Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Mister Wiki		21 November 2017	8/0/1

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Mister Wiki

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

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

• [1]
• [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [3]
• [4]

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: [5], [6], [7]. The only AfC reviews that Sotermans reviews are the articles Salvidrim! had declared he was paid to edit: [8], [9]. 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)

• @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)
• @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)
• @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)
• @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)

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

• @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)
• @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)
• @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)
• Kurtis: I think you make a fair point, but my entire reason for filing this request was not to punish Salvidrim or anything of that sort, or even to make a statement on paid editing. I think your recent statement might be a good support vote in a future RfA, but I also think that the community has a right to decide whether or not they want to give Salv a second chance. That is why so many admins and other users had called for him to resign before I filed this case: he believes he still has the trust of the community that is needed to continue as an admin, but I feel that he has breached the trust the community has placed with him, and even if he has admitted that he has made a mistake, the community has a right to decide if it still has that trust through an RfA. ArbCom is the only body that can force that conversation, which is why I'm asking them to desysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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 where 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• @Euryalus: FWIW I'm not necessarily opposed to the case being named after me since it seems that's what the main focus is likely to be (although that might make it awkward if you also intend to tackle broader paid editing issues). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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.

I just want to add that I do not think, in the absence of a clear policy, that it is within the remit of ArbCom to decide on whether or not paid editing is compatible with holding advanced permissions (though a statement of the committee's position on that could help). But ArbCom clearly can decide on whether to enforce the community's apparent dissatisfaction with an admin, on a case by case basis, and on how to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

• @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)
• @Softlavender: yours is the tightest, clearest post here in my view. Thank you for that. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• @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)

• @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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@Robert McClenon: while I agree entirely in principle with everything you say, I don't believe it's within the purview of the Committee to create new policy, although their decision may well establish an important precedent. There are a lot of discussions taking place right now as to paid editing , what should be done about it, and suggestions for a policy. This will require a string of RfC to address all the various points of it and is likely to be take a lot longer than the average Arbcom case. I think the Committee will have to adjudicate based on the current situation of policies and guidelines (where they exist), but of course would be free to make suggestions or recommendations for deliberation by the community on new policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• @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)
• @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)

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: [10]. 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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[11]. 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)

• @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)

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 SoWhy 08:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• @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 SoWhy 13:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• @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 SoWhy 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. colluded offline with an editor with which he knew he had a conflict of interest in common (WP:MEAT, WP:COI)
2. colluded offline with an editor he knew was being paid by the same firm as himself (MEAT, WP:PAY)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Rschen7754 23:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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. [12][13][14]). 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)

@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)

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)

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. Patient Zero^talk 09:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Update: You know, I've been rethinking my initial post, and I'm ultimately not sure if I really support desysopping Salvidrim at this point after all. I mean yes, he has done some really, really stupid things in the very recent past, and I hope he realizes this. But he's also done a very good job as an administrator over the years. His paid actions are not a good look for Wikipedia at all - that's hardly even in dispute. The real question is, should it result in him losing the sysop flag? That I'm not so sure about anymore. I think we should give Salvidrim a second chance, on condition that nothing like this happens again. However, a case is probably still warranted. The committee and the community might feel differently, and if they do, it's not entirely without cause. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

Statement by Esquivalience

Forsaking the integrity of Wikipedia for a handful of banknotes is very bad judgment in general, and it should definitely be looked at. Esquivalience (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1

Accept the case! For his behavior, Salvidrim! should be dishonorably discharged of his administrator status. Moreover a warning should be issued to all these people with large pockets: if you find an admin sufficiently stupid and incompetent to compromise his/her reputation, then this admin is probably stupid and incompetent concerning how to hide his/her tracks... and YOUR tracks as well, you the large pockets folk ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ammarpad

All my views are similar to Ymblanter's above, so no need of repeating. I am also urging Arb Com to accept this case because the final decision will surely weigh much should the community decide to go for RfC to amend the existing paid editing policy which is increasingly now seen as very relaxed or contains many loopholes. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I would like to add my voice to the more than forty voices asking the ArbCom to accept this case, as a matter of drawing a bright line. I agree with User:Beyond My Ken that I would prefer to see the WMF ban paid editing altogether, rather than putting weird and complicated limits on it. As long as paid editing is vaguely permitted, I will ask the ArbCom to establish that paid editing is incompatible with any advanced permissions, and that cannot be circumvented by multiple accounts, because the issue is with the person. (I would say even with the auto-patrolled and page mover permissions, but especially with admin.) I disagree in minor detail with those who say that Salvidrim should resign and submit a new Request for Adminship, because I think that paid editing should be disqualifying, as it is a poisonous plague on Wikipedia. In a situation where the WMF leads hesitantly, and the community is following unevenly, the ArbCom needs to lead decisively, that paid editing of any sort is incompatible with advanced permissions. (I would prefer to see it as incompatible with the editor permission, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Pinguinn

I don't see the need for a desysop case here, as judging by what the arbs have said and how the community has responded, it would be something of a show trial. Desysop him by motion if you must, or at least bring it to a vote, and then take a case based on the wider issues of Mister Wiki and accountability. I'd warn the arbs about avoiding creating new policy with their decision in the case, but they seem to be pretty mindful of it already. Pinguinn 🐧 06:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Unmistakably an abuse of the page mover right by the secondary account, which should have that right removed (with the understanding that it cannot be regained except through normal application process, which would probably be denied given the history of abuse, unless the admins that deal with PM permissions are convinced it won't happen again). Since this was enabled via the main account's admin tools, it's also unmistakably abuse of admin tools, though perhaps not a "fatal" one. We expect admins to exercise good judgment, not be 100% perfect. I'm glad the case will clearly be accepted at this point; this the matter needs review and deliberation, and I strongly agree with the multiple Arb stating (perhaps for the first time in this venue) that an desysop request (if non-bollocks) should always be heard because this is the only venue for it).

The self-granting of "low-level" bits like confirmed and PC reviewer seems like a non-issue. Even rollbacker is; the same party is behind the wheels of both accounts, and granting of the bit is just an "is this person competent?" judgement issue (though as with page mover it can be removed if abused).

The problem with page mover is that it's granted for specific purposes not "just because we think you're not a vandal or idiot". The paid SPA side account would not have been granted this bit, because it had no legit need for it. PM is a bit that was unbundled from Admin only after considerable debate and within strict limitations about trusted use. An SPA COI account is not a trusted user of it, even if the person operating the account was trusted, in a different account and capacity, to be an admin. (Similarly, both accounts run by admins do not get advanced permissions, only those they must have to do their job.)

PM was misused to push an off-site party's PoV ("paid" or not may be irrelevant). Whether that's a desysopping-level faux pas is worth a detailed examination. The key judgement issue may really be: Why on earth would someone do this rather than just list the page at WP:RM and accept the consensus the RM arrived at? I could make an emotive slippery-slope argument here that if all admins did something like this, we would have no need of WP:AT or any other policies, because it would always come down to whoever paid the most to get their way. But obviously other admins aren't doing this, and I doubt Salvidrim! felt this was anything other than trivial maintenance about something non-controversial, that just happened to have been done by request, not that it was gaming the system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Mister Wiki: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/1>

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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

• Update People must be wondering where this has got to. It's obviously been accepted, we're just having a to-and-fro over possible case names, of all things. This will hopefully wind up in the next little while, if a few extra opinions come in. Apologies for the delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Another update In passing, I've proposed a 2/1/1/ timeframe to avoid the thing dragging on forever (a bit like this case request). I think we need the full two weeks for evidence as there might be some questions that need asking re Mister Wiki, and there might also be private evidence which often takes longer to collect than on-wiki statements. A problem of any time frame is that it will run up against Christmas - I reckon we should get started and do the first stage, and then if everyone invovled wants a short break then we can suspend it then. Or we can work through, whatever seems good. I oppose the ony other option, which is to delay the entire thing till January. Worth adding also that we do not have Committee support for a case on paid editing per se - that is appropriately a matter for the community. What ther eis support for, is whether specific named editors have acted outside of policies on meatpuppetry and COI, in their role as paid editors on this site. There's a separate community debate on whether admin tools present an inherent conflict of interest re paid editing - I have a personal view on this which I'm happy to discuss if anyone cares; it may (or may not) be rleevant in the case itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • Based on the input above, my vote is to accept as a standard case, focused on the administrator/user conduct involved, although spelling out our understanding of the existing rules on paid editing and disclosure will be necessary, to provide the standard against which the conduct will be evaluated. No objection to shortening the usual timetable a bit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Accept There's a clear case here around user and administrative conduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Recuse GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Accept and I also think we can do this quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)