Note the subsequent comment by Ganesha811 below, and concur that their view of the close and collapse, and description of motives, are more than reasonable. Sincerely apologise for any implication of intent in my comment above.

@HJ Mitchell: Re: I'd welcome community input on what they want from ArbCom. The primary concern of mine, which I believe ArbCom is best positioned to address is the question around whether the editor has been as forthcoming as guidelines and the community expect, especially for an editor of his standing. If, after examining the evidence, the committee believes that there was deceptive or misleading behaviour, then that would seem to be incompatible with the positions held. The consequences would seem obvious from there.

Making a determination on that question would seem to require establishing facts as regards the COI question. For which, ArbCom seems best positioned. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ganesha811

As one of the editors who attempted (and failed) to close the discussion, my motivations were simple.

1. I felt that the discussion, although it was still in progress, had reached the limit of productivity based on public evidence, and that any further discussion at
   WP:AN
   would just lead to repetition and outing issues.
2. Therefore, any further discussion should happen at a forum where non-public evidence could be considered, such as this one.
3. That the discussion was clearly not going to find consensus for any action against Nihonjoe beyond admonishment, based on the publicly discussable evidence.

I should note, however, that I did believe that there was a consensus to admonish Nihonjoe, and my closing statement was intended to be that admonishment (as I subsequently explained). However, I evidently failed to make this clear, and the thread was rapidly re-opened. I would also note that my administrative action was certainly not intended "to suppress or prevent discussion of the COI issue", as Rotary Engine described; it was intended to encourage that discussion begin at a place where it could actually be openly talked about and actioned without oversighting and outing bans.

I urge ArbCom to accept the case. I think COI editing is a scourge and given our (necessary but extremely strict) stance on outing, ArbCom is one of the few venues that can effectively deal with it, especially in the case of a long-time bureaucrat and admin. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, in response to the hesitancy below from ArbCom members - I agree with Levivich's basic argument. COI/outing concerns involving long-time, trusted users *cannot* be adequately handled in public by Wikipedia's processes. ArbCom is the right place to deal with these issues and needs to say so affirmatively by handling this case. Even if ArbCom determines that no further sanction is required (and that should not be a forgone conclusion), it needs to be actively involved in resolving this case. That's what it's for. Otherwise, as Levivich says, anyone with a concern will be incentivized to take it off-Wiki rather than trusting Wikipedia to police itself. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Fuchs

I think if there's something that's obvious from the entire AN thread, it's that ArbCom failed here, massively. Given the potential outing concerns, this is something that, in the most conservative reading of

@Maxim: The Aquaveo AfD seems to be largely what sparked this whole situation on-wiki. Nihonjoe was insisting he had no COI there, and even wanted the deleted article userfied so he could work on it. That's not someone learning from years-ago mistakes. That's doubling-down on them and lying about their connection to a subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

The responsibility for preventing OUTING lies with all editors, not with arbcom, and experienced editors (as almost all participants in that discussion are) should know this. Oversighters exist to clean up messes other editors' leave as best we can, but when non-public information is posted on the highest profile noticeboard there is our ability to do so is limited to the sorts of actions seen here. When that information is posted to external sites our ability to do anything about it is almost zero - this is why we have non-public channels for reporting things that cannot be posted publicly without potentially outing people, and that includes suspicions of COI editing. In many cases outing can have serious real-world consequences for the editor (who may or may not be guilty of anything) which should be contrasted with the risk of a small part Wikipedia being potentially biased for a short time. At minimum, I think this request should result in a reminder of this with consideration of sanctions for editors who contributed to this mess - up to and including bans if the evidence shows intentional outing here or elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what ArbCom should do: You should examine all the evidence (public and private) and determine:

• Did anybody (potentially) out anybody else?
• If so, what sanctions (if any) are appropriate in response?
• What should people do if they suspect another editor has failed to comply with one or more relevant policies, but posting about those suspicions will (or might) out them? (hint: email arbcom, don't post it anywhere on or off Wikipedia)
• What should people do if they see something on another website that implies/suggests/alleges that an en.wp editor has failed to comply with one or more relevant policies, but this (or any evidence supporting it) does or might out someone? (hint: email arbcom, don't post it or about it anywhere on or off Wikipedia).
• What sort of sanctions should people expect if they do something other than what they are supposed to do regarding information that may potentially out other editors?
• Has Nihonjoe previously fully complied with the relevant policies regarding any and all conflicts of interest they have?
• Is Nihonjoe now in full compliance with the relevant polices regarding any and all conflicts of interest they have?
• If the answer to either of the previous two questions is no, what sanctions are appropriate?

The interactions between Fram and Primefac do not require arbcom's involvement. Thryduulf (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to endorse the comments left by Ymblanter and Banedon. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN54129

Per Rotary Engine, I also reopened the case, so I might also be a party to it should that be decided.

Noting it was Ganesha811's close (as they note above) that I reverted, mainly because, in my view, while all the closes mentioned an admonishment for Nihonjoe, none of them (also referred to above) actually did so. Let alone a requirement to log it, as should have been absolutely obvious in the requirements of transparency. This is not a poke at Ganesha811's close, but rather all of them, which—included the latest non-admin close—all smacked, with a certain inevitability, of circling wagons, even if unintentionally.

The closers—and worryingly, including a fair number of admins— also all seemed to believe that Nihonjoe had apologised for his transgressions. Wrong. What he

So yeah, take the case. Add everyone you want. Expand the parameters. But don't pretend that, by now, the drums have not been beating for some time. ——Serial 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @JayBeeEll: Don't beat yourself up—your close was no poorer than the admin closes, and has probably only stuck where theirs didn't because arbcom was looking more likely by then  :) ——Serial 18:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Firefly: Unfortunately, you see, Nihonjoe lied to his colleagues in the midst of a discussion over the deletion of an article with which we now know he had a conflict of interest with (Note, it's COI, not PAID). While we now know that he had this close connection, how does this tie in with his assertion at the AfD that t's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). The question might be, does lying to colleagues by a multi-permissioned and highly trusted editor get resolved with merely a trout and a request to knock it off? Now that would be a precedent to set... ——Serial 19:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Barkeep49: Regarding, I'm still not convinced there is enough here to have a broader scope that would include Primefac or Fram. I'm inclined to agree with you, personally. If I've read the room right, the fundamental behavioral/trust issues that necessitate a case are those surrounding Nihonjoe. I think Fram was perhaps too quick to post without considering potential consequences, but has paid for that lack of consideration and now understands the price of that lack, while Primefac perhaps also had their thinking cap on slightly adjacent to usual expectations. But they have apologised (and it is, of course, always good to see the product of a classical education at an Arbcom case), and to a far greater degree, more explanatory and more convincingly than Nihonjoe himself has. So yes, there is no reason for them to continue to be considered parties. ——Serial 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I'm over by 76 words, I think, except signatures. I didn't want to ask for more in case it encouraged me rambling  :) although I guess I should; unless someone else is going to ask HJ Mitchell why he is not yet recused with all respect? Sorry about the verbosity! ——Serial 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, thanks Barkeep49 thanks for the advice. @ArbCom Clerks: , per this discussion, may I have a word-limit extension? Just in case; I don't think I've ever hit my limit before; I'm usually much more succinct. "In and out", one might say. No walls of text! Barkeep, so in case HJ Mitchell's recusal does need considering, I bring discussion to this talk page after discussing it on his own talk? (Apologies for any misunderstanding.) Thanks again, ——Serial 16:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

This whole thing should have been handled privately by arbcom to begin with. It was always going to be impossible to shut off public discussion without at the same time providing a proper private alternative. The failure to do so led to people concerned that the matter was being covered up to share more and more evidence attempting to establish the seriousness of the issue. At the same time, people worried more about Nihonjoe's wellbeing in particular and/or in general with protecting privacy and preventing harassment ended up downplaying the seriousness of the COI issues in an attempt to close the discussions to prevent further outing. That made a circle that reinforced further deterioration of trust in our admin corps and institutions on the one hand and more unfortunately further publicisation of details about Nihonjoe's private life.

I don't see how a case can be avoided at this point. I think Primefac's suppression was justified in that it was not clear what was private and what was public at that point, and precaution in such sensitive matters is laudable. I am not sure how they can justify the block though, given that they did not revoke talk page access. Fram should know well what should be shared publicly and what should not. But we need to establish first, what exactly Fram shared, whether what they shared was easily deducible from onwiki activities or it involved offwiki evidence in violation of outing. Contrary to Fram's position on Nihonjoe, I believe Nihonjoe is in a tough position, so them not being forthcoming with everything unless forced to, especially while they are being asked to do so publicly may be understandable. That does not excuse their violations of COI guidelines to begin with which appear to be extensive. Editing as a favour to a family member, a friend or yourself is COI that can be excused; editing for your employer, or about your own financial ventures is more a PAID violation than a COI violation because of the obvious financial incentives involved, so that can't simply be waved away with an apology. Finally, we still need to identify all the affected articles, and let independent editors double-check for NPOV. ArbCom is the only party that can establish facts and pass down judgement about all of these things. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Then have a case, and in it, vote for that finding, Maxim. How do you know everything is above board without having a case, unless you are saying we should take bureaucrats at their word even when evidence surfaces to the contrary? It sounds to me like you are saying we should see the suppression and the block as the same action. Not all suppressions come with blocks, so they clearly are not. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Arbitration is not an exercise in dispute resolution or consensus building. The very fact that a case is at arbitration means the community does not have the ability to decide what to do about it. The community can't put all the evidence in one place (no public evidence phase). From that, it follows the community can not help arbs decide on what to do about that evidence (no workshopping either). Community can only send you the evidence and wait for you to publish "findings of fact" and "remedies". Whatever you decide, the community will have to live with it. That's what you're there for, to make a decision, hopefully one that's not completely wrong, when the community does not have the ability to or can not come to agreement on what to do about an issue. Once you post findings of fact, the community may give corresponding feedback about your remedies, but what informed opinion could the community possibly give before then? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

I've seen the supressed edit. I agree that supressing it was necessary. I'm not entirely convinced that it had to be primefac who did it. I get the "tool of first resort" argument, but I assume it would have only cost a minute to find another (i.e. non-involved) OS on IRC. On the other hand, it's a reasonable argument that this was time-critical, so I can accept not wanting to take that minute. But, the block is another story. There wasn't anything time critical about the block, so taking the minute to find a non-involved OS to do it would have been appropriate. Primefac had to know they were involved and had to know how incendiary his action would be. Going ahead and issuing the block was, in my opinion, inappropriate and contrary to

Barkeep49 you are correct that INVOLVED does have an administrative action exception. But at the same time, it says it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. I think admins in general (and primefac in this case specifically) rely too much on the former and not enough on the later. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck all of the above. Primefac has acknowledged all of this so there's no need to dwell on it further. RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. El_C 17:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Should ARBCOM decide to accept this case, they should also be aware of the independent but topically-related issue of UPE by editors who are admins of az.wiki, for which I had blocked Atakhanli and Wertuose on en.wiki following a COIN report and raised a metawiki discussion for the broader community to assess whether further action should be taken. Perhaps ARBCOM will find this irrelevant (and it is largely irrelevant to the questions of oversighting and related blocks), but I would rather err on the side of ARBCOM being fully aware of the various glass houses across Wikipedia projects while stones are in-flight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

I include this comment only because my closure has been repeatedly alluded to above.

Some members of the community feel that any editing in the presence of a COI is inherently problematic, while others feel that editing in the presence of a COI is only problematic if there is a substantive problem with the edits being made. For many people (perhaps especially in the first group), these feelings are quite strong. One thing the discussion at AN illustrates is the lack of an obvious compromise position between those two views, and the inability for many people with one view to understand or appreciate the other view. The idea that the portion of the discussion I closed (which included a long, unconstructive, and in some places rather nasty discussion in which no sanctions of any kind were proposed, followed by a proposal for admonition that was supported by only a bare majority of participants after being open for more than 48 hours) could have been closed any other way strikes me as silly, notwithstanding the strength of feeling of some participants. I am also not convinced by the distinction drawn between "actually" admonishing Nihonjoe and the closing statements by RoySmith, Ganesha811, and myself.

I have no opinion about whether ArbCom should open a case. I would be happy if ArbCom does not require further involvement from me in this issue, although I will attempt to assist if requested. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

The edits at issue were from 2016-2023. Here is WP:COI as of 12/30/2015, and it already said "must disclose their COI" for those with a "financial" COI, which is defined (in the 12/30/2015 version) as "a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder".

Here is where Nihonjoe failed to disclose the COI when asked about it directly, and repeatedly asserted he didn't violate

Here are one, two (*, **), three, four arbs saying, in so many words, there isn't a problem here worth opening a case over.

Do not make edits about your employer or your business without disclosing the COI. That's the rule, and it's been the rule for many years now, including when these edits were made. If Arbcom "sits on the evidence" without taking action, if arbs publicly state that it's no big deal, or -- worse -- help sweep it under the rug by STFU-closing threads, blocking people, etc., then how do you expect the rest of us to trust arbcom with private submissions of COI violations? There's an argument to be made that COI evidence is better sent to WPO than arbcom, because at least WPO will do something about it.

Accept the case, make a public statement of findings. Even if all it amounts to is an admonishment that has already been given by the community, you, as arbs, need to show that you are the proper venue for raising this concern. Otherwise, you outsource the job to anybody with a website.

I have a theory about "what's really going on," which is that some (maybe many) long-time editors (like 10+ years) used to, before the COI rules were tightened, edit about their employers, businesses, etc. Now that the rules have been tightened, they don't want to disclose those old COI edits because doing so would effectively out themselves. Even though this doesn't apply in this case, this theory would explain the reluctance to do anything about old COI edits amongst some long-time editors. If my theory is correct, I wish those editors would say so, because I'm quite sure the community would be amenable to some kind of "historical amnesty" to avoid a "gotcha"

@Firefly (over 500 words now): trying to avoid making a suppressible edit here, but to answer the question:

1. determine whether or not there were any COI violations in addition to the stuff from 2016-2017 that was already admitted-to, including but not limited to if Joe made edits relating to a product that is sold by a business he owns
2. review Joe's ADMINCOND/ADMINACCT compliance and determine whether "disclosing COI" is part of ADMINACCT/ADMINCOND or not (so the community can consider whether to amend those or not)
3. confirm that Joe is now in compliance with COI by making all necessary disclosures
4. determine if any sanctions beyond the already-issued admonishment are necessary

And make a public statement answering those four questions. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites

There's a Larry Flynt quote from years ago that goes something like "If you don't offend anyone you don't need the First Amendment". Well, we don't need an outing policy until some group of influential users decides someone deserves to be outed. In this case, in my view, our policies failed and only half of the problem is being resolved (the half which relates to the COI).

There are multiple things for the committee to consider. There are the COI issues, the relationship between those COI issues and advanced user rights, how to handle off-wiki evidence, and what happens when off-wiki evidence is brought on-wiki. I'm going to abstain from opining on the first two, although they're very much conversations worth having. I'm really just commenting to request the ArbCom use this opportunity to set forth explicit instructions for dealing with the latter two. Right now, there is clearly disagreement among our users about how to interpret

This is a situation where ArbCom can be explicit about exactly what's expected when a user has legitimate concerns based on off-wiki evidence, and what exactly is expected when someone decides to link to, copy over, or discuss that off-wiki evidence in ways that accomplish exactly the same thing as linking to it (e.g. "It was recently brought to the community's attention – through an external online publication which I won't link to here but which can be easily Googled up"). Such rules should apply whether it's Wikipediocracy, Kiwi Farms, 4chan, Reddit, Twitter, Breitbart, or anywhere else. They should apply even when there are legitimate concerns wrapped up with the outing, which to be clear is the case here. But as long as it's outing it should remain off-wiki. Whatever rules we have should be able to handle a case like Joe's as well as a less serious case or a more serious case, but in none of the above should we compromise the privacy of our users just because they did something wrong. Handling these situations is exactly what we trust ArbCom to do, and the committee can offer helpful instructions reinforcing proper protocol here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

David Fuchs and Rhododendrites have it right. The initiator of the thread on AN should also be a party, because the clear and obvious violation of the outing policy started right there. It was not acceptable then, it is not acceptable now, and it completely bewilders me that that editor has received no sanction, not even a warning, about their completely inappropriate manner of attempting to deal with a perceived conflict of interest. I don't actually care whether or not Arbcom takes this case, but I do care that we have allowed this situation to occur without addressing the underlying behavioural problem of editors acting as though a years-old COI (which could have been addressed by an email to Arbcom) was more important than the safety and well-being of another user and their family. Risker (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

On both sides, this seems to have been made a lot more of a headache than it needs to be. On the one hand, it has never been particularly unclear that editing about one's employer is a COI and must be disclosed. I get not wanting to do that (I wouldn't want to either!), so I refrain from ever editing about an employer, and then I don't have to. But if you choose to, the disclosure is required, and certainly dodging the question or outright lying about it is not acceptable.

On the other side, if an editor suspects an editor has failed to do that, after possibly a very general inquiry ("Do you have a COI in relation to Acme Widgets?"), it should be handled privately due to the OUTING risk. When that happens, whatever entity is handling it privately should act quickly to say that they're aware of the matter and are dealing with it accordingly, so that people aren't encouraged to think "Nothing is happening with this" and take other actions (which, as noted above, may take place offsite where none of us have any control over it.)

The concerns about COI are not silly or unfounded. Certainly it is clear that outing/doxxing can cause very real harm, but as we have seen, so can misinformation resulting from COI edits. Of course, I do not intend to imply that Nihonjoe had anything like that type of malicious intent, but it shows why COI is a real and legitimate concern. So, any solution crafted here needs to carefully balance the need to protect editors' privacy, and the need to stop people who are concealing a COI while continuing to edit the subjects they're conflicted on. Both objectives are important. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster

Re: firefly on what you guys can do compared to AN, I see two things:

1. You can actually investigate the COI (using off-wiki evidence)
2. You can remove the tools (I am not saying that this needs to happen, but depending on off-wiki evidence it might)

ArbCom is the only entity that can see the full picture—including off-wiki evidence—and determine what sanctions (if any) are necessary. I would urge acceptance, centered around the COI. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

As per Joe Roe and Levivich, what Nihonjoe did was - even at the time - defined as paid editing; was long considered incompatible with advanced permissions; and, as it was undisclosed, violated the Terms of Use. When unestablished users do that, we block them. When people advance themselves as candidates for adminship, we require them to declare whether they have ever done so; there is such stigma attached to paid editing that no candidate has ever dared admit to it, and if one did there is absolutely no doubt they would be drubbed out of RFA in very short order.

What would I like arbcom to do? To not make rank-and-file admins look like petty hypocritical tyrants when we enforce policy against users who are not already administrators and bureaucrats. —

(or implement a second evidence stage after publishing the findings of ArbCom in regards to COI edits by Nihonjoe, aimed solely at answering the "community trust" questions, once again after having been made aware of ArbCom's findings; or any other way ArbCom wishes to gauge the community trust after the community can get actual on-wiki answers to the questions of what the extent of Nihonjoe's COI editing is and whether it outright violated rules and policy. The important part, in any case, is that gauging of community trust (or absence thereof) in this case can only reliably be done once the facts are available to the community in a way that does not require OUTING, off-wiki sleuthing or rampant speculation. That is not something the community is equipped to do by itself.) AddWittyNameHere 08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

Re: HJ Mitchell - I think the main question(s) Arbcom should resolve are:

1. Was Nihonjoe's non-disclosure of COI defensible? (I.e., did he/she have good reason not to reveal it?)
2. Were Nihonjoe's edits to the article OK? (I.e., if we took a hundred different edits to the articles and cover up the names of the people who made them, and asked you to identify which edits are inappropriate, are you odds-on to identify Nihonjoe's edits as inappropriate?)
3. Given the answer to the previous two questions, should Nihonjoe still be trusted as an administrator?

If I were Nihonjoe, then it's likely that I will use real life evidence to defend myself, which means Arbcom is the only arena to resolve this.

PS: I'm of opinion that if the answers to #1 and (especially) #2 above are "yes", then "yes" is a perfectly reasonable answer to #3, in spite of what is in WP:COI.

Banedon (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I do not have an opinion of the merits of the most aspects of the case as I did not follow the situation closely. However, there is one aspect in this discussion which needs to be clarified. If Arbcom takes the case (again, I am not advocating for nor against this) it can do it in the decision, otherwise probably some discussion needs to be opened somewhere. This is a difference between COI and paid editing. If someone edits articles about their employer this is a COI situation. This is written in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and there is nothing to discuss here. However, I also see opinions in the discussion that this is automatically paid editing. This is not what is in the policy. The policy only says that paid editing is when an editor is reimbursed. Of course editing for an employer means editing for someone who is paying salary, but unless editing Wikipedia is specifically listed as a task of an employee I personally do not see it as a paid editing (the employer might not even know that an employee is editing Wikipedia and specifically the article about an employer). I see people clearly saying here that this is paid editing however. This point requires a clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Unfortunately, the committee needs to take this case and consider desysop. The words written and at the AfD skated much too close to advocacy while not being forthcoming about COI as outlined in

Also, with private evidence, it would seem the committee must take the case, and take the OUTING aspects too. COI is no excuse for OUTING, and OUTING is no excuse for concealing COI. One of the reasons we have a COI guideline is, as it says, COI causes public embarrassment for the subject, for the editor, and for Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

As suggested by Barkeep49, I have formally taken over the OS block on Fram. I've also recused from clerking on this case. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

Not to pile on, but if the committee is having difficulty seeing why this case is squarely within what the community elected them to do, especially in light of multiple former arbitrators telling them that this is precisely their job, then allow me to add my name to that chorus. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I've been following this case from a distance with increasing frustration: there are many distinct allegations of sub-par conduct from many different editors (I'm counting Nihonjoe, Kashmiri, Fram, Primefac), and editors concerned about each are increasingly talking past each other. I consider all of those editors valued community members, and they all deserve the chance to move on, either with their names cleared or having received appropriate sanction. What is absolutely clear to me at this point is that this conflict cannot be put to bed without a full investigation. As I (and colleagues) once said in filing a previous case, only ARBCOM is able to conduct a useful investigation that can resolve this. Please accept this case, even if you end up handling it by motion or with a truncated case. This is beyond the community's ability to handle, and it is what you were appointed for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

This should have been at ArbCom originally; much electronic ink has been spilled by the community without arriving at a resolution. The situation is a tangled mess of COI, OUTING, and INVOLVED; it's not pretty to look at, but this is the sort of thing is why the committee exists. It is unlikely that ArbCom will be able to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction, but a refusal to even try will leave everyone dissatisfied.

• If there are doubts as to the appropriateness of posting certain material on-wiki, it may be emailed to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org. Maxim (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Fram you are, according to my count, at 937 which is more than 500 but less than the 1000 I think we should be giving parties, so you probably need to ask for an extension as well prior to adding anything else. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Serial Number 54129: over is over and asking for an extension is easy. Not only were you over, you're over by more now since you've added a substantive comment in your reply to me but one that didn't belong here. According to policy if you want to ask for a recusal you should do so first on the arb's user talk page and only then request a committee ruling. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse given I have taken over the OS block on Fram. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Serial Number 54129 - given by your own admission you say that you usually do not use an extension, what would you use one for? If it is just to bring what you already have posted "within the rules" rather than add anything additional, I think we can just say that you're extended up to what you already have. firefly ( t · c ) 17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest management: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter «2/0/1»

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse, obviously. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote this last night and fell asleep before I could put it on wiki, so I'll say it here: So to clarify my comment about what we received, @Yngvadottir and others, I'm saying we weren't informed of this beforehand, not that we weren't informed. I actually informed Arbcom about this not long after the inciting offwiki post and was the first person to do so. The thread did not get many comments and there wasn't a consensus for anything. Now personally speaking, I think a quiet note from an individual Arb to disclose COIs and be mindful of COI rules would've been a good idea and probably could have avoided this thread, but there was no consensus for that. After this went to ANI, Nihonjoe made his above COI clarification/declaration, which made an Arb sending a note feel moot/redundant. We haven't been sent further evidence other than the inciting offwiki post, so nothing is really happening right now unfortunately. If people have further evidence of COI stuff, please email it to Arbcom. And please, really, do email us-- we know a lot, but we don't know everything that's happening. If you see something, email us something. There have been much more problematic editors over the years that were never reported to us, and it seems like no one sent us anything because it was assumed someone already told us/we must know about it.

The issue of reporting COI vs outing is one that has been relevant for years (see Special:diff/1111807998#RfC:_Updating_BLOCKEVIDENCE and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog) The issue here isn't really reporting of COI/UPE though, it's communicating when functionaries have decided to do nothing about a report or didn't really get a response in. Plus, the ~paid Checkuser queue is backlogged and most offsite issues being reported to Arbcom unfortunately take longer to resolve for various reasons...

Now for accepting/declining this case? I don't know, I think it really depends on the evidence we get emailed. The community has admonished Nihonjoe via the AN thread, and the Oversight team has endorsed Primefac's block upon review. This should probably be In Camera if we are to open it, this should've stayed behind the scenes in the first place. But it didn't and we're in a bit of a mess and here right now. So, let's try and find the best solution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure we have anything that requires a case, and thus am leaning to decline, while awaiting statements. If anything, the usefulness of this case request is to settle the AN thread.
  As far as the questions as to Nihonjoe's COI edits, I think he has been responsive to the concerns raised in the AN thread. If his responses were wholly inadequate, we would have ended up with a case request much faster. As far as the edits to Aquaveo go, the bulk of these are from February 2016; the edits to the product pages were in March and August 2019. Given the scale and timing of these edits, a request to knock it off seems most appropriate, and the AN thread has largely done that (realistically, the blog post did that function already). Our COI rules get interpreted more strictly with every year, and that's something to keep note of when evaluating edits from five or eight years ago.
  As far as the Primefac and Fram angle, I have two broad thoughts. First, an {{OversightBlock}} isn't permanent; a credible promise to no longer re-add the oversightable material should make such a block go away. Second, as far as the INVOLVED aspect, that gets tricky with the present approach to Oversight. Suppression/oversight is considered a tool of first resort; when there is questionable material that may reasonably need to be deleted, it is first suppressed and then brought to review to the mailing list. If it is determined that revision-deletion was more appropriate (or no deletion whatsoever), that is decided on the mailing list and actioned appropriately. OversightBlocks are used, in general, either in very egregious situations or when oversightable material has been reposted (and usually the user was already asked to stop). All OversightBlocks are referred to the mailing list for review. It would therefore follow that the first available oversighter should suppress and block if reasonably appropriate, given that suppression is a tool of first resort and suppression is used for especially problematic material. The point I'm getting to is that WP:INVOLVED may conflict with how suppression is done in practice; provided that the suppression and/or block were reasonable actions (i.e. clearly not a spurious use of suppression), INVOLVED does not apply, because the practice of suppression is a first-resort action for urgently problematic material.
  And concerning the conflict between the outing policy and COI guideline, there is an interesting disjunction between what may be posted on-wiki, versus the kind of research routinely done and disseminating off-wiki, whether to ArbCom or potentially individual administrators. An example of what I recently reviewed was a dossier sent by an administrator to the committee, which involved the cross-referencing of old OTRS tickets with Facebook profiles to establish multiple editors' real-life identities and a specific conflict of interest. In practice, that is considered completely appropriate provided it's off-wiki such as by sending it to arbcom-en, and it happens all the time; were an administrator to post that dossier on-wiki, it would likely end with a ban and desysop for the administrator. (For the avoidance of doubt, none of this is meant as a judgment of whether how we do things is right or wrong; it is merely a description of current practice.) As far as this specific case, there are arguments that could be made that the AN thread should have been suppressed right off that bat, while emails to arbcom-en on the matter, including oversightable material, would have been entirely appropriate. Of course, with the community's desire for transparency, a balance between preserving editors' privacy and investigating misconduct becomes tricky to find. Maxim (talk) 14:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nihonjoe, having done a more thorough examination of the situation (including material emailed to ArbCom), I am not convinced that you have made a fulsome declaration of any conflicts of interest you may have in relation to certain articles you have edited. I understand that there are privacy implications for yourself, so I strongly encourage you to email arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org with a thorough disclosure, so we can find a reasonable balance between protecting your privacy and your properly disclosing any conflicts of interest that you may have. A continued lack of candour in this situation is likely to keep escalating tensions. Maxim (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reasonably convinced by the off-wiki evidence of Nihonjoe's COI; the sum of which I'm aware of - and I've been inactive so perhaps there's private evidence I need to catch up on - is from the blog post. I have not seen compelling evidence that Joe meaningfully violated Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines at the time he made COI/paid edits. If there is such evidence I would encourage someone to present it (most likely to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org).
  Bigger picture I share the concern of some, including Fram, of the ways that our OUTING policies are used by knowledgable insiders (or even knowledgable outsiders) to prevent accountability from violating our content policies and guidelines. During my time as an Arbitrator I have consistently been the voice on the Oversight team, and I think I am less alone in this view than I was 3 years ago, of keeping first principles in mind: we are here to build an encyclopedia. OUTING is a vitally important policy because it helps to create a safe space for many editors to have the safety to help build that encyclopedia. It is not, for me, a get of jail free card when it comes to content policies and guidelines, most frequently COI and paid editing. So there is going to be tension there.
  For me there is a right way and a wrong way to address that tension. Email arbcom? The right way. Getting suppressed and warned, ignoring that warning, and doing it again? The wrong way. Fram has more than once restored suppressed information in my time as an oversighter and, to disagree slightly with Maxim, I would be looking for credible assurance that not only will this suppressed info not be reposted but that Fram properly appeal OS decisions they disagree with in the future. This still is a pretty low bar and so I would hope Fram could be unblocked soon.
  Finally there is the matter of Primefac. I admit to not understanding what made him
  WP:INVOLVED. If it was What the hell Fram I view that as interacting purely in an administrative role as part of the suppression. If it was Primefac's closure of the thread, that still, for me, falls in the administrative action exception thought a bit more weakly. As such I think it would have been wise if Primefac had merely suppressed Fram a second time, gone to the OS list, reported the suppression and said "someone needs to block Fram". Given that the feedback has been strongly in support of the block it seems like some other oversighter would have blocked Fram and we could have avoided part of this drama. But lack of wisdom means at most a trout, and in this situation maybe not even that. So if I understand the concerns about Primefac's INVOLVED correctly that's where I land.

  All of this means to me this is an excellent case request but, with the evidence I've analyzed above, that I am a decline. But I await to see if there is other evidence (or if I misunderstand one of the facts above) before formally making that vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @RoySmith The best practice piece is certainly what I had in mind when I said it would have been wise for Primefac not to be the one not to make the block. In my experience I find in any given situation a number of editors focus on INVOLVED, because it is such an important policy and ArbCom has (rightly!) shown a willingness to sanction admin for violating it. But that focus is spurred often more by underlying dispute than an actual community sentiment about where the line is for INVOLVED. If this progresses to a case it is absolutely going to be an important part for ArbCom to consider fully because it is, as you point out, very tricky. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @

  Fram. I will consider that new information. I appreciate the correction that you posted two different pieces of oversightable material in this discussion rather restoring information that had already been removed and would adjust what I said for what I was hoping for in an unblock to "credible assurance to avoid posting oversightable material". Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I am now inclined to vote to accept a private case based on the information shared here by Levivich and the private information shared by Fram. I'm still not convinced there is enough here to have a broader scope that would include Primefac or Fram. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Fram I am happy to discuss the actions of Primefac and indeed have as have others. Primefac has apologized and has made Dreamy Jazz the blocking administrator (though this should probably be done in the block log). That feels like an appropriate response to what happened there. I agree with you the indef is harsh for what happened here, but that is also standard procedure for OS blocks. I have started a discussion to talk about whether that should be reconsidered. If there is a case, I would be in favor of ArbCom doing some self-examination as part of the decision, though when this was floated by the drafters in a case at the end of last year a number of arbs didn't like it so I don't know if that would fly. But that examination can happen without you and Primefac being parties and adding you two as parties doesn't make it more likely to happen. While I prefer cases that don't just focus on the actions of one editor (and the shortcomings of how ArbCom handles such cases is what has stopped me from voting accept though my next major contribution will likely be me doing that), it seems to me that the incident with you two is too small for an ArbCom level decision. The discussion among the OS team about your block has died down, it's been endorsed, and so the outcome to your situation is, in my mind, for you to post an unblock, for Dreamy or some other OS to accept it, and you move on with improving the encyclopedia. No reply necessary give my previous ping to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• There are valid concerns about
  WP:INVOLVED, and concerns and questions about the prioritization of certain policies over others when they seem to contradict. As far as accepting or denying a case, I would like to hold off until interested parties have a reasonable amount of time to make statements and/or email ArbCom any information as appropriate, which I would encourage so that the most informed decisions can be made. - Aoidh (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I also share the concerns around the tension between our COI and OUTING policies, and think there could be an opportunity to clarify best practices in this area. For the specific matter in front of us I don't think there's much to do given what we have - however I join with my colleagues in saying that if anyone has any credible evidence that we are missing something, please submit it. Even if you think "they already know this" - we'd rather hear something three times than not at all. firefly ( t · c ) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will say that am sympathetic to those who say that we should take the case and do [our] jobs. Having looked more closely at the Aquaveo AfD after David Fuchs' comment (thank you, David, for highlighting that) I am unimpressed with Nihonjoe's comments there, and they do - for me at least - move this away from being purely a historic issue explainable by changing norms and guidelines around COI. That said, what would those telling us to take the case be looking to us to do that hasn't already happened via the AN thread? firefly ( t · c ) 19:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in two minds here. We have a bit if a mess of interconnected issues but I'm rapidly learning that there's no such thing as a "perfect" case request. First, the oversight block of Fram should be handled as all other OS blocks are—through review on the oversight mailing list. That review is ongoing but has so far soundly endorsed Primefac's action. Fram is free to appeal in line with the normal process. To the COI concerns, these do appear to have some merit and I'm not convinced (based partly on some of the new evidence we've been sent) that Nihonjoe has been as forthcoming as guidelines and the community expect, especially for an editor of his standing. I'd welcome community input on what they want from ArbCom. Should we be investigating allegations of a COI? And if so what should we do about them? Or can the community handle that (assuming the necessary disclosures are made)? Do we need to evaluate whether Nihonjoe has lost the confidence of the community as an admin? Or, put another way, what would you be asking of us if this case centered around a non-admin? I can see there being a case here but it's in everyone's best interests if we decide upfront what issues we want ArbCom to address. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I Accept the case due to the overlap of admin/'crat conduct questions and private information. Per Risker, I would like to add an additional party. Reading the rest of the community comments, there are quite a few people who think the committee should have acted earlier here. Looking at my inbox and the edits to this page none of them emailed arbcom-en to ask us for a private case based on the evidence or filed a public case request. Without the brave souls who file cases, arbitration isn't going to work in the long-run. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept but with an acknowledgement that the scope of this case is very important to me. For me the scope should be the questions that Banedon asks, the question Ymblanter lays out about the line between COI and paid, and whether ArbCom processes for reporting COI issues privately worked. I would add to Banedon's question 3 "Given the answer to the previous two questions, should Nihonjoe still be trusted as an administrator and/or bureaucrat"? Removal of crat status by ArbCom is a grey area policywise and I might ultimately fall on the side of "ArbCom is not empowered to do so" but that leads to the somewhat absurd outcome of "these people are supposed to be among the most trusted and there is no way to remove the permission if the violate that trust" so I think it needs to be carefully considered through the case process. For me we would have a public evidence page and allow for public analysis, but would accept private evidence as well and clearly important evidence is going to be private. I expect we would end up sharing all the private evidence with Nihonjoe to allow him to respond. There's no reason we can't have a proposed decision where certain FoF is supported by the private evidence as we have in other hybrid public/private cases. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]