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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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 active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

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)

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. Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to thwart their intent is prohibited.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

Salvidrim! and AfC I

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

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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. 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. 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)

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)

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 communication with functionaries

5) Salvidrim! requested the review of a CheckUser block in November this year, based on incorrect information provided by a banned editor, and without initially revealing the source of that information. (private evidence)

Support:

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, 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)

Abstain:

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Soetermans and AfC

7) Soetermans breached WP:CANVASS and WP:PAY by providing AfC reviews for Savidrim! 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Savidrim! desysopped

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time 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. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 1 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)

Abstain:

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)

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)

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)

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 (II)

2.1) Salvidrim!'s "active reviewer" status with WikiProject Articles for creation is revoked. Before reviewing any AfC drafts he must make a request on the talk page to rejoin the WikiProject and have it accepted by an uninvolved administrator.

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)

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)

Abstain:

Comments:

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 aboce DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Salvidrim! warned (option 2)

5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI or WP:CANVASS 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)

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)

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 (II)

6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from accepting articles for creation drafts. 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)

Oppose:

1. 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)
2. 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:

Comments:

it is possible to accept article raftswithout 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. Thereforde, this is not redundant to existing procedures. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 1 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:

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)

Abstain:

Comments:

Soetermans warned

8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI or WP:CANVASS 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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC) by Opabinia regalis.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	4	0	0		·
2	Neutral point of view	2	0	0		·
3	Paid editors and conflict of interest	4	0	0		·
4	Administrators	4	0	0		·
5	Good faith and disruption	4	0	0		·
6	Sanctions and circumstances	4	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Mister Wiki editors	4	0	0		·
2	Salvidrim! and admin tools	1	0	0		·
3	Salvidrim! and AfC I	4	0	0		·
4	Salvidrim! and AfC II	2	1	0		·
5	Proxying for banned editor	0	3	0		Cannot pass
6	Transparency during case	4	0	0		·
7	Soetermans and AfC	4	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Savidrim! desysopped	1	0	0		·
2	Salvidrim! prohibited (I)	0	2	0		Cannot pass
2.1	Salvidrim! prohibited (II)	1	0	0		·
3	Salvidrim! and paid editing	0	3	0		Cannot pass
4	Salvidrim! warned (option 1)	3	0	0		·
5	Salvidrim! warned (option 2)	3	0	0		·
6	Soetermans prohibited (I)	0	1	0		Cannot pass
6.1	Soetermans prohibited (II)	0	1	0		Cannot pass
7	Soetermans and paid editing	0	1	0		Cannot pass
8	Soetermans warned	2	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	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

Oppose

Comments