Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

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

Expected standards of behavior

You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Not a question, more of a request. One question I know Aoidh is interested in answering is "How does WP:INVOLVED interact with the WP:OVERSIGHT policy?" I would be interested in reading any draft principles that answer this question from the perspective of the community; multiple perspectives were offered during the case request so I think ArbCom has the chance to interpret existing policy and guidelines. One caveat - if we find Primefac was not INOLVED under policy this question becomes much less interesting to me given the length of time both the policies have existed without tension before this. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have my own opinions on the matter but I'm more interested in how the community feels about the issue, since the only editors that can properly review an oversight block are other oversighters. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fram there is an argument the scope should be broader than it is right now and better capture the BYU issue. I asked ArbCom if it wanted to do that (I abstained given a part I played in a discussion of the COI of one such editor 3 years ago) and for now the answer is no. If the answer were yes your assertion would be more compelling to me. But given the actual scope, could you please post analysis of your evidece to explain why it's further involved editing. It does not involve a party to the case. Instead it involves a different editors potential COI related to COI a party to the case has, but it is one of many such COIs that Nihonjoe has. This feels like too far a stretch for me on first inspection but I am open to having my mind changed. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a discussion related to the ongoing case is raised as evidence at that case, and then a party to that case (because of involved tool use) goes on to use their tools at that discussion, even after it has been pointed out that the two are related, then how is this not problematic, and evidence of a lack of insight in how tool use may be perceived as being involved, lacking in objectivity, taking sides...? Please explain how, after posting "Ah, yes, I just saw the most recent evidence presented by Fram tying it to the case. I somehow missed the original BYU connection. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 ", further tool use on the same issue is not a clear WP:INVOLVED issue? Never mind their quite staggering claim "I am not involved in that case" (referring to this very ArbCom case to which they are a party). All this indicates to me a very dubious or clouded judgment about what things they should avoid and leave to others. Fram (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not there, so let me try and explain my thinking in a different way to see if it helps one of us align more closely with the other. Nihonjoe is clearly in scope. Therefore Nihonjoe's activities at BYU and AML are clearly within scope. But that doesn't make the scope of the case BYU and AML. And further the content in question isn't either of those things it's another editor's association with BYU/AML. So we are, in my mind, two leaps beyond the scope. Do we just see this differently or am I missing something (entirely possible)? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at most one leap away, not two, as I have e.g. included in that section of evidence the case of Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe working in tandem to promote a page to GA (I also note the three of you at Talk:Orson Scott Card/GA1 by the way). There are also issues like Rachel Helps having a close COI with an organization giving an award to a book with which Nihonjoe has a very close (financial) COI, or (if I have the timeline correct) Rachel Helps being in the jury of the 2019 AML novel awards, where D.J. Butler was a finalist. Yes, that same D.J. Butler with whom Nihonjoe had a COI at the time he created it, despite his claims that that COI only came later. That article creation happened accidentally between the announcement that Butler was an AML Award nominee, and the announcement of the eventual winner.[1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Thryduulf

Proposed principles

Not all COI edits are non-neutral

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Purpose of COI disclosure

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure not required for topics not edited

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Carrite

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Problem of COI identification

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Animal lover |666|

Proposed principles

Public, formerly public, and private information

1)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflict of interests and paid editing

2)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

What information may be mentioned publicly on-wiki

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Handling private evidence

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by Barkeep49

Proposed principles

Use of suppression

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of oversight blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Analysis of evidence from Serial Number 54129

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence about Primefac

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: