Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Conflict of interest management

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maxim (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 3 April 2024 (→‎Proposed principles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Target dates: Opened 6 March 2024 • Evidence closes 20 March 2024 • Workshop closes 27 March 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 3 April 2024

Scope: The intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy, in the frame of the conduct of the named parties.
Public evidence is preferred whenever possible; private evidence is allowed (arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org).

Case clerks: Firefly (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh (Talk) & Barkeep49 (Talk) & Maxim (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflicts of interest

2) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject or they are involved with the subject in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Everyone has conflicts of interest. In many ways, Wikipedia is built on them. Look at the coverage of any American university with a large computer science program, for example. What we expect is that those conflicts are managed to make #Purpose of Wikipedia happen. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Guerillero. Editors write about what interests them and some of these outside interests can conflict with Wikipedia's. It's not a problem as long as long as it's managed properly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

3) Paid editing, which involves editing Wikipedia in exchange for money or inducements, requires proper disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation. Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The last sentence is something worth keeping in mind particularly. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing. seems to be a problem that the community has when talking about this issue --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The basis for the second sentence is from Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § Additional notes on who must disclose. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor privacy

4) Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. policing real or imagined conflicts of interest does not give users a licence to dig publicly into other users --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A suspicion of misconduct is absolutely not a licence to post other people's private information on the wiki. Full stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While protecting the encyclopaedia is a laudable goal, the ends do not always justify the means. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats

5) Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this and they are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Oversight / suppression

6) Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The English Wikipedia has generally kept the use of "Oversight" despite the technical name (and MediaWiki extension) changing some time ago. I would say that there is a generally strong peer review system in place for Oversight. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Removal of administrative tools

7) As provided by the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to handle requests for the removal of administrative tools. While such requests have usually been in relation to the administrator user rights, the Committee may hear requests for the removal of any advanced user right, which includes but is not limited to the bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight user rights.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is a plain read of arbpol --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maxim (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests

1) Since the vote to open this case, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) listed a number of conflicts of interest. The Arbitration Committee affirms this disclosure and also notes that Nihonjoe has a conflict of interest with Hemelein Publications (private evidence).

Support:
  1. Ultimately I found Joe quite open and honest with the committee in our private correspondence around his COIs. However, getting to that point was hard. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More specifically, the disclosure came after 10 of the 11 arbitrators who voted to accept the case had already done so. - Aoidh (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed with Barkeep49 - the openness came, but it required a long road to get there, which is far from optimal. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fine as far as it goes. The point (for me, at least, others may read things differently) is that Nihonjoe has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into disclosing multiple, extensive conflicts of interest. Polite enquiries have been fobbed off, the list linked in the FoF was past the eleventh hour, and it took being confronted with the private evidence for Nihonjoe to disclose yet more conflicts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

2) Nihonjoe edited multiple articles where he had an undisclosed conflict of interest (Jessintime and private evidence).

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The main issue. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's paid editing

3) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing at Aquaveo (since deleted), GMS (software), and SMS (hydrology software) while employed at Aquaveo.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate on this, I do think that private information we have received shows paid editing as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Additional notes on who must disclose. - Aoidh (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. From the totality of the evidence I've seen, Nihonjoe was not paid in anyway for publicity but instead had a more internal and technical role. As such I think this was "merely" COI and not paid editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The submitted evidence shows that Nihonjoe has a robust COI on these topics, but does not meet the definition of a paid editor as it is currently outlined in policy. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Based on the evidence, the threshold for 'paid editing' wasn't reached here, however a clear COI does exist. firefly ( t · c ) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm in to minds here. Ultimately I think you could probably argue a breach of the letter of the law but not the spirit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

3.1) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing when making edits related to Hemelein Publications.

Support:
  1. I think the private evidence we received shows they are compensated to promote Hemelein Publications and all of their edits related to this constitute undisclosed paid editing. Aoidh (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Comments:

Nihonjoe's tool use

4) Nihonjoe used his administrative tools to apply full protection to two articles and later disclosed a conflict of interest with both articles (DanCherek evidence).

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regardless if there was a COI, I don't think these protections were warranted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with money --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would file this under "irregular" rather than "abusive" but it's still worth noting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. firefly ( t · c ) 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Content of Nihonjoe’s conflict of interest editing

5) The evidence presented suggests that Nihonjoe's editing while having a conflict of interest did not, in general, violate other content policies or guidelines.

Support:
  1. I think it's important to remember why we have COI: to produce neutral encyclopedic content. The problem, for me, was not the edits themselves but that the community was deprived the chance to subject the edits to the stricter scrutiny they deserved to ensure they were in compliance with our content policies. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I haven't seen any evidence that the edits were problematic in and of themselves. If Joe had disclosed his COIs at the time, there wouldn't have been much to worry about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think Jessintime's evidence shows significant NPOV issues with some of the edits, no matter how long ago they may have been. That we have so many examples of COI editing that by the numbers these additional content issues may be a smaller portion of those COI edits is not a point in favor of adherence to other policies or guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
On reflection, I'm not actually sure this is entirely true, and so am at least pulling support. firefly ( t · c ) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations

6) Nihonjoe initially denied having several of these conflicts of interest that he later admitted to having.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is an important factor for me as I weigh the correct remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is also a key factor for me. There were various opportunities to make a full disclosure, but as noted in FoF 1, this only came very late in the day. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Firefly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mechanisms for COI reporting

7) Private reporting of conflict of interest and paid editing, especially when the accused editor is a long time editor, has not consistently worked (David Fuchs evidence). There also is contradictory and confusing guidance for what editors are supposed to do with reports of conflict of interest editing or paid editing that involve private information (for example see COI noticeboard header, COI guideline, and harassment policy). A 2022 RfC found that the community prefers off-wiki information to be only handled by functionaries.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This hasn't been working for a while. I've been aware of numerous discussions about how it hasn't been working, and have participated in some, but we haven't ultimately moved to changing things. I hope that this case, for the reasons listed here, cause us to not just acknowledge the problem but to fix them. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The community needs to have confidence in our methods for reporting COI/paid editing - it appears that they do not. This needs to be remedied. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This has always been a sort of awkward area. Really, it's frustrating for both functionaries and non-functionaries; unfortunately, most cases of COI and PAID editing are not so clear cut. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Links formatted to internal ones (no change to rendered text). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kashmiri

8) Kashmiri nominated Aquaveo for deletion. Included in the nomination report was a link in violation of the OUTING policy. About an hour later this link was removed and subsequently suppressed. During the following discussion Nihonjoe disclosed his conflict of interest in the company. Kashmiri subsequently made a report to the administrators' noticeboard detailing Nihonjoe’s conflict of interest editing without further OUTING Nihonjoe. (archived thread).

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The AN thread was not outing, to clear things up. That said Kashmiri, the google maps link you included in the initial AN post, while not outing, wasn't needed-- can you please not do something like that again? Thanks. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This shows that it was possible to handle the matter without posting private information on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Use of suppression

9) Two edits by Fram that disclosed private information and were made two days apart were suppressed by Primefac. After each suppression, Primefac requested review by the Oversight team. The oversight policy provides for suppression as a tool of first resort for the disclosure of non-public personal information.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Note that having their edits removed and suppressed once was not enough to prevent Fram from positing more non-public information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fram

10) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{OversightBlock}} by User:Primefac, which was later assumed by Dreamy Jazz, and which was sustained by the Oversight team as an appropriate block. Fram subsequently made a broad commitment to refrain from posting material in contravention of WP:OUTING. During this case, Fram has submitted private evidence and consulted with the Arbitration Committee before posting some evidence publicly.

Support:
  1. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I want to underscore that we received no evidence about Fram outside of what was there before the case opened. I also found Fram's discussion with ArbCom during the case to be productive and would hope that is the norm on both ends of this going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What Barkeep49 said. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Primefac's AN participation

11) Primefac first attempted to close the thread started by Kashmiri and then participated several times in the discussion. During this discussion Primefac made reference to acting as both an administrator and Arbitrator while weighing in with his opinion about the topic. During the case request, he stated I do not want to use the "any reasonable admin" clause of [the administrator policy about involvement].

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Better to stick to one hat at a time and (if possible) be clear about which hat you're wearing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Primefac's block of Fram

12a) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversight would reach the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. However, Primefac should not have been the oversighter to block Fram because neither provision applied in this situation.

Support:
  1. Oversight is a tool of first resort, but an oversight block would only be a tool of first resort if there was active ongoing behavior that required immediate action to prevent further disruption. I do not think this circumstance met that standard. - Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I basically agree with Aoidh. There are scenarios where there is enough urgency that an OS block would be OK even if someone is involved or INVOLVED. This was not that situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There was no urgency to make this OS block. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Would have been better coming from another oversighter, if only for optics. With some oversight blocks, speed is absolutely of the essence but in this case it was unlikely Fram would post further oversightable material before another oversighter could be alerted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

12b) Because Oversight is a tool of first resort and because of the exception to the INVOLVED policy allowing for action when any reasonable oversighter would have reached the same conclusion, it was appropriate for Primefac to suppress the material posted by Fram. Further as a tool of first resort, the need to stop the publishing of oversightable material creates an exception to the INVOLVED policy which also allowed Primefac to appropriately block Fram.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is too big of a carve out for me to be comfortable with. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my 12a vote. firefly ( t · c ) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This wouldn't be outside a reasonable reading of the policies but for the sake of avoiding drama, it's better to hand things off after a certain point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

New VRT queue established

1) The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm waiting to read any feedback from the community before supporting this. Per my vote on "Mechanisms for COI reporting" I feel it incredibly important we do somethign in this case to fix a broken system. So if this isn't it I would want to support some other remedy and so if someone is inclined ot give negative feedback to this remedy I'd ask that they suggest some alternative way to fix what's broken. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram reminded

2) Fram is reminded about the policy against harassment and its provisions against outing other editors.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Far top weak to use the mildest option of the ladder you all voted for earlier this year. Fram was decided in the recent enough past that we can't be starting afresh. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I don't think Fram's ArbCom case is stale, but it was ~4.5 years ago. It was long enough ago that only 5 current Arbitrators were administrators at the time. At the moment I see me voting for equal sanction for Fram and Primefac, as I see them as equally culpable here and I'm currently inclined to just let the FoF be the final word in this case, but I am still thinking this over. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe: removal of permissions

3) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Nihonjoe admonished

4) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe is admonished.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. This is not a sufficient remedy for what has been shown in this case. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Primefac reminded

5) Primefac is reminded against acting when involved.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ~~~~ (replace after each update); the last edit to this page was on 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) by Maxim.

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
None proposed
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision&oldid=1217122006"