Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Kostas20142 (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Euryalus (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Past/future Arbs

Comments on this page must be made in sections. If you would like to comment on this page, please create a section titled "Comments by {your username here}" and comment only in that section. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Euryalus: Assuming this isn't voted on and finalized before the end of the year (PD being due to be posted 29-Dec this seems likely....), there was previously some talk about the potential of current Arbs not continuing on this case after 1st-Jan and/or of newly elected Arbs joining the case. I assume y'all are discussing the topic already but I'm posting here because in Callanecc's announcement he said this was where an announcement would be made. If Arbs want some time off for the Holidays of course y'all have earned it and family should always be more important than Wikipedia :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: Thanks for that. There actually isn't any current discussion about delaying the case; I think people are just waiting for the PD. As a personal view it's great there's been so much workshop participation, but I reckon the PD will be a fair bit shorter.
I also reckon we're on track for a PD on December 29, but inevitably the voting will carry over until the new year. Unless the outgoing committee members specifically request to stay active on this case (and none have so far) then their votes won't be counted. Cases that cross years can make for some odd vote tallies (eg. Gamergate had 14 active and 5 inactive arbitrators) but it all works out in the end. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just leaving myself a quick count (clerks feel free to point out any mistakes)
(Discounting 2 inactives + 1 recused), of the 12 Arbs active on this case, 8 automatically continue (term not expired, or reelected)
4 have the option of requesting a continuation (Kirill, Keilana, Drmies and Casliber)
6 new Arbs join the commitee and thus might vote on the PD? (unclear if their joining is automatic or at their discretion; I recall Euryalus saying they were going to "have the option" of joining but Callanecc's WP:AC/N announcement did not mention anything).
Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New arbitrators are joined to the case automatically, but they can mark themselves inactive if they wish (for example, if they haven't read up on it so far and don't want to vote on something they havent been following). -- Euryalus (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already informed the clerks that I will be inactive on this case (barring something truly unexpected in the PD). I don't think it's particularly helpful to have ~20 cooks in the kitchen. ~ Rob13Talk 21:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BU Rob13, noted but didn't want to speak on your behalf. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Euryalus: I could well be wrong, but my memory is that in the past outgoing arbitrators automatically stayed with a case that was active during their terms, and that incoming arbs had to positively add themselves rather than being automatically added. Am I mistaken about that procedure? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken: This is also my understanding, but I will check with the arbs. We ask that further discussion be sectioned in accordance with the notice at the top of this page. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • (Sorry, Kevin, but I'm sneaking one more comment in here.) In the interest of transparency, I actually am going to be active in this case, contrary to my prior statement. The biggest reason is because the proposed decision appears like it may wind up being posted slightly late, pushing it into the new term. That gives me more time to review things and come to an informed point of view. ~ Rob13Talk 03:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beyond My Ken, Salvidrim!, TonyBallioni, JacobMW, Soetermans, and Jytdog: *sigh* yes, thats what we did with the Kevin Gorman case, my mistake for somehow misremembering it. To the extent that we're bound by tradition, we'll need to do the same thing here. Apologies for getting this wrong, I had in my mind that we'd done it the other way round last time. And thanks to the clerks for politely pointing it out.
GorillaWarfare has specifically asked not to be marked as continuing in this case, as they're recused. The other outgoing Arbs have said nothing on the issue, despite a couple of emails - from discussions I reckon they had all thought they were departing. However for absolute avoidance of doubt, @Drmies, Kirill Lokshin, Keilana, Kelapstick, and Casliber:, can you please advise if you plan to continue with this case into the New Year. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Euryalus, K-stick asked me about this yesterday and I said I'd look at it today--yeah, I'll remain active on this one if that's OK. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus, I have been told that adding people to pings only works on new lines? I'm not tech savvy, but might be worth doing new again. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i think it works for multiples via with the reply function, though you'd need someone like Deltaquad to say for sure. Anyway, they've also all been emailed two or three times, and it's been raised on the mailing list, so I'd hope the message is delivered. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • L235 : If this page is for "for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion", then you're welcome to point us towards where such discussion can happen. Otherwise I'd be inclined to recommend that constructive non-disruptive discussions be allowed... seems a bit silly to let procedure get in the way if it's being a hindrance and everybody is already having a perfectly fine threaded discussion :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following incoming arbitrators have indicated an intent to join the case: BU Rob, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, WormTT.
    The following outgoing arbitrators have indicated an intent to become inactive on this case (on Jan 1): Kirill, Keilana, GorillaWarfare (recused), Kelapstick, Casliber.
    The following incoming arbitrators have indicated an intent to stay inactive on this case (default): Alex, Rick.
    Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion relevant to this section at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Incomming and outgoing arbitrators and business between the elections and the year change. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken's section

My apologies for not sectioning properly. I'm creating this simply to provide a place for Kevin or Euryalus to respond to my inquiry in the section above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm happy to see that my eternally fallible memory was functioning correctly this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its counterintuitive. Would make more sense if outgoing arbs were assumed to disappear on 1 Jan unless specifically indicating otherwise, and incoming arbs assumed to be active at the start of their terms unless they chose not to be. That would also better reflect the will of the voters - we were elected for a two year term, not two and a bit. And the newcomers are expected to start fulfilling their mandates from day one. Will propose an amendment to the current "traditional" approach, and see how I go. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. I guess in the real world, the dates that, say, legislators stop and start are hard and there's no bleedover: once you're finished, you're finished. On the other hand, I also think that real world legislation which hasn't passed by the cutoff date has to be re-introduced, and we certainly don't want that to be the case here, which may be the genesis of the soft transition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add a comment concerning an AN/I discussion about desysopping if an Arbcom case does not desysop an admin: while it is perfectly correct that admins cannot be desysopped at AN/I, there is nothing forbidden about having a discussion concerning the advisability of filing a desysop case to ArbCom which considers any evidence which was not part of the previous ArbCom case. Necessarily, ArbCom must limit the range of issues which are part of a case, and evidence outside of that are not considered. If there are other issues which editors feel should be taken up, then having a discussion to gauge community support for that is perfectly legitimate, and is not forum shopping -- as long as the same issues are not the basis for the discussion.
    That being said, I would very much doubt that there would be any great value in such a discussion in this particular instance, and the community response would likely be tepid, but there's nothing to prevent such a discussion from being held. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW:
  • I agree that the sectioning makes keeping track of the give-and-take in discussion extremely difficult. I understand the reasoning behind it, but feel that it is counter-productive in the PD talk section, where the Arbitrators should be able to follow the community's flow of thought on the various proposals.
  • I disagree that banning paid editor for a particular editor under specific circumstances is outside the Commitee's purview. They certainly cannot ban paid editing in general, as that would be creating policy, but behavioral bans have long been a common sanction imposed by them when appropriate, and a ban against paid editing is not different from any other ban. This is especially the case when one considers that a ban from any editing has long been an accepted sanction, and a ban against paid editing is merely a subset of that. To disallow the subset while allowing the superset makes entirely no sense at all. The key is also that the ban would be applied to specific editors after hearing evidence from the community, and is therefore not in the realm of making policy, simply behavioral sanctioning.
  • I agree that WP:PROXY does not cover the behavior described, and if it is to be accepted as an example of poor judgment, it should be specifically framed in that manner. Using PROXY is just inaccurate.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the language invoking PROXY has been rewritten. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo correction

Under the Vote section, second paragraph, there's mistake in typing "casted" but it should be "cast". Ammarpad (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another correction

In PFOF, under Salvidrim! and admin tools section; WP:COI is (incorrectly) labeled as policy. It is a guideline. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Euryalus: The policy/guideline mixup on COI appears twice, it seems you only corrected one. Specifically:

Should be changed to.

  • Then, Neutral point of view section

Should be corrected to

"Conflicted editors" didn't actually convey the intended meaning of the proposed principle.

Apologies if this precision is not necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first one re guidelines, thanks for that. Haven't done the second one, because I'm not immediately seeing the difference beyond style preference. But let me know if I've missed something and I'll have another look. And re your last sentence: no apologies needed, precision is always a virtue in this most bureaucratic of fora. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To DGG

@DGG: You're typing fast. I think in Salvidrim! desysopped section you intended to write;

Instead of

–Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Decision

.. will be delayed by one day.

Salvidrim!, please check your email per a piece of private evidence just sent to you. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I haven't received an e-mail yet. Euryalus last I have from you or the committee is Saturday 23-Dec. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll go send it again. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that someone sent private evidence on the day of the proposed decisions to influence the !vote so that it cannot be cross examined by the community.--v/r - TP 21:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, during arbitration proceedings, there exists evidence that cannot be posted publicly because it contains private information (usually personal information or information otherwise eligible for oversight). When that happens, we do our best to at least give the relevant parties the ability to respond to evidence submitted against them to ensure they have appropriate due process. If the evidence were suitable for posting on-wiki, it would be posted on-wiki. ~ Rob13Talk 21:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Last minute evidence? Providing evidence shortly before the proposed decision is voted upon doesn't give Salv time to consider his response or defend himself. We typically give two weeks to collect evidence and two more weeks to discuss how they'll form Findings of Fact. Now, he's being forced to defend himself in a few hours by himself. That's an unfair disadvantage laid upon him. Arbs should consider if the evidence was available before this point and if the source had adequate time to provide it to Arbs. If so, then the intention to withhold it until now should be discussed.--v/r - TP 21:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record since I was the filing party, and TParis has raised concerns about process here, I did not submit any private evidence other than the Facebook thread that is available on multiple pages on wiki, and haven’t been in email contact with the committee about this case since the beginning of the evidence phase. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your name never came up in my mind. I assumed all parties to the case were fully involved. I'm concerned about someone that has been hiding in the shadows trying to manipulate the case from a position of obscurity.--v/r - TP 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was submitted in early December but after discussion the current committee decided not to pursue it further. However the incoming arbitrators have only had access to the private evidence in the last couple of days, and one of them felt this relevant enough to reinclude. So in fairness we needed to ask Salvidrim! for their views on it. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that sounds far less suspect than I had envisioned. Thank you for explaining.--v/r - TP 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: No worries, the concern was understandable. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, we're presently one hour behind time. Thanks all for your input in discussions so far, could anyone with last-minute comments on the draft PD please have a look at/amend the current draft so we can post it asap?

Pinging those that haven't commented specifically on the current draft. @DGG, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Doug Weller, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, WormTT, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, and Ks0stm:. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth's section

In the event that the proposal to desysop does not pass, would a community discussion/vote to desysop on e.g. AN be regarded as 'forum shopping'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: the only body that can decide to desysop an admin is the arbitration committee. It cannot be done via a discussion at AN. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim's comments on the PD

I hope I won't be banned from creating articles, because none of my article creations were ever under question in this case and I have made several articles "on-the-spot" whenever inspiration or a redlink strikes my fancy (or a new game is announced) (under "Pages Created"), but if it comes down to that it's not too big a deal for me to send my obscure gaming stubs to AfC for some time... but I'd prefer to see an alternate version perhaps banning AfC approvals but not article creation as I think that is more aligned with what the community's expectations. As an aside, I'm a tad worried about the potential ambiguity in enforcing remedies w/r/t the definitions of "creating" and "articles" - is any mainspace title an "article"? (DABs, SIAs, Lists, redirects)? Is splitting/merging/moving/restoring/expanding content "creating" an article? Perhaps if this is something likely to pass, a refinement in wording to reflect its intent ("writing new articles") might help... dunno, maybe I'm worrying too much about the tree instead of the forest :/ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • re TonyBallioni without necessarily going into specifics of this instance (which I wouldn't mind but will let ArbCom decide what to say publicly), I am comfortably stating that I in contact on Facebook, Twitter, Skype and e-mail with several users who are currently or formerly blocked or banned on EnWiki and other Wikimedia projects. As long as they're not being assholes, I don't mind the occasional chitchat, and I'm always happy to give them my 2¢ on any Wiki-related issue they might need advice for, particularly appealing their block/ban -- often my 2¢ amounts to "try to talk them out of it", but other times I have done my best to steer them through the sometimes complex appeal processes (sometimes successfully, often not). I do that with the same passion that drives my UTRS work -- rehabilitation should always remain the ultimate goal, no matter how unlikely or distant its likelihood. You can fault my optimism and idealism is you want but I believe that anyone who shows determination to contribute to Wikipedia, even if their initial efforts weren't constructive, can be channeled into a constructive contributor, even if it takes a decade of mentoring.
Also speaking in general terms, a big part of UTRS work is asking CUs or blocking admins for a second looks at their blocks "in light of" the blocked user's later explanations (sometimes fruitful, sometimes useless, but a second look can never hurt), so the kind of situation described here is neither exceptional nor particularly uncommon.
About this specific case, and while beind mindful of remaining vague as to identities, I was passing along information provided to me by a banned user concerning a block of their colleagues (said block seemingly not directly related to the banned user) and did not in my first e-mail mention who had been in touch with me, only giving the precision once asked about it. I still think that passing along the info I had been given to the concerned body "as is, for them to do with as they see fit" was the correct thing to do -- whether it was spun tale or held water was for them to determine, because to me, it seemed plausible and non-frivolous at the very least and supported by a verifiable similar previous on-wiki occurence. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 11:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And FWIW, although it may irk people again that I try to point out what policy actually says, WP:PROXYING only refers to edits and posts (it specifically mentions "changes")... definitely not e-mailing along appeals to the relevant venues-of-appeal. I don't mind being taken to task for passing along the info while neglecting to initially mention who had given it to me, but I'm once again cautioning against trying to retrofit that under a policy which does not seem to cover the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. RickinBaltimore is marked inactive for this case, but of course is more than welcome to join (Rick, if so just let me or the clerks know and we'll change the subst:Casenav/closed). -- Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take it the wrong way but I've asked for my bit to be flipped off right away. I know the voting isn't "final" yet but I think whether the desysop remedy passes or fails by one or two votes, at this point it wouldn't change much. DeltaQuad's vote was one of the most important in my eyes due to the respect I have developped for her over years of work on UTRS and SPI, and her support for the desysop landed in my heart with the heavy thud of finality. If I've lost the trust to act as an admin of those I consider friends, there's nothing else to be said in my defense. I'm moving on. Sorry to everyone for allowing my mistakes to snowball into a full case. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni's section

@Euryalus and Salvidrim!: in regards to finding of fact 5 (the PROXYING issue), while I understand that this is private evidence, and am very supportive of any prohibition on OUTING or anything that would compromise non-public information, I do think there are things that can be revealed to the community and that the community has a right to know regardless of the remedies of this case. In particular I think that the community should be aware which banned editor Salvidrim proxied for. I do not think that would approach outing at all. I also think it may be appropriate to disclose to the community how he was contacted by the banned editor (was it via email? PM on one of the criticism sites? Facebook? By a sock on-wiki? Generically off-wiki?) This latter question I think has more outing concerns, and I trust the committee to appropriately balance the issues between privacy and transparency here, but I did want to raise it. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'll ask around, see what people think about providing more info. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I pushed for this particular finding of fact was because I wanted the community to be aware of this. I don't think there's a particular problem in naming the banned editor, but I'll leave the decision to the more experienced arbs. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13, I think naming the banned editor would also help address some of the criticism on this page and would help editors form an idea as to if this is a serious enough lapse in judgement to be included as a finding of fact (I haven't opined either way on this yet as I don't feel comfortable doing so without knowing more of the circumstances). For example: conveying the appeal of a WMF banned editor who is a notorious sockmaster would be such an egregious lapse in judgement, I think the committee would be right to include it in the case, and I suspect many here who are criticizing the inclusion now would think so as well. Forwarding an appeal from someone like DrStrauss (just an example) without mentioning it, while it may be a lapse in judgement, would likely be met with a meh by everyone. There are of course a range of scenarios in between those two, and having an idea of what we were talking about I think would go a long way to addressing the criticism on this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working on that. I think the biggest issue is that the finding of fact, after being edited by many people, became very unclear. The "banned editor" discussed in the finding of fact is not the editor whose block was appealed. It was an unrelated banned editor who purported to have information relevant to the block. The information was passed along in such a way that a functionary believed it to come from an editor in good standing who happened to have private information. ~ Rob13Talk 18:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is more clear. Thank you for clarifying. I still think the name is important, but your explanation here also helps. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Callanecc, re: the AfC drafts prohibition, if we are using DGG’s analysis as justification for the sanction, it might be best to prohibit Moving drafts created by other editors into mainspace or something of the sort as AfC is not a required process even for drafts. Imagine a scenario where another MisterWiki editor creates a draft without the AfC banners, and is then moved to mainspace. It would not technically be a violation of that sanction for Salv or Soetermans to have made the move. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Galobtter, the AfC seal of approval isn’t particularly special: it’s the default wording of that guideline because it is the quickest/ordinate way to get a 3rd party to review a draft, but our processes are not legalistic and I could do the exact same thing to a draft without the banners. Most people (our readers most particularly) would not see a functional difference between an AfC accepted draft and a draft that was just moved. Combine this with the fact that draft space outside AfC is much less visible (no lost of recently accepted pages, no talk page notice, etc.) If we are using DGG’s reasoning that one doesn’t need AFCH to accept a draft, IMO that reasoning applies to all draft articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also ping Euryalus since you were the drafting arb and just voted in those sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have amended it, but further suggestions welcome (especially if you or DGG think this wording addition misses something. The Salvidrim! version of this proposal needs amending too, but it's already been rewritten by another arbitrator so I'll give it a while to make sure they're okay with a further change. The two remedies should be identical, in my view. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was saying a general prohibition on moves out of draft space of other editors drafts, regardless of whether or not they had the AfC banners attached. As it is written now, the prohibition only covers drafts with an AfC banner. This is easy to game by simply creating a draft without one. The goal of the prohibition, from what it seems, is to prevent reviewing of drafts by editors who have caused disruption in this area before and in my (and your view it seems), gamed the system in this way. To use an example, as currently written if Jacob (MisterWiki owner) were to create [[Draft:Foo]] with an AfC banner, Soetermans and Salv would be unable to review it or move it to mainspace. If, however, he decided to create [[Draft:Foo]] without the AfC banners Sotermans and Salv could move it to mainspace with a move rationale such as reviewed draft, ready for mainspace and it be acceptable under this wording. That doesn't seem to be the intent of the sanction. I would suggest X is prohibited from moving drafts created by other editors in any namespace into mainspace. This would cover what seems to be the intent of the sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Newyorkbrad: minor quibble that can either be addressed now or in the cleanup when the case is over, but I think the link to the current RfC on paid use of tools at WT:ADMIN might be best as a permalink if it is to be included that way in the final case page, since the RfC will eventually be archived. I'm also not really an arbcom regular, so unsure if it will be linked from the final decision, but thought I should raise it anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: a few thoughts on your proposal of a 90 day ban. First, I agree with Tryptofish that it would serve no purpose other to punish. Deterrence is punishment, not prevention, at least in every legal and moral philosophy class I have taken. I don't think that is appropriate, and it was not why I filed this case (though of course, ArbCom can do what it wants regardless of my reasons for filing).
    I think your suggesting what amounts to a 90 day block, however, does speak to the issue of community trust, which is why I brought this case. I agree with you that a warning or admonishment likely isn't enough, but I also don't see how a 90 day ban could be compatible with the trust that administrators are expected to maintain. You mentioned that time limited bans are the subject for the community normally and not ArbCom, which is true. Typically 90 days is the last stop before an indef block or site ban. If any administrator were to receive one at the noticeboards for a policy or guideline violation, it would inevitably lead to an ArbCom case, and likely to a desysoping because the user had acted in a way that had lost the trust of the community, or where we could at least be reasonably sure that there was a deep divide in the community over the suitability of the admin in question caused by the admin violating policies and guidelines. If you think Salvidrim!'s actions are at the level of a 90 day ban, to me that means they also must be at the level of a desysop.
    The final thing that I do think should be given some weight when looking at the community's stance here is the ongoing RfC and what it says about where pre-existing consensus was when the these actions occurred. I do not think it should be included as a violation, because it wasn't one at the time, but the fact that Salvidrim!'s actions were what led to what looks to be the community establishing a bright line rule here I think does play into the argument of trust. The community is wary of instruction creep, especially on the ADMIN policy, and there are lots of grey areas intentionally. That Salvidrim!'s actions that went against both the written guidelines and the unwritten common sense interpretations of grey areas so far as to cause the community to have to set up bright lines is in my view pretty telling of how impactful this case has been on community sentiment and also trust in this administrator. I think that qualifies as a gross breach of trust under the admin policy that warrants the community being able to decide whether or not they still trust him with the tools. I've written to much here, but I hope my thoughts are helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, thank you. I've been going round the circle in my head myself - if a ban is appropriate, then the editor should not be a sysop. I'm definitely getting the feeling that there is no appetite for a 90 day ban within the committee or within the community, so I'll get back to thinking about other solutions. At any rate, thank you for your comments. WormTT(talk) 10:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvidrim!: I had the same question earlier. See Rick's explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude's section

Peter the Fourth, It'd have zero effect. The community has no power or ability to have an admin desysopped. Only ARBCOM can do that. Other than that, yes it'd be forum shopping and entirely inappropriate. Unless, hypothetically, the proposed remedy was to kick it to the community and have them make the decision, although I find that highly unlikely. The buck stops here. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Mr rnddude says. This is the forum to consider desysops. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

[[user|Soetermans]] in the "Salvidrim! and AfC I" section links to User; it should be [[user:Soetermans]] or [[user:Soetermans|Soetermans]]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few sections farther down [[user|Salvidrim!]] has the same problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, sections 3 and 7 in the findings. (I really strongly recommend everybody to install this gadget: User:Anomie/linkclassifier)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed by removing. They didn't serve a purpose - the accounts were already correctly linked further up. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf's section

"Mister Wiki editors" section:

  • There needs to be a closing parenthesis after "(now renamed as JacobPace (talk · contribs)".
  • It should be noted I think that Salividrim! used the account user:Salvidrim! (paid) for all his paid edits.

"Salvidrim! and AfC I"

  • I'm not sure it's correct to say that Salvidrim! breached WP:PAY by obtaining reviews from Soetermans. Salvidrim!'s fault here was asking for the reviews which is possibly a violation of WP:CANVASS (still thinking about whether I agree with that) and definitely gaming the system (this is covered in the next finding of fact so doesn't need to be here too). The violation of WP:PAY here was by Soetermans who conducted the reviews while having a conflict of interest due to being paid by Mister Wiki.

"Proxying for banned editor"

  • Unless this banned editor is/was also employed by Mister Wiki and Salvidrim! knew this at the time he forwarded the communication, then I don't see the relevance to this case.
  • I also agree with Salvidrim!'s comments in his section of this talk page that passing along information in good faith for someone with the relevant abilities to review is not covered by the proxying policy.

"Soetermans and AfC"

  • The articles should be linked
  • Soetermans did not breach WP:CANVASS based on the evidence provided. He was inappropriately canvassed and responded incorrectly to that canvassing (breaching WP:PAY while doing so), but a user cannot be guilty of canvassing simply be being inappropriately canvassed.

"Salvidrim! and paid editing", "Soetermans and paid editing"

  • Per my comments on the workshop, it is way outside arbcom's remit to place restrictions on how any editor may or may not earn a living. Passing these remedies would set a very dangerous precedent.

Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily endorse what Boing! said Zebedee says below regarding the Proxying finding and the paid editing remedies (although I disagree that we ever could or should get rid of paid editing completely, this is not relevant to the problems with these remedies). Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13:
  1. Please point out what part of the WP:PROXYING policy this falls under as I'm completely not seeing it.
  2. In the workshop phase it was noted several times (I think by multiple arbitrators) that proposals should be related to the events surrounding the Mister Wiki editing, not random other things Salvidrim! may or may not have done. Please explain how this is consistent with that ruling.
  3. As I understand it, it was not possible for Salivdrim! to determine the reliability of the information he had been given, as that would require checkuser access. If true, then passing it on to someone who can detmerine its reliability seems to show good judgement, not bad. Speaking as a functionary I would certainly like to encourage people passing on information in such circumstances rather than being sanctioned for it.
Again I have to endorse what user:Boing! said Zebedee is saying regarding transparency. This feels like an attempt to force the outcome you want (desysop) because the evidence does not support it otherwise. I'm not at all encouraged that the community has made a good choice in electing you as an arbitrator if this is the way you plan to behave for the next two years. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: in response to your reply to Tony above, that's not clarifying something in the FoF it's making an entirely different accusation. Which story is true? Whichever is true, I still wait answers to my above questions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Fixing ping: @BU Rob13: Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get your ping, but just saw this on my watchlist. I've commented on the PD page that we should change the wording of that FoF. I've never said anything violated WP:PROXYING, nor is that section wikilinked in the FoF. We should not be using that word. I'm not the best person to speak toward instructions given during the workshop phase, as I was not on the Arbitration Committee at the time and have not seen any internal discussions about restrictions on evidence. Some sections of evidence pertain to events from prior to Mister Wiki (Softlavender's section, for instance, on the RfB). As for your last question, I think it will be moot once the Committee (hopefully) decides to include more information in the FoF. What you describe is both perfectly proper and not what happened. You're completely reasonable in assuming what you did because the FoF was too generic to impart useful information. I was not the one who wrote it, but I apologize for the confusion it caused. In my attempts to clear up that confusion without making large decisions about release of information better suited to the Committee as a whole, I've probably made things worse. ~ Rob13Talk 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I edit conflicted with you while writing my reply below. I wont have time to read your reply properly until tomorrow, but thank you for responding. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: ArbCom can indeed ban someone from editing Wikipedia, which would prevent them from earning money from editing Wikipedia, but that is a restriction on on-wiki activities that has a side-effect outside the Committee's control. That is very different to dictating how an editor may earn money. Arbcom's remit does not (and absolutely should not) extend to controlling people's off-wiki activities - this is one of the reasons why ArbCom passed it's responsibilities regarding child protection issues to the Wikimedia Foundation and (during my time on the committee at least, and presumably since) pushed hard to get the Foundation to do more regarding harassment (which it is doing). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thryduulf for the post at the top of this thread. Done some of these, or at least commented regarding them on the case page. I've also noted on the case page that while the lodging of evidence re the banned editor was legitimate as a potential example of questionable judgement, I don't personally think it needs further pursuit. Having voted that way, I'll leave discussion of its merits this to others.
Appreciate the point re the paid editing prohibition remedy - on the other hand, the events outlined in the case indicate that Salvidrim! had significant difficulty navigating the conflicts that paid editing brought, and its fairly standard when an editor has difficulties leading to disruption in any area of Wikipedia, that we remove them from that area. As the number of proposed remedies shows (and as you know from your own experience), sometimes a remedy is proposed because there were conflicting views in discussion and the question deserves an up or down vote. This is one of those. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have to note that I find your replies on this talk page to TParis very significantly below the standards I expect to read in a mature discussion. That you are an arbitrator makes it even worse. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't have to note that, and I find the blatant lack of good faith on TParis's part below par. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of paid editing

I agree with Tryptofish that any definition of paid editing that is incomplete or inaccurate will come back to cause problems later, particularly as there is no agreement among the community regarding what is and isn't paid editing in all circumstances (Wikimedian in Residence posts are possibly the most prominent grey area, but far from the only one, and indeed it's not clear that there is a single agreed definition of that term either). I can though see the value in explaining what you mean by the term, so I suggest it is explicitly noted as "for the purposes of this arbitration case" or "as it relates to this case" or something like that to make it clear that you are not trying to cover all bases or overstep your remit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Jytdog, and TParis: I found it very odd that two people could come to such very different conclusions about the level of support, so I've read every single one of the statements made while this case was in the request phase. Based on that I find that, during the request phase (opinions may have changed since) of the involved parties:

  • TonyBallioni seemed to want a reconfirmation RFA, but was unclear whether he supported a desysop before then.
  • Salvidrim! implicitly doesn't want a desysop
  • Soetermans made no comment.

Of the non-parties who left statements:

  • 8 editors explicitly supported a desysop (Alex Shih, Jytdog, Kudping, Softlavender, IvanVector, Patient Zero, Pldx1, Robert McLenon).
  • 6 editors implicitly supported a desysop (GreenMeansGo, Ifnord, DocJames, Smallbones, OID, Beyond My Ken).
  • 3 editors might be implicitly supporting a desysop but I'm less certain (There'sNoTime, Boing! Said Zebedee, Hasteur).
  • 3 editors explicitly opposed a desysop (Mendaliv, Awilley, John Carter)
  • 5 editors implicitly opposed a desysop (GRuban, Irridescent, DHeyward, Ymblanter, Pinguinn)
  • 1 editor might be implicitly opposing a desysop but I'm less certain (Mz7)
  • 1 editor initially supported a desysop, but later withdrew that support (Kurtis)
  • 1 editor explicitly supported and explicitly opposed a desysop (Davey2010)
  • 1 editor expressed opinions but I'm unclear whether they were supporting or opposing (Ammarpad)
  • 1 editor explicitly opposed an emergency desysop but didn't express an opinion about a non-emergency one (SarekOfVulcan)
  • 16 editors either made no comment about desysoppings or explicitly or implicitly wanted the Committee to decide without offering an opinion of their own (Bri, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, Atsme, Tryptofish, SoWhy, WBG, DGG, Spartaz, Rschen7754, Paul August, BU Rob13, Alanscottwalker, Leniveil, Isaaci, Esquivalence, SMcCandlish).

Assuming my figures are (approximately) correct, 26 editors expressed opinions I can categorise one way or the other and didn't change their mind before the case was opened. Of those 26, 17 supported the desysop and 9 opposed it. However it is not as clear as nearly 2:1 would suggest as of those who expressed their reasoning:

  • Some (but not all) comments were not about Salvidrim! specifically but about desysopping all paid editors regardless (there is not a community consensus to this effect)
  • Some (but not all) comments were based on misunderstandings or factual inaccuracies (e.g. Salvidrim! did not engage in sockpuppetry)
  • Some (but not all) seemed to want a quick/immediate reconfirmation RFA rather than a straight removal of the tools.
  • Some (but not all) of those not expressing an opinion either way could reasonably be interpreted as not seeing a need for a desysop.

Taking the above into account I would say that there was no consensus for or against a desysop.
For the record, I did not make a statement during the request phase but if I had I suspect it would have been along the lines of leaning towards opposing the desysop but asking the Committee to explicitly vote on the matter. I would have categorised this as part of the "made no comment about desysoppings or explicitly or implicitly wanted the Committee to decide" set above. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Jytdog: Regarding Iridescent, I still think that during the request phase his comments were implicitly opposing a desysop - I explicitly wasn't considering any statement made by anybody in the workshop or later as Callanecc was explicitly talking only about request phase. It is also inaccurate I feel to characterise any count of support or opposition as being out of 46 as that includes 17-18 editors who did not address the issue or said it was for the Committee to decide and 2-3 who were not clear about what they wanted (the difference being which pile you add Kurtis to), so out of 26 paints a more accurate picture. It also matters whether you are counting opposition or lack of support. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing!'s section

  1. I have serious misgivings about Proposed Remedies 3 and 7, which would prohibit Salvidrim! and Soetermans from paid editing. I think paid editing is a curse and I'd love to see Wikipedia's door never darkened by it again, but I just see it as completely outwith the Arbitration Committee's remit to forbid it - the Wikimedia terms and conditions allow it, and I don't see where any power for ArbCom to override that can come from. As I see it, Arbcom has the power to impose on-wiki sanctions over unacceptable activities (anywhere from a friendly warning, through desysop, to a site ban), but has no power to dictate what someone can do off-wiki - such as accepting money for on-wiki activities. If the latter impinges on the former, then the remedy should be limited to the former. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm also disturbed by PFoF 3, "Proxying for banned editor", for a number of reasons. Banned editors are not unpersons and they are allowed to communicate/appeal via various channels, and I think in most cases passing on that communication is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sure, Salvidrim! should have identified the person who contacted him in the first place, but that sounds like a relatively minor omission and it's clear he subsequently did so. In any case, proxying for a banned user is doing something that the banned user was forbidden from doing themselves - and surely it can only be proxying if that banned user was banned from all communication? I'm also concerned that the outgoing ArbCom did not consider it a problem but it has been shoe-horned in at the last minute on the wishes of just one new elected arb (who actually wasn't an arb yet), that no public mention of it (even limited) was made at any previous point in the process, and that there has been no indication that it is actually connected with the Mister Wiki issue. Even if you can't name names and all that (for privacy reasons), at the very least we need more transparency here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was substantial discussion about the proxying issue prior to the "last minute", including an opportunity for Salvidrim! to respond to it. Multiple arbitrators (incoming, mostly) supported it being included in the proposed decision in some manner. If it hadn't been included in the original PD, I would have added it tomorrow, which further limits the time the community has to discuss it and offer feedback. I felt it important that, at the very least, the community be made aware that this happened. I didn't want the information to stay solely on a private mailing list when we have the opportunity to be more transparent about it. Passing information on to functionaries without qualification when it comes from a known unreliable source is a major lapse of judgement, and it could speak to a pattern. ~ Rob13Talk 16:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Somehow I'd guessed it was you) Is it related to the Mister Wiki issue? Was it doing anything by proxy that the banned user is banned from doing? As for "I felt it important that, at the very least, the community be made aware that this happened", if you can't or won't tell us what you're talking about or clarify the context, then we as the community are not being made aware, are we? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was not the first arbitrator to include information about the proxying in the PD, nor was I the only one to push for its inclusion. It is unrelated to Mister Wiki, but directly related to assessing whether there has been "consistent ... poor judgement" (WP:ADMINCOND). Nothing was done that the banned editor was banned from doing, but neither does the finding of fact say that is the case. The community knows more now than it did before, which I almost always see as an improvement. If we can release more information, I'd be supportive of that as well. At least some of this includes personal information, so we can't say everything. ~ Rob13Talk 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not doing anything that the banned editor is banned from doing, then it's not proxying, is it? And you can tell me this now and also reveal that it is unrelated to Mister Wiki, but you can't say that in the Finding of Fact? And you claim the FoF is there so "the community be made aware that this happened" while hiding the important facts of the matter from us until pressed on it? I'm really quite shocked here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and can I please ask for other (more wiki-mature and wiki-experienced) Arbs for their considerations here too please? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment before I take the rest of the year off... WP:PROXYING clearly says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying)" (my emphasis), and I've seen no suggestion that Salvidrim! has done that in that "email from banned editor" FoF. If anyone should read and understand a policy before they invoke it in a finding of fact, surely it should be Arbitrators? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year wherever you are. Replied to point 1 in Thryduulf's section, but will repeat it here: "Appreciate the point re the paid editing prohibition remedy - on the other hand, the events outlined in the case indicate that Salvidrim! had significant difficulty navigating the conflicts that paid editing brought, and its fairly standard when an editor has difficulties leading to disruption in any area of Wikipedia, that we remove them from that area. As the number of proposed remedies shows (and as you know from your own experience), sometimes a remedy is proposed because there were conflicting views in discussion and the question deserves an up or down vote. This is one of those." Undecided how to vote on it yet - just explaining why it's there on the case page. In passing I also wish we had a general ban on paid editing, particularly by administrators. But that's up to the community and the WMF.
On point 2, I suppose I qualify as "wiki-mature" (read: old), but age doesn't guarantee of wisdom as my various detractors will attest. The banned editor FoF shows an instance of questionable judgement wich was brought to the Committee's attention during the case. My personal view on it was "thanks but meh," and I've opposed it on the case page - not because it is factually incorrect, but because I don't think it's a big deal. However, given several others felt it was more important than I did, it was necessary to include it in the PD and give it a chance to be democratically decided. It is unrelated to Mister Wiki, but relevant (perhaps) to questions of judgement regarding administrator permissions. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about maturity, wiki or otherwise - I'm the one whose talk page is always full of pictures of cats doing silly things, after all. But for the record I think the timing is just a coincidence of how this case's deadlines happened to overlap with the time it took to get the new arbs through all the hoops and onto the mailing list, and to provide them with the private evidence in this case. I don't see how new arbs who had concerns about this particular issue could have made their views known much earlier. (And I say this as a fellow "meh" on the substance of the matter.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector's section

Entirely pedantic: WP:ENGVAR is not consistent throughout the proposed decision (e.g. "behaviour" in principle (5) vs. "[mis]behavior" twice in principle (6); "judgment" in principles (4) and (6); "organisation" in finding (1)). I don't know if Arbcom has an agreed-upon standard but please be consistent.

Also pedantic: I believe Salvidrim! and Soetermans have both disclosed their gender preferences thus it is not necessary to refer to them with gender-neutral pronouns, unless it is the Committee's usual practice to always use singular they. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding each editor being asked to comment in their own section on this discussion page, it has made it extremely difficult to follow the currently ongoing conversation about the private evidence shoehorned into the proposed decision; I've given up trying to decipher the back-and-forth, but I encourage the Committee to consider loosening this restriction for discussion pages.
Regarding the "proxying for banned editor" private evidence being shoehorned into the proposed decision, I'm struggling to see how what's been presented can possibly be useful to this case. Banned editors are permitted to appeal their bans, and one suggested method for doing so is to contact an administrator. Administrators are forbidden from reversing CheckUser blocks, so Salvidrim! did exactly what was expected of him: he contacted a CheckUser. Banned editors are also frequently dishonest, Salvidrim! can't be faulted for that. As for requesting a review "without initially revealing the source" ... what? How does one request a review of a user's block without revealing the source which presumably is the blocked user? Is the allegation that someone thought Salvidrim! was just randomly requesting a block review without being asked? This is not ripe for being included in an Arbcom finding.
In the workshop, several editors attempted to add examples to the workshop of Salvidrim!'s past actions to demonstrate a pattern of poor judgement, such has having his account compromised or off-wiki conduct brought up during his run for bureaucrat, as well as bringing up his status with OTRS and sockpuppet investigations. Arbitrators and others repeatedly shot these points down as irrelevant to any findings in this case; in one section it's derisively referred to as throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks. The "proxying for banned editor" finding seems to be especially thin mud and ought to be withdrawn. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks re ENGVAR - I've made these consistent. On gender preferences, its not an actual rule but custom and caution have dictated the general use of "they." There is at least one instance in an earlier case of an editor taking considerable offence at being described as of a particular gender, even where they'd publicly identified themselves as that gender elsewhere. So while other drafters might do it differently, I always use "they" in this forum. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus: probably wise.
@Opabinia regalis: regarding your comment in FoF 6, that "tit-for-tat arrangements in any content review process are a bad idea", please note that exactly that sort of arrangement is the standard process for WP:DYK ("quid pro quo"), and a tally of reviews indicated beside all nominators and reviewers' listings at WP:GAN suggests that such reviews are encouraged for good articles as well. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess QPQ is symmetric and thus literally "tit-for-tat", but what I had in mind is "you pass mine and I'll pass yours" agreements. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Just noting that "you review mine and I'll review yours" agreements are commonplace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @all: regarding PP 2B, in place of "in return for a cash payment to or for the benefit of that editor" I think "in return for remuneration" ought to cover the intended meaning. I believe but cannot presently confirm that this definition is used at least in the Canadian Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act to refer to the meaning you're shooting at. Also you might consider adding to this section a statement that remuneration includes a plausible expectation of remuneration, such that in a case where an editor performs a "paid edit" in expectation of being paid but the payor reneges, the "paid" status of the edit is not invalidated. If that's the meaning you're going for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's section

  1. fwiw with regard to findings of fact "Salvidrim! and admin tools", and "Salvidrim! and AfC II", WP:COI is a formally a guideline but is called "policy" in these sections. In my view the core of it is functionally policy in that there is broad consensus (not unanimity by any means) that people editing under a COI tend to cause content and behavior problems, and should allow their COI to be managed. Perhaps that functional aspect is what Arbcom is referring to, or perhaps this is just an error. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Responding to Boing's #1 about the behavioral ban on paid editing, per WP:BAN a) there are 6 authorities who can place bans, and Arbcom is one of them, and b) bans can be placed on any kind of subject matter scope or behavior. Paid editing is indeed a behavior that is permitted and so of course it can be subject to a specific behavioral ban, just like we put restrictions on reverting behavior, or interactions with another user, for example.Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regarding the proxying for the banned editor, this has been answered by BURob here and it makes clear that this was entered under the rubric of a "pattern of poor judgement" per WP:ADMIN. I argued for de-syssop based on a broader pattern of poor judgement and I am well aware that I pushed the boundaries of the Case scope in doing that and received explicit pushback for it. While I find it appropriate that Arbcom went in that direction, I just want to note that Arbcom has set itself up for controversy by setting the scope so narrow and then itself pushing the boundaries of the scope in this way. fwiw nothing in the letter of WP:ARBPOL disallows the expansion of the scope in this way; I do realize that much of what goes on here is based on tradition. But I do recommend that the committee make some kind of statement about the basis for looking at Salvidrim!'s behavior more broadly and including that, given the scope it set. The Sanctions and circumstances principle kind of gets there but does not explicitly deal with the scope issue, which has been raised by several folks here; perhaps simply adding "Regardless of the scope of a given case," at the beginning. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see that the rhetoric here is sinking to the low levels encountered at ANI and other drama boards like "crime" and "death penalty". Losing a position of trust is not death, and a pattern of poor judgement is not a crime; it is simply something that calls into question the trust in which the position was granted. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Callanecc I just noticed that you wrote here that It's probably worth noting, especially to arbs going down the loss of community trust path, that in the case request there were a large number of editors who said that a desyop was either unnecessary or not warranted.. That is surprising to me so I just went and reviewed them again. The only ones I found that explicitly opposed desysop were by Mendaliv (here) and Awilley (here) and DHeyward here. SarekOfVulcan said this is not an "emergency desysop" which is a different question. So three of 46 is not "a large number" in my view... Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tparis i didn't count 46 as supportive. If you have a different count please show the ones you think oppose desysop. I will be interested to see them (I just wanted to call this out because people remember stuff and memories drift. I do not remember, nor did I find when I re-reviewed, "large numbers" in any reasonable sense.) Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf I counted only things at the Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors.
  • we agree that Mendaliv, Awilley explictly opposed. I agree that I missed John Carter (section) (nothing more than a slap on the wrist").
in my view DHeyward explictly opposed when they wrote "Desysopping and banning are ways to ensure that COI is not willfully disclosed".  ::So I find four explicit opposes.
  • with regard to implicit opposes, I do not agree about Iridescent who wrote: "...and to discuss whether Salvidrim should re-run RFA to see if he retains community trust." Their thoughts throughout this have been interesting to me. Iridescent explicitly said there ""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"" and in the Workshop wrote in response to a desysop remedy Lord help me since I agree with pretty much everything TonyBallioni has said throughout this case, but I'm going to object to this as a remedy (although I think it's almost certainly going both to be proposed and to pass).. So I don't think it is reasonable to count Iridescent as "oppose" as they have been very carefully making a difference between their personal preferences and what they see as actual community consensus.
Others you noted: GRuban (here) I agree. YMBlanter, (section) I agree; and Pinguinn (section) I agree.
It is true that Kurtis at first supported desysop and then greatly softened but like Iridescent remained sensitive to consensus. (section).
And yes Davey2010 (section) is solidly on both sides.
What I think everybody wishes (including Davey there) is that Salv would have saved us all this drama and resigned and put himself up for RfA. The fact that he didn't remains my biggest reason calling for desysop. This whole proceeding is a horrible time suck for all of us that could have been avoided. Not serving the community. In my view.
So four explicit opposes; 3 implicit. So seven. Out of 46 this is still not large, I think. Thanks for the careful review. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • replying to Thrydulff and this is likely my last remark here. Thyrdulff again I was responding to what Callenac actually wrote which was there were a large number of editors who said that a desyop was either unnecessary or not warranted.. Around 7 opposes out of 46 comments is not really a "large number" in my view and it appears to me that their memory drifted, which happens. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the desysop !vote is going to pass, I reviewed the FoF and !voting rationales. My takeaway from the FoF is that the desysop is about bad judgement around the COI created by his commercial paid editing activity -- unmanaged COI (giving the alt account the tools in order to use them for commercial editing) and active effort to avoid management of COI (gaming AfC, and coaching Jacob how to avoid scrutiny). I also wanted to grab diff of Opabina's series of comments, many of with which I do not agree, but this part of one of them expresses something that is in my view very important: ....I do think the overall progress of Salvidrim's paid-editing activities, especially as played out in the emails he sent as private evidence, is actually a great example of exactly why COI can be such a problem. He thought he was a sensible guy who could rely on his own basic good sense to notice any problems. The earlier activities were mostly minor and defensible, and nobody seemed to react right away to cutting the odd corner (as with the user-rights issue) - but as things went on more and more corners got cut, leading up to the least defensible decisions related to the Izad and Weinstein articles. I think this progression is a quite effective illustration of how a series of individually 'reasonable' decisions can produce unacceptable results, and the clearer it is in the wording of the decision that this is something anyone could do - and not just some kind of personal fault specific to Salvidrim - the more useful the decision is for others in the future who might have similar competing interests. This does not address the active efforts to avoid having the COI managed, but the generalizing (this can happen to anybody) and the description of how corruption creeps into people in the real world through a series of small "cutting corners" is apt. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TParis with respect to your remark here, the FoF is called "Salvidrim! and evasion of scrutiny, it says During discussions with Jacob from Mister Wiki (discussed by Salvidrim! here and submitted as private evidence), Salvidrim! repeatedly coached Jacob on how to avoid drawing community scrutiny. This effort to evade community discussion and review of paid edits directly contradicts the spirit of WP:COI, which is focused on openness and disclosure. As an administrator and experienced user, Salvidrim! should have been aware of the expectation that paid and COI edits require additional community scrutiny, not less. and this was explicitly cited in 3 of the votes (the driver in two of them) This is not "eye of the beholder" but simply summarizing what the committee has said. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The avoiding of scrutiny is a description of behavior, not intent, and was about a) what happened at AfC and b) the emails advising Jacob as to how avoid scrutiny. Nothing to do with the two things I brought up that you previously described as "throwing mud at the wall (the RfB and password security breach, which were each very much excluded). I have nothing more to say to you. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter's section

Boing! ARBCOM cannot prevent someone from accepting money to make edits on wikipedia - but it can regulate that edits on-wiki cannot be made for payments. (the difference being that the former bans cases where money is accepted but the edits are not made) So ARBCOM can ban someone from making edits that money was accepted for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf Regarding Per my comments on the workshop, it is way outside arbcom's remit to place restrictions on how any editor may or may not earn a living. Passing these remedies would set a very dangerous precedent. Arbcom can ban (or the community can ban) an editor from wikipedia, thus preventing them from doing paid editing, and thus preventing them from "earning a living". Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


6) Soetermans is prohibited from creating articles other than via AfC, and from accepting AfC drafts. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months. This looks like it should be split up. I'd want to prevent AfC accepts since those can involved COI/PAID, but I think allowing him to create articles might be fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


In Salvidrim! breached WP:CANVASS and WP:PAY by specifically obtaining AfC reviews from Soetermans for Mister Wiki articles on Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [4][5], I don't see how he breached canvass, which is Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. This was a review, not a discussion. I know this is vaguely pedantic, especially as I agree with the point. However I'm not sure if it's the best idea to broaden the definition of CANVASS through an arbcom finding of fact/have a illogical decision. I think WP:PAY covers this. He still had a somewhat of financial COI, and shouldn't have reviewed directly (even though that specific provision about reviewing wasn't there when he did it). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this is much more problematic for the remedies section. It repeatedly talks about issues or breaches of WP:COI or WP:CANVASS, and says that more breaches would result in blocks. However they did not canvass as per the definition for discussions, and doesn't seem to make sense to have an especial warning for that as their behaviour did not relate to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Salvidrim! is spelled Savidrim! here and here too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Guidelines like WP:COI and in general when restrictions are put specify that new articles must be created through WP:AfC and not just generally accepted by an uninvolved editor so I don't think it's a big deal. I don't think it'd be too hard to broaden it to all drafts though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni and Callanecc: When restrictions are put is generally specified to be AfC - from WP:PAY - you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;. Also, I don't see what they would gain by moving drafts to mainspace if it didn't involve the "seal of approval" from AfC. However, if a wording is needed, I'd suggest: "Moving drafts of articles in any namespace to mainspace". Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waffling about this not because I think it's likely to be a practical problem, but because it sticks in my craw that a particular wikiproject sticking its template on a page should confer some kind of special status. If I happened to see a good draft (e.g. by article alerts or the new-article bots) and moved it to mainspace and then got someone on my talk page objecting because it was "supposed" to have "gone through AfC"... well, probably what I'd do is ask them to explain their concern, but what I'd think is "this is pettifogging nonsense". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 I really don't see how the "communication to functionaries" is a significant mistake. Would giving the exact source have significantly changed how the review of the block was done/whether it was done? And as others have said, he did not hide who gave the information when asked. apologies if pinged twice Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TParis' section

  1. Re FoF #5: Proxying requires an edit that the banned editor was not allowed to make per WP:PROXYING.
  2. Policy specifically directs banned editors who cannot post on-wiki to seek an administrator to facilitate their request.
  3. If "proxying" unban requests is a policy violation, then there are 349 sysops registered on UTRS, including probably most Arbs, that are guilty of it.
  4. Re Bu Rob13's comment "I felt it important that, at the very least, the community be made aware that this happened." This is troubling on a HUGE level. If it's not relevant to the case, then this is an inappropriate forum to "make the community aware". That sounds a lot like the mud-slinging that some parties to this case were engaged in on the evidence phase.
  5. Why must the community be made aware that Salv engaged in behavior that policy specifically directs him to engage in unless the taint of "banned editor" is meant to stick to Salv?
  • --v/r - TP 18:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Opabinia regalis and KrakatoaKatie: You both state that it's up to the community to determine if they trust Salvidrim!. The problem with that statement is that you're basing it off the WP:COIN discussion. As noted in the Workshop phase, policy states that dispute resolution should happen at AN or ANI. In fact, AN and ANI both receive more attention on a factor of > 4x the viewership than COIN. And COIN has a particular viewpoint that would lean against Salvidrim!'s case. ToniBallioni skipped that dispute resolution process, the exact process which would've given you knowledge about the community's level of trust, because he felt it had no authority and no purpose. That's ToniBallioni's fault for skipping a critical process step that would've given you a clearer picture. If you are on the fence on this issue, the benefit of the doubt should go to Salvidrim! because of this process mistake. If you give the benefit to TonyBallioni, then you're encouraging more disputes to skip a community discussion at a well read noticeboard and run straight to Arbcom. Tony didn't understand the point of going to ANI before Arbcom, but I think we're seeing the point now. He should've followed process, he didn't, and now you're unsure and only have a COIN discussion to judge based off of.--v/r - TP 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My last comment in that thread touched on some of these issues, but for what it's worth, I'm definitely not basing anything on a COIN discussion. On the process issue, I think there are often discussions better hosted in a structured venue (like a case) than in the howling vortex that ANI can become. Also, I've come to think there are good reasons that a pre-selected panel of experienced editors is a better way to do desysops than any process based on participation by an ad-hoc self-selected group, whether that group convenes at ANI or anywhere else. My vacillation isn't really based on the lack of a good assay for "community trust", but on the discrepancy between my view of the risks associated with Salvidrim keeping the tools (minimal), and my view of the benefit to the project of robust action about mixing volunteer privileges with paid work (even when the effects are minimal). I've never liked "we should do something in order to be seen to be doing something" type remedies, but this one is the best argument I've seen since I joined the committee for that type of response. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Opabinia regalis: If the concern is to do something, I think a warning should suffice. What has he done wrong as an administrator? He gave his alternate account confirmed status. Right? All of us with the bit have done that, even you. So, the real crime is not realizing that, by granting it to his non-sysop paid account, he was exploring new terrain. There is a difference between his paid account and the rest of our "non-sysop public wifi" accounts. That is a lapse worthy of a trout, not a desysop.--v/r - TP 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: Your case for desysop amounts to "we are at a trial, therefore he must be guilty." Many editors have commented on both sides, and an Arbcom case can be opened by 1 editor. Please either rephrase or reconsider your !vote. Also, please read what I wrote above.--v/r - TP 23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just can't get over that line of thinking and I hope you don't carry that thought further throughout your term. The existence of a case is not evidence of anything related to the case: neither wrongdoing nor a the community's feelings. That thought pattern gives the benefit of the doubt to accusers and destroys any chance of a fair result.--v/r - TP 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reminder that someone once said "I don't want ArbCom to be regarded as a death panel..." You're about to issue a death penalty for jaywalking here.--v/r - TP 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • TParis, why on earth would you think that I am voting for a desysop just because we have a case? Seriously, don't ping me anymore if you are going to throw such bullshit charges at me, and happy new year to you too. Seriously: screw you with that awful remark. I have been thinking this over for weeks, and its gravity is the only reason I am still here. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies: "...that there is considerable distrust is easily established (we are, after all, here)," Your words, not mine. Don't use circular logic if you don't want to be called out on it. I asked you to rephrase if that wasn't your meaning with the remark. The remark can not be taken any other way. There is not a single finding of fact establishing community distrust. I've asked for it on the evidence and proposal pages, it wasn't provided. And the community processes to determine that was subverted by the case filer.--v/r - TP 01:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, you know what, if you can't read, don't comment. "Call me out"--sure. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wow. I guess you're not the same guy I quoted earlier. My mistake.--v/r - TP 01:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: I'd like to note that 6 Arbitrators on this case have alternate accounts that they gave advanced permissions to violating WP:INVOLVED. This is generally not held to be a problem. The problem is that he did it to an account that was a paid account, and no one has ever done this. The real crime is not considering the implications of the account being paid. That's trout worthy, not desysop worthy.--v/r - TP 02:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm sure you've noticed, I'm not one of those arbitrators. But yes, I agree, it is common practice and if it was the only issue I wouldn't be thinking twice about it. But I am, because 1) he was actively thinking about controversy when he did it, 2) it was in regards to paid editing and he knew there was a likelihood hood of eyebrows being raised. You'll also note that I haven't decided on the desysop yet. Honestly "not considering the implications" is generally Salvidrim!'s problem and I have to wonder how many trouts before a desysop? WormTT(talk) 10:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger that.--v/r - TP 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is very similar to WTT, with the added consternation that we haven't decided to include any of the past trouts in our findings of fact. ~ Rob13Talk 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I am too, though I believe I'm leaning in the opposite direction of WTT. "Gosh, I'm sorry I failed to think about that/reveal that/do that, won't happen again" seems to be Salvidrim!'s default. He skates just up to the line with momentum, and I don't know if that momentum is enough this time to push him over it. Still undecided. Katietalk 20:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jytdog: "Death" comes from a quotation by Drmies himself two years ago and is meant with the same proverbial context that it was said by him in the quotation. His outrage is, simply, a sad demonstration at best. Calm down your use of "rhetoric" before it becomes rhetoric itself.--v/r - TP 04:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: Regarding "if a ban is appropriate, then the editor should not be a sysop." - There are currently 5 sysops with active bans: 3 by Arbcom and 2 by the community. One of those bans is specifically about administrative actions.--v/r - TP 13:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jytdog: It's not just about explicit statement; there are implied opinions as well. I haven't explicitly said I'm opposed but you can probably guess my opinion. You can't count the 46 as supportive of desysop if you go by explicit statements either.--v/r - TP 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jytdog: That's a matter that is in the eye of the beholder. You see it as evasion of scrutiny, while I see it as attempting to avoid a bully coming on the scene. It's helpful when you can ask someone to review your edits for neutrality. It's another thing when a COI-warrior comes on the scene with a battleground mentality to bully people away from Wikipedia. I saw Salv's actions as trying to avoid the latter, but he should've actively attempted the former.--v/r - TP 23:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jytdog: It's eye of the beholder. Arbs are smart, Arbcom is stupid. You throw enough mud at the wall and you managed to get some of it to stick. Not surprised. Good job.--v/r - TP 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jytdog: The point of throwing mud is that some of it sticks and some of it doesn't. The RfB, CU, and password stuff didn't, but the avoiding bullies emails did. Three lessons learned have come out of this case: 1) There is no need to follow the dispute resolution process when an admin is concerned, 2) throwing mud works, and 3) admins should never, ever, communicate with the committee less the committee throw them under the bus.--v/r - TP 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish's section

I want to thank the drafting Arbs for doing what I think is a very good job of designing the PD. I think the new Principles hit the right points.

I noted that Euryalus had said earlier in the case that a first draft might have been posted at the Workshop. Please understand that I appreciate that all kinds of things can slow anyone down despite the best of intentions (and I'm prone to that myself!), so I'm not saying this as a criticism. But I do want to encourage the Committee to try to use Workshops that way as much as possible in future cases. It's OK if Workshop drafts are far from being final.

I agree with Rob's comment about fixing the wording in Principle 2 and FoF 2. There is also a wrong font size for the first Principle header (Purpose of WP).

I echo what other editors are saying here about WP:COI being a guideline and not a policy. That needs to be corrected in multiple places.

Several editors have commented that the proxying matter appears to be out-of-scope for this case. I understand Rob's argument that it is relevant in the event of a desysopping. For what it's worth, I would oppose desysopping, and therefore I oppose inclusion of the proxying findings. The case should focus on Mister Wiki issues, and the proxying thing just does not belong here.

Above, Salvidrim! expresses concern about "creating articles". I think Remedy 2 is adequately clear: it is about articles as such, that would be eligible for AfC (nobody sends a redirect etc. to AfC), and doesn't prohibit their creation, but only requires their submission to AfC.

I appreciate FoF 6, about Salvidrim!'s transparency. I think a similar finding may be appropriate for Soetermans, who was actually very prompt to correct problems when they were identified by the community, and did not argue about it at all.

For whatever it may be worth, I would support Remedies 2, 3, 4 and 5 (which could be combined), 6, and 8. I'm ambivalent about 7, but it's probably OK. I rather strongly oppose 1 (but I like the idea of putting those votes on the record). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I think that Remedies 2 and 6 ought to be changed, to apply only to reviewing AfC drafts "... is prohibited from reviewing AfC drafts". In other words, nothing about article or page creation, and also changing "accepting AfC drafts" to "reviewing AfC drafts" as the one part of the remedies that would remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a day of Arb comments, I'm seeing two areas where I would like to point some things out:
  1. About WP:CANVASS, there was discussion about the relative applicability of CANVASS versus other bases for describing violations throughout the Workshop page. If anyone who is having doubts about CANVASS hasn't looked at those arguments yet, you may perhaps find them useful.
  2. About the issues that you are weighing with respect to the desysop remedy, I see on the PD page and in TParis's talk section here (where I agree with several of the points that TParis makes), that some Arbs are evaluating whether or not the so-called "clamor" for Salvidrim! to voluntarily resign as an admin is sufficient to justify a desysop. My understanding of the Evidence as well of what I observed as things were actually happening isn't exactly that Salvidrim! rebuked community requests that he resign. The requests came mostly from editors who have been very active in discussing the paid editing policy issues (and some of whom take positions about how PAID should be balanced against other policies that several Arbs have disagreed with publicly) and Salvidrim! responded initially with what I would characterize as an initial defensiveness that is human nature (and which multiple Arbs have also displayed on various occasions, most recently at Tony1's talk page), and as the FoFs state, he became progressively more open and cooperative.
For whatever that may be worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw Worm That Turned's comment in the desysop section, asking in part for responses on this talk page. In my opinion, ArbCom needs to be considering the concept of sanctions being preventative more so than punitive. And in that regard, I believe that the right place for the Committee to come down is where Salvidrim! was told that he is standing something like a centimeter away from a serious sanction, in spite of the votes I've seen in favor of desysopping. You have plenty of evidence and direct observation of where he stands today, in terms of cooperativity. A site ban of any amount of time would be an overreaction, by a lot. I'd say consolidate the warnings into a single remedy, and take very seriously that there is precious little rope remaining, going forward. I understand how the Arbs are thinking hard about setting precedents about paid editing, and that's why I have previously said that the Principles here are going to be important. But ArbCom can't go beyond where the community is on the paid editing issue, and the community consensus is an early-stage work in progress. I don't think you should be worried about a future "But Salvidrim! got away with it so I should too", because this is going to be a pretty mild example of paid editing problems, compared to what you are 100% certain to see in cases in the near future. This is the proverbial bad case that could make bad precedent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Preventative not punitive - an often misunderstood statement which comes from our blocking policy and quite clearly there - it includes blocks as a deterrence. Prevention works in more than one way - the actual stopping of someone from doing something, but also the reminder that they should not do it in the future. Salvidrim! knows he's toed the line and fallen to the wrong side - he knew what the consequence would be. I do genuinely believe that bans are a better solution than desysopping here - and it would have to be time limitted, but I am also very concerned that it would be going overboard - hence why I asked for feedback. WormTT(talk) 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, deterrence! I don't know, maybe "not punitive" is going to go the way of "verifiability, not truth". Whatever. Anyway, I hope my feedback will be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the newly added FoF 2A (evasion of scrutiny) is very well-crafted in terms of capturing what the evidence has shown. I suggest adopting it, and then dropping the "community review" language from FoF 2, and then considering combining it with FoF 4 and FoF 4.1 (AfC II) into a single finding. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you not adopt a definition of "paid editing". For one thing, it's obviously difficult and an inaccurate or incomplete definition will come back to haunt future cases. Also, I don't think that ArbCom can really define it for the community, perhaps at most define it for this case. It would be an overreach to tell the community what the boundaries of paid editing should be. You can if needed simply state that WP:PAID is a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that all the sound and the fury are coming to a close, and I would like to publicly wish Salvidrim! all the best going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's section

I'm in transit today (some family time over the holiday weekend). I'll start voting tomorrow night or Tuesday and may offer some additional proposals then also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13's section

  • Speaking to the fourth point from TParis, the FoF is very important to my view on desysopping if it passes. I acknowledge that it may not pass, though, which is what I meant by "at the very least". I would not have supported its inclusion if I didn't see it as relevant to a potential pattern of poor judgement. I am not the only arbitrator who has indicated their thinking is along these lines. If I was, I also wouldn't have supported its inclusion. I apologize if this was previously unclear. ~ Rob13Talk 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: We're just waiting for a case clerk to be around to fix up the activity list now that we've toggled over to January 1. I am active. DeltaQuad requested to be active on this case as well. ~ Rob13Talk 14:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FoF 5 should now be very clear (hopefully). ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ca2james: FoF 1 in the Wikicology case was that he had used sockpuppets. He wasn't banned for it, but it isn't incorrect to call him a sockmaster. ~ Rob13Talk 23:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soetermans' section

Hi everyone,

I find proposed remedy No. 6, "Soetermans is prohibited from creating articles other than via AfC, and from accepting AfC drafts. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months", a bit harsh. I was understandably removed from AfC quickly and I understand that I will need to rebuild the trust from the Wikipedia community if I would want to rejoin AfC. I would understand if a twelve month period would be formally put in place for me requesting AfC though. The other bit seems punitive, I'm not the type of editor that creates a lot of articles anyway, but being prohibited from creating articles altogether seems a bit much. I messed up with the AfC, but for my other paid activities I've been honest about. Not there's going to be any paid editing in the future for me, as this whole mess is not worth it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Active vs. Inactive

In the section at the top of this page, it shows DeltaQuad as active and doesn't show BU Rob13 as anything. In the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members it shows DQ and Rob as inactive. I can't speak to DQ's status, but Rob is clearly active. Can someone fix this or explain why the apparent inconsistencies make sense? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list on this page hasn't been updated yet to reflect the changeover of arbitrators per the election. It will be soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask to be marked active on this case. For reasons that I made the clerks aware of, but not the general public, I will be active for this case and hope to be active overall soon, just taking it slowly. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated it. Note we have 14 active arbitrators despite two inactive, as Drmies elected to stay on this case. If any further changes, please let the clerks know. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBG's section

  • Given that a functionary has disclosed enough details in an on-wiki venue including the name of the banned editor, a quite detailed log of events et al, the editor whose block was appealed etc. quite long back, is there a reason why FOF 5 is kept so hazy?
  • And, per an Arb's comments, including this seems to have been done only to bolster up the evidence of wrongdoings, in case a desysop is passed. That is pathetic esp. when a majority of the editors at Workshop have rejected using his prev. misjudgements(??) as FOF etc. to augment his desysop motion, using no uncertain terms. Winged BladesGodric 16:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Hmm.. Enough clear.Winged BladesGodric 17:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DGGs wording in PP2. Refined but manages to strongly deliver the same message. Winged BladesGodric 16:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one don't support the restrictions on either of them to use AFC mandatorily per Rob.Winged BladesGodric 16:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FOF4 per CallaneCC. What matters is how the scenario turned out and Salvidrim did have substantial control over the steering. Winged BladesGodric 16:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2james' section

KrakatoaKatie, Wikicology was not an indefinitely banned sockmaster; he was indefinitely banned as a result of this case for many other reasons, but there was no sockpuppetry on his part. He's fairly active on meta and other language versions of Wikipedia. I don't know that this affects your vote in FoF 5, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Ca2james (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per that decision, Wikicology did in fact engage in some socking (see finding 1), although it appears the site-ban was primarily based on later conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13 and Newyorkbrad you're both right of course; I'd forgotten about his earlier account that had socked and it's right there in the FoF. I'm not sure that socking under a previous account with no socking for several years under the current account makes one a sockmaster, but I suspect that's splitting hairs. He was banned for so many things, presumably including but not limited to the early socking. Thanks both for the correction, and I apologize for the confusion. Ca2james (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unsigned oppose vote

Just an FYI, the only oppose vote (currently) under "Salvidrim! warned (option 1)" in the Proposed Remedies section is unsigned. It'd be nice to know, for the record, whose vote it is. Thanks.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was Worm That Turned, while adding a few other comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry! WormTT(talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw's section

I am just returning from holidays and hope to have a chance to look over the workshop and proposed decisions this week. Mkdw talk 03:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim! has been desysopped at their own request

See here. They also requested removal of autopatrolled, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noted in the PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stray WP:CANVASS?

I haven't been following along with the case, just popped in to read after seeing the BN section. It seems like mentions to WP:CANVASS have been removed in all sections that are going to pass - except FOF 3. Is this intentional? ansh666 07:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional. Please see the comments section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision#Salvidrim! warned (option 2). Mkdw talk 07:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that one - that's about remedy 3, which isn't passing. I'm talking about this section. ansh666 07:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally felt this was a breach of wp:canvass, but consensus was against me. As a minor piece of tidying up I've removed it from the Finding as well - the remedies need to follow the FoF's, so this is merely a corollary of the remedy discussion and outcome from a few days ago. Thanks Ansh666 for pointing this out. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors/Proposed_decision"