Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Case opened on 17:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Case information

edit

Involved parties

edit

Prior dispute resolution

edit

Preliminary statements

edit

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

edit

Clerk notes

edit

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/1)

edit

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse, obviously. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this last night and fell asleep before I could put it on wiki, so I'll say it here: So to clarify my comment about what we received, @Yngvadottir and others, I'm saying we weren't informed of this beforehand, not that we weren't informed. I actually informed Arbcom about this not long after the inciting offwiki post and was the first person to do so. The thread did not get many comments and there wasn't a consensus for anything. Now personally speaking, I think a quiet note from an individual Arb to disclose COIs and be mindful of COI rules would've been a good idea and probably could have avoided this thread, but there was no consensus for that. After this went to ANI, Nihonjoe made his above COI clarification/declaration, which made an Arb sending a note feel moot/redundant. We haven't been sent further evidence other than the inciting offwiki post, so nothing is really happening right now unfortunately. If people have further evidence of COI stuff, please email it to Arbcom. And please, really, do email us-- we know a lot, but we don't know everything that's happening. If you see something, email us something. There have been much more problematic editors over the years that were never reported to us, and it seems like no one sent us anything because it was assumed someone already told us/we must know about it.
The issue of reporting COI vs outing is one that has been relevant for years (see Special:diff/1111807998#RfC:_Updating_BLOCKEVIDENCE and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog) The issue here isn't really reporting of COI/UPE though, it's communicating when functionaries have decided to do nothing about a report or didn't really get a response in. Plus, the ~paid Checkuser queue is backlogged and most offsite issues being reported to Arbcom unfortunately take longer to resolve for various reasons...
Now for accepting/declining this case? I don't know, I think it really depends on the evidence we get emailed. The community has admonished Nihonjoe via the AN thread, and the Oversight team has endorsed Primefac's block upon review. This should probably be In Camera if we are to open it, this should've stayed behind the scenes in the first place. But it didn't and we're in a bit of a mess and here right now. So, let's try and find the best solution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accept because we should've handled it in the first place. I think Primefac and Fram can be dropped as parties and have no preference for adding Kashmiri as a party. I would prefer we handle this mostly In Camera. And to Levivich's point about editors going to WPO/other offsite areas because they will "do something" about it... WPO can't actually do something. All they can do is get people's attention on something and motivate people to act on/offwiki. The community and Arbcom can actually do something via sanctioning or warning editors and coming to consensus on issues. With private issues, we have the responsibility to act, and we should at least look into things as we need a certain level of trust and understanding with the community. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we have anything that requires a case, and thus am leaning to decline, while awaiting statements. If anything, the usefulness of this case request is to settle the AN thread.
    As far as the questions as to Nihonjoe's COI edits, I think he has been responsive to the concerns raised in the AN thread. If his responses were wholly inadequate, we would have ended up with a case request much faster. As far as the edits to Aquaveo go, the bulk of these are from February 2016; the edits to the product pages were in March and August 2019. Given the scale and timing of these edits, a request to knock it off seems most appropriate, and the AN thread has largely done that (realistically, the blog post did that function already). Our COI rules get interpreted more strictly with every year, and that's something to keep note of when evaluating edits from five or eight years ago.
    As far as the Primefac and Fram angle, I have two broad thoughts. First, an {{OversightBlock}} isn't permanent; a credible promise to no longer re-add the oversightable material should make such a block go away. Second, as far as the INVOLVED aspect, that gets tricky with the present approach to Oversight. Suppression/oversight is considered a tool of first resort; when there is questionable material that may reasonably need to be deleted, it is first suppressed and then brought to review to the mailing list. If it is determined that revision-deletion was more appropriate (or no deletion whatsoever), that is decided on the mailing list and actioned appropriately. OversightBlocks are used, in general, either in very egregious situations or when oversightable material has been reposted (and usually the user was already asked to stop). All OversightBlocks are referred to the mailing list for review. It would therefore follow that the first available oversighter should suppress and block if reasonably appropriate, given that suppression is a tool of first resort and suppression is used for especially problematic material. The point I'm getting to is that WP:INVOLVED may conflict with how suppression is done in practice; provided that the suppression and/or block were reasonable actions (i.e. clearly not a spurious use of suppression), INVOLVED does not apply, because the practice of suppression is a first-resort action for urgently problematic material.
    And concerning the conflict between the outing policy and COI guideline, there is an interesting disjunction between what may be posted on-wiki, versus the kind of research routinely done and disseminating off-wiki, whether to ArbCom or potentially individual administrators. An example of what I recently reviewed was a dossier sent by an administrator to the committee, which involved the cross-referencing of old OTRS tickets with Facebook profiles to establish multiple editors' real-life identities and a specific conflict of interest. In practice, that is considered completely appropriate provided it's off-wiki such as by sending it to arbcom-en, and it happens all the time; were an administrator to post that dossier on-wiki, it would likely end with a ban and desysop for the administrator. (For the avoidance of doubt, none of this is meant as a judgment of whether how we do things is right or wrong; it is merely a description of current practice.) As far as this specific case, there are arguments that could be made that the AN thread should have been suppressed right off that bat, while emails to arbcom-en on the matter, including oversightable material, would have been entirely appropriate. Of course, with the community's desire for transparency, a balance between preserving editors' privacy and investigating misconduct becomes tricky to find. Maxim (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nihonjoe, having done a more thorough examination of the situation (including material emailed to ArbCom), I am not convinced that you have made a fulsome declaration of any conflicts of interest you may have in relation to certain articles you have edited. I understand that there are privacy implications for yourself, so I strongly encourage you to email arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org with a thorough disclosure, so we can find a reasonable balance between protecting your privacy and your properly disclosing any conflicts of interest that you may have. A continued lack of candour in this situation is likely to keep escalating tensions. Maxim (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, as there is enough of a mess to untangle and questions to answer that could use the structure of a case. Maxim (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reasonably convinced by the off-wiki evidence of Nihonjoe's COI; the sum of which I'm aware of - and I've been inactive so perhaps there's private evidence I need to catch up on - is from the blog post. I have not seen compelling evidence that Joe meaningfully violated Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines at the time he made COI/paid edits. If there is such evidence I would encourage someone to present it (most likely to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org).
    Bigger picture I share the concern of some, including Fram, of the ways that our OUTING policies are used by knowledgable insiders (or even knowledgable outsiders) to prevent accountability from violating our content policies and guidelines. During my time as an Arbitrator I have consistently been the voice on the Oversight team, and I think I am less alone in this view than I was 3 years ago, of keeping first principles in mind: we are here to build an encyclopedia. OUTING is a vitally important policy because it helps to create a safe space for many editors to have the safety to help build that encyclopedia. It is not, for me, a get of jail free card when it comes to content policies and guidelines, most frequently COI and paid editing. So there is going to be tension there.
    For me there is a right way and a wrong way to address that tension. Email arbcom? The right way. Getting suppressed and warned, ignoring that warning, and doing it again? The wrong way. Fram has more than once restored suppressed information in my time as an oversighter and, to disagree slightly with Maxim, I would be looking for credible assurance that not only will this suppressed info not be reposted but that Fram properly appeal OS decisions they disagree with in the future. This still is a pretty low bar and so I would hope Fram could be unblocked soon.
    Finally there is the matter of Primefac. I admit to not understanding what made him WP:INVOLVED. If it was What the hell Fram I view that as interacting purely in an administrative role as part of the suppression. If it was Primefac's closure of the thread, that still, for me, falls in the administrative action exception thought a bit more weakly. As such I think it would have been wise if Primefac had merely suppressed Fram a second time, gone to the OS list, reported the suppression and said "someone needs to block Fram". Given that the feedback has been strongly in support of the block it seems like some other oversighter would have blocked Fram and we could have avoided part of this drama. But lack of wisdom means at most a trout, and in this situation maybe not even that. So if I understand the concerns about Primefac's INVOLVED correctly that's where I land.
    All of this means to me this is an excellent case request but, with the evidence I've analyzed above, that I am a decline. But I await to see if there is other evidence (or if I misunderstand one of the facts above) before formally making that vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith The best practice piece is certainly what I had in mind when I said it would have been wise for Primefac not to be the one not to make the block. In my experience I find in any given situation a number of editors focus on INVOLVED, because it is such an important policy and ArbCom has (rightly!) shown a willingness to sanction admin for violating it. But that focus is spurred often more by underlying dispute than an actual community sentiment about where the line is for INVOLVED. If this progresses to a case it is absolutely going to be an important part for ArbCom to consider fully because it is, as you point out, very tricky. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Fram. I will consider that new information. I appreciate the correction that you posted two different pieces of oversightable material in this discussion rather restoring information that had already been removed and would adjust what I said for what I was hoping for in an unblock to "credible assurance to avoid posting oversightable material". Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now inclined to vote to accept a private case based on the information shared here by Levivich and the private information shared by Fram. I'm still not convinced there is enough here to have a broader scope that would include Primefac or Fram. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram I am happy to discuss the actions of Primefac and indeed have as have others. Primefac has apologized and has made Dreamy Jazz the blocking administrator (though this should probably be done in the block log). That feels like an appropriate response to what happened there. I agree with you the indef is harsh for what happened here, but that is also standard procedure for OS blocks. I have started a discussion to talk about whether that should be reconsidered. If there is a case, I would be in favor of ArbCom doing some self-examination as part of the decision, though when this was floated by the drafters in a case at the end of last year a number of arbs didn't like it so I don't know if that would fly. But that examination can happen without you and Primefac being parties and adding you two as parties doesn't make it more likely to happen. While I prefer cases that don't just focus on the actions of one editor (and the shortcomings of how ArbCom handles such cases is what has stopped me from voting accept though my next major contribution will likely be me doing that), it seems to me that the incident with you two is too small for an ArbCom level decision. The discussion among the OS team about your block has died down, it's been endorsed, and so the outcome to your situation is, in my mind, for you to post an unblock, for Dreamy or some other OS to accept it, and you move on with improving the encyclopedia. No reply necessary give my previous ping to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are valid concerns about WP:COI, WP:OUTING, WP:INVOLVED, and concerns and questions about the prioritization of certain policies over others when they seem to contradict. As far as accepting or denying a case, I would like to hold off until interested parties have a reasonable amount of time to make statements and/or email ArbCom any information as appropriate, which I would encourage so that the most informed decisions can be made. - Aoidh (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept - A case seems warranted per the information here as well as private information emailed to ArbCom. I think Primefac and Fram should remain parties to the case due to the outing concerns and the issue of apparent ambiguity with WP:INVOLVED in relation to oversight blocks. Given that different administrators have given opposing opinions on whether that oversight block was an involved block or an exception is bound to cause an issue in the future without some sort of clarification on that point, whether it be done in this case or elsewhere. - Aoidh (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also share the concerns around the tension between our COI and OUTING policies, and think there could be an opportunity to clarify best practices in this area. For the specific matter in front of us I don't think there's much to do given what we have - however I join with my colleagues in saying that if anyone has any credible evidence that we are missing something, please submit it. Even if you think "they already know this" - we'd rather hear something three times than not at all. firefly ( t · c ) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that am sympathetic to those who say that we should take the case and do [our] jobs. Having looked more closely at the Aquaveo AfD after David Fuchs' comment (thank you, David, for highlighting that) I am unimpressed with Nihonjoe's comments there, and they do - for me at least - move this away from being purely a historic issue explainable by changing norms and guidelines around COI. That said, what would those telling us to take the case be looking to us to do that hasn't already happened via the AN thread? firefly ( t · c ) 19:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to those who replied to my question. With these and other submissions I vote to accept. Personally I feel that the issue of Fram and Primefac does not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom consideration, however I am open to being convinced on this - and can see the logic of including all parts of a situation in a case's scope, even if nothing substantive happens in relation to them.
    This should go without saying, but I will say it for clarity: simply because I vote to accept a case - particularly one in the area of ADMINCOND - does not mean that I am presupposing any outcomes of that case. We could indeed accept a case, go through the various phases and end up with no sanctions at all. An issue could be both worthy of ArbCom consideration but, on consideration, not require substantive remedies. firefly ( t · c ) 17:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in two minds here. We have a bit if a mess of interconnected issues but I'm rapidly learning that there's no such thing as a "perfect" case request. First, the oversight block of Fram should be handled as all other OS blocks are—through review on the oversight mailing list. That review is ongoing but has so far soundly endorsed Primefac's action. Fram is free to appeal in line with the normal process. To the COI concerns, these do appear to have some merit and I'm not convinced (based partly on some of the new evidence we've been sent) that Nihonjoe has been as forthcoming as guidelines and the community expect, especially for an editor of his standing. I'd welcome community input on what they want from ArbCom. Should we be investigating allegations of a COI? And if so what should we do about them? Or can the community handle that (assuming the necessary disclosures are made)? Do we need to evaluate whether Nihonjoe has lost the confidence of the community as an admin? Or, put another way, what would you be asking of us if this case centered around a non-admin? I can see there being a case here but it's in everyone's best interests if we decide upfront what issues we want ArbCom to address. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to accept to examine concerns about Nihonjoe's editing. Given the personal and private nature of much of the evidence, ArbCom is the only body that can handle that. I think we should examine the evidence to determine whether any of the edits are problematic in and of themselves and not just technical violations of policies or guidelines, whether Nihonjoe has been as forthcoming about potential COIs as is required by policy, and whether his conduct falls short of expectations for an administrator and bureaucrat. Accepting should not be seen as pre-judging the answers to those questions, just as recognising that only ArbCom can satisfactorily answer them. Mo opinion on whether Fram/Primefac should be included; I could be persuaded either way.
    @Nihonjoe, I would encourage you to publicly list any articles you've made substantive edits to when you have a connection to the subject (eg people you know, companies you've worked for, businesses you've been involved in) so the community can review these articles. I wouldn't have thought it necessary to disclose the exact nature of your connection, especially for historical edits, but listing the articles will make this process much easier and help to limit the scope of the case as well as show your willingness to abide by admin accountability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Accept the case due to the overlap of admin/'crat conduct questions and private information. Per Risker, I would like to add an additional party. Reading the rest of the community comments, there are quite a few people who think the committee should have acted earlier here. Looking at my inbox and the edits to this page none of them emailed arbcom-en to ask us for a private case based on the evidence or filed a public case request. Without the brave souls who file cases, arbitration isn't going to work in the long-run. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept but with an acknowledgement that the scope of this case is very important to me. For me the scope should be the questions that Banedon asks, the question Ymblanter lays out about the line between COI and paid, and whether ArbCom processes for reporting COI issues privately worked. I would add to Banedon's question 3 "Given the answer to the previous two questions, should Nihonjoe still be trusted as an administrator and/or bureaucrat"? Removal of crat status by ArbCom is a grey area policywise and I might ultimately fall on the side of "ArbCom is not empowered to do so" but that leads to the somewhat absurd outcome of "these people are supposed to be among the most trusted and there is no way to remove the permission if the violate that trust" so I think it needs to be carefully considered through the case process. For me we would have a public evidence page and allow for public analysis, but would accept private evidence as well and clearly important evidence is going to be private. I expect we would end up sharing all the private evidence with Nihonjoe to allow him to respond. There's no reason we can't have a proposed decision where certain FoF is supported by the private evidence as we have in other hybrid public/private cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept We have a tangled web of issues, and I think ArbCom should make some statements on the COI/PE/OUTING topic. I agree with Barkeep that Banedon's questions should be part of the scope. I also think ArbCom's handling of this topic when we became aware of it (and how ArbCom can improve) should be added as a scope, as well as assessing editor behaviour in the AN thread to determine how OUTING can be avoided when COI concerns are raised. While Primefac's block of Fram is part of the AN thread, this was already considered by the oversight team (of which arbitrators are part of) and that discussion has reached a conclusion in which I doubt a full case will change, so I do not think it needs to be part of this case. I am open to adding other scopes if editors or arbs have suggestions. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding on a thought: some of this case is going to have to be heard in camera because of the oversight and outing concerns. I will advocate for ArbCom to be as transparent as possible about the topics discussed so that editors who have pertaining evidence can send it to us. I am unsure at this time about which topics will need to be in camera. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to accept a broad-scope case (with Nihonjoe, Fram, Primefac, and Kashmiri), though emphasising that being a party will not necessarily result in sanctions (see Special:Diff/1186715164). The Community deserves to have this looked at thoroughly. As others have noted, the Committee has received private evidence since this request was filed. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with a scope on Nihonjoe, in the vein of the questions around paid/COI that Banedon has helpfully expressed. I am against involving Kashmiri; it seems almost inevitable that someone was going to start the AN thread, even if it still was pretty inadvisable and Kashmiri escaped an OS block only by luck. But now that the cat is out of the bag and we've moved on quite a ways, I'm not sure exactly what involving Kashmiri would achieve besides punishing reporting.
    I am more on the fence about Fram and Primefac, but am currently against including them. From what I can see so far, Fram and Primefac both acted subpar. Fram undoubtedly posted OS-worthy material that resulted in a block that the OS list upheld. Primefac admitted fault in the resulting block. However, they've both been contrite about their actions: Fram offered the necessary understanding of wrongdoing and guarantee that he wouldn't do it again; same for Primefac (see his mea culpa). There really isn't much more for us to do besides consider banning/desysopping, which would be an extreme solution. Further, and with all due respect to Fram, anything involving him ends up generating a lot of drama; that distraction wouldn't ultimately prove useful to the core Nihonjoe issue.
    The dilemma posed here has become a running issue: something dramatic happens, then some folks make bad decisions around it in a misguided attempt to help, and we end up being asked to look at the dramatic thing and the not-so-helpful-after-all decisions made around the dramatic thing. That is not to say we can't do something about it, the TNT case is case-in-point for bad decisions around drama and our ability to do something about that. But the TNT issue was an especially severe example because it involved a checkusering. I am not loving how we keep ending up with cases where one person's mistakes end up snaring in several others and we are seriously discussing whether to toss the babies out with the bathwater. I expect Fram and Primefac to do better in the future, but I'm just not seeing what focusing a case on them will solve that hasn't already been done. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with a scope including all the named parties. We ought to go where the evidence leads us. We can remove parties after the evidence stage if they are not mentioned in any evidence. Cabayi (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

edit

Final decision

edit

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

edit

Purpose of Wikipedia

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor privacy

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oversight/suppression

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of administrative tools

edit

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.

Passed 10 to 1 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Findings of fact

edit

Nihonjoe's conflicts of interests

edit

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).

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

edit

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's paid editing (II)

edit

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

Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstension at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's tool use

edit

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).

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing

edit

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.

Passed 6 to 4 with 1 abstension at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's response to COI accusations

edit

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

Passed 10 to 1 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mechanisms for COI reporting

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashmiri

edit

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).

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstension at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of suppression

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fram

edit

10a) Following a second suppression at AN, Fram was given an {{OversightBlock}} by 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.

Passed 10 to 1 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Primefac's AN participation

edit

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 their opinion about the topic. During the case request, they stated I do not want to use the "any reasonable admin" clause of [the administrator policy about involvement].

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Primefac's block of Fram

edit

12a) 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 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.

Passed 6 to 5 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Remedies

edit

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

edit

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.

Passed 11 to 0 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fram admonished

edit

2.1) For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.

Passed 6 to 5 at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe: removal of permissions

edit

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.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstension at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

edit

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.


Enforcement log

edit

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management&oldid=1218755387"