave" ruling is likely, then just make a motion about that now, without taking governance of the overall consensus-seeking procedures in this matter out of the hands of the editing community. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say what Arbcom can or should do, but I definitely endorse Dirk Beetstra's comment. I see a high likelihood that people who aren't very familiar with wikidata will try to reach for a middle-ground where the conflict continues and everyone loses. Any given infobox-template may affect hundreds or thousands of articles, and it's a big waste of work if we're fighting to roll wikidata-use forwards and backwards at the same time.
The wikidata draft RFC has developed relatively smoothly, in part because we included almost anything anyone wanted to include. Drmies asked for "a paragraph or two" primer on Wikidata. The only answer that short is 42. However the draft RFC has several intro paragraphs that probably offer a not-too-terrible introduction. There is surprisingly little disagreement between advocates and critics on the basic facts surrounding Wikidata. Most basic questions are easily answered, so long as you have one person from each side to balance out any spin. Almost all of the disagreements come down to value judgements - do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? The claimed advantages and the claimed disadvantages are both rather large, so there is a tendency to polarization once someone forms an opinion. Alsee (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: can you give some examples of things which can't be decided here alone but need to be discussed with Wikidata? Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

basically, making sure their data is of high enough quality that we can use it, trying to find some way that we can control what they push to us, without preventing updates of annually changing material, handling naming so it matches the conventions of each different project, and ensuring they don't use data that is circularly sourced from places that source from Wikipedia, as the Library of Congress now does for author names and dates. Now, I am not an expert here, and they may already have solved a good deal of it--but if so, all the more need for cooperation so we know the status. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crosswiki issues: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Crosswiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.

(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Supporting this approach, for a couple of reasons. First, as I mentioned above, I think that opening a broad case about Wikidata on the basis of what was originally a narrow request about user conduct isn't quite the best start. We've had a lot of discussion about case scope over the last couple of years, and while we've sometimes accepted a broad request but given it a narrower scope, I can't think of a recent example where we accepted a narrow request but gave it a broader scope. I think that puts the filer in a difficult position and it has the potential to skew the evidence if the original request sets the tone. More significantly, the broadened scope directly overlaps with an ongoing community process (the draft RfC being prepared), which we weren't asked to intervene on. I'm open to tweaking the details (length of the sunset clause, for example) and I can say for sure that I'd accept a later request making the case that the RfC was foundering or that bad conduct was continuing there. But I think it's reasonable to give that existing effort a shot, with some extra tools to keep things on track, before dragging everyone into a big case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion by arbitrators

Discussion by other editors

The last point of the motion must be F, not E.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the 1-year limit on discretionary sanctions, but other than that this looks like what is needed - a firm reminder that all participants need to behave like mature adults and engage with the discussions in good faith (explicitly including not creating a fait acompli), along with a note that there will be consequences for those who do not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly a result of consensus building on the list that discretionary sanctions should be temporary until the community decides how Wikidata should be integrated. It's there mainly as a sunset clause. I'm hopeful that next year's Committee will be able to end them sooner (as hopefully the RfC will happen soon). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will not work without a structured format, and I still believe a case is the best way forward here. Discretionary sanctions will also make it a free-for-all since everyone who is contributing will be a "vested contributor" and anytime a sanction is placed it will immediately spill over into the appeal venues (think GorillaWarfare's recent block of TRM but worse in terms of the appeal). If anything this motion will increase this disruption that the overwhelming majority of editors who simply do not care about Wikidata experience while the inevitable mess of an RfC takes place. It would be better for arbcom simply to do nothing rather than pass this motion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's at minimum a formal mechanism for closing the RFC, and a formal statement that the result of decisions there are enforceable, this will just generate more heat than light since both the pro and anti Wikidata camps will just ignore any decisions with which they disagree. While I'd prefer the RFC be structured and moderated—regardless of how anti-Wikipedian that may be—if it's going to be a free-for-all it probably needs to be on the understanding that Arbcom itself or a group delegated by them will act as closers, and that whatever conclusion it reaches will itself become an enforceable Arbcom motion. ‑ Iridescent 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An example from the past could be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Rs chen 7754 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote up my thoughts on similar questions a while back, and some of this may still be useful, I don't know:
- My recommendations for contentious, multi-year RfCs:
- Encourage everyone to say more than they would say in a typical RfC. People tend to talk in terms of solutions ... but if you prompt them for more, they'll tell you something about what they see as the problems, and that's the information we need to negotiate something that has a chance of working for everyone.
- Instead of letting a few people determine what everyone is going to vote on, allow votes on whatever questions gain traction, either through a pre-RfC to decide the questions, or at the end of an RfC, when the closer(s) can lead a short discussion among the voters to set up the next RfC.
- Allow lots of time. Tough issues often take multiple RfCs, because initially people will be focused on different aspects of the problem, and it's hard to find any consensus when people insist on viewing the problem in different ways. Try to get consensus on one question at a time; after people see that they've definitely won (or lost) on the question that concerns them most, some of them will be willing to shift their attention to whatever question comes next.
- If several rounds of discussion haven't produced anything, try tackling problems in smaller groups first, such as wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Wiki

Initiated by TonyBallioni (talk) at 19:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Soetermans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[16]
[17]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[18]
[19]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I am filing this case request to ask the committee to review the actions of Salvidrim! and Salvidrim! (paid) in regards to paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do. Jytdog has laid out the basic timeline here.

Salvidrim! created the Salvidrim! (paid) account on 1 November 2017 because it would be controversial to edit from an admin account. Six minutes later granted himself confirmed, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and page mover user rights. He explicitly did not grant himself the autopatrolled flag because he knew this would be controversial. He then disclosed that he had been paid to move Studio71 to the brand's preferred title. He then used the pager mover rights he had assigned himself to execute a round-robin page move to the firm's preferred stylization of its brand and away from what had been the stable title for over 18 months without community oversight either at WP:RM/TR or through a full RM.

Additionally based on self-disclosed Facebook messenger conversation between Salvidrim! and Soetermans, who is also a disclosed paid editor for Mister Wiki, that Salvidrim! asked Soetermans to review AfC drafts for a Mister Wiki client that he had been paid for his involvement with because he did not think it was fair to the client to make them wait. This was after the WP:PAY guideline was updated to include guidance that paid editors should not accept their own AfC drafts (For full disclosure, I revdel'd under RD4 on COIN without knowing there was consent, thinking could be outing, and emailed the oversight team for assessment).

Soetermans then requested AfC access which was later granted (and then removed) by Primefac: [20], [21], [22]. The only AfC reviews that Sotermans reviews are the articles Salvidrim! had declared he was paid to edit: [23], [24]. Soetermans explains the situation here, and classified the moves as "return[ing] the favor" for asking Salvidrim to accept a previous AfC draft that Sotermans had been paid to edit. Salvidrim! later acknowledged that this effectively amounted to meatpuppetry.

At the COIN thread there appears to be unanimous agreement from a wide range of editors that the best way forward on this would be for Salvidrim! to resign the tools and stand for RfA again. Salvidrim! has stated that he is open to some form of sanctions, but doesn't feel he should have to resign or be desysoped.

As this is an administrator conduct issue involving potential violations of the sock puppetry policy for pay by an SPI clerk, and other potential misuse of the tools for pay, I think that the committee needs to answer the question as to if a breach of trust occurred, and if it did, what should happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim! and SarekOfVulcan: I don't think I mentioned an emergency desysop anywhere, and I don't want one. I do think desysoping should be addressed in a potential case, but it definitely isn't an emergency situation. What I asked the committee to do was examine if a breach of trust here has occurred, and if so, what should happen moving forward. At COIN by my count we have had 7 editors call for Salvidrim! to resign the bit voluntarily and stand again at RfA as a way to deal with the issue of community trust here. Salvidrim has said he does not believe that is necessary and that he did not intend on resigning. The question as to what actions by an administrator in this area are considered out of bounds and how we should resolve them is one of the tensest areas on Wikipedia currently, and asking the committee to resolve some of these questions under current policy when there is disagreement on the way forward in a specific case is firmly within their remit. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: I agree with you in terms of the focus being on misuse of community trust on administrative tools, which is how I tried to focus the case on by showing diffs of questionable judgement in regards to how they interact with COI and paid editing. The question here like you, GMG, and TNT have pointed out is one of competence and integrity. This should be the primary focus of the case.
At the same time, I do think there is room for the committee to clarify what counts stepping over the line in terms of use of community trust and paid editing. The recent site ban of KDS4444 and the ongoing discussion at VPP as to what our guidelines are here when it comes to using advanced permissions to engage in paid editing are a bit murky to those who participate in it and to the community. There is broad consensus that it shouldn't happen, the question is when the line is crossed. (Also, this case would deal more with WP:PAY, part of the COI guideline rather than WP:PAID, which is part of the WMF TOU.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy and Opabinia regalis: In terms of naming the case I was aware of recent criticism that having cases named after people was non-ideal, because the community tended to view it as a rush to file because the case-name-party was sure to be sanctioned. I chose what was in my opinion the most neutral name possible. Assuming this is accepted, I have no problem with it being renamed Salvidrim! if the committee thinks it best, because I agree with SoWhy and others here that first and foremost this is a behavioral case regarding Salvidrim!’s actions. I do think that in its principles the committee will inevitably clarify some things regarding positions of trust and COI/paid-editing, but that is not primarily what I think the case is about. I also want to state for the record that naming Soetermans as a party does not mean that I think they should be sanctioned my intent was like OR said: a pure factual list. One of the concerns here is that an Salvidrim violated the sock/meatpuppetry policy by asking Soetermans, who was paid by the same firm, to review his AfC drafts and that Soetermans appears to only have sought AfC access to do this. Even if the sole focus of this case is to look at Salvidrim’s actions, I don’t see how Soetermans’ actions don’t make them involved, they are 1/2 of the equation on one of the two main concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy and Ivanvector: Salvidrim!'s version of events here on that AfD is correct, which is why I didn't mention it in the case request. Looking over it again, though, I see he ~~was~~ ~~paid~~ considered participating in it to be part of his contractual relationshoip, which also raises a whole host of questions, especially given the concerns that Alex Shih points out about him trading off of his reputation here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salvidrim!, I've struck and reworded based on your comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: to your later question, I don't think it would be helpful for the workshop to be an RfC. There is distrust that exists in some quarters with the committee on this issue, and I don't think any broad statements from the committee as a committee-overseen RfC would do much good in this case because it is something that most within the community have a view on (unlike Wikidata): an outcome on either side on broader questions would likely create real frustration within the community as to the roll of ArbCom in perceived making of policy.
Where ArbCom can be helpful is examining where under current policy and guidelines the lines are so there is clarity in any future case and for any future RfC. I don't see "paid editing" being within the scope of the case itself, rather, I think by examining the behavioral issues raised, the principles and findings of fact will naturally help clarify where we are on current policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: it was a WP:TITLETM question on a stylization, where policy prefers standard English unless there is strong evidence in sourcing otherwise. These can be contentious requests, and are typically handled through RMs because there is a balance between common name and avoiding stylization and different people view it in different ways. The concern here is that he used the admin toolset to avoid those questions. An RM would have been both in line with best practices under our normal move guidelines and the COI guidelines. The concern comes that the only reason this mistake occurred was because he used the admin tools on his volunteer account to grant page mover rights to his paid account. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: like I said above, I think this case should focus on Salvidrim!'s actions in regards to the community trust administrators are expected to maintain. JacobMW has to my knowledge not directly edited much outside of their userspace. If they have had previous accounts and Salvidrim knew about it, I do think that would raise red flags and be relevant to the case. I think Iridescent would likely have good thoughts on this: he and I don't agree on paid editing (or the focus of this case), but I respect his views on this subject quite a lot, and I think they would be valuable for the committee to consider. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salvidrim!

I fucked up by underestimating how carefully COI has to be handled and believing the strength of my integrity to be beyond reproach. I thought that because everybody was acting nice and with good intentions, that everything would be fine, which was careless and demonstrated how poorly I truly understand how COI must be managed. I did not fully appreciate the difficulty of proper COI management, thinking myself honest enough to just act properly on my own, instead of allowing the community to have proper oversight of my paid actions. This mishandling of COI led to two core mistakes:

Alt-perms - I added permissions to my alt Salvidrim! (paid) using my main account instead of via PERM. Perhap "Confirmed" and even "Rollback" by themselves might have been passable if ill-advised, but "page mover" and "reviewer" should never have been granted to a paid sock without review by a neutral admin (if at all).

AfC collusion - As is now well-documented, I asked a friend, Soetermans, for an AfC review of two articles I had been paid to clean-up, which was a clear breach of every COI handling rule and guideline imaginable and a perversion of the very purpose of AfC. I apologize for allowing himself to be dragged into this (although as he says himself and as our FB conversation shows, nobody forced anyone else) and was a severe breach of the community' trust. The time it took to realize that fact after initially being confronted by Jytdog only adds to the shame engendered by my arrogant faith in my own implacable integrity.

Edit (06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)), I should have linked to it here for clarity, but please READ exactly what was said and what was asked for between Soetermans and I concerning this AfC collusion. I get the feeling that some commenters haven't seen this conversation and that some of their conclusions seem to imply some explicitely nefarious or corrupt perversion of the AfC system by people who care for naught but the money, while I think this discussion shows we both had misgivings about the appropriateness of the "tit-for-tat" AfC review and were we fucked up and erred in our judgement was doing the deed despite our misgivings by failing to appreciate that our judgement had been influenced unduly by the poorly managed COIs we were both operating under. I'm not saying it's excusable or trying to lessen the undeniable collusion and breach of trust, and I'm not accusing anyone here of not having consulted the evidence, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind... I just feel like this is a critical piece of evidence that might help commenters gather a more accurate impression of the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that being said, I still do not believe this fuckup in mishandling COI necessarily must result in desysopping. Removal from the realm paid editing, obviously, and I've already offered to agree on community sanctions (such as renouncing all paid editing, not approving paid AfC/PERM/edit-reqs, or whatever further sanction is agreed upon as necessary), but I do not believe desysopping to be the solution, despite the few vocal commenters at COIN demanding a resignation. The AfC collusion was a violation of COI guidelines and a breach of trust, but not a misuse of adminship (it could have happened exactly the same whether I was admin or not), and the alt-perms was, yes, a mistake in the use of admin tools, but was acknowledged and reverted once pointed out and this singular event does not seem egregious or requiring of an emergency desysop. Nor is there any indication of "a pattern of conduct unbecoming of an admin", which I know is what ArbCom often looks for in desysopping requests. Outside of this paid editing debacle, I have been receiving nothing but praise for my recent admin work, and I do not believe I have demonstrated that I am incapable of correctly fulfilling the duties of an admin in general, although I certainly have lost the trust to handle my own and others' paid editing COI. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome and look forward to reading the committee's & the community's opinions on whether I'm way, way wrong above, and I apologize in advance for the time and thoughtspace that ends up being spent on this (relatively speaking) shitty issue. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Short response to Ivanvector & SoWhy & Nsk92 to clarify the Reza Izad AfD --

(1) it was closed and deleted by DGG

(2) I recreated a single history historyless revision as a redirect (plausible search term to where the person was mentioned)

(3) then DGG unclosed the AfD and reclosed it to fix some bug (deleting my one-revision redirect)

(4) and when asked to restore that one-revision-redirect, he instead restored the entire history, making it look like my redirection happened before the AfD's (second) closure.

It's always been the intent to have the history deleted and then a single revision redirecting the title. As I've said on COIN, I obviously won't use my tools to fix that, but it should be fixed by deleting the history and restoring only the single-redirect-revision. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re TonyBallioni - FWIW, I wasn't "paid for contributing to the AfD". The original request was "clean-up of the article against the expectation of payment", but since that was obviously unsuccessful, no payment was made. However rules about paid editing state that disclosures should include edits made against payment or expectation thereof and the AfD initial contributions kinda fell under the same general "clean-up the article" request's umbrella, hence my disclosure for the sake of thoroughness. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re Smallbones: Not to go all SPI-clerky on you, but you are putting forward allegations that Jacob's JacobMW is somehow a sockpuppet without presenting even the faintest glimmer of evidence. The guy's barely twenty, how long a history do you think he can have!? I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, Smallbones, but I am saying it would benefit everyone to be able to actually evaluate your allegations to determine their validity. FWIW, he also adressed the number of hired editors on his talk page.

As an aside, I'm not necessarily opposed to Jacob being involved in the case if it ends up being opened to cover "paid editing in general" or at least "MisterWiki-related editors", but the account did not even exist when the actions being (rightly) held against me took place so if this is to be strictly a user-conduct case, makes little sense to include Jacob. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the considerations of the possibility of an "ArbCom-managed RfC on paid editing vs. adminship" (see Mendaliv's, Newyorkbrad's comments and others), I can't help but spare a thought to the Arbitrators who may be leaving the committee within about 5 weeks, where having to manage an RfC that will no doubt run on the longer side might mean reticent, forced prolongations of their terms as Abritrators... I don't really know if there's a solution for that, but I'm throwing down some brainstorm ideas in case the committee is interested in considering said RfC : delegate its management to the clerk team (question crafting, civility enforcement, recruiting a closer panel, etc.) and/or to the next committee (don't think there is precedent for that though); or craft the question and recruit the closing panel right away and then step back from the process of running the RfC; or whatever else. I guess all I'm saying is that commenters should keep in mind that asking some of the outgoing Arbs to commit to involvement in a contentious RfC all the way into next Spring is not something that can be asked for lightly. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soetermans

I appreciate some people saying I shouldn't have to be a part of this. However, I'm the one that dragged Ben (@Salvidrim!) into this in the first place. A month ago, my first paid gig was Datari Turner. It might've take over a month to get accepted. Because I was impatient I asked Ben for the favor of moving it out of draft space, which he did on October 20th. This was before he was involved with Mister Wiki; it was a favor to me personally. But it was through me that Ben also came into contact with Mister Wiki. A week or so, Ben asked me in turn to help out with two articles, Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). Thinking notability trumps neutrality and transparency, I requested AfC rights and quickly okayed the two articles. If my initial asking wasn't crossing the line already, this was a quod pro quo corruption-like situation. I take full blame for my actions, and I'm very sorry for the damage I've caused. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ivanvector, I agree, I'm as much as part of this as @Salvidrim! and it's only fair I'm not excluded from this. Like @Jytdog says, appearances matter. We have both done something wrong, but I can't be just let off the hook because I'm not an admin. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I think it is premature at this point to have a case. Salvidrim! tried to do the right thing, recognizes that he fucked up, and is attempting to mitigate it. I don't think there was misuse of tools that would require an immediate desysop. Let's just let this play out for a bit and see what happens.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I know you didn't mention an emergency desysop. I'm just pointing out that since that isn't in play here, there's no reason not to wait a bit and see what Salvidrim! and the community come up with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreenMeansGo

Simply put, if we need to craft some kind of elaborate restriction for you so that you can remain a sysop, because you cannot be trusted to edit in certain areas, then you don't have the level of trust to be a sysop. The assertion above by SarekOfVulcan, that Sal "tried to do the right thing" needs to come with a few asterisks, like for example, he "tried to do the right thing" by disclosing the collusion at AfC five days later after being basically begged to admit it. Or maybe he "tried to do the right thing" by removing user rights from his alt account three weeks later, after needing to be explicitly told that it was a misuse of the tools. In the interim they were apparently perfectly fine using those permissions and even citing their own "integrity" while arguing to keep articles at AfD that they worked through AfC through collusion. That's not "trying to do the right thing", that's picking a man's pocket behind his back while you preach him the gospel to his face to distract him.

I find it hard to believe an experienced user honestly thinks this kind of thing is okay, but the alternatives here are that they either didn't know, which calls into questinon their competence, or they didn't care, which calls into question their integrity. I'm not entirely sure which one is worse. GMG ^talk 21:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by There'sNoTime

It is highly unfortunate this has come to requiring an Arbitration case as multiple editors have called for the voluntary resignation of Salvidrim!'s bit - his actions have fallen well below the standard we set for our administrators. He was "promoted" (to use the word commonly thrown around) to an administrator on many qualities, but fundamentally trust. I strongly believe his actions have lost the trust of a majority of editors who are aware of the Mister Wiki fiasco. It is clear, even this "early", that we as a community cannot provide a suitable outcome and so I strongly urge the committee to take this case. Thank you -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I echo GreenMeansGo's very well worded final sentence - this is either competence or integrity, and issues with either of which are not compatible with that of administration -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like Soetermans left out of this case if at all possible - they've shown a genuine understanding of what they did wrong -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I'm inclined to recommend the Committee accept this case given the difficulty of getting a fair hearing through community processes whenever paid editing is involved. Paid editing is not, for better or worse, a prohibited practice at this time. To be clear: At first blush, I don't think Salvadrim! has done anything meriting a desysop or even an editing restriction. This is especially in light of his clear acknowledgement that he should not have undertaken certain of the actions that he did; it makes it clear that this isn't a pattern of misconduct or a problem that is likely to repeat itself. Rather, I think the Committee's role in this case would be more along the lines of clarifying how current policy regarding administrative actions interacts with paid editing and COI issues more generally. The relative calm and process present in Committee proceedings, in my view, is far preferable to the torches-and-pitchforks mentality that seems to come out on the dramaboards when paid editing is involved. I believe this fits in with the Committee's jurisdictional mandate insofar as the aforementioned torches-and-pitchforks mentality is severe enough to render the typical ad hoc hearing by the community at the dramaboards to be effectively no hearing at all. In other words, I argue that the community is unable to resolve non-obvious paid editing cases in a manner that a paid editor accused of misconduct has an opportunity to be heard, to explain his or her actions and have the outcome take that explanation into consideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I actually didn't get that impression from the comments here, that an RfC Workshop is what is desired here. That said, I believe the Committee's existing preliminary injunction and discretionary sanction powers fully create the possibility of a Committee-supervised RfC. My take on what I think the underlying concern is—the Committee overstepping its bounds by using a case to pronounce policy—is that there's a fairly well established precedent that the Committee may act upon existing consensus, and potentially, on consensus that comes into existence during the pendency of a case. The question I'd have to ask is whether the Committee may be the closer of an RfC. At the very least, I believe the Committee has the jurisdiction to review the close of an RfC, though the question of deference would absolutely come up. In short, I believe the Committee has the powers to direct that an RfC be held on a policy question (especially on conduct policy), and potentially to specify the RfC question to be asked, through its preliminary injunction powers (I envision this as very vaguely being like a certified question). I further believe the Committee may enact discretionary sanctions or other remedies to prevent disruption of such an RfC. Finally, while I am not sure if the Committee has the power to determine the outcome of the RfC itself, it definitely should be able to review the close and determination of such an RfC's outcome. Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely; I think it generally wouldn't be, but in cases like this, where discussions of the question of policy often become inflammatory and the problem is of serious importance to the community, I believe the Committee's jurisdiction may be activated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

I think the committee should take this case, but focusing the scope on the misuse of community trust on administrative tools through either poor display of integrity or simply incompetence, as our paid editing policies are already very clear in my opinion and ~~do not require further clarification at this time~~. Reading through the first AN/I discussion, Salvidrim! has repeatedly deflected direct questioning from Jytdog with giggles and dubious rationale (such as trying to play down this revert as “misclicked revert”). I remembered deleting Datari Turner Productions back in September as unambiguous advertising with another administrator, and I cannot help but to think that they are related to this case. Gaming the system is a serious issue that should not be taken lightly, and both of the discussions prior to this case request reveals nothing but the extremely questionable integrity of this involved editor as administrator, and it is not the first time that their integrity has been seriously questioned (see the RfB discussion, with at least one editor seeking the procedure to desysop). The line of questioning on legitimate concerns of integrity has been deflected with irrelevant self-congratulatory I have been receiving nothing but praise for my admin actions as of late, twice. With the existing temperament concerns combined with persistent poor judgement and deflection on their suboptimal practices involving conflict of interest and paid editing, I do not think this editor should continue to be trusted with administrative tools. Alex Shih (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TonyBallioni's reply, I can now see the rationale for clarification on where do we draw the line on the terms of use in regards to paid editing, so I have crossed out the corresponding line in my original statement. Alex Shih (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ifnord

I find it very difficult to conceive of a Wikipedia administrator who can hold the trust of the community while they are being paid by an outside person or agency. As the saying goes, one cannot serve two masters. Being paid is an (almost?) irresistible pull from the neutral position administrators are expected to maintain. Additionally, when I look for signs of contrition, I expect the person to have the insight to know fully what they did was wrong. In their statement, User:Salvidrim! writes, "I apologize in advance for the time and thoughtspace that ends up being spent on this (relatively speaking) shitty issue." It appears to minimize this event. I do not see true contrition here; I support User:TonyBallioni's request to ask the committee to review the actions of Salvidrim!. Ifnord (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee (Mister Wiki)

There seemed to be a pretty strong consensus developing that community trust has been breached here. And I certainly think so - I really don't see how trust in an admin can still be there after it has been abused for this paid-editing sock/meat-puppetry. The only way I can see to confirm/regain that trust is via a new RfA, and there are only two ways for that to happen - either voluntarily or forced by ArbCom. As Salvidrim! has declined the former, I join in the request for ArbCom to take this case and consider the latter.

Statement by Jytdog (MW)

What to say here. I very much wish that Salvidrim had not posted this diff, which is, to be frank, defensive, combative, and completely wrong-headed.

It is not appropriate for a person who broke other people's trust, to try to tell the people whose trust they broke, just how bad the damage really is.

One cluster of bad judgement, unbecoming of any Wikipedian much less an admin, over three weeks is one thing. But I was hopeful, as Salvidrim aptly described the error he made in this diff at COIN as well as his userpage.

But he is now repeating that same error, coming from the same place, with regard to the aftermath, in the statement in the diff that led to this filing. Salvidrim, if you really were putting the well-being and judgement of the community above your own judgement, you would have resigned the bit and submitted for RfA where you would have gotten very clear feedback on whether the community trusts you or not.

This is a deal breaker for me. I do not trust someone who piles bad judgement on top of bad judgement with the bit or any other advanced permission. This has - in my view - nothing to do with paid editing per se. It is just about bad judgement.

Arbcom should remove advanced permissions from Salvidrim. I don't think a full case is even needed, and Arbcom can just decide this by motion.

I do not think that Soetermans should be a party. In my view he fully understands what he did wrong, named the corruption of the AfC process for what it was, and has not objected to surrender of the advanced permissions that he acknowledged that he abused as you can see on his TP here. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:, the spirit of your post, honoring a policy you don't agree with, is beautiful; if Salvidrim were showing that kind of attunedness to the community on multiple levels, we would not be here. However this is not about paid editing, and no private information is required to resolve it. Even the interactions between Souetermans and Salvidrim offline have posed on-wiki with their consent. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: yours is the tightest, clearest post here in my view. Thank you for that. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: I'm getting the feeling that you haven't read the timeline to see the very clear backroom dealing to pervert AfC between Salvidrim and Soutermans and the other bad judgements, or the threads on my TP and at COIN where Salvidrim came to terms with just how bad their judgement was in that three week cluster of actions. Yes I agree that Salvidrim lived his way into doing a cluster of bad things and that is indeed just human. My !vote is driven purely by his subsequent judgement -- his clinging to the bit like it is a "right" and not a privilege and a sign of community trust, refusing to resolve his breach of trust by resigning and resubmitting to RfA... when it was very obvious that it would lead to arbcom if he didn't. He "apologizes" for this proceeding but that is entirely fake. He knew this is what would happen when he made that post. He is making the same mistake here that he did in the original cluster... which means he doesn't really understand where he went wrong. The only way that "paid editing" is relevant here, is that it was the spur for the initial set of bad judgements. It could have been anything.

I praised your statement because it shows that you understand how WP works and your role in serving the mission and that you can be resilient and adapt to consensus, even where you think the consensus is wrong. The symbol "Kohs" stands for someone who thinks WP is very important and wants to be associated with it, but whose own ego/mission/etc is more important to them than the community's mission. That is where Salvidrim is going. Whether he keeps going is his choice, and his alone. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: oh i am not overreading their motivation. It was simple wikifriend helping wikifriend to grease the wheels of AfC. That is kind of corrupt any time - any kind of review process in WP should always be truly arms length, not "hop me through this stupid hoop will you?" When there is paying client behind the person asking the favor it is no longer just kind of corrupt. Both Salvidrim and Souetermans see that now and there is no dispute about that. Nobody is saying this was acceptable and it doesn't need to be "examined".

Other folks are asking for what they are asking for - namely wanting to open the bigger picture of paid editing and advanced permissions. I only want Salividrim's refusal to locate himself within community consensus and its process instead of above it addressed. His bad judgement, doubled down. An admin or person with any advanced privileges who takes that stance and tries to cling to their privileges via wikilawyering, should not have those privileges. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just fwiw - I am talking with the owner of Mister Wiki in about a half hour, which arises from a discussion at his user talk page, User talk:JacobMW. My goal is to hear whatever he wants to say, and tell him about paid editing in WP (the same stuff I say on my userpage). This is not directly relevant to these proceedings but something I thought I should make public here. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bri

I agree that this is important for Arbcom to hear. GMG makes valid points about integrity and trust. There are significant breach-of-trust issues around paid editing to sort out and establish what is considered acceptable. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

The community does not want want a desysopping 'by shame or by force', they just want the natural consequences of abuse of trust to be carried out. Creating a separate account for paid editing does not absolve the need to maintain that trust - both accounts are operated by the same person. Notwithstanding, paid editing is totally incompatible with the holding of advanced rights as demonstrated very recently by the indefinite block and ban of user:KDS4444. On Wikipedia, rank does not have its privileges, so Salvidrim! should not let himself be lulled into a false expectation of leniency because he is an admin. Salvidrim! has chosen not to fall on his sword, he's therefore not now in a position to dictate the terms of what happens next. With his action he has lost the community's trust vested in his access to special user rights. KDS couldn't have his sysop bit removed because he wasn't one, but all his others, including OTRS were revoked, with everything finally terminating in an indef block and ban; his otherwise good content contributions and creations naturally could not, and were not, admitted as mitigating circumstances. It is therefore, IMO, advisable that the Committee accept this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

I've followed the thread at WP:COIN since it started and regretfully must ask that the committee take this on, due both to the issues of the immediate case and to the precedents it sets with respect to paid editing by admins. Salvidrim! had a chance to try and forestall this through quick and decisive action, as in "I swear, I'm never going within 18 thousand bazillion cubic kilometers of anything remotely related to paid or COI editing ever again, whether as an admin or an ordinary user." But regrettably he dithered, and here we are. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

Admin has breached the community's trust by editing in the service of being paid by the subject of an article, assigning permissions to their "Paid" account that are stringently reviewed, and attemping to "shop" AFC reviews to get the desired outcome. In my mind there are two paths forward: Salv should see the writing on the wall and resign the bits under the cloud, or drag out a ArbCom case and run the risk of even more stringent sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do endorse a case, though having a abbreviated case would be desireable. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

The communitys trust has clearly been broken here and as such this case should be accepted, I appreciate the disclosure but that doesn't make everything okay, The best course of action (if Sal doesn't resign) is to have his tools forcibly removed and let them rerun for RFA - I don't support blocks or any of that shit because PE isn't strictly prohibited but one way or another I support the removal of their tools. –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered to flaff around with my statement but I just want it to go on record that I don't really want them to have their tools removed by Arbcom but I would support some kind of sanction but we'll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Forgive the cliché but Albert Einstein said "When the issue is one of Truth and Justice, there can be no differentiating between small problems and great ones. For the general viewpoints on human behaviour are indivisible. People who fail to regard the truth seriously in small matters, cannot be trusted in matters that are great." My position is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so I encourage ArbCom to take this case so that we may have a definitive result. The arguments by editors far more experienced in COI than I are convincing, but please, let's give this a thorough review before passing judgment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

Please accept. Sal certainly tried to do the right thing, we want to know whether he succeeded, and if he didn't, then what the right thing is. Honestly, penalties are secondary, since we're supposed to be preventative, not punitive, I'm pretty sure he will do whatever is recommended without punishment. But we do want to have specific recommendations. --GRuban (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's question: The arbcom can't decide the paid editing rules for us, but it can certainly hear the evidence and find out whether the community has already decided, and the results of this case can be a convenient point of reference. Just look at the opinions on this page, where there is clear disagreement about whether there are standards. You get the enviable task of digging through all the community discussion and finding any. You're not the legislature, but you are the court. Which is why you make the big bucks, right? --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

Admins editing for pay and in breach of policy has significant risks of harming our shared brand. Our brand is something build by 1,000s of us which this user is trying to convert into money for themselves. Our readers generally expect our articles to be independent of the subjects we write about.

That they did not understand that using admin tools were they were obviously involved is a problem is a concern. The advice by the community is for them to resign and reapply to be an admin. That they have so far declined to do so and instead dragged us all here is a further concern that they do not understand the significance of the issues here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Please accept (regardless of whether Salvidrim resigns or not; the issue here isn't dishing out punishment, it's figuring out what's going on, whether it should be allowed to continue, and if so under what circumstances). As some of you will know, I've been a supporter right back to the days of MyWikiBiz of treating paid edits no differently than we'd treat any other edit provided they comply with Wikipedia standards on notability and neutrality. However, this is clearly not the consensus view of the community, and as such even though I personally disagree with the policy, I believe that one should comply with policy as it is not as one wishes it were. What we appear to have here is a group of people who feel that they can pick and choose which policies apply to them, or that IAR means that they have the right to ignore consensus if it will affect their businesses. Since any investigation—even if it concludes there was no wrongdoing—will necessarily mean the use of private evidence regarding the real-life identities and interactions of both the editors and their clients, this is something that can only be investigated either by Arbcom or by the WP:OFFICE itself; since I don't think anyone really relishes the prospect of allowing the WMF to operate an inquisition, that leaves Arbcom as the only people who are qualified to make a decision as to whether a problem exists and if so how it should be addressed. ‑ Iridescent 00:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog, I don't see this so much as a conduct issue on the part of Salvidrim; it seems fairly clear-cut that he thought he was working within the rules, and got tetchy and defensive when a large group of people all turned up at once to hassle him. That may not be optimal, but it's human nature, and I don't advocate throwing the book at him and creating another person who could have been a real asset but instead becomes a sworn enemy owing to their feeling they've been martyred, a la Kohs. Particularly since the obvious defense on the part of the named editors is "lots of other people are doing it" (and they'd be right; lots of Wikipedia editors edit the articles on their employers without disclosure, which is just as much of a COI, without having the book thrown at them, and I'd be willing to bet a large sum that at least some admins are included in that number), I think investigation in camera is the only viable option unless you want to have a festival of doxxing, unproven accusations and smears spread across one of Wikipedia's highest-profile internal pages. Only investigating Salvidrim and Soutermans without looking into the broader issue would be unfair and counter-productive—if you're going to spill a can of worms across Wikipedia's kitchen floor, it's not reasonable to forensically examine two of the worms while allowing the remainder to wriggle as they please. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog No, I've read the timeline and the assorted threads elsewhere; I just think you're over-reading S & S's motivations in this particular case. To me, this looks like people who were making a genuine attempt to stay within both the letter and the spirit of policy, and then slipped over the line in a misguided effort to boost efficiency, rather than making a conscious decision to go rogue. (Think of it as employees who start to use the company's phone to make personal local calls on the assumption that the boss won't mind as long as their work is getting done and who after a while start making international calls and prompt an investigation from the accounts department, as opposed to employees who steal from the petty cash drawer or use the company's account to order goods for delivery to their home address.) From that perspective, I can certainly sympathize with Salvidrim's snarling reply even though I don't agree with it. From his perspective, he's been doing this quietly for weeks without anyone complaining, on a project in which he's invested a lot of his own time so presumably feels an emotional connection—then, all of a sudden, a huge number of people turn up in quick succession complaining about him (and presumably there's an equally large quantity of complaints landing in his email inbox). By all means, we should have an investigation into what went on, whether there was anything amounting to a serious and deliberate breach of trust rather than good-faith mistakes, and whether policy needs to be tightened up to make the boundaries clearer (arbcom may not be able to write policy by diktat, but it can certainly point out areas where policy needs rewriting), which is why I support a broad case rather than a narrow investigation of S&S alone. (@Opabinia regalis, if you're looking for a neutral and explanatory case name, you could do worse than Collaboration and disclosure requirements regarding paid editing.) And that, in turn, is why it needs to be handled in the form of an arb case rather than a noticeboard discussion or an arb motion—some of the key questions here will be "is this kind of thing commonplace?", "who else is doing it?" and "who is running Mister Wiki and are they instructing their paid workers to act as a tag-team?", all of which can only be dealt with privately and under terms of strict confidentiality and an understanding that nothing said in confidence will be used as future evidence. (If you were a paid editor working on the blurry boundary of what's allowed—or one of the people operating a paid-editing company—would you answer public questions honestly in the current climate?)
TL;DR version: Salvidrim and Soetermans were acting like complete fuckwits, but provided we're satisfied they won't do it again the main things are to decide how to stop it happening again with different editors, and to discuss whether Salvidrim should re-run RFA to see if he retains community trust. Normally these would be matters for the community but because there's going to be personal information involved, Arbcom is better placed to handle it. If we're going to keep this up, we should probably take the discussion somewhere else so we don't overwhelm a page which will form the backbone of the evidence if the case is accepted. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

To quote Boing! said Zebedee at the WP:COIN thread (full thread): "Paid editors reviewing and accepting each other's AFC submissions shows a serious lapse of judgment that I think is incompatible with the community trust required to remain an admin - and I think the only honorable response here is to resign the admin bit and re-run for RFA." Since Salvidrim has declined this suggestion, which was supported by everyone in that thread, we need to have an ArbCom case. Salvidrim lost a considerable amount of community buy-in with his very odd WP:RfB four months ago: [25]. This new development (which has a lot of ins and outs that require analysis and investigation, are more disturbing than they are reassuring even if they are now out in the open and admitted to be errors of judgment, and appear to involve abuse of tools and violations of ToU), has risen to the level of community loss of trust. I'll state upfront that in my opinion he should be de-sysopped, and stripped of every other position/ability of trust or authority: AfC reviewing, NPP, OTRS, UTRS, SPI clerk, and anything else I might have missed. He has repeatedly been given unanimous recommendations by nine experienced and neutral editors and admins on the COIN thread to resign the mop and re-run for RfA, but has declined. I don't see any way forward except for ArbCom to accept this case. Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!, Ivanvector, Nsk92 (I know you removed your post but this is applicable), and DGG: Re: Reza Izad: I'm looking at the AfD, the article history, and the logs for the article. The result of the AfD was delete (not delete and then create a redirect). Salvidrim, you created a redirect after the AfD had been closed as "delete" and the article and its history had been deleted. Where was the consensus for that action? (The fact that DGG later recreated the history is puzzling, but still irrelevant to that question.) Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

This kerfuffle seems to be missing the main point. "Disclosure" is the key component of COI, not remuneration. The reason is rather obvious in that every editor contributes for their own reasons and as long as they are personal, there is no restriction. We require disclosure when personal blends into professional. To use Doc James as a foil (as he commented recently and his identity is known and declared), we understand that he makes his living treating patients, teaching students and publishing material in professional journals. We don't consider contributions in his area of expertise from which he derives his livelihood to be a COI even if he were to explicitly write that readers should seek medical care rather than rely on information in Wikipedia. If he were to articulate a statement on a medication using reliable sources, say on the +/- of warfarin vs. Xarelto, it is understood what his background is. It would be quite a different story if there was an undisclosed doctor that ran a warfarin clinic or was involved in Xarelto testing and acceptance. Even if they are an independent laboratory where the outcome and their pay are unrelated, they still have vested interests in their reputations and conclusions. But disclosed and known accounts like Doc James would not and should not be faulted for stating outcomes that may lead to more patients or more billings. It would not be enough to blindly say money is the motivation beyond the good faith assumption that it is done in the interest of the project. We have a COI policy that really only works if we reward disclosure. Whether that's real world identity or a declared "paid" account. Hammering disclosed accounts does not further the interests of reducing COI. Rather, we should encourage disclosure and challenge contributions on good faith presumptions. Disclosure should help us identify where review is needed, not where punitive actions should be levied. Desysopping and banning are ways to ensure that COI is not willfully disclosed. Remuneration is not the measure upon which we should measure COI, rather it is hidden and undisclosed ties that are the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Yes, you should accept this case, but also leave Soetermans out as a party. If nothing else, I'd like to see ArbCom go on the record about paid editing. This is a case where the Principles section of the PD and decision, and how each of you votes on them, may actually be the most useful part of the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that multiple Arbs are concerned that it is outside of your remit to decide whether or how paid editing should be permitted. I agree, and am sorry if my comment sounded like that. The WMF Terms of Use have settled that already, with any local modification up to the community as a whole. But this is likely to be the first case where matters of conduct need to be considered in the context of WP:PAID. And that means that you will need to have Principles based on that, and I think that it is important that you compose those with particular attention to the precedents that they will set. (And my suggestion about leaving Soetermans out has obviously been made irrelevant by his statement.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallbones

Since this involves the use of admin tools for pay, I can't imagine that the final result is in any doubt. If there is some misunderstanding among admins that they can use their tools for pay, then arbcom should certainly accept this case and clear up the misunderstanding. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with this info, but it might be worthwhile to include @JacobMW: in this. Pinging @TonyBallioni: to see if he wants to include him. On his talk page JacobMW claims to be the founder (owner(?)) of Mr. Wiki and said that he is willing to give info about the operation. I think it would be good to get the operations out in the open. The misterwiki website is pretty misleading IMHO. On his user page JacobMW says that he has hired only 2 editors, but that seems to contradict the website. JacobMW has signed up for Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms [26]. He says that he is a new editor here, but I believe that he has a history here, i.e. he is now acting as a sockpuppet by concealing his former account(s). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: the website says "With 10+ years of experience on Wikipedia" and "We have strong relationships with a large sector of the Wikipedia community," - written in August or earlier - before the 2 editors were hired. Other information might be presented privately, if I understand arbcom procedures correctly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SoWhy

I do, as most of my fellow editors above, urge ArbCom to accept this request but only to investigate the behavioral problems demonstrated by Salvidrim. Those are problems ArbCom can and should investigate, of course up to and including whether this behavior is compatible with the trust the community places in administrators. As such I also argue that the case - if accepted - should bear Salvidrim's name and not be called "Mister Wiki".

Whether paid editing itself should be allowed (by anyone or specifically by administrators) is not something for ArbCom to decide though. Per WP:PAID#Changing this policy, those are questions for the community to decide after careful discussion. This does imho include whether "paid editing is totally incompatible with the holding of advanced rights" as Kudpung puts it. The current policy does not say that and personally I don't believe admins should be held to a different standard here. There are plenty of editors holding advanced rights who sometimes edit with a declared(!) COI using alternate accounts set up for this purpose. Currently, the relevant question is not "are they paid to edit?" but "do they have a COI?". If the community wishes to change that, an RFC is the right and only way to do it. Regards So Why 08:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Much of what you said is a concise summary of events but the AFD does not really fit. With all due respect to DGG, neither was a SNOW close appropriate just because the article was created by a paid editor nor was there sufficient participation to justify assuming that another outcome, especially redirecting per WP:ATD-R, was inevitable. That was actually a civil discussion about the article and its fate. The correct approach would be to reopen the AFD and discuss whether the article is really not even a plausible search term so that deletion was the only possible outcome. Personally, I have to agree with Salvidrim that this was not the case. Regards So Why 13:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I'm a bit confused. It's long-standing consensus that a "delete" result at XFD (correctly closed or not) does not preclude the use of the article's title for other purposes, including a redirect if one makes sense per WP:RPURPOSE. The better question would be: "Where was the consensus against a redirect after deletion?" Regards So Why 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

I'm just going to paste my comment from the RFC at pump-policy.

"I would go even further and require that any advanced user right cannot be *held or granted* if you are engaged in or offering any commercial or otherwise paid service related to Wikipedia. The inherent conflict of interest that receiving money for services engages means that its too much of a risk."

Here we have a prime example of why. While EN-WP allows paid editing, it needs to accept that you cannot have people in positions of significant defacto power over content also running commercial projects that are dependent on it. Pick a team, if you want to make money off Wikipedia, you can be an editor and work through the system like anyone else. If you want to hold advanced permissions of any sort - whose sole use is intended to be for the good of Wikipedia - then you cant run a side operation making money off it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (Mister Wiki case)

Honestly I don't think there is a desysop case here, Salvidrim! can and probably should be desysopped by motion. Let's count the ways that he abused his well-earned position of respect in the community and/or misused his tools in a situation where he was being paid to do so:

colluded offline with an editor with which he knew he had a conflict of interest in common (WP:MEAT, WP:COI)
colluded offline with an editor he knew was being paid by the same firm as himself (MEAT, WP:PAY)
colluded offline to promote articles where he had a conflict of interest, circumventing the regular community review process (WP:AFC) for such content (MEAT, WP:INVOLVED)
created an alternate account to disclose his paid relationship and to edit without privileges where COI was evident (admirable) but then granted that alternate account all of the useful userrights of an administrator with respect to article-space content maintenance (WP:ADMINSOCK)
used his admin tools to grant permissions usually granted through peer review (WP:PERM) and associated with high community trust to his own alternate account, skipping said peer review process (INVOLVED, WP:TOOLMISUSE)
used the advanced permissions he had enabled on his alternate account to move an article for his employer from its stable title, without seeking community input in a requested move (PAY, INVOLVED)
used the same advanced permissions to move two biographies on his employer's executives or clients out of article space, in what plainly seems an effort to avoid scrutiny of those articles; both articles were then moved back to article space by the editor he had previously colluded with to circumvent AfC without having been edited even once except to remove maintenance tags other editors had placed in good faith (PAY, COI, INVOLVED, MEAT, TOOLMISUSE, and probably somewhere in the middle of WP:SCRUTINY, WP:CANVASS, and WP:GHBH)
repeatedly violated the sockpuppetry policy while continuing to act as a sockpuppet investigations clerk (I don't even know what guideline this would be, but as a fellow clerk I find it incredibly insulting)

Also I wish to point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad closed as "delete" (ping DGG though I assume you're watching anyway) ~~yet the article was not deleted~~. It was redirected by Salvidrim! (paid) ~~shortly before the AfD closed. (INVOLVED)~~

Nonetheless I encourage the Committee to accept this case, out of community will to have a structured discussion and authoritative opinion on the issue of paid and conflict of interest editing by administrators in general. Further, given the actions of Salvidrim! and Soetermans, the case ought to cover the appropriateness of a firm like Mister Wiki hiring Wikipedia editors with advanced permissions. In anticipation of that discussion, I'll go on the record with my opinion that all editors accepting payment for their contributions ought to be required to surrender their advanced permissions until such time as their paid relationship is terminated. This case is an excellent demonstration of why advanced permissions are incompatible with paid contribution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: the only point I disagree on is the result of the discussion. It was indeed civil, and redirection is indeed an acceptable outcome for an AfD in general. Note however that Salvidrim! (paid) is the only editor who explicitly recommended a redirect result, ~~and then enacted that result without waiting for the discussion to close, while~~ there was at least one other comment explicitly supporting deletion (and explicitly supporting deletion of the history). ~~The specific timing of the redirection is what is suboptimal~~. As a side note, I always delete the history of paid articles unless I think it's useful as a honeypot: paid sockpuppets always reverse the redirect (eventually) if the history is visible. I'm absolutely not saying I believe Salvidrim! would do so, but Mister Wiki clearly hires lots of editors of varying competence and integrity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy, Softlavender, Salvidrim!, and TonyBallioni: I see that now, and have struck the erroneous parts of my comments. I'm sure that I checked the deletion log for the page before posting here and saw that it hadn't been deleted at all, I guess I deserve a trout for this. The article was deleted at 20:50, the redirect was created at 20:54, and the AfD was closed at 21:02, at which time DGG deleted the page along with the redirect, but then restored the redirect along with the history a couple hours later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone: I see no reason why Soetermans should be excluded from this case, they're clearly very tightly involved in it and there is also clearly misconduct on their part. As (I think) Opabinia regalis said, party =/= sanctions. I think it's pretty apparent Salvidrim! understands that he's done wrong too, but that doesn't mean there aren't things to discuss. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I apologize that my statement is getting very long but I want to address your comment. I have given an opinion here on the issue of paid editing by accounts in positions of trust, more to organize my own thoughts than to inform the proceedings; I assume the Committee will simply disregard it if it's outside the scope of the case. However, I think it's within the Committee's remit to comment on this issue with respect to policy, for example: how allowing users to edit with a fiduciary conflict of interest (accepting compensation for specific edits) interacts with the first (WP:NOT) and second (WP:NPOV) fundamental principles. These are issues the community has been unable to resolve on its own (e.g. Wikipedia:No paid advocacy is a repeatedly failed proposal). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

@Softlavender:--From purely procedural grounds, with no consideration to the other aspects of the case being discussed over here, it's long-standing consensus in the AfD circles, that if a discussion is closed as delete and does not touch the topic of redirection, then any-body may wish to proceed to create a redirect. And, I will agree with SoWhy that the AfD close by DGG wasn't optimal.Winged Blades^Godric 16:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also urge the commitee to accept the case, for a thorough evaluation of Salvidrim's behaviour (and supposed-breach-of-trust) in connection with his alt-acc. paid-editing and aspects of rights-conferring et al.Winged Blades^Godric 16:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DGG

As a point of information, since it has been asked, in carrying out a close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad, I made an error in using the closing script, and deleted a good deal of material and redirects to a page other than the deleted article that I should not have done. When notified about this by several people, including Salvidrim, I restored them. It is entirely my fault that I was careless there, and I apologize for any confusion. As for the close, it seemed obvious to me that this is where it was going, and considering that discussion had been opened elsewhere. I didn't see any point in discussing the general matters there. If anyone thinks the redirect should be deleted, they can ask at RfD. If anyone wants to reopen the discussion on the deletion, any admin who cares to may revert my close, which is my usual position on such matters. (I do not think I am involved in the actual matter at issue here with respect to Salvidrim in any direct or prejudicial way, and will give my opinion on whether we should hear the case in the arb section in the usual way) . If the clerks want to move this to the arb section, it's at their discretion. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

The article Datari Turner moved into main space as an apparent backscratching by Salvadrim! Had previously been deleted at AFD as a marginal BLP at subject request after they removed allegedly blp violating material. At the bare minimum this should have gone to DRV and as admins are particularly expected to uphold BLP principles I believe this to be a seriously inappropriate action.

Statement by Awilley

TonyBallioni's statement convinced me that Arbcom needs to take the case. Salvidrim's statement convinced me that a desysop would be excessive and unnecessary. I would be happy with an admonishment and perhaps a formal ban on paid editing. ~Awilley (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Carter

I would support taking the case. Issues of the possible consequences of failing to report paid editing have SFAIK not been addressed before, and there is also the matter of the paid editor being an admin. Personally, in this instance, I would myself want nothing stronger than a slap on the wrist to the paid editor in question. And the possibility of the case also serving as a site where RfC-type comments on paid editing issues can be made by the community in a relatively controlled environment also has a distinct appeal. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

@ArbCom: What is the scope of the case - is it limited to this particular set of actions, or Salvidrim's admin conduct in general? There were several concerns raised at the recent Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim! that could be a factor in whether to desysop or not, to prove a history of errors in judgment (and, there were also several offwiki concerns that, if discussed in a public venue, could make this case significantly unpleasant, to say the least). I think some clarity on the scope would be needed before the case opens. --Rs chen 7754 23:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

This case should be accepted. This is a serious matter which should be dealt with swiftly. Paul August ☎ 01:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I find the events behind this case request very distressing, as I thought of Salvadrim! as a good, trustworthy and honorable admin.

I respectfully suggest to Salvadrim! that he voluntarily resign the bit.
If Salvadrim! decides not to step down, I urge the committee to take this case, at least as per Salvadrim!'s actions
If the case is accepted, it should include the question of desysopping, which could possibly be handled separately by motion
I associate myself with the comment of Doc James

As an aside:

I very much wish that the WMF would ban paid editing altogether, to restore us to being a community of unpaid volunteers
I suggest to the community that paid editing by admins and functionaries be banned on en.wiki

I could write more, but my mood is much too sour to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: If Salvadrim!'s intention was to create a "clean" account for paid editing, so that he didn't use his admin account to do paid editing (which, if one is going to be a paid editor, seems like an excellent thing to do), then he should have erected a chinese wall between the two accounts once the second account was created, and should not have used the admin account to do anything for that account. It would have been totally reasonable for him to have expected that whatever permissions he needed for the second account would have been granted on the basis of the main account's long record of editing, so I don't see any need for him to have given the permissions to the second account from the admin account. (It would be a totally different story if the second account had been for use at work, or on a public network, or anything else except paid editing or policy violations such as sockpuppetry or vandalism.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to comment on the obvious fact that Salvadrim!'s naming the second account "Salvidrim! (paid)" indicates that it was his intention at the start to do everything aboveboard. From the description of the events above, I don't think it ended up being as transparent as it should have been, but I don't believe that Salvadrim!'s missteps were deliberate violations rather then happenstance. Of course, I also think the decision of an admin to become a paid editor was an exceedingly poor one, fraught with (as we now see) landmines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

It appears I am tangentially involved in something TonyBallioni mentioned in his opening statement. When Salvidrim moved Studio 71 to Studio71, he forgot to suppress the creation of a redirect at one step of the process (diff), and as a result, he was unable to complete his round-robin page move. I fixed it for him by deleting the redirect he had left behind at Studio 71 and completing the round-robin move by moving his temporary page Draft:Move/Studio71 to Studio 71.

The AfC tag-teaming is a separate (and concerning) matter that I am not familiar with, but I wanted to comment on the page move because I had some involvement with it. In my view, the page move of Studio 71 to Studio71 was procedurally okay as an uncontroversial page move, and that was also how I viewed it at the time. While TonyBallioni is correct when he points out that the page had been stable at the "Studio 71" title for 18 months, a look through the sources in the article show that third-party sources do use the current form "Studio71" (e.g. [27][28][29]). If any editor had wished to object to the page move, they could have done so after the event by leaving a note on the talk page; as I understand, that never happened. I do not believe sanctions should arise as a result of this page move alone. While it may have been wiser to propose the page move first, whether through WP:RM or WP:RM/TR (so as to get a sanity check from another editor that the move is okay, especially considering COI), I don't feel that such a consultation was strictly necessary from a procedural standpoint.

Salvidrim granting page mover rights to his declared legitimate alternative account also strikes me as procedurally okay, since he already has those rights as an administrator. On the other hand, the whole purpose of the alternate account was to use an account without administrator tools for paid edits, but he still used his administrator tools to grant this account extended permissions... I may be overthinking this, but there's something circular about that reasoning that I'm having trouble articulating. Mz7 (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Yes, I think that sums up my feelings pretty well. Had the account been a run-of-the-mill alternative account for use on a public network, etc., the user rights assignment would have been fine, since he already has those rights as an administrator. However, since he stated that the purpose of the alternative account was to separate his volunteer administrator activity from his paid activity, using his administrator account to assign those rights to his alternative account crosses the two roles together, which defeats the purpose of the alternative account. Mz7 (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, as TonyBallioni pointed out, the page move above with respect to Studio71 would have been avoided if the user rights assignment had not occurred. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patient Zero

I would like Arbcom to accept this case, please. Overall I have been extremely disappointed in Ben's behaviour this year, having previously considered him to be a trustworthy administrator. It emerged at his failed RFB earlier this year that there had been some disturbing comments made by him off-wiki regarding inappropriate behaviour - see WP:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim!. I agree with SoWhy that this case should be renamed to Case/Salvidrim! if it is accepted, and for me, the ideal outcome of this case would be a desysop by motion.

Statement by BU Rob13

Responding narrowly to Newyorkbrad's comment, I'm not sure this does raise the same issues with regard to an Arb-facilitated RfC. ArbCom shouldn't step into a dispute until community processes have failed to deal with it. Perhaps an Arb-facilitated RfC should be on the table in extreme cases where the community RfC process has failed, something that is arguably the case in the Wikidata case, but there hasn't even been an attempt at an RfC to change the paid editing policy yet. If there is and that RfC fails due to conduct issues (not due to lack of consensus, which is quite a different matter), then the Committee could consider action. Until then, let the community process run its course. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Brad, I view neither this case, nor the Wikidata case, about the committee conducting an RfC, and I don't think the committee ever should. What the committee does is investigate to find facts and apply the already established policy/principles to those facts. In doing so you may identify that something is not covered by a policy/principle, or that is incompletely or unclearly covered. In those instances, the committee may recommend further discussions, RfC's and the like (the community may ignore those recommendations, but that is just the way it works) . Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

Following the revelations that came up at his RfB this past August, I had begun to seriously question Salvidrim's judgment. Not only did he admit to both public urination and indecent exposure (which are illegal in and of themselves), he did so on Reddit with the same name as his Wikipedia account. He discloses his real-life identity and current residence on his userpage, so anyone doing any research into his history could very easily discover his past actions. If I ever soiled myself in a cab, I would not want the whole world to know it. It just doesn't strike me as a very smart thing to admit to in a public venue.

But that's beside the point. Right now the focus of the case is on his recent paid editing. I don't think this is even a close call. He may have been transparent about it from the beginning, but the fact is that he unilaterally moved an article without any attempt at consulting the Wikipedia community beforehand, at the request of the article's subject, in exchange for payment. He also privately accelerated the creation of related AfC pages via Soetermans, which in my view constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Paid editing is frowned upon in general because it chips away at our encyclopedic integrity, although I also happen to agree somewhat with Iridescent's reasoning above that an edit should be judged on its own merits. No matter which side you're on, to have an administrator engaging in any kind of paid advocacy is not good for our image. These are serious breaches of trust, not to mention very poor judgment on his part. A case could be taken as a referendum on disclosed paid editing, but if we're talking exclusively about Salvidrim's administrator status, I agree with Ivanvector and Jytdog that we hardly even need a full case. It's clear that he has lost the confidence of the community and can no longer serve in his current capacity, unfortunately. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter (WM)

Contrary to what many others say, I believe that currently there is no consensus that administrators may not edit against monetary reimbursement. In the past three years at least two administrators stated that they did perform paid editing, at least one of these cases was pretty much high-profile, but nobody really wanted to desysop these administrators. The consensus might have shifted more recently due to a general increase in paid editing, but this needs to be checked, and Arbcom is not suited to check this.
I also agree that giving flags to clone(s) of an administrator is not problematic. The administrator is generally trusted to operate using these flags, and, as soon as they are not desysopped, it does not matter from which account they use the flags.
What, however, is problematic was the usage of flags for accepting an article which might not have met criteria for the main space. I think there is currently a general consensus that a paid editor can have any flags, but may not use these flags to promote paid editing in any way. If the case is accepted (or resolved by motion) I believe the only question which can be addressed here without a broad consultation with the community is whether an administrator may use flags (not necessarily admin flag) to facilitate paid editing.
For the full disclosure, I am generally an opponent of paid editing, and in the past I stated on several occasions that I would never accept monetary reimbursement for my edits on Wikimedia projects. But I understand that there could be different views on the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

A brief comment because most of what I want to say has been covered by Iridescent and Ymblanter. I urge the committee to take this case, even if a desysop is not on the cards, simply because I think that ArbCom is the only way that Salvidrim is going to get a fair hearing on this issue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding NewYorkBrad's suggestion of an Arbitration Committee-moderated RfC, I disagree with this approach. At present, it's the community's responsibility to manage its discussions on guidelines and policies. I would prefer that moderate voices in the community take charge of guiding discussion, as necessary. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clerk notes

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

Mister Wiki: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

accept - definitely to review whether a desysop is in order for Salvidrim. Clearcut case of reviewing this. Regarding paid editing, less clear-cut and am in two minds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
accept when a credible desysop case is brought to us should always accept it as we are the only body who can desysop, and it appears that a resignation is not on the cards. Like Cas Liber, I'd need to think about paid editing. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I come from a background in biomedical research and the field has had (and is still having) its own reckoning with the concept of COI, so I recognize the train of thought here. A person who thinks they're pretty sensible on the whole probably expects that they're not biased, and that all of this arm's-length stuff is kind of tedious, and it's just more convenient to assign your own user rights/review each other's articles/etc, and it's all fine because you're sensible and not biased, right? And it usually is, until suddenly it isn't, and you hadn't noticed you were sliding down the slippery slope. In short I think Iridescent is right on the motivations here, and on the desirability of using a dispute resolution process that has mechanisms for managing private evidence.
On some of the other points picked up in the comments so far, I have to push back a little on the idea that seems to be emerging about how the list of parties should work. There's a meme going around that being on the list means you're scheduled for sanctions no matter what, and I really prefer the model where it's just a boring old factual list of the people who are involved in the dispute and who should receive notifications about the case should they want to contribute. I also don't like the idea of using case names to highlight a particular user's involvement, as opposed to simply resorting to a username for lack of any better ideas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to add here that I've noticed a pattern developing lately in comments on case requests (not just this one). This is in theory a venue to post relevant facts about the dispute, comment on whether we should accept the request, and briefly summarize what you'd like to get out of the case. It's not really intended as a forum for stating your personal opinion on the issue at hand, advocating for your side of the dispute, or staking out policy positions. This is the wrong venue for posts announcing personal opinions about paid editing or what you think the surrounding policy should be. We'll need an RfC for any policy changes related to user rights and paid editing, and personally I suggest waiting till after the case (assuming it's accepted) - it's much better to investigate the particulars of the current incident before trying to draw conclusions about how things should work in the general case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and in the interests of timeliness, suggest we proceed with one week each for Evidence, Workshop and PD, to wraps this up in three weeks instead of the full six week saga. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Anytime administrative misconduct is the central issue of a case request, I believe the Committee should accept these cases on principle. I would also support a reduced timeline given renewed support lately for shorter cases. Mkdw ^talk 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There's a clear consensus that we should look at the administrator/user conduct here. With regard to the broader issues, the suggestion that we use the workshop in this case as a sort of arb-moderated RfC raises the same questions we're thinking through in the Wikidata case—would that represent arbitrators being helpful, or arbitrators overreaching? Would it be more or less likely than an ordinary RfC to be productive and yield the most useful result? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 524: / Line 524: @@
 ::<code>Alt-perms</code> - I added permissions to my alt {{noping|Salvidrim! (paid)}} using my main account instead of via PERM. Perhap "Confirmed" and even "Rollback" by themselves might have been passable if ill-advised, but "page mover" and "reviewer" should never have been granted to a paid sock without review by a neutral admin (if at all).
 ::<code>AfC collusion</code> - As is now well-documented, I asked a friend, Soetermans, for an AfC review of two articles I had been paid to clean-up, which was a clear breach of every COI handling rule and guideline imaginable and a perversion of the very purpose of AfC. I apologize for allowing himself to be dragged into this (although as he says himself and as our FB conversation shows, nobody forced anyone else) and was a severe breach of the community' trust. The time it took to realize that fact after initially being confronted by Jytdog only adds to the shame engendered by my arrogant faith in my own implacable integrity.
+::::Edit (06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)), I should have linked to it here for clarity, but please [https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23722336_10155550101956117_1185410769138560226_n.jpg?oh=fcfac2b5c1f73de7a7f980bba54767d4&oe=5A9FC4CB '''READ exactly what was said and what was asked for'''] between Soetermans and I concerning this AfC collusion. I get the feeling that some commenters haven't seen this conversation and that some of their conclusions seem to imply some explicitely nefarious or corrupt perversion of the AfC system by people who care for naught but the money, while I think this discussion shows we both had misgivings about the appropriateness of the "tit-for-tat" AfC review and were we fucked up and erred in our judgement was doing the deed despite our misgivings by failing to appreciate that our judgement had been influenced unduly by the poorly managed COIs we were both operating under. I'm not saying it's excusable or trying to lessen the undeniable collusion and breach of trust, and I'm not accusing anyone here of not having consulted the evidence, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind... I just feel like this is a critical piece of evidence that might help commenters gather a more accurate impression of the situation. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 :All that being said, I still do not believe this fuckup in mishandling COI necessarily must result in desysopping. Removal from the realm paid editing, ''obviously'', and I've already offered to agree on community sanctions (such as renouncing all paid editing, not approving paid AfC/PERM/edit-reqs, or whatever further sanction is agreed upon as necessary), but I do not believe desysopping to be the solution, despite the few vocal commenters at COIN demanding a resignation. The AfC collusion was a violation of COI guidelines and a breach of trust, but not a misuse of adminship (it could have happened exactly the same whether I was admin or not), and the alt-perms was, yes, a mistake in the use of admin tools, but was acknowledged and reverted once pointed out and this singular event does not seem egregious or requiring of an emergency desysop. Nor is there any indication of "a pattern of conduct unbecoming of an admin", which I know is what ArbCom often looks for in desysopping requests. Outside of this paid editing debacle, I have been receiving nothing but praise for my recent admin work, and I do not believe I have demonstrated that I am incapable of correctly fulfilling the duties of an admin ''in general'', although I certainly have lost the trust to handle my own and others' paid editing COI. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 *I welcome and look forward to reading the committee's & the community's opinions on whether I'm way, way wrong above, and I apologize in advance for the time and thoughtspace that ends up being spent on this (relatively speaking) shitty issue. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@@ Line 535: / Line 536: @@
 *Re {{u|Smallbones}}: Not to go all SPI-clerky on you, but you are putting forward allegations that Jacob's {{noping|JacobMW}} is somehow a sockpuppet without presenting even the faintest glimmer of evidence. The guy's barely twenty, how long a history do you think he can have!? I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, Smallbones, but I ''am'' saying it would benefit everyone to be able to actually evaluate your allegations to determine their validity. FWIW, he also adressed the number of hired editors on his talk page.
 :As an aside, I'm not ''necessarily'' opposed to Jacob being involved in the case if it ends up being opened to cover "paid editing in general" or at least "MisterWiki-related editors", but the account did not even exist when the actions being (rightly) held against me took place so if this is to be strictly a user-conduct case, makes little sense to include Jacob. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
+*In response to the considerations of the possibility of an "ArbCom-managed RfC on paid editing vs. adminship" (see {{u|Mendaliv}}'s, {{u|Newyorkbrad}}'s comments and others), I can't help but spare a thought to the Arbitrators who may be leaving the committee within about 5 weeks, where having to manage an RfC that will no doubt run on the longer side might mean reticent, forced prolongations of their terms as Abritrators... I don't really know if there's a solution for that, but I'm throwing down some brainstorm ideas in case the committee '''is''' interested in considering said RfC : delegate its management to the clerk team (question crafting, civility enforcement, recruiting a closer panel, etc.) and/or to the next committee (don't think there is precedent for that though); or craft the question and recruit the closing panel right away and then step back from the process of running the RfC; or whatever else. I guess all I'm saying is that commenters should keep in mind that asking some of the outgoing Arbs to commit to involvement in a contentious RfC all the way into next Spring is not something that can be asked for lightly. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 === Statement by Soetermans ===

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4