Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maxim (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 14 March 2024 (→What happens to ArbCom email: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Guidance on public versus private evidence

Given the nature of this case, I think some guidance on the evidence page as to what may be posted publicly, and what should instead be submitted privately (with instructions on how to do that) on the evidence page would be very helpful, and hopefully avoid the evidence page itself becoming the source of yet more contention and messes. Seraphimblade 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks – while the case navigation header already mentions an e-mail address, I think this could be made more clear and detailed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably also worth noting that if you are unsure whether something is public or private evidence, send it by email and ask. The Committee should advise whether it can/should be posted publicly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf - and indeed someone had sent us such a piece of evidence during the case request which has now been replied to with "this needs to be done publicly". Beyond that Seraphim, I welcome more thoughts about what guidance could be given, beyond noting the email address, which I've also added as a bullet point to the evidence page. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Thryduulf's "If in doubt, ask privately first" suggestion is excellent. Maybe also a pointer to and a brief synopsis of the outing policy? Seraphimblade 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's evidence

I think they deserve to be heard, and they raise issues that arbs should consider before making a final decision, even though I see a lot I disagree with... but it's not evidence. It should belong somewhere else, workshop or one of the talk pages. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown Regarding the question about whether owning AT&T stock is a COI; like so many things, there's no black and white answer. I'm assuming that the amount of AT&T you own is an inconsequential fraction of the shares outstanding. And that it's a small portion of your total portfolio. And nothing you wrote on AT&T had any measurable effect on its stock price. And you don't know anything about the company which isn't public knowledge. The less true these assumptions are in aggregate, the more COI becomes an issue. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't know how much AT&t stock I own. AT&T stock pays a dividend quarterly. It is not the only stock I own that pays dividends. You do not know how much I earn from these stocks but I will say that it exceeds what an average paid editor would earn for going in and changing a few articles. And unless you've investigated my edits, you don't know if anything I wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks. I have not disclosed what stocks I own, other than this one example, nor how many shares I own. This is what I mean when I say most everyone has a conflict of interest of some kind, but does that make it paid editing? Because if it is, then every administrator needs to make sure not to edit any article remotely related to a stock, or a competitor to a stock in their 401k, IRA, brokerage accounts, among other things, as this would be inconsistent with adminship, and grounds to remove the bit. And should admin disclose what stocks they own? Or how many shares? After all, we're supposed to disclose any conflict of interest, right? If we overreach and define paid editing as any conflict of interest where there is potential financial benefit, you will render policy unenforceable. And before you dismiss this as an absurd example, you need to look at it more closely because it is the natural outcome of that decision, and in time it will come back to bite us. Please note, I have not said anything about whether Nihonjoe's actions are wrong or right, as I don't have access to the private information. My concern is how we frame it. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 22:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue really starts with Joe Roe's evidence, which appears to be an extended exercise in trying to construe WP:PAID to say something that is contradicted by both the plain meaning of its text and common sense. --JBL (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

“Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Misplaced Pages contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Misplaced Pages” is a direct quote from WP:COI Jessintime (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes and? --JBL (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but this does not yet directly mean "Users who edit articles about their employer are paid editors". Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the committee/drafters are discussing this evidence, Joe Roe's evidence, and the first section of Fram's evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fram's evidence - word limits

Fram - you are over your standard 1,000 words for your evidence section. You will need to request an extension if you wish to post any additional evidence. firefly ( t · c ) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, if I need to post more I'll ask for an extension first. Fram (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Noted - thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fram is extended an additional 200 words to post part of a private submission. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Fram (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What happens to ArbCom email

I think this question has directly or indirectly come up during this case. Here seems to be an OK place to bring it up again, given the submissions from Tryptofish and JoelleJay. I've written an essay, User:Maxim/The dark abyss, to describe what happens. It's more a brain dump than an essay, but I hope it makes that part of ArbCom a bit less mysterious. Maxim (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)