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

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)

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

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

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

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

2) Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Weak support. I think this is more abuse of process than gaming, though the two are related (as the guideline says). Katie^talk 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Although I would welcome a rephrasing to address the concerns raised about the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Noting wording change, which I appreciate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Mkdw ^talk 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

It's not clear games were played here. Do we need the last sentence? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd also prefer dropping the last sentence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters too much whether it happened in this instance or not. It's a fair comment to make. You could argue that getting someone else (who you know had the same COI) to review it for you is gaming the policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My opinion matches Callanecc's - whether they have been played is a matter of interpretation - but either way it's a fair comment to make. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

possibly "evading the ordinary procedures to thwart the intent of ... " DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, though the current words reflect the ones used to summarise the "Gaming the system" guideline. If we are saying that guideline was breached, which is certainly what I'm saying, there's a reasonable argument for replicating its specific language. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Euryalus here. Them's the words. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that if it's going to be there at all, it should use the wording of the policy. And I'm not going to make a big fuss about it in the principle, since it's certainly true - but we could just as well say here that self-published sources are potential problems, that copyvio is bad, and that you shouldn't drink and drive. It matters more in the findings, and as I say below, I think that using "game-playing" as a major policy hook for the decision is a mistake, both factually and strategically. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't whether the WP:GAME guideline is represented correctly. It's whether it's relevant. I don't think it is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

How about replacing the last sentence with something like: "Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording."? As a separate point, I note (not as a criticism) that the principle broadly discusses COI, which is a much broader concept than the specifics of paid editing at issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds better, and is more consistent with the nature of the problem IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that idea as well Newyorkbrad. Mkdw ^talk 16:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do others agree with this change? @Euryalus, Callanecc, DGG, Worm That Turned, Premeditated Chaos, and KrakatoaKatie: please advise. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Prefer the current words, as a clearer enunciation of the issue (and directly reflective of the policy in question). But won't stand in the way if there's a consensus for the amendment. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We culd use both. Brad'ssentence followed by the current one. But any of these is OK with me . DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I also prefer the current wording, but like Euryalus I don't disagree enough to oppose if it's changed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support this with that change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is closer to what actually happened here. Katie^talk 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change per the comments. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing

2A) Paid editing, particularly commercial paid editing, on English Wikipedia has historically been controversial. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that editors making contributions in return for payment must make certain disclosures on-wiki. Paid editors must comply with both the WMF Terms of Use as well as any more specific requirements contained in the relevant English Wikipedia policy.

Support:

1. My thanks to Euryalus for drafting the decision. After reading over everything (and with my apologies for being away for the holiday just as the draft was being assembled), I am adding three additional principles for consideration. (Please don't anyone worry about the numbering at this point; we can clean that up at the end of the case if need be, and changing the numbering now would make it impossible to follow the discussion on the talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Euryalus (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 19:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. For reasons I'm not going to drudge up. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Definition of paid editing

2B) The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor.

Support:

1. Added proposal for consideration. There are situations in which it's debatable whether a contributor should be considered a "paid editor," but this case does not involve any of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Although see my comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Per PMC. Katie^talk 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Fine, but prefer simply without the word "cash" Worm^TT(talk) 19:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

   I've removed the words "a cash" before "payment". Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

6. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
8. With an emphasis that "includes" means this is part of paid editing, not the only form of paid editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Per BU Rob13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Mild oppose per the comments in the section below. Not our role to define this more precisely than the policy already does. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
2. per my comment below. Mkdw ^talk 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Since we're setting definitions, should we also make a distinction here between "commercial" paid editing and WiR positions? I know in some of the earlier discussions and RfCs about paid editing, there was some concern about semantically separating the two. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we should as it still creates a COI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I'd ask. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I always get paid in bitcoin through the Cayman Islands--should "cash" be taken out? Drmies (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• How about "in return for a payment of currency, security, or valuables of any kind, or otherwise for the benefit of that editor."? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This definition should account for the fact that unpaid interns can be paid editors for the purpose of our policy. "in consideration of any monetary payment or non-monetary personal benefit"? Alternatively, we could refactor this from a definition into an example: "Any edit made, or on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for monetary payment is considered 'paid editing'." ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's unlikely we'll be able to develop a non-contentious, relatively brief, non-policy-creating definition of paid editing that captures all the potential nuances and gray areas. I certainly don't know how I'd formulate it. I think it's sufficient to note that this case involves conduct that no one would dispute falls within any possible definition, hence my use of the word "core". Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be "by an editor in return for a monetary payment to or for the benefit of that editor", that is just change cash to monetary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That's okay with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually @Newyorkbrad, Premeditated Chaos, and Drmies: what do you think about just removing the word cash? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, less specific is probably better anyway come to consider. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The trouble here is that we all know this is an example of the "core" type of paid editing that anyone would recognize as such - not a gray area at all. And one of our most experienced drafters took a shot at writing a simple, short, easily understandable definition of "paid editing" in a situation that we all agree is clearly an example of same... and it has loopholes big enough to drive a truck full of cash currency monetary considerations of any type uhhh, bitcoin through. As PMC points out, although paid WiR positions and similar have traditionally been excluded from the "paid editor" category, and they certainly aren't part of the "core definition", they do meet this definition. Under the formulation "monetary payment...for the benefit of that editor", if a friend offers to buy me lunch for bringing the article lunch to FA, and we both follow through, I'm now a paid editor. (Some past paid editing discussion featured a similar example, and someone responded along the lines of "if you were rewarded with a meal then I would expect you to disgorge yourself of its value", which.... umm, no thanks.) Arguably, any editing contest that features minor prizes, any system for buying editors access to sources, any event whose organizers paid for refreshments rather seeking an in-kind donation, would make paid editors out of its participants. On the other hand, since we're talking only about "on-wiki actions taken", I guess I could buy off my opponents in an edit war by paying them to not revert? ;) For the limited purpose of this decision, this stuff doesn't matter; we all know what we mean. But there will be some argument a year from now in which someone insists that by the obvious implications of arbcom's definition, everyone who attended an outreach workshop is a paid editor if they ate the sandwiches purchased for their benefit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make through this principle is that while there are a lot of borderline situations that really shouldn't be considered problematic "paid editing," the fact that this case involved "paid editing" was clear. The goal was not to replicate all the complexities and fuzziness of the policy definition in this decision. I still think that my original formulation worked fine, and I'm open to an alternative formulation, but if it's going to take us weeks to come up with a definition that recognizes all the exceptions and the exceptions-to-the-exceptions, I'm also okay with forgetting the whole thing, or just inserting a link to the definition in the policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the point of the proposal, and it'd be great if the definition of paid editing was clearer given the number of disputes based around this topic. Just not sure this is the place to do this. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the goal of the proposal, but unfortunately I think the point it makes is that even the seemingly uncomplicated cases can't be defined without introducing a lot of gray areas. (I wouldn't be making a big point about it, except that this is a chronically underappreciated issue in conversations around this topic.) I think linking to the policy is a good idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be too difficult for us to define core paid editing. When WMF Legal gave their comments, [they] cited paid editing as being edits made with a conflict of interest where there is compensation involved, directly or indirectly. This included the example of an employee editing their employers article, even if they're not paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. E.g., a school teacher editing or updating the article on a school division in which they work. If this does pass, I would propose changing payment for 'compensation'. Mkdw ^talk 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To develop this further - The core of paid editing, to me, is someone making edits in return for payment, in a commercial transaction, from someone with whom they have no prior affiliation. The example of a schoolteacher editing the school district's article is not what I consider paid editing (the teacher is presumably paid to teach, not to edit Wikipedia or more broadly to publicize the school district)—and even if by some stretch someone might argue that it's within the broadest possible definition of paid editing, it's certainly not part of the core concept of paid editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Further regarding the above comments, please note the words "in return for," which are significant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of administrator tools for paid editing

2C) At the time of the events underlying this case, English Wikipedia policies governing administrators did not expressly discuss whether administrators may utilize their administrator tools as part of a fully disclosed paid editing assignment. A request for comment is currently underway in which the community is discussing this issue.

Support:

1. Added proposal for consideration. (Although on rereading the whole decision, maybe this should come after 4.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. If this had been expressly included in the policy at the time, desysopping would be the obvious call. This is a bright-line going forward. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 03:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Well yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Worm^TT(talk) 19:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

At the present the vote is about 60 support, 5 oppose, 10 mixed support/oppose. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editors and conflict of interest

3) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject that their firm has been retained to edit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. With the caveat that if a commercial paid editing operation is large enough, a given paid editor might not know who all of the operation's clients are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Sure, with NYB's caveat. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators

4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Good faith and disruption

5) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sanctions and circumstances

6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Mister Wiki editors

1) Salvidrim! (talk · contribs) and Soetermans (talk · contribs) are (or were) disclosed paid editors for a group called Mister Wiki, which was then organised by User:JacobMW (now renamed to JacobPace (talk · contribs)). All three editors declared their paid editing involvement. All three editors had the potential for a conflict of interest in the terms of that guideline, on articles or edits paid for via Mister Wiki.

Support:

1. Noting that Salvidrim! used Salvidrim! (paid) for their paid edits, except obviously for the granting of the userright for a paid edit, which is discussed below. However, as the master account remains responsible for the alts, the wording of this Finding refers to that master account. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 17:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 16:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! and admin tools

2) On 1 November 2017, Salvidrim! breached the administrator policy and conflict of interest guideline by granting pagemover rights to the alternative account Salvidrim! (paid) (talk · contribs) without community review, and in order to facilitate a paid edit. [1][2][3].

Support:

1. Salvidrim! (paid) was a declared paid editing account, and the actual page move was not that big a deal. The issue is granting the userright in circumstances where the granting admin had a conflict of interest, without giving the community the right to review and resolve that conflict. -- Euryalus (talk)
2. I've been pondering this for a few hours, and I do think it could be slightly better worded. However, the basis is that Salvidrim! gave his paid alternate account a user right which is not given by default. He did this with an summary that suggests he was thinking about it as he chose not to give the auto-patrolled right at that time. Admins are generally considered WP:INVOLVED with respect to themselves, which is why self-unblocking is unacceptable. At the same time, I understand that uncontroversial decisions can be made by admins in these sorts of circumstances - if this was the only issue, I wouldn't be terribly concerned. Worm^TT(talk) 21:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per WormTT. Katie^talk 21:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Per Euryalus and WormTT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Worm's point is a good one, the admin policy does include that acting with a "conflict of interest or non-neutrality" is an example of when tool use should be avoided. But the emphasis here is that Salvidrim! gave the right to his own paid account so that paid account could do something which was questionable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. I'd prefer the "withoutcommunity review" wording removed though. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Per Worm -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. As has been pointed out both below and on the talkpage, an admin's conferring userrights on his or her disclosed alt account is usually routine and uncontroversial. This finding should hopefully not be read to suggest otherwise, except in unusual circumstances such as those we had here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2. per my comments below. Mkdw ^talk 17:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I'd prefer "without community review" to be removed. Admins shouldn't take involved actions even with community review; they should leave such actions to other administrators. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What about 'while being involved' instead of 'without community review'? Involvement is the key here. Katie^talk 20:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I would support that. Might need some wordsmithing. "to facilitate a paid edit, despite being involved"? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of the "community review" wording, but I'm not sure about "involved" either. In the general case, granting user rights to your own alternate account is boring and uncontroversial - it doesn't require "review" and isn't considered "involved" either. The specific error of judgment here was not strictly separating edits made for clients and actions taken as a volunteer administrator, which isn't really covered in the letter of WP:INVOLVED (though certainly it's in the spirit). As food for thought, would we object to a WiR using their admin tools to facilitate an objectively uncontroversial page move for their WiR account? A WMF employee giving their (WMF) account a user right? Just anecdotally, I tend to see a fair amount of gray in the use of these role-segregated accounts (and not just the kind of "accidentally used the wrong account" stuff that would get me in trouble if I ever tried to sock ;) To be clear, my opinion is that this was a significant misjudgment, but we should be careful about examining what assumptions underlie that conclusion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I came down here to say exactly what OR just did. My preference would be that the FoF only mentioned that is a conflict of interest rather than it violating any part of WP:ADMIN which I don't believe it did. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable argument that he did violate the admin policy - this whole case is about conflicts of interest, and that's one area you should not use your admin tools. Worm^TT(talk) 21:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm awaiting any further discussion before voting on this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! made the voluntary choice to create an alt. If he had not done so, he would have simply used his main account and the tools already available to him, including the pagemover right. I do not believe it is clear within the community whether administrators may, or may not, grant themselves certain permissions when using an alt. I would content that it constitutes an obvious action because the administrator already has access to the tools. It is only the element of disclosed paid editing that brings this under current consideration. If this singular incident was brought forward alone with nothing else, I would be highly skeptical if it would be deemed a controversial and involved administrative action. In looping back to this case, I think it's much more important that we examine how the tools were used once granted and the overall conduct of the editor. Mkdw ^talk 16:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and evasion of scrutiny

2A) 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.

Support:

1. I think this needs to be voted on. I found the substance of the conversations extremely concerning, particularly the Dan & Reza one. Like Newyorkbrad above, I inserted this where it seemed appropriate and have not re-numbered anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
2. The private evidence submitted by Salvidrim! is disturbing in the number of times he advises Jacob Pace on how bad it would be to have these edits scrutinized. It is to his credit that he gave this to us himself, but it doesn't make it any less disturbing. He may not have meant to subvert these policies intentionally, as he stated at /Evidence, but he did so nonetheless. Katie^talk 14:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I do agree with this statement. In many circumstances, reducing controversy is a good thing and I would like to think that Salvidrim!'s goal was to keep the controversy to a minimum. However, this had the effect of reducing scrutiny - in an area where more scrutiny is a good thing. Worm^TT(talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Completely accurate description of the private evidence and the worst part of Salvidrim!'s conduct here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
6. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! and AfC I

3) Salvidrim! breached WP:PAY by specifically obtaining AfC reviews from Soetermans for Mister Wiki articles on Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [4][5]

Support:

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. This was, no way around it, just a dumb idea. And both participants seem to have known it was a dumb idea, but went ahead anyway. Even aside from the paid-editing angle, tit-for-tat arrangements in any content review process are a bad idea, let alone when both editors know they have a COI with the subject. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Also, worth noting here that WP:COI has been extensively edited since the beginning of this case, and among other changes, new language has been added about how paid editors should interact with AfC. Salvidrim and Soetermans' activities were not necessarily explicitly against the rules as they existed at the time, but certainly against the spirit of the COI guideline and frankly a matter of good common sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. The way the two editors handled this violated at least the spirit, if not at the time the exact letter, of the applicable policies and community expectations. In other words, largely per O. regalis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Administrators are expected to exercise good judgment even if not expressly prohibited. In this case, I think it was done to avoid the check and balance. Mkdw ^talk 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

As a piece of minor tidying up, I've removed the reference to canvassing, as a corollary of it being removed by consensus from the relevant remedy. We would otherwise be noting a breach of a specific guideline and then not acting on that breach. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm on board with that. Katie^talk 11:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and AfC II

4) Salvidrim! attempted to game conflicts of interest guidelines and the policy on neutral points of view by moving Mister Wiki articles to AfC review specifically to avoid maintenance tags and independent community discussion at WP:COIN (See summaries here and here).

Support:

1. Either this or 4.1 is fine. Uncontested evidence from Tony Ballioni and others makes clear an intent of moving the articles to AfC was to avoid COIN and ensure maintenance tags were removed without proper review. This is gaming the system. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. (Second choice to 4.1) I was originally hesitant to support this as I agreed with comments below about moving a page to AfC isn't avoiding scrutiny. I would have opposed this FoF without Salvidrim's request that to Soetermans that he review the article. This effectively gamed the maintenance tag system, where, if he were to have just reverted in mainspace, there would likely have been a complaint arise (whether on Salv's talk page or ANI). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. The intent was clear . DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Katie^talk 21:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Proposing alternate 4.1 as first choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Based on the private evidence, as well as the publicly-released Facebook conversation between Salv and Soetermans, it's clear that the intent was to skirt usual processes for the benefit of the client writing the checks. I might have felt better about the draftification if, in the three days between Salv's draftifying of the articles and Soetermans' review of them, Salv had made any attempt to actually edit or rewrite the articles to justify the removal of the NPOV/COI tags, but he made no such edits. This suggests that Salv had no interest in amending the content to comply with policy, only in removing the tags for the benefit of the client (and consequently his own personal gain). Subsequently asking/allowing Soetermans to provide the review after Salv specifically notes there's "no legitimate way" to get a quick review was the COI cherry on a sundae of behavior engineered to avoid outside scrutiny. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think moving a paid article to AfC avoids scrutiny. If anything, throwing the article into a queue for holistic review by an uninvolved editor seems to invite scrutiny. The Mister Wiki editors avoided scrutiny when another paid editor performed the review rather than an uninvolved member of the community. I also question whether Salvidrim! intended to game the system through most of his actions here. He certainly had egregious lapses of judgement, but I'm not convinced it was intentional. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Minor quibble - I think you mean "rather than an uninvolved member of the community". I don't think Soetermans is getting banished into outer darkness :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Quite right. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

2. I can't in good conscience agree. It appears that Salvidrim! was contacted after the articles had been created, and was asked to remove some tags. His response was "these articles were created in error, let's do it right". It's plausible that he was gaming the system, but I don't see the evidence of the malice that is implied by the finding. That said, there is something not right - I'll have a think about how to better put a finding. What I have seen from Salvidrim! is that he was more concerned with the appearance of not have a CoI than actually following Wikipedia's policies on CoI - namely ensuring that there is oversight of their edits. Worm^TT(talk) 21:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I could swallow my distaste for the idea that maintenance tags are useful or important (I actually think they're a blight), but I can't sign on to a finding about "gaming". I think WTT's comment above is perceptive - that Salvridrim's actions collectively show more concern about appearance than reality. One interpretation of that pattern is that he genuinely believed that following the letter of the rules was good enough, and that as long as he mostly colored inside the lines then there wasn't a problem. Sort of the same thinking as someone who's very careful not to break 3RR with their reverts and is then surprised to be reported for edit-warring because they followed the rule, after all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Perfer 4.1. Mkdw ^talk 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I agree with the wording concerns about "gaming". I don't think this was a case of deliberately manipulative, deceitful behavior. 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the evidence supports that Salvidrim! asked for the action that Soetermans took in reviewing the drafts. He should have pushed back against the idea more strongly when it was floated, but I don't think what he did say speaks to intent to game the system. The three days that elapsed between the moves to draft and the AfC reviews give me further pause in declaring gaming to be the original intent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and AfC II (alternate)

4.1) Salvidrim! moved two articles for which he was a paid Mister Wiki editor from mainspace to the Articles for Creation (AfC) draftspace, and then either requested or knowingly allowed another paid Mister Wiki editor to review the drafts. (See summaries here and here). While putting an article that is the subject of paid-editing or COI or NPOV concerns through AfC for an impartial review can mitigate those concerns, Salvidrim! should have understood that the value of doing so is eliminated when the reviewer is known to have the same conflict.

Support:

1. Alternative proposal, comments welcome, for me first choice over 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Addresses my concerns. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. First choice over 4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Also my first choice over 4. Katie^talk 03:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Yes, I can agree with this statement Worm^TT(talk) 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. This is better. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Either this or 4 above. Euryalus (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Although I prefer 4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
11. First choice. Mkdw ^talk 16:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
12. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! and communication with functionaries

5) In November of this year, Salvidrim! requested the review of a CheckUser block on Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs) at the prompting of banned editor Wikicology (talk · contribs) based on private information. The exact source of that information was not originally revealed, with the source being cited as coming from a "friend". A functionary later asked Salvidrim! to clarify his source, which he did promptly. (private evidence)

Support:

1. I've reworded the above to be much clearer. I believe this has relevance and significance in determining whether or not there exists "consistent ... poor judgement", in the sense of WP:ADMINCOND. Forwarding information to a functionary while omitting that the information comes from a banned editor known to sock is poor judgement. A reasonable administrator would not represent that information as only coming from a "friend". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Admin SPI clerk gets request from indefinitely banned sockmaster about a CU block of another editor who has been socking, forwards request to the functionaries without saying that it comes from the banned editor, and admin SPI clerk thinks this is a good idea. Terrible judgment. Katie^talk 17:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Accurate (as we all seem to agree) and I think it's relevant. At best very bad judgement. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Factual, and I at least understand the argument for its relevance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
5. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. It was legitimate for this evidence to have been presented during the case, but I don't see as significant enough to need a FoF, or to carry through to any remedies. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. What Euryalus said. This isn't "proxying" as the term is typically used on-wiki,This referred to previous wording of the proposal and considering that Salvidrim did supply the identity of the source when asked, is hardly some kind of sneaky deception either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. While this is factually correct, I don't think it's totally relevant to the case, nor a demonstration of behaviour which is contrary to policy. While I would have preferred Salv to say initially where the information/request came from, he did when asked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. this may be literally true, but in the circumstances it was not a violation. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Per DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Accurate, but unless we are going down a "pattern" finding, I'm struggling to see that we should include this. Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per WTT. Mkdw ^talk 19:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

We should fix the language here. Proxying is poor word choice because it matches with the policy WP:PROXYING. The real issue is the passing along of information from a banned editor known to sock without disclosing that source. That's not a violation of WP:PROXYING. It is bad judgement. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like this has been done though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Callanecc: "Proxying" appears in the title. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I'm still happy for it to be changed "Salvidrim! and communication with functionaries". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. No complaint about someone changing it to something better. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Transparency during case

6) In contrast with some of the above conduct, Salvidrim! acted with commendable transparency during the case including providing supporting evidence and detail even where it may not have suited their interests to do so.

Support:

1. Primarily based on private evidence submitted by Salvidrim!, which he mentioned here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Would also support including Soetermans, who's also been completely cooperative, as suggested on the talk page - though there's been more to look at in Salvidrim's case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. This FoF isn't a statement that Salv has been the only one who was cooperative. But being so willing to supply evidence (in some instances against oneself) without needing to be explicitly asked for it demonstrates a good faith wish to move forward in a positive way no matter the eventual decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 13:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Fair Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
11. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Mkdw ^talk 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
13. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Soetermans and AfC

7) Soetermans breached WP:PAY by providing AfC reviews for Salvidrim! for Mister Wiki articles Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive).[6], [7]

Support:

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Evidence is stronger re Salvidrim! than Soetermans, but this remains true enough. Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
3. As above. Dumb idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. And relatedly, also by not disclosing his relationship at the time he provided the reviews. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not convinced that the reference to WP:CANVASS is apt. If someone asks me to review a draftspace article on U.S. Supreme Court history or Rex Stout because I'm known to have expertise in those areas, I wouldn't consider myself to have been improperly canvassed and disqualified from doing the review. The problem here is not that Soetermans was asked to and agreed to review two specific articles, but that he was asked to and agreed to review two articles as to which he had a paid-editing-related conflict. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with NYB. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would support if this removed the reference to CANVASS. Canvassing is about cherrypicking participants with the intent to influence consensus-based discussions. AfC isn't really a consensus-based discussion, it's a process where one editor at a time reviews an article, so I don't think CANVASS is the right thing to focus on here. In this case the neutrality of the review process was undermined by the editor's paid COI, which is what this FoF should be focused on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the reference to CANVASS and I'm on board. The paid editing is the point. Katie^talk 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad, Drmies, KrakatoaKatie, and Premeditated Chaos: - have removed the reference to canvass. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Salvidrim! desysopped

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.

Note: Salvidrim! resigned their tools during the case. This is formally considered a resignation in controversial circumstances: administrator status may only be regained via a successful RfA.

Support:

1. I don't buy the workshop arguments of a pattern of misjudgement, and said so at the time. However, as I've already communicated directly to Salvidrim!, the conduct that is directly the subject of this case is pretty bad, and is equally applicable to the issue of future community trust. Salvidrim! made a series of errors in relation to COI. It wasn't a single instance, and it wasn't credibly accidental. To their subsequent credit they admitted it and I doubt it'll happen again; nonetheless the community's trust in their decision-making has been, or should have been, significantly shaken. It's not an easy outcome, and needs to be considered in the context of many hundreds of good admin edits and years of content work. But I think it's necessary there be a time away from the tools while trust is rebuilt. How long that time is, is a matter for the community. In saying all this, it's worth also pointing out as we have elsewhere that Salvidrim! contributed entirely positively to this case, recognises the disruption they caused and will hopefully continue as a great and productive editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I think it's clear that because of the findings discussed here, he does not current have the necessary confidence from the community. I would encourage him to file an RfA is a year or so, but it should be the community that makes the decision . DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Salvidrim acted in an administrative capacity in a way in which an administrator should not have acted, and did so as a paid editor. I cannot easily tell how much support he still has from the community, and I don't think that that is the most important consideration here--that there is considerable distrust is easily established (we are, after all, here), and the findings of fact are clear as well. I write all this with a heavy heart. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Based on my comment under FoF 4, I don't think there's any way I could justify not supporting this measure. It is clear from the private evidence re: MisterWiki, and the Salv/Soetermans Facebook conversation, that he behaved in a way that was intended to avoid community scrutiny and personal accountability. I respect his willingness to provide those conversations to the Committee for review, but his openness after the fact can't erase the behavior that got us to this point in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
5. With sadness and appreciation for the way he's responded to the case and his openness, I feel that I must support this. Administrators should never behave this way. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. This wasn't easy for me, but I can't in good conscience come down anywhere else, to my great regret. To his credit, he has been very open with us, but some of the private evidence in particular is jaw-dropping in its advice on how to avoid community scrutiny of paid edits and its blindness to the COI policy. Trust in him has eroded to the point where I believe he should step away from administrative duties for a while. How long that is should be up to the community. Katie^talk 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Now that finding of fact 2A is included and appears likely to pass. This was the part of Salvidrim!'s conduct that was most serious, and the only portion of the evidence that speaks to outright evading scrutiny, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Given certain past issues, the paid editing finding of facts, and the bad judgement when passing information on to functionaries, I now solidly sit in this camp. The trust to not only follow the rules of being an administrator, but to hold the behavioral standard high have been violated. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't believe that a desysop is necessary yet, but the line is no more than a centimetre from Salv's feet. Salvidrim! appears to have understood that their actions were incompatible with the tools and that an admin needs to hold themselves to a higher standard. I would very very strong caution you (Salv), though, that the odour of any further misconduct or pushing boundaries will result in a desysop (or at least my supporting one). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Per my comments below, on the assumption finding of fact #5 will not pass and we will not include any further findings of fact that indicate a pattern. As stated before, I think there is a clear pattern of consistent poor judgement, but if we've precluded ourselves from considering that, I can't support desysopping based only on this incident and the findings of fact in front of us. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2. My thoughts here echo Callanecc's. Salvidrim!, I don't believe you have misused your admin tools, but I also do not believe that you would pass an RfA today. It's up to you to bring yourself back to the standard that Wikipedia expects from admins, and if you slip the other way, I'm sure that you will no longer be an admin. Worm^TT(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

On one hand, I think a pattern of consistent poor judgement exists and that the pattern warrants desysopping. On the other hand, our findings of fact do not support that. Findings of fact 2 and 3 highlight one instance of poor judgement. The use of tools when a conflict-of-interest exists was extremely poor judgement, but I don't think that alone warrants desysopping on a first offense over a page move. If pattern-based findings of fact aren't going to be included, I don't see enough to support desysopping. I'm still considering whether that puts me in abstain or oppose. Here for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I was planning to finish my thinking and vote this morning, but Salvadrim! has just posted a desysop request to BN, which resolves the issue. His request properly acknowledges that he is resigning because of this case, so that a new RfA would be required if Salvadrim! wishes to seek adminship again in the future. Newyorkbrad 09:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I have been sitting on this one for as long as possible, even amid votes to close the case. During this time, Salvadrim! resigned his tools making this less of a "remedy" and more of a symbolic decision. I do not think Salvadrim! misused his administrative tools. He did, however, exercise extremely poor judgment in the way he conducted himself while engaging in paid editing. It is not uncommon to prepare someone on how to best pass a Wikipedia review process, e.g. RFA, GAN, etc., but Salvadrim! actively and willfully engaged in activities to avoid scrutiny. For those reasons, I strongly support Salvadrim!'s decision to resign his tools under a cloud. Mkdw ^talk 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I'll join the abstaining party now that this has become moot. I was genuinely undecided on this remedy, and unfortunately have been so busy in real life this week that I hadn't had time to sit down and come to a decision. Apologies to Salvidrim for my extended waffling on the subject, and thanks for your service. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Undecided, thinking out loud. I'm with Euryalus in that I don't, on balance, think very much of the "pattern of misjudgments" line of reasoning - Salvidrim may have unorthodox views on some things, but we don't desysop people for that, and he may have a habit of boundary-pushing that contributed to the emergence of this case, but there's not really evidence of tool misuse outside the paid editing matter. (Also, I don't think anyone's claiming Salvidrim's behavior was "accidental" - only that he failed to consider the full implications of his behavior.)

Since the issue came to light, Salvidrim has been commendably transparent about it and has shown insight into the reasons people were so concerned about his behavior. Furthermore, the actual substance of the paid-editing issue - the effect on that weird vestigial appendage to the wikipolitical arena sometimes known as "the encyclopedia" - was not in a narrow sense particularly significant. But in the broader, more abstract sense, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we have to do something serious about a volunteer administrator using both the admin tools themselves and his standing within the community for personal gain, no matter how minor both the gain and the effects actually were.

I've come to dislike desysop votes, because they're often framed as "I don't think so-and-so has the trust of the community" when that actually just means "I don't trust them" - a case doesn't evaluate "community trust", there isn't even really a reliable way to do so - we all know RfA is broken - and trying to gauge what "the community" thinks on the basis of what kind of stuff filled up the workshop is a fool's errand. I also really dislike making arbcom decisions with a view toward "how things look from the outside" or out of "pour encourager les autres" considerations, but in thinking this through I find it hard not to consider the larger implications of the case. I don't think there's really much risk in Salvidrim being an admin but I do suspect the project might be better off with his being an admin via a new RfA rather than via a failed desysop vote. Overall I'm leaning toward a desysop, but I'm going to mull it over a bit, because voting to desysop someone whose re-RfA I'd probably support feels a little dumb, but on the other hand I think there's value in the process as distinct from the outcome. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with Callanecc that the line is no more than a hair's breadth away. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm undecided as well, leaning toward support. There was a clamor for a resignation that Salvidrim failed to heed, and I think we must take that into account. If an administrator has lost the community's trust, that administrator should resign. Salvidrim did not, leaving it in our hands instead. His transparency in the process is laudable, granted, but it's a process that could have been avoided. I feel the same way that Opabinia does about bowing to outside pressure here, but since Salvidrim outright refused to do the thing that likely would have prevented this case from proceeding, I'm leaning toward letting the community decide if he should be an admin or not. Katie^talk 17:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Is that not de facto community-based desysopping? I would actually support desysopping every admin who faced significant calls for resignation in the face of substantial wrongdoing to allow community review, but I would support that as an editor, not an arbitrator. I'm worried that acting in that way would create policy by fiat. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not going to judge someone specifically for ignoring "clamor", especially if that "clamor" occurs in a backwater part of the project. (Well, on second thought I also advocate ignoring clamoring at ANI as a matter of course... :) If it were me, I'd privately ask a few people whose judgment I trusted and who weren't prominently involved in the on-wiki discussions, and if they told me "yeah, you sure stepped in it this time" then I'd resign. But I don't want to use my vote on this as a meta-comment on how people should respond to requests that they resign, or implicitly validate the notion that pressuring an admin to resign in order to avoid a case is a wise approach. (I don't take "avoiding a case" to be an unalloyed good, either - I've said before that I think half the value of a case is the structured inquiry process, not just the actual decision. And telling someone "you should have tried to avoid a case" can be read as "whiiine, you made me do my job!", which also isn't what I mean. Whiiiine, arb cases are hard! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And that's why I'm on the fence leaning the way I'm leaning. It is hard, and I don't want to do it lightly, and I don't want to say that every time there's a group of people somewhere wanting a resignation that it should happen by default. But we're not being asked here about community desysopping. We're being asked about this specific admin, supported by a body of evidence on both sides. I haven't yet made up my mind. (Now I know why arbs just sign the list and don't comment. ;-) Katie^talk 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I too am still considering. With regard to the meta-questions raised, one reason desysopping is handled by this Committee rather than somewhere like AN/ANI is to allow a bit of distance to develop between the immediate aftermath of a controversy and a decision. It also allows the decision to be made by a group of people selected by the community for the purpose of making this kind of decisions, rather than the happenstance of who has the time and inclination to participate on the noticeboard on a particular date. But that doesn't mean that the views of the community, or at least those community members who have clearly taken the time to find out what happened and think the issue through, should be ignored. The views of non-arbitrator community members in a desysopping case are not dispositive in my mind, but neither are they irrelevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• My thought process here is thus. The action Salvidrim! took with admin tools is not significant enough to remove his admin tools. However, his other actions which have been examined are definitely sub par, to the point that I believe a sanction is required - simply through his substandard management of CoI, which he knew would be a problem area. Should that sanction be a desysop? No, I do not believe so. An admonishment? A warning? They don't seem sufficient, he should already have known better. What about a ban? Well, I don't approve of a ban on paid editing - that doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps a wider ban does. I am considering the possibility of a time limited sanction, say a 3-month ban, and I would very much appreciate the thoughts of the other arbitrators and those on the talk page.
  My issue is that Arbcom doesn't hand out time-limited sanctions, as generally the community does that - but we're covering new ground here, paid editing by an admin is a new phenomenon. I'm more interested in ensuring that future paid editing is done in a way that the community can oversee it that scaring future admins that they might lose their rights if they go near it. Worm^TT(talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! prohibited (I)

2) Salvidrim! is prohibited from creating articles other than via articles for creation. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

Support:

1. An editor involved in evasively dealing with article drafts should not be entering articles directly in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No evidence concerning article creations has been presented and Salvidrim! was not yet a paid editor when he accepted a Mister Wiki AfC draft. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Per Rob. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per Rob. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose, but proposing 2.0 as an alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Per Rob. Salv's content-creation hasn't been problematic as far as any evidence has shown. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. I can't see why we should do this. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. I've seen no indication that Salvidrim!'s articles were generally poor. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Egg before the chicken. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 17:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Just noting that I've split these two given the discussion re doing this for Soetermans below and on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! prohibited (I) (alternate)

2.0) Salvidrim! is prohibited from creating articles in mainspace unless he either (1) states that he is no longer engaged in paid editing, or (2) states as to each article he creates in mainspace that it is not the result of paid editing. Any articles created by Salvidrim! as paid edits, or on which he has a conflict of interest related to paid editing, must be created in the AfC draftspace only.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternate. (Sorry about the confusing numbering, but let's worry about the substance for now.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. The key message to Salvidrim! is that if they're going to continue with paid editing they should get their new articles reviewed via a process like AfC, and that those reviews should be done by an independent editor. It's suggested this is unnecessary ebcause Salvidrim! is not intending to do more paid editing, but there's nothing stopping them changing their mind tomorrow (and no reason why they shouldn't, as paid editing is not prohibited). The evidence in this case shows attempts to get around independent review of new paid articles; the restriction would ensure that future new articles were subject to AfC review, and that that review was done by a nominally independent party. That would give the community some confidence that the shenanigans that we've seen in this case weren't simply resumed the moment the PD is closed. If, after 6-12 months Salvidrim! turns out not to be breaching COI in new article creation, then the restriction would seem redundant and could be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I'm actually on board with this one, though it seems most don't think it's necessary. If Salvidrim does start paid editing again, then I'll eat my share of crow on all the gaming stuff, but I think we might as well handle it now rather than leave loose ends dangling. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per above and because Salvidrim has already said he’s no longer engaged in paid editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   I can certainly live without this if people don't think it's necessary; it was mostly proposed as an alternative to the original 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Per Rob and my comment above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per my comment above, Salvidrim!'s article contributions haven't been an issue in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Per Rob and Callanecc. Katie^talk 03:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Not necessary. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. per above and per Callanecc Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Still. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 17:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! prohibited (II)

2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

Support:

1. Given that Salvidrim! thought it was a good idea to request an editor, who he knew had a conflict of interest, review an AfC draft I'm not comfortable with him reviewing AfC drafts until vetted by the WikiProject. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. While I don't think Salvidrim! abused his "active reviewer" status here given the timing, I do note that his canvassing (intentional or not) of Soetermans to Mister Wiki articles calls into question his judgement on what is and isn't permissible at AfC. Community review of his status is needed before the community will be comfortable with him working in this area. I also note Salvidrim! was supportive of a prohibition from accepting drafts altogether in Workshop. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. OK, especially since he supported the idea, but it does leave open the possibility of just moving stuff to mainspace without the fuss of AfC. (I'm not sure if it's worth closing that loophole, but I'm not a good judge - my only interaction with AfC was bypassing it once because I noticed a perfectly good draft kept getting declined.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Opabinia regalis and Euryalus: This remedy doesn't stop him from creating his own articles, just from reviewing other people's submissions via AFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Callanecc and Opabinia regalis: True, that's why the original proposal also included that he had to use AfC to create new articles. The aim was to force independent review of new articles by both of these editors. But we've moved away from that a little with the various new versions. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

4. Mildly, the loophole would be closed by also requiring them to only use AfC for new articles, per the proposed remedy above. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 03:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
10. I think the *particular* lesson has been learned here, so I'd rather see an expiry in 12, instead of appeal, but not enough to hold my vote. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

"version 1 is simpler . DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: Which other version do you mean? Number 2 does something different. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not sure I see the benefit, but I don't oppose Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
2. If Salvadrim! does not return to paid editing, I don't see this as necessary, but I do understand the idea of it. I would propose a narrower alternative, but clearly the votes are for this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
3. I do not think Salvadrim! is incapable of adequately reviewing AFC articles. The only place of concern would be reviewing AFC articles while engaging in paid editing. Mkdw ^talk 17:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I hope no one minds, but when I split this I reworded it to reflect what appears to be the practice at AfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'd like to change the wording of this one to the same as the Soetermans one given DGG' comment. Any objections to that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Callanecc - any objection to rewording his to parallel the proposed remedy re Soetermans? -- Euryalus (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, feel free to reword as appropriate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little lost now: the support votes above refer to Salvadrim!'s being vetted by the AfC wikiproject and having his status reviewed by the community, but the remedy doesn't refer to those things happening. Perhaps a rewording will clarify. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: This was reworded at some point from simply requiring an uninvolved admin to add him to the participants list to being an actual prohibition. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I did post on Soetermans' remedy about the (lack of) parallelism, but I was thinking of fixing it the other way around (ie, both can return after approval by another admin). A year-long prohibition seems excessive, though perhaps it doesn't matter really if neither editor specifically wants to review for AfC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and paid editing

3) Given issues with WP:COI and WP:CANVASS, Salvidrim! is indefinitely prohibited from paid editing. This restriction can be appealed in twelve months.

Support:

1. per Salvidrimi's statement that he doesn't intend to begin paid editing again, this reinforces his wise decision. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This has validity on the basis that it forcibly removes an editor from the area that they were disruptive in. But I think (hope) it's not required. Salvidrim! says they've already given up paid editing; can I urge them to stick with that lest any of these issues re-emerge. My personal view is admins should never be paid editors, but alas the community doesn't (yet) agree. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. I don't think future issues in this area are likely. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per comments above and Salvidrim!'s statement that he doesn't intend to begin paid editing again, this shouldn't be necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. I've convinced myself this isn't within our remit, as in my comment below. Good thing both editors say they don't plan to be involved in paid editing anymore, because the prospect of trying to validate compliance and dealing with people reporting what they think are violations is giving me a headache already. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. No. Paid editing is a fact of Wikipedia, I don't agree we can ban someone from paid editing - we ban from editing. If we cannot trust his editing abilities, we should be straight up banning him. Worm^TT(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. I won't go so far as to say we could never adopt this remedy in an appropriate case, but I don't believe it's necessary or appropriate here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. No, also per tea leaves. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. I don't think this is necessary. Anything Salv creates now is going to be under a microscope anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Unnecessary and I don't think it is something we should be doing except perhaps in more extreme situations than this one. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
10. No. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
11. We have mechanisms that would be used if WP:PAID were to be violated by Salvadrim! in the future. Mkdw ^talk 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Undecided. My first reaction to Boing's post on the talk page was "Of course we can prohibit someone from paid editing, just like we can prohibit someone from reverting more than once or editing articles about American politics." But thinking it over I think I agree with him that prohibiting particular off-wiki acts is outside our remit, as is prohibiting particular motivations for making an edit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! warned (option 1)

4) (if #1 doesn't pass) Salvidrim! is warned that any further misconduct will likely result in a desysop, with or without a full case being heard.

Support:

1. Obviously, only if #1 doesn't pass. The key point is "without a full case." -- Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. If #1 doesn't pass. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. If #1 doesn't pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. as above DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Yep, at minimum. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. At the very least. Katie^talk 17:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Definitely. I'm still undecided as to how to vote on the desysop motion, but finding it hard not to support it. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Per several of the others, if this is where we wind up, it would be the minimum remedy we could adopt, and would come with a clear notice of "last chance." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
10. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Ok, I come down here. Salvidrim! is a hair's breadth from being desysopped here - but I do not see sufficient evidence to remove the admin rights - so I'm going to support this, despite my misgivings of turning ARCA into a "Salvidrim! annoyed me" board. This is a "no further chances" warning. Worm^TT(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
12. Yes, but I've passed #1 now. So pointless. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
13. per OR. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

A desysop without a case? We have a process for that. Any standard warning or admonishment would be taken into account in a future case and we can already put forward a motion in lieu of a case - but do we really want to be in the situation where we expect to desysop without hearing evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) move to support

Isn't 'desysop without a full case's worth of evidence first' precisely what the procedures provide for? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They do - for situations where there is egregious or obvious admin misconduct. If the misconduct is obvious, we will desysop immediately - if it's not, we'll have a case. In reality this should change nothing - however, it implies that complaints about Salvidrims!'s admin conduct should be taken to ARCA and may immediately lead to a desysop. I don't want that situation - we would have the pressure of immediacy on whether or not to desysop, as well as the plausible situation that anyone who disagrees with any admin decision turning up there. Worm^TT(talk) 10:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! warned (option 2)

5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.

Support:

1. Per the Super Mario Problem, this warning should be given whether or not desysopping passes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. I don't quite agree with the "Super Mario" analysis - that pertains to sanctions of actual substance, not to warnings and admonishments and the like - and I'm not sure this isn't redundant with #4. But no harm done passing it either way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Kind of redundant, but yes. Katie^talk 17:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. I'm with Katie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. I think that blocks are probably more appropriate in this situation. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Mkdw ^talk 17:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Can this be combined with the one above if #1 does not pass? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of formatting I agree with Rob. As a matter of substance, I'm not comfortable with the reference to WP:CANVASS, for reasons I discuss elsewhere on the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Responding to OR, my point was that a block should be on the table for future serious misconduct even if Salvidrim! were not desysopped here. Now moot. Do we want the CANVASS reference in here still? It's been removed elsewhere. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

CANVASS is also referenced in remedy 3. I would recommend it be removed there as well. Mkdw ^talk 18:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Both edits would becokay with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it from this remedy. I haven't touched remedy 3 because it isn't passing, but no objections if someone else prefers to remove it there as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Soetermans prohibited (I)

6) Soetermans is prohibited from creating articles other than via articles for creation. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

Support:

1. An editor involved in evasive handling of article drafts should not be entering articles into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This isn't too much of an issue given the recent emphasis on new page patrol and that Soetermans doesn't have the autopatrolled flag. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. The submitted evidence did not point to any policy violations in the articles they submitted, such as general promotional editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Doesn't really seem to address any problem in evidence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. I don't think this is necessary at the moment. Katie^talk 17:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose, but proposing 6.0 as a possible alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Prefer 6.1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Per my comments wrt Salvidrim!. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I agree with Galobtter that this should probably be split up. I could see prohibiting the acceptance of AfC drafts. I have a harder time supporting a full prohibition on creating articles outside of AfC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Soetermans prohibited (I)

6.0) Soetermans is prohibited from creating articles in mainspace unless he either (1) states that he is no longer engaged in paid editing, or (2) states as to each article he creates in mainspace that it is not the result of paid editing. Any articles created by Soetermans as paid edits, or on which he has a conflict of interest related to paid editing, must be created in the AfC draftspace only.

Support:

1. Proposed as alternate. I think Soetermans has already stated he won't be contributing as a paid editor again, but we can include this just in case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. For the reasons outlined at proposed remedy 2.0. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Same as the parallel remedy for Salvidrim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per above. Without a finding of fact suggesting improper creations, this isn’t supported. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Same comment as per the corresponding proposal for Salvadrim!: it's offered as an alterative to 6, but I could certainly live without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

2. Per my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per above. Katie^talk 03:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Also per my colleagues. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Per my comments wrt Salvidrim! Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 17:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Soetermans prohibited (II)

6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.

Support:

1. We should not be assuming anything about the AfC procedures; . DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per DGG's oomment below; I hadn't considered that as a possibility. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Switch per DGG's comment below. @DGG and BU Rob13: I've changed "accepting" to "reviewing" in the remedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Euryalus (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 17:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Again with expiry instead of appeal. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Given that Soetermans would need to re-request permission to review AfC drafts before he can again, I'm happy to leave this to admin discretion and the processes of the WikiProject. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Weakly per Callanecc. If AfC still allowed participants to add themselves to the list, I would support. Time off from this area is needed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Per my comments wrt Salvidrim! Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on 2.1 and just below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Mkdw ^talk 17:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

it is possible to accept article drafts without being on the list of those permitted to use the AFCH template, and many people have done so . All it takes is moving the page and removing the AfC templates from the top. Controlling the use of the AFCH template is presently all that is technically available. Therefore, this is not redundant to existing procedures. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Have further mildly amended the proposal to reflect DGG's comment below and the parallel suggestion by Tony Ballioni on the PD talkpage. Feel free to further amend if required, but I reckon this better captures the intent of the remedy in preventing further disruption in AfC space. @DGG, Callanecc, BU Rob13, and Opabinia regalis: as those who've already voted - please note this change to the wording to add "moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace." -- Euryalus (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why isn't this parallel with Salvidrim's - i.e. he must be re-added to the list by another admin? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Responding to OR, Salvidrim!'s restriction just forces community review. He could return to AfC immediately if an uninvolved admin allowed it. Soetermans's restriction requires an appeal to ArbCom after a minimum of 12 months (and then community review on top, since he'll need to be added back to the participants list to use AFCH). I think the more severe nature of Soetermans's actions at AfC warrants the more severe restriction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can buy the argument that they shouldn't be parallel (I'll have to reread to decide if I agree, but at least I know I'm not missing something... :) But this still seems confused to me, because I don't know what distinguishes an "AfC draft" from a regular old draft. The fact that someone (quite possibly not the original author) put the template on it? That seems like a distinction without a difference to me. I think what's meant is something like "prohibited from introducing into mainspace text he didn't author", with using the actual AfC script or not being a side point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then you exclude merges or other introduction of freely-licensed text that's perfectly legitimate. An AfC draft is a draft with an AfC template on it. I don't think it's likely we'll encounter issues with gaming here, and if we do, we can sort that out with a broader restriction. I'm willing to presume that Soetermans will act in good faith. If we really want something simpler, we can just say moving drafts created by other editors to mainspace. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If Soetermans has foresworn paid editing, as appears from the talkpage to be the case, then I'm not sure this is necessary. Have there been any problems with his AfC reviews other than the ones at issue in this case? It's not like we have such a surplus of reviewers.... Would welcome comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

He added himself to the list of reviewers just to review these drafts; he is not typically active in this area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Soetermans and paid editing

7) Given issues with WP:COI and WP:CANVASS, Soetermans is indefinitely prohibited from paid editing. This restriction can be appealed in twelve months.

Support:

1. Necessary to prevent renewed problems. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Weak oppose. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. My thinking is similar to Euryalus's re Salvidrim. It might be good in that it will remove him from an area in which he was disruptive. But, given Soetermans has said he won't be engaging in paid editing in the future, I'm happy to leave it that in good faith. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose. We can handle it at ARCA if it becomes a problem. Katie^talk 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. See the parallel Salvidrim remedy for reasoning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Again, I won't say I could never support this sort of restriction where warranted, but it's not needed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. As above. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Like Salv, Soetermans will be under a microscope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 17:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. The acceptance of AfC drafts related to Mister Wiki was the most egregious action presented in evidence. It exceeds the issues with Salvidrim!, in my mind. At the same time, I'm not sure there's a need per Callanecc. I could go either way on this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on Salvidrim. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Per my comments wrt Salvidrim! Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Same overall train of indecisive thought as with Salvidrim. "They said they won't do it anymore" maybe obviates the issue for now, but since the question is in front of us, it seems worth thinking through whether this is viable or not as an editing restriction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Noting that any proposed sanction for Salvidrim! should also be proposed for Soetermans Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Soetermans warned

8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.

Support:

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
2. The bare minimum. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 18:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
9. Per my comments on Salvidrim! Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Mkdw ^talk 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I again question the reference to canvassing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• What NYB said. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad and Drmies: removed the reference. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

These notes were last updated by Mdann52 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC) by Mdann52.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	13	0	0		·
2	Neutral point of view	11	0	0		·
2A	Paid editing	9	0	1		·
2B	Definition of paid editing	9	2	0		·
2C	Use of administrator tools for paid editing	11	0	0		·
3	Paid editors and conflict of interest	13	0	0		·
4	Administrators	13	0	0		·
5	Good faith and disruption	13	0	0		·
6	Sanctions and circumstances	13	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Mister Wiki editors	13	0	0		·
2	Salvidrim! and admin tools	9	0	2		·
2A	Salvidrim! and evasion of scrutiny	8	0	0		·
3	Salvidrim! and AfC I	13	0	0		·
4	Salvidrim! and AfC II	6	4	0		2	4.1 implemented instead
4.1	Salvidrim! and AfC II (alternate)	12	0	0		·
5	Salvidrim! and communication with functionaries	5	6	2		Cannot pass
6	Transparency during case	13	0	0		·
7	Soetermans and AfC	11	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Salvidrim! desysopped	8	2	3		·
2	Salvidrim! prohibited (I)	2	9	0		Cannot pass
2.0	Salvidrim! prohibited (I) (alternate)	3	8	0		Cannot pass
2.1	Salvidrim! prohibited (II)	10	0	3		·
3	Salvidrim! and paid editing	1	11	0		Cannot pass	Cannot pass
4	Salvidrim! warned (option 1)	13	0	0		·	conditional, fails since remedy 1 passed
5	Salvidrim! warned (option 2)	9	0	0		·	Not conditional on remedy 1, so can still pass uncoditionally
6	Soetermans prohibited (I)	2	10	0		Cannot pass
6.0	Soetermans prohibited (I)	3	8	1		Cannot pass
6.1	Soetermans prohibited (II)	9	0	3		·
7	Soetermans and paid editing	1	9	3		Cannot pass
8	Soetermans warned	11	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

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

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

Support

1. Move to close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Yep. Everything has reached pass or fail except Finding 4, which is superseded by 4.1 which has passed. I note Salvidrim! has asked for a desysop, which will probably go through at BN prior to this close being completed, in which case the wording of Remedy 1 will need a change. Reckon all participants regret that the issues of this case ever arose, but here we are. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 11:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
6. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Mkdw ^talk 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) (Via clerks-l. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC))
9. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

I added a small query about wording to remedy 5. If other arbs could quickly comment on that, it would be appreciated. It involves a remaining stray reference to WP:CANVASS even though we removed other such references. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)