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

Case opened on 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Case closed on 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 06:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch Wshp.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party
 * (previously named JacobMW)
 * (previously named JacobMW)
 * (previously named JacobMW)
 * (previously named JacobMW)

Prior dispute resolution

 * 
 * 

Statement by TonyBallioni
I am filing this case request to ask the committee to review the actions of Salvidrim! and Salvidrim! (paid) in regards to paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do. Jytdog has laid out the basic timeline here.

Salvidrim! created the Salvidrim! (paid) account on 1 November 2017 because it would be controversial to edit from an admin account. Six minutes later granted himself confirmed, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and page mover user rights. He explicitly did not grant himself the autopatrolled flag because he knew this would be controversial. He then disclosed that he had been paid to move Studio71 to the brand's preferred title. He then used the pager mover rights he had assigned himself to execute a round-robin page move to the firm's preferred stylization of its brand and away from what had been the stable title for over 18 months without community oversight either at WP:RM/TR or through a full RM.

Additionally based on self-disclosed Facebook messenger conversation between Salvidrim! and Soetermans, who is also a disclosed paid editor for Mister Wiki, that Salvidrim! asked Soetermans to review AfC drafts for a Mister Wiki client that he had been paid for his involvement with because he did not think it was fair to the client to make them wait. This was after the WP:PAY guideline was updated to include guidance that paid editors should not accept their own AfC drafts (For full disclosure, I revdel'd under RD4 on COIN without knowing there was consent, thinking could be outing, and emailed the oversight team for assessment).

Soetermans then requested AfC access which was later granted (and then removed) by Primefac:, ,. The only AfC reviews that Sotermans reviews are the articles Salvidrim! had declared he was paid to edit:,. Soetermans explains the situation here, and classified the moves as "return[ing] the favor" for asking Salvidrim to accept a previous AfC draft that Sotermans had been paid to edit. Salvidrim! later acknowledged that this effectively amounted to meatpuppetry.

At the COIN thread there appears to be unanimous agreement from a wide range of editors that the best way forward on this would be for Salvidrim! to resign the tools and stand for RfA again. Salvidrim! has stated that he is open to some form of sanctions, but doesn't feel he should have to resign or be desysoped.

As this is an administrator conduct issue involving potential violations of the sock puppetry policy for pay by an SPI clerk, and other potential misuse of the tools for pay, I think that the committee needs to answer the question as to if a breach of trust occurred, and if it did, what should happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mentioned an emergency desysop anywhere, and I don't want one. I do think desysoping should be addressed in a potential case, but it definitely isn't an emergency situation. What I asked the committee to do was examine if a breach of trust here has occurred, and if so, what should happen moving forward. At COIN by my count we have had 7 editors call for Salvidrim! to resign the bit voluntarily and stand again at RfA as a way to deal with the issue of community trust here. Salvidrim has said he does not believe that is necessary and that he did not intend on resigning. The question as to what actions by an administrator in this area are considered out of bounds and how we should resolve them is one of the tensest areas on Wikipedia currently, and asking the committee to resolve some of these questions under current policy when there is disagreement on the way forward in a specific case is firmly within their remit. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in terms of the focus being on misuse of community trust on administrative tools, which is how I tried to focus the case on by showing diffs of questionable judgement in regards to how they interact with COI and paid editing. The question here like you, GMG, and TNT have pointed out is one of competence and integrity. This should be the primary focus of the case.At the same time, I do think there is room for the committee to clarify what counts stepping over the line in terms of use of community trust and paid editing. The recent site ban of KDS4444 and the ongoing discussion at VPP as to what our guidelines are here when it comes to using advanced permissions to engage in paid editing are a bit murky to those who participate in it and to the community. There is broad consensus that it shouldn't happen, the question is when the line is crossed. (Also, this case would deal more with WP:PAY, part of the COI guideline rather than WP:PAID, which is part of the WMF TOU.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of naming the case I was aware of recent criticism that having cases named after people was non-ideal, because the community tended to view it as a rush to file because the case-name-party was sure to be sanctioned. I chose what was in my opinion the most neutral name possible. Assuming this is accepted, I have no problem with it being renamed Salvidrim! if the committee thinks it best, because I agree with SoWhy and others here that first and foremost this is a behavioral case regarding Salvidrim!’s actions. I do think that in its principles the committee will inevitably clarify some things regarding positions of trust and COI/paid-editing, but that is not primarily what I think the case is about. I also want to state for the record that naming Soetermans as a party does not mean that I think they should be sanctioned my intent was like OR said: a pure factual list. One of the concerns here is that an Salvidrim violated the sock/meatpuppetry policy by asking Soetermans, who was paid by the same firm, to review his AfC drafts and that Soetermans appears to only have sought AfC access to do this. Even if the sole focus of this case is to look at Salvidrim’s actions, I don’t see how Soetermans’ actions don’t make them involved, they are 1/2 of the equation on one of the two main concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 's version of events here on that AfD is correct, which is why I didn't mention it in the case request. Looking over it again, though, I see he was paid considered participating in it to be part of his contractual relationshoip, which also raises a whole host of questions, especially given the concerns that points out about him trading off of his reputation here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I've struck and reworded based on your comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * to your later question, I don't think it would be helpful for the workshop to be an RfC. There is distrust that exists in some quarters with the committee on this issue, and I don't think any broad statements from the committee as a committee-overseen RfC would do much good in this case because it is something that most within the community have a view on (unlike Wikidata): an outcome on either side on broader questions would likely create real frustration within the community as to the roll of ArbCom in perceived making of policy.Where ArbCom can be helpful is examining where under current policy and guidelines the lines are so there is clarity in any future case and for any future RfC. I don't see "paid editing" being within the scope of the case itself, rather, I think by examining the behavioral issues raised, the principles and findings of fact will naturally help clarify where we are on current policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it was a WP:TITLETM question on a stylization, where policy prefers standard English unless there is strong evidence in sourcing otherwise. These can be contentious requests, and are typically handled through RMs because there is a balance between common name and avoiding stylization and different people view it in different ways. The concern here is that he used the admin toolset to avoid those questions. An RM would have been both in line with best practices under our normal move guidelines and the COI guidelines. The concern comes that the only reason this mistake occurred was because he used the admin tools on his volunteer account to grant page mover rights to his paid account. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * like I said above, I think this case should focus on Salvidrim!'s actions in regards to the community trust administrators are expected to maintain. JacobMW has to my knowledge not directly edited much outside of their userspace. If they have had previous accounts and Salvidrim knew about it, I do think that would raise red flags and be relevant to the case. I think would likely have good thoughts on this: he and I don't agree on paid editing (or the focus of this case), but I respect his views on this subject quite a lot, and I think they would be valuable for the committee to consider. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you make a fair point, but my entire reason for filing this request was not to punish Salvidrim or anything of that sort, or even to make a statement on paid editing. I think your recent statement might be a good support vote in a future RfA, but I also think that the community has a right to decide whether or not they want to give Salv a second chance. That is why so many admins and other users had called for him to resign before I filed this case: he believes he still has the trust of the community that is needed to continue as an admin, but I feel that he has breached the trust the community has placed with him, and even if he has admitted that he has made a mistake, the community has a right to decide if it still has that trust through an RfA. ArbCom is the only body that can force that conversation, which is why I'm asking them to desysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have no opinion on the case title as the filing party. I just picked one to avoid a username since some people have complained about it in the past. Re: timeline, based on the one you suggested, we would be rushing up against the new committee taking over to finish (and I know old arb's can stay on if they want). I think for practical purposes/out of respect to the community's wishes as expressed in the election/Christmas, we might as well just make it a full case length. I appreciate the desire for doing this fast, but I think its better to have a set schedule than suspend something for Christmas and have the question of if the new committee will have the opportunity to vote. Having a full case we know the timetable and we will know who will be voting on it (after the results are announced). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * agreed doing it faster would be preferable, but I think with the time concerns around the holidays, it might just be easier to call it six weeks and be done with it rather than wonder what is going to be happening with different time zones, holidays, and whether or not it will be heard by a new committee. I also wouldn't be mad if it was fast, though. My only mention of the full six weeks was as a practicality matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Salvidrim!

 * I fucked up by underestimating how carefully COI has to be handled and believing the strength of my integrity to be beyond reproach. I thought that because everybody was acting nice and with good intentions, that everything would be fine, which was careless and demonstrated how poorly I truly understand how COI must be managed. I did not fully appreciate the difficulty of proper COI management, thinking myself honest enough to just act properly on my own, instead of allowing the community to have proper oversight of my paid actions. This mishandling of COI led to two core mistakes:
 * - I added permissions to my alt using my main account instead of via PERM. Perhap "Confirmed" and even "Rollback" by themselves might have been passable if ill-advised, but "page mover" and "reviewer" should never have been granted to a paid sock without review by a neutral admin (if at all).
 * - As is now well-documented, I asked a friend, Soetermans, for an AfC review of two articles I had been paid to clean-up, which was a clear breach of every COI handling rule and guideline imaginable and a perversion of the very purpose of AfC. I apologize for allowing himself to be dragged into this (although as he says himself and as our FB conversation shows, nobody forced anyone else) and was a severe breach of the community' trust. The time it took to realize that fact after initially being confronted by Jytdog only adds to the shame engendered by my arrogant faith in my own implacable integrity.
 * Edit (06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)), I should have linked to it here for clarity, but please READ exactly what was said and what was asked for between Soetermans and I concerning this AfC collusion. I get the feeling that some commenters haven't seen this conversation and that some of their conclusions seem to imply some explicitely nefarious or corrupt perversion of the AfC system by people who care for naught but the money, while I think this discussion shows we both had misgivings about the appropriateness of the "tit-for-tat" AfC review and where we fucked up and erred in our judgement was doing the deed despite our misgivings by failing to appreciate that our judgement had been influenced unduly by the poorly managed COIs we were both operating under. I'm not saying it's excusable or trying to lessen the undeniable collusion and breach of trust, and I'm not accusing anyone here of not having consulted the evidence, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind... I just feel like this is a critical piece of evidence that might help commenters gather a more accurate impression of the situation. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All that being said, I still do not believe this fuckup in mishandling COI necessarily must result in desysopping. Removal from the realm paid editing, obviously, and I've already offered to agree on community sanctions (such as renouncing all paid editing, not approving paid AfC/PERM/edit-reqs, or whatever further sanction is agreed upon as necessary), but I do not believe desysopping to be the solution, despite the few vocal commenters at COIN demanding a resignation. The AfC collusion was a violation of COI guidelines and a breach of trust, but not a misuse of adminship (it could have happened exactly the same whether I was admin or not), and the alt-perms was, yes, a mistake in the use of admin tools, but was acknowledged and reverted once pointed out and this singular event does not seem egregious or requiring of an emergency desysop. Nor is there any indication of "a pattern of conduct unbecoming of an admin", which I know is what ArbCom often looks for in desysopping requests. Outside of this paid editing debacle, I have been receiving nothing but praise for my recent admin work, and I do not believe I have demonstrated that I am incapable of correctly fulfilling the duties of an admin in general, although I certainly have lost the trust to handle my own and others' paid editing COI. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I welcome and look forward to reading the committee's & the community's opinions on whether I'm way, way wrong above, and I apologize in advance for the time and thoughtspace that ends up being spent on this (relatively speaking) shitty issue. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Short response to &  &  to clarify the Reza Izad AfD --
 * (1) it was closed and deleted by DGG
 * (2) I recreated a single history historyless revision as a redirect (plausible search term to where the person was mentioned)
 * (3) then DGG unclosed the AfD and reclosed it to fix some bug (deleting my one-revision redirect)
 * (4) and when asked to restore that one-revision-redirect, he instead restored the entire history, making it look like my redirection happened before the AfD's (second) closure.
 * It's always been the intent to have the history deleted and then a single revision redirecting the title. As I've said on COIN, I obviously won't use my tools to fix that, but it should be fixed by deleting the history and restoring only the single-redirect-revision. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re - FWIW, I wasn't "paid for contributing to the AfD". The original request was "clean-up of the article against the expectation of payment", but since that was obviously unsuccessful, no payment was made. However rules about paid editing state that disclosures should include edits made against payment or expectation thereof and the AfD initial contributions kinda fell under the same general "clean-up the article" request's umbrella, hence my disclosure for the sake of thoroughness.  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re : Not to go all SPI-clerky on you, but you are putting forward allegations that Jacob's is somehow a sockpuppet without presenting even the faintest glimmer of evidence. The guy's barely twenty, how long a history do you think he can have!? I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, Smallbones, but I am saying it would benefit everyone to be able to actually evaluate your allegations to determine their validity. FWIW, he also adressed the number of hired editors on his talk page.
 * As an aside, I'm not necessarily opposed to Jacob being involved in the case if it ends up being opened to cover "paid editing in general" or at least "MisterWiki-related editors", but the account did not even exist when the actions being (rightly) held against me took place so if this is to be strictly a user-conduct case, makes little sense to include Jacob. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  06:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to the considerations of the possibility of an "ArbCom-managed RfC on paid editing vs. adminship" (see 's, 's comments and others), I can't help but spare a thought to the Arbitrators who may be leaving the committee within about 5 weeks, where having to manage an RfC that will no doubt run on the longer side might mean reticent, forced prolongations of their terms as Abritrators... I don't really know if there's a solution for that, but I'm throwing down some brainstorm ideas in case the committee is interested in considering said RfC : delegate its management to the clerk team (question crafting, civility enforcement, recruiting a closer panel, etc.) and/or to the next committee (don't think there is precedent for that though); or craft the question and recruit the closing panel right away and then step back from the process of running the RfC; or whatever else. I guess all I'm saying is that commenters should keep in mind that asking some of the outgoing Arbs to commit to involvement in a contentious RfC all the way into next Spring is not something that can be asked for lightly. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  06:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm not necessarily opposed to the case being named after me since it seems that's what the main focus is likely to be (although that might make it awkward if you also intend to tackle broader paid editing issues). Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  01:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Soetermans
I appreciate some people saying I shouldn't have to be a part of this. However, I'm the one that dragged Ben into this in the first place. A month ago, my first paid gig was Datari Turner. It might've take over a month to get accepted. Because I was impatient I asked Ben for the favor of moving it out of draft space, which he did on October 20th. This was before he was involved with Mister Wiki; it was a favor to me personally. But it was through me that Ben also came into contact with Mister Wiki. A week or so, Ben asked me in turn to help out with two articles, and. Thinking notability trumps neutrality and transparency, I requested AfC rights and quickly okayed the two articles. If my initial asking wasn't crossing the line already, this was a quod pro quo corruption-like situation. I take full blame for my actions, and I'm very sorry for the damage I've caused. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree, I'm as much as part of this as and it's only fair I'm not excluded from this. Like  says, appearances matter. We have both done something wrong, but I can't be just let off the hook because I'm not an admin.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to let people know I'm taking a wikibreak for the time being. This ordeal is taking a lot out of me, and it's start to affect my work and personal life. I will check to see if I have messages on my talk page occasionally or have been pinged, otherwise I can be reached through email. Thanks. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/1)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
 * accept - definitely to review whether a desysop is in order for Salvidrim. Clearcut case of reviewing this. Regarding paid editing, less clear-cut and am in two minds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * accept when a credible desysop case is brought to us should always accept it as we are the only body who can desysop, and it appears that a resignation is not on the cards. Like Cas Liber, I'd need to think about paid editing. Doug Weller  talk 08:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept. I come from a background in biomedical research and the field has had (and is still having) its own reckoning with the concept of COI, so I recognize the train of thought here. A person who thinks they're pretty sensible on the whole probably expects that they're not biased, and that all of this arm's-length stuff is kind of tedious, and it's just more convenient to assign your own user rights/review each other's articles/etc, and it's all fine because you're sensible and not biased, right? And it usually is, until suddenly it isn't, and you hadn't noticed you were sliding down the slippery slope. In short I think Iridescent is right on the motivations here, and on the desirability of using a dispute resolution process that has mechanisms for managing private evidence. On some of the other points picked up in the comments so far, I have to push back a little on the idea that seems to be emerging about how the list of parties should work. There's a meme going around that being on the list means you're scheduled for sanctions no matter what, and I really prefer the model where it's just a boring old factual list of the people who are involved in the dispute and who should receive notifications about the case should they want to contribute. I also don't like the idea of using case names to highlight a particular user's involvement, as opposed to simply resorting to a username for lack of any better ideas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just want to add here that I've noticed a pattern developing lately in comments on case requests (not just this one). This is in theory a venue to post relevant facts about the dispute, comment on whether we should accept the request, and briefly summarize what you'd like to get out of the case. It's not really intended as a forum for stating your personal opinion on the issue at hand, advocating for your side of the dispute, or staking out policy positions. This is the wrong venue for posts announcing personal opinions about paid editing or what you think the surrounding policy should be. We'll need an RfC for any policy changes related to user rights and paid editing, and personally I suggest waiting till after the case (assuming it's accepted) - it's much better to investigate the particulars of the current incident before trying to draw conclusions about how things should work in the general case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept and in the interests of timeliness, suggest we proceed with one week each for Evidence, Workshop and PD, to wraps this up in three weeks instead of the full six week saga. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update People must be wondering where this has got to. It's obviously been accepted, we're just having a to-and-fro over possible case names, of all things. This will hopefully wind up in the next little while, if a few extra opinions come in. Apologies for the delay. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Another update In passing, I've proposed a 2/1/1/ timeframe to avoid the thing dragging on forever (a bit like this case request). I think we need the full two weeks for evidence as there might be some questions that need asking re Mister Wiki, and there might also be private evidence which often takes longer to collect than on-wiki statements. A problem of any time frame is that it will run up against Christmas - I reckon we should get started and do the first stage, and then if everyone involved wants a short break then we can suspend it then. Or we can work through, whatever seems good. I oppose the only other option, which is to delay the entire thing till January. Worth adding also that we do not have Committee support for a case on paid editing per se - that is appropriately a matter for the community. What there is support for, is whether specific named editors have acted outside of policies on meatpuppetry and COI, in their role as paid editors on this site. There's a separate community debate on whether admin tools present an inherent conflict of interest re paid editing - I have a personal view on this which I'm happy to discuss if anyone cares; it may (or may not) be relevant in the case itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks re case name. I actually have a different reason from others for preferring not to use editor names - it makes it harder to search old cases unless their names give some indication of what they looked at. But it's no big deal, we should settle on something very soon - delay is not because its that controversial, its just the result of fifteen committee members living in different time zones and having different login times. Tony, will flag the idea of the full six week saga, but there was some enthusiasm for doing these quicker. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * hi again, is finally time to move along, just waiting on the next available clerk and we'll be underway. Case scope etc will be outlined in the usual place, I'd like to go with the timeframe of 2/1/1 but we can review what we do in the week before Chrstmas in case it needs extending and/or people would like a suspension for the immediate holiday break. As a clarification in case asked, if the case runs over until Jan 1, outgoing Arbs will be able to remain active on it if they wish, and incoming arbs will be able to join it if they wish. This happens often, most recently in the Kevin Gorman case from 2015-16. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Accept Anytime administrative misconduct is the central issue of a case request, I believe the Committee should accept these cases on principle. I would also support a reduced timeline given renewed support lately for shorter cases. Mkdw  talk 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The broad issue of paid editing is ultimately going to rest in the hands of the community; ArbCom is not in a position nor has the jurisdiction to decide on this matter for the community. The issue of administrators engaging in paid editing has been a point of controversy for quite some time. The Orangemoody case, Signpost article, User:Doc James/Paid editing, and other RFCs. Additionally, I believe many of us are mindful of the recent OTRS situation and the ensuing (and still going) village pump RFC. While a consensus is emerging, it has not been implemented into policy clearly. There are existing policies such as WP:COI and WP:PAID, WP:INVOLVED, and WP:ADMINACCT that does cover the conduct of editors and administrators. I think it is incumbent on the Committee to closely examine these policies throughout the case phases with respect to paid editing and the use of permissions. Mkdw  talk  04:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Accept. There's a clear consensus that we should look at the administrator/user conduct here. With regard to the broader issues, the suggestion that we use the workshop in this case as a sort of arb-moderated RfC raises the same questions we're thinking through in the Wikidata case&mdash;would that represent arbitrators being helpful, or arbitrators overreaching? Would it be more or less likely than an ordinary RfC to be productive and yield the most useful result? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the input above, my vote is to accept as a standard case, focused on the administrator/user conduct involved, although spelling out our understanding of the existing rules on paid editing and disclosure will be necessary, to provide the standard against which the conduct will be evaluated. No objection to shortening the usual timetable a bit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept There's a clear case here around user and administrative conduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Accept and I also think we can do this quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
= Final decision = All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 9 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 9 to 2 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 19:10, 7 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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mister Wiki editors
1) and  are (or were) disclosed paid editors for a group called Mister Wiki, which was then organised by User:JacobMW (now renamed to ). 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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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 without community review, and in order to facilitate a paid edit..


 * Passed 9 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and evasion of scrutiny
2A) During discussions with Jacob from Mister Wiki (discussed by Salvidrim! here and submitted as private evidence), Salvidrim! repeatedly coached Jacob on how to avoid drawing community scrutiny. This effort to evade community discussion and review of paid edits directly contradicts the spirit of WP:COI, which is focused on openness and disclosure. As an administrator and experienced user, Salvidrim! should have been aware of the expectation that paid and COI edits require additional community scrutiny, not less.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 19:10, 7 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.


 * Passed 13 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Passed 8 to 2, with 3 abstentions, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 10 to 0, with 3 abstentions, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rescinded 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions by motion at 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Salvidrim! warned (option 2)
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.


 * Passed 9 to 0, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 9 to 0, with 3 abstentions, at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0 at 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment (March 2019)
''Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions by motion at 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement log
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Arbitration enforcement log, not here.