Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 4 April 2024

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

Comments by Hurricane Noah

I had thought the committee should include a principle regarding evidence obtained from other wikimedia projects since that was a decent concern expressed during the case, even by an arbitrator during the workshop. Noah, AA 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy: My understanding of that fact as it is written is that he was paid to perform the edits while he was an employee, not that he is being accused of paid editing simply because he was an employee. Noah, AA 21:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another consideration is that Nihonjoe be topic banned from editing and participating in discussions related to the articles in which he has had a conflict of interest, except in cases where the discussion is relating to his conduct. Noah, AA 21:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Pinging you since you added the proposed decision. Have you or the other drafters thought about either of the two things I mention here? In regards to the first, principle four only mentions evidence from Misplaced Pages, which leaves out other Wikimedia projects such as commons, data, news, etc. Noah, AA 23:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking for myself it didn't seem to be a point of major contention within the scope of this case. - Aoidh (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I just asked since people had mentioned Nihonjoe's wikidata contributions multiple times in evidence and some other places. The question arose whether this would be allowable evidence for public posting or it would violate WP:OUTING. HJ Mitchell had specifically asked for a principle regarding it (and some other things) so I figured it would be worth asking. Noah, AA 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Tryptofish

About Proposed Remedy 1, New VRT queue established, you might want to spell out Volunteer Response Team in the first sentence of the text. Also, Barkeep49 asked for feedback, so I'll say that I think this is a good idea (and said so in my evidence). The only issue that I can think of in the proposal is whether admins, as opposed to functionaries, should be involved at all. But I think that the requirement for a "functionary-like" appointment process solves that concern to my satisfaction. One alternative that I can think of is to make ArbCom itself the body to receive reports, but I agree that ArbCom taking this on alone might be an excessive commitment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

I largely agree with Tryptofish, although both the VRT and ANPDP acronyms in remedy 1 need expanding and/or linking (a link the latter case would be particularly useful).<br/ The new queue does seem like a good idea (as I think I said on the functionaries list) and the proposed appointment process seems sensible. If the existing queue is archived it would be a good idea (if technically possible) to either auto-forward new emails to that address to the new list and/or decline them with a pointer to the new list. Alternatively, I guess the existing list could be renamed paid-en-wp-old and the new list take it's place?
For anyone wondering, my understanding of why the existing list cannot just be broadened is that the archives include checkuser data that may not be shared with non-checkusers. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading, I agree with Firefly and Guerillero that the final sentence of principle 3 is important and worth highlighting, I also wish to highlight Guerillero's comment on principle 4 as important. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Iffy

Is there any evidence to support Finding of fact 3 that is stronger than the fact that Nihonjoe was employed by Aquaveo at the time of the edits? If there isn't, then this finding of fact as currently written (using the term "paid editing") is accusing Nihonjoe of breaking WP:PAID and it should be reworded to clarify that this isn't the case. I'd suggest something simple like Nihonjoe edited Aquaveo, GMS (software), and SMS (hydrology software) without disclosing that he was employed by Aquaveo. If you are accusing Nihonjoe of breaking WP:PAID, then frankly the proposed sanctions aren't severe enough. Iffy★Chat -- 20:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Kashmiri

I didn't take part in the discussion (evidence phase) for two reasons: (1) I see my role more as pointing out irregularities rather than deliberating on how to fix them – we have wiser people to do that. (2) Those wiser people have already brought up many if not most of the points that were of concern to me in this saga, and did it in a much better way that I would ever do.

Here, I'll only point out that apart from editing articles while having COI, what is not mentioned is that Nihonjoe also nominated some of those articles to DYK (i.e., Main Page) – Leading Edge, Sandra Tayler, Aquaveo – which to me appears as a promotional activity qualitatively different to "minor uncontroversial edits". Does this fact have a bearing on the overall assessment? I apologise for not registering this in the evidence phase.

@Moneytrees: I sometimes use Google Maps Street View as supporting evidence in notability-related discussions. Can you confirm that it's not allowed? Cheers, — kashmīrī  22:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Jessintime

Finding of fact number 5 (Content of Nihonjoe’s conflict of interest editing) is giving me real "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play" vibes for lack of a better term. Even if it is technically correct that the edits were fine (I share Kashmiri's belief that putting the company you work for on the main page is not innocuous) stating so rubs me the wrong way in light of all the other findings. His participation at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Heritage_Internet_Technologies is also a concern. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

Doesn't Nihonjoe's relationship with Hemelein Publications constitute WP:PAID editing, given his relationship to that company? Levivich (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think so and had meant to address this. I'll add a proposed FoF concerning this. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim: can you elaborate on why you see this as a stretch? I don't understand how someone in a CEO-like position at a company could edit about that company and not be considered a paid editor? When the CEO is directing the CEO to edit, and the CEO pays the CEO, that's paid editing. Same with a sole proprietor. Same with a founder. No? Levivich (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair but difficult request, as a candid discussion of the specific case is not entirely suitable for a public forum per policy. Paid editing implies tangible financial compensation that will be promptly received in exchange for the edit. The situation you describe is closer to COI editing (and/or self-promotional editing). To a considerable extent, I see the difference between those three "types" of editing as somewhat academic, but as far as our policies and guidelines are set up at the present, it seems to make a difference. To conclude "paid editing" is not unreasonable, but it's not my first choice. I wonder if it would cleaner to have a clear financial COI policy (in addition to the COI guideline and PAID policy) that spells out what is permissible. While slightly on a tangent to the original query, making edits with a financial COI, even when disclosed, is so frowned upon that a certain point it may as well be prohibited (especially with users in positions of trust). To dictate where the line(s) is(are) would probably be a community project, as opposed to an ArbCom decision. Maxim (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

It seems that two (mildly inappropriate) protections happened but not any violation of editing policies, so the main problem was disclosure. This brings up a conundrum. If Nehonjoe was only an admin, this would likely result in a strong admonishment only. Maybe desysop, but at least as likely an admonishment. But Crats have a higher standard of conduct, so the admin bit seems to be getting dragged along. It is possible for Arb to remove the Crat bit, but leave the Admin bit, because Crat has a higher standard for conduct. I've never seen that before, but I'm wondering if this is that kind of case, given the primary issue was one of disclosure, not content of the edits. I don't have access to the private data, obviously, so I can't say "you should do this", I can only say "Don't be afraid to do this, if it is warranted". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)