Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Preliminary statements

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Statement by Ritchie333
I have been reading the above thread involving conflict of interest editing from for the past few days, and note that editors have attempted to close it four times without success. The key issue is a disagreement between the conflict of interest guideline and outing policy, and how they should be enforced.

Although some insightful comments were made earlier on, the later discussion hasn't felt as productive and I feel the useful parts of the discussion have now passed. This has now culminated in getting an indefinite oversight block from.

I realise the Arbitrators and Oversighters are discussing this privately, and hoping for a diplomatic resolution. However, on the AN thread linked above, I see an admin and a former admin both publicly calling for an Arbcom case to sort this out, viz A/G "Adjudicate an especially divisive dispute among administrators.". So you could consider this a procedural nomination.

has pretty much [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1210942284#ArbCom_time? spelled out the underlying reasons for this]. Essentially, the conversation at AN has become a train wreck, and I would like discussion of the issues to be shunted out of the public arena of AN, and moved privately where they can be discussed away from the spotlight. Potentially this would need to be an in camera case. I'm not calling for any sanctions or bits to be removed - hopefully that can all be avoided. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The apology from Primefac, and the new evidence from Fram, leads me to agree that neither should now be a party to any case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nihonjoe
I'm not sure what else I can add to this discussion outside of what I already wrote. As I said there, I made a mistake, and I'm sorry that I made it. Since it was nigh on a decade ago, I don't have any way to recall what was going through my mind at the time, but I should have declared my COI at that time. I'm human and I make mistakes, and I try to learn from them. I will definitely be applying that here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I have emailed the arbcom list, and indicated that I'm open to additional questions from them via that email list should they have any additional questions. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac
Mea culpa. I had requested review of the content posted by Fram that I had suppressed, with the observed outcome that the content should stay suppressed. I was genuinely shocked when 48 hours later Fram posted suppressible content again, and I did not proceed in the most appropriate manner because of it. I do not want to use the "any reasonable admin" clause of INVOLVED because I should know better; at the time my immediate thought was that it was a second blatant breach of our policies in as many days and thus a block was necessary. Recognising my involvement in the situation (and per our protocols) I again asked the Oversight Team for review of my actions, which was supported (see comment by Dreamy Jazz here). It was a lapse of judgement, plain and simple, and getting the right result through the wrong means does not excuse it. I will strive to do better in the future.

Statement by Fram
Thanks, my initial statement: This case should look at
 * the years-long and quite recent COI editing by Nihonjoe on topics where they seem to have a clear personal and financial interest, and their apparent lies about it this week on their user talk page
 * the outing by me, whether it was warranted or not (based on on the one hand the cat already being out of the bag anyway, some of the COI already acknowledged, the fact that they didn't make a secret of the association between Nihonjoe and the supposed RL identity elsewhere, and their eleveated position in the enwiki hierarchy), whether it was correct or not, and whether the block should have happened and should be immediately indefinite
 * the involved role of Primefac, who after repeatedly trying to minimize the issues (including prematurely closing the thread) and after baiting me into an outing reply by pretending that some obvious severe COI editing was no such thing (and using some very weird interpretation of the COI guideline and the English language to support their comment), then made a clearly WP:INVOLVED and heavy-handed block, while still failing to address the actual issue of the COI editing to boot
 * I guess the completely unnecessary and short-lived removal of talk page access by User:Ingenuity is peanuts in the light of all the above, but some acknowledgment that it was unwarranted and that talk page access shouldn't be removed on such a flimsy basis would be welcome as well

General discussion of COI vs. outing can happen as well of course, but for me the above is sufficient to keep me busy I guess. Fram (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

(copied from user talk page Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC))
 * the involvement of Primefac in that discussion was more than an attempt to close it and the "so what" (though those would be enough to be considered involved in my view), they replied directly to me, to which I answered with the oversighted material, after which they blocked and continued to reply about the actual matter. Basic rule of WP:INVOLVED is that you can't both discuss the merits, the contents, and use the admin tools: either you join the discussion and become an editor without extra powers (for that discussion), or you don't join the discussion and can "clerk" it neutrally. Once Primefac started discussing the merits or lack of provided diffs and whether an edit was COI editing or not (never mind the very weird distinction between "COI editing" and "Editing with a COI" they tried to make), they should have refrained from using the admin tools about that discussion and certainly against someone they were in a discussion with (and who happened to contradict their previous nothing-to-see-here position). Oh, and for the record, I did not repost any oversighted material. Fram (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Copied from Fram's user talk. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more general comments. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that people don't want to discuss the actions of Primefac (using the tools in a discussion they were involved in to protect their own position in that discussion, and to protect the reputation or rights of a colleague at the same time, while making frankly quite ridiculous statements about COI while doing this), or the very heavy-handed block (immediate indef? Acting as this was some random outing, a narrative still maintained by some at the case, and not an "Arbcom and the like have the facts, but proceed to ignore them and close the discussion, while the COI is obvious for all to see" situation where only the continued pressure has lead to anything so far? No, let's give the lowly editor the harshest possible punishment according to the letter of the law, never mind all the circumstances leading to the posting of the material, and let's on the other hand ignore the oversighter protecting the paid editor because we can wikilawyer our way out).

I see claims like "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." which shows the all-too-familiar tendency of people wanting to get their word in about situations they are not fully aware of apparently. It's not a "years-old COI" in the sense that it stopped in 2019 or so, it was ongoing, cross-wiki COI and paid editing, with blatant COI edits going back at least 15 years and continuing until at least last year. Nihonjoe was not trying to hide the connection or in any way concerned about their well-being or that of their family (well, they were concerned about it, by trying to give more exposure to their company, not by trying to hide anything). If someone makes Wikidata items about themselves, their company, employees of their company, products of their company, and the people who have contributed to these products, then it is a bit rich to claim that pointing this out will somehow jeopardise their safety and the problem lies with those exposing the issue, not with the one creating it in the first place. It's not some kid who needs protection from their own stupidity, this is someone who should know the rules the best of all of us, but who has been doing this kind of stuff for 15+ years, and who has been doing the same on other sites as well (reviewing your own products without disclosure? Very, er, professional). I don't get why anyone would want to defend this behaviour or pretend that it's not fully their own responsability. Fram (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Copied from user talk page Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I'm a little confused. Are you asking for Nihonjoe's admin or crat bits to be removed? Are you saying the community tried but can't manage the case? The reason I ask is you are saying "you could consider this a procedural nomination." but I don't get what procedure you are following, or what you hope Arbcom to do? As to what POLICY should be when balancing the two policies, that is normally left to the wider community (which hasn't attempted to modify policy yet), as Arb doesn't create policy. This seems to be throwing gas on a dying fire, unless of course you clearly state that you think he needs to lose the admin/crat bits over the issue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If Arb has actual evidence of paid editing, rather than a simple COI, then of course a case makes sense (in private), but would have made more sense a week ago, due to outing concerns. I would argue that outing is a more important concern than COI when it comes to PUBLIC discussions, because the damage isn't reversible.  In the absence of actual paid editing (ie: COI), are we are saying that non-disclosure of a COI (due to fear of outing) is grounds for losing the advanced bits?  I don't know of any precedent.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't consider editing about your employer as "paid editing" unless that is a function of your job, which is impossible to prove. When I think of "paid editing" (and I have done a GREAT deal of SPI work in my early days of adminship on this topic), I think of 3rd parties who have no conflict of interest, they are just paid to edit.  Maybe I haven't looked to see where this changed, but there is a huge difference, in my eyes, between the two.  One has a conflict, the other is a mass spamming machine.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * makes a good point below, but sadly, it is a point that shouldn't have to be made. COI and paid editing are NOT the same thing.  Whether Arb clarifies that or not, they are still not the same thing and don't get treated the same.  They are both problems, but the degree of damage they can cause is vastly different, ie: COI "damage" is typically limited to a very narrow list of articles, often only one.  That isn't the case with paid editing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by 0xDeadbeef
I concur with what Dennis Brown has said above. The request as of writing this does not make it clear what exactly is up for arbcom for consideration. If the scope of this request is about COI management, I would see Fram's oversight block as tangential to the discussion. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 09:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * After reading the AN section I think I can understand the scope of this request. I'd urge Arbcom to accept this case and consider whether actions (if any) are necessary based on private evidence and our COI policy. I have no opinion on Nihonjoe or Fram, but I believe a case could set a good precedent for how our COI and outing policies should be enforced, as this is indeed a divisive issue. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 10:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Joe Roe
I've been loosely following the AN thread, mostly with a feeling of "what's the point?" There is clearly not—despite the efforts of several closers to find one—going to be a consensus that Nihonjoe's COI editing is nothing to worry about. At the same time, there is an ironclad policy basis and precedent for paid editing being incompatible with adminship (see WP:PAY, WP:TOOLMISUSE, Paid-contribution_disclosure, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors and Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_17) so if there's even a reasonable suspicion that has happened, a desysop must be on the table and therefore it's out of the scope of AN. So thanks to Ritchie for finally bringing it where it belongs. An accusation that an admin has editing where they have a financial conflict of interest is a serious matter that threatens the integrity of the entire project.

I think it's in everyone's best interest that ArbCom accepts and moves quickly to establish the facts. There's been enough airing of opinions at AN and elsewhere; what we need know is to find out exactly what Nihonjoe did, what his COIs were at the time, and whether this is compatible with the community's expectations of advanced rights holders. Even if this mostly happens behind closed doors, having a parallel public case so that the rest of us can follow what's happening and offer what evidence can be offered publicly. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Nihonjoe has now admitted to editing article(s) about his employer. In day-to-day COI enforcement, we usually consider this "paid editing", and disclosure is required by the Terms of Use. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm rather baffled by those–some arbs included—dismissing this on the basis of 'changing expectations'. The edits to his employer's article were in 2016-2017. As Levivich shows below, these were explicitly defined as paid edits in the written policy at the time (and still are). The Mister Wiki arbitration case was in 2017 and led to a desysop for paid editing. The requirement to disclose paid edits was added to the ToU in 2014. Jimbo Wales' paid advocacy FAQ, written in 2012, states unambiguously that no editor can be an administrator or bureaucrat and a paid advocate at the same time. I'm not saying there can't be mitigating circumstances, but Nihonjoe is a bureaucrat. It's inconceivable that he could admit to this kind of conduct and not have ArbCom hear the case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Question by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Are the propriety of the various closes and reopenings of the AN thread, and the question of how much private (or not) information can be shared during a COI investigation in a public venue like AN, also part of the case request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * has posted their statement on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir
As notes, the disagreement arises in large part because of a conflict between the COI editing and OUTING policies. There is a tension between the part of WP:COI that mandates raising the issue with the editor, and the part that gives precedence to the policy against harassment. The case scope should include both Nihonjoe's editing and his response to two editors who made such inquiries, from the perspective of the behavioral expectations of WP:ADMINACCT, and also the conduct of and others in the AN discussion with respect to those two editors. ArbCom can usefully clarify how best to raise an issue of suspected COI in a user of long standing or holding advanced permissions, such as at what point editors are expected to e-mail ArbCom to avoid harassment. The guideline may no longer reflect best practice. As such, ArbCom should take this case. The community has not been able to resolve the impasse at AN. If the committee does so, the repercussions of the week's fruitless discussion make it necessary for it also to consider civility in the discussion, and whether Primefac's block of Fram violated INVOLVED. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Drawing attention to a statement by one of our long-term and trusted editors who choose not to register an account, on the talk page, now self-reverted: . The disagreement on how to evaluate Nihonjoe's edits under COI includes whether a COI related to an employer constitutes paid editing. This appears to require clarification. Insofar as some editors believe COI editing (particularly related to an employer) is a serious offence, the treatment at an administrators' noticeboard of reporting editors who may therefore consider themselves whistleblowers requires examination under WP:CIVIL, the parent of policies including that against harassment. (Without diffs or usernames, all taken from AN.) The following double personal attack—The usual cabal of malignant griefers of course want him tarred and feathered ... And Kashmiri does not come off well here, for obviously frivolous and vindictive AfD nominations.—was partially redacted by a non-admin; the attack on Kashmiri, which remains, is demonstrably inaccurate: I see only one AfD, of Aquaveo, which has now been deleted by consensus, with even Nihonjoe admitting the topic probably didn't meet notability requirements.) And throughout the discussion, some editors imputed bad faith to those raising concerns with Nihonjoe's behavior. Phrasing such as participants here don't seem to care about the effort to dig into Nihonjoe's personal details off-wiki; formal admonishment at this point is just trying to get a pound of flesh ... [and] accomplishes nothing except assuaging some egos.; This is starting to take on the appearance of the proverbial mob with pitchforks and torches. (struck on request); and just don't seem to give a damn if an editor keeps getting outed do not merely disagree, they have a chilling effect. For this community to continue to police itself, it must have mechanisms to hold all editors to account, not merely relatively new editors. For advanced permission holders—and other members of the community who have built up reputations here that they value—to act according to their evaluation of our rules and guidelines, and according to what they believe to be right, we can't have a bully culture or a blue wall of silence. We also have to be able to draw distinctions between mild and serious misbehavior; not every mistake, even a serious mistake, rises to the level of a desysopping or a call to resign bureaucratship. If attempts to discuss are shot down as not rising to the level of requiring desysopping and so it shouldn't have been raised, the committee must provide an alternate method to on-wiki discussion and clear guidance on what it is. I don't advocate that. Primefac's actions in the thread contributed to that chilling effect, so the committee should examine their conduct as part of this civility-related examination. Not only the block of Fram, but their closure of the thread because there had been no specific proposals; and their response to my proposal that ArbCom formally remind Nihonjoe that communication is required, and that under WP:ADMINACCT, the expectations for administrators to respond to concerns are higher than for regular editors., with their "Arb hat on", with Nihonjoe has declared their COI; what more do we need to tell him?, which suggests they didn't read what I wrote. Admonitions, reminders, advice, clarifications; there are many possibilities for ArbCom action, and taking a case does not imply a requirement to find any editor guilty of anything. But both the OUTING issues, the advanced permissions held by editors involved, and the nasty impasse (including disagreement about the relationship of PAID to other parts of COI) require a case, IMO. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Clerks, may I have a word extension for when I get back from the dentist's? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Rotary Engine
I thank, and have "thanked", for their comment in the Arbitrator's section. But do note that, despite comments about a consensus to do so, the WP:AN close does not actually admonish the editor.

Believe, personally, that it should be amended to do so; so as to accurately reflect the consensus of that discussion.

Also acknowledge an involvement this matter per my edit to uncollapse the discussion at WP:ANI.

Am happy, therefore, to be added as a party; should the consensus of Arbitrators support that option.

Finally, believe that there is a prima facie case around COI editing, and that this should be examined by ArbCom.

Add that administrative actions which may have acted to suppress or prevent discussion of the COI issue, including, but not limited to, the discussion closes, the collapse by, and the block of  by Arb  should also be examined.

Therefore, urge acceptance.


 * Note the subsequent comment by 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.

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)

The questions posed by Banedon seem sub optimal. Per Conflict of interest, there are a number of ways to mitigate a COI. If unwilling to declare the COI, then one of the other options should have been taken - most preferably recusal - that is: not editing the articles. A better question would be to examine all mitigating options; not just the failure to disclose. Simply not editing would seem relatively low cost; it is difficult to see a "good reason" to not have chosen this option.

The question of whether the edits were good or not is also sub optimal. Because of the absence of disclosure, the edits were not able to be identified by the community as conflicted edits, and so did not receive the appropriate community scrutiny.

A failure to declare, recuse or otherwise mitigate conflicts of interest corrodes community and reader trust in the content of our encyclopaedia. Rotary Engine talk 12:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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 WP:OUTING, could only be handled by ArbCom. It was not, and it showed up on-wiki. At that point, ArbCom could have shut things down by saying that it was going to be addressed and the community updated at the conclusion; this did not happen, with Primefac instead deciding to try and shut it down with a bad "nothing to see here" close that only continued to enflame the situation. If this case gets accepted or there's any sort of motion that suggests bringing this up to AN was unacceptable and a block-worthy offense, then it needs to be paired with a public apology that ArbCom failed to do the job they were elected to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

Galobtter's comment is a good idea, but I think wider than this case, so I've started a discussion at WT:AC. Please share thoughts there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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 actually said was: It was never my intention to be evasive... I apologize for any appearance of evasiveness and for not indicating my COI as I should have done. With yet more evasion. That was their sole comment at that entire thread, and while no-one can be made to comment, more suggestions of CoI emerged, more questions were raised, and the discussion lasted another week. Did Nihonjoe really think that non-apology would suffice. Even when his understanding of PAID / CoI was questioned? What about recent statements which might be blatantly untrue (off-wiki evidence that the committee is well aware of!)? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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  why he is not yet recused with all respect? Sorry about the verbosity!   ——Serial  14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks thanks for the advice., 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 '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)
 * Yes, but then, this is not, perhaps, a run-of-the-mill filing, is it? In any case, as a number of points have been made since I last looked in, and in at least one case, I would like to make a follow-on point cogently and coherently. Many thanks. Also, re. If it is just to bring what you already have posted "within the rules"...: Barkeep49 already advised against that, and, rare though it may seem, I do actually read and take heed of what they say :) so, no, it's not for just gussifiying.  ——Serial  19:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * re: That raises questions about Fram's judgment that may reflect on suitability to be an administrator... [and] the reliability and suitability of Fram as an administrator. He's not an admin, unfortunately, and has not been ever since the case you refer to. Your recommendations to the committee may need recalibration in that light.  ——Serial  12:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well thanks very much! Having been given a 500-word extension (thanks very much, by the way), you immediately wipe half of that out—literally, by restoring 252 blooming words! ——Serial 15:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Then have a case, and in it, vote for that finding, . 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.<span id="Usedtobecool:1709220366585:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Case" class="FTTCmt"> — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Clerks, I think I will need an extension after all. I have never run out of words before, and did not consider that I may not be allowed to refactor my comments to make more room when I run out. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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 WP:INVOLVED. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

In addition to the Nichalp case found by, there was also Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan which looks like it was dismissed only because Andrevan beat ArbCom to the punch with a resignation. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
We have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing. El_C 17:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No,, this is a black eye for this committee, regardless of how you frame it. But then again, nothing will happen about that because... see above. El_C 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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 and  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)

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, , 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)

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 WP:PAID while ignoring questions about WP:COI and arguing they were inappropriate: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times before admitting it here and here. Still, Joe declined to post a disclosure when asked. Joe also denied more-recent COI edits: 1, 2, 3.

There is no doubt that Joe violated the WP:COI guideline, as then-written with edits in 2016 and 2017, and possibly up to 2023, and again in 2024 by failing to disclose (perhaps multiple COIs) when asked directly.

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" ex post facto outcome. It's just a theory though, I might be wrong. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Firefly (over 500 words now): trying to avoid making a suppressible edit here, but to answer the question:
 * 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
 * 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)
 * confirm that Joe is now in compliance with COI by making all necessary disclosures
 * 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)

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 WP:HA, WP:PROBLEMLINKS, and WP:COI's line about how WP:OUTING takes precedence, as well as just how serious breaches of those rules are. I was surprised to see so many long-time users and admins engaging in behaviors that are, in my view, obviously contrary to the spirit if not the letter of those rules.

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. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
and 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)

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)

Statement by HouseBlaster
Re: firefly on what you guys can do compared to AN, I see two things: 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. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">House Blaster </b> (talk · he/him) 04:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. —Cryptic 07:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by AddWittyNameHere
Re: HJ Mitchell,

Yes, ArbCom should investigate, considering the private and off-wiki nature of the evidence involved. The community is not equipped to publicly investigate or discuss this case without either falling afoul of WP:OUTING or being forced to come to conclusions based upon incredibly limited information in spite of the known existence of further, but private, information.

As for what ArbCom should do about these allegations/its findings? In my opinion:
 * investigate;
 * confirm whether additional, not-currently-disclosed COI edits occurred;
 * clarify which articles and pages are involved if any;
 * clarify whether now-disclosed and (if any) not-yet-disclosed COI edits were "merely" against best practice or in outright violation of terms of use, policy, etc.;
 * clarify whether, based upon ArbCom's conclusions, action needs to be taken for reasons other than loss of community trust;
 * refer the decisions based on community trust back to the community after the community having been made aware of ArbCom's findings, with ArbCom implementing the outcome of that decision if necessary (e.g. if it involves actions the community does not have the technical capacity to commit or which otherwise are required to be done by ArbCom)

(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.) AddWitty NameHere  08:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * By the way, I hope someone with the necessary programming expertise can make #2 above into a reality. Set up a temporary website somewhere and let people try to identify which edits are problematic. Could even run some kind of statistical analysis to see if Nihonjoe's edits are more likely to be marked as problematic than the average editor's. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter
I do not have an opinion on 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 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 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)

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 WP:PAY. The purpose of AfD is to effect the content of the encyclopedia, so it looks like a person with a concealed COI, attempted to influence the discussion about content of the encyclopedia, and by virtue of their advanced trust could well expect to have influence. Perhaps, he should not have been there at all, but as he chose to go in, he should have only begun with, "I have a COI . . ." Trust is, yes, easily lost on this basis alone. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Statement by Dreamy Jazz
As suggested by, I have formally taken over the OS block on. I've also recused from clerking on this case. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by DanCherek
Regarding Barkeep49's accept statement, I just wanted to note (in case anyone was previously unaware) that there is precedent for ArbCom removing bureaucrat status: Nichalp was de-crat'ed in 2009, in response to community concerns about paid editing. DanCherek (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I feel that ArbCom should lean towards accepting cases involving private evidence (or other sorts of evidence that can't be discussed on-wiki) by default, unless the situation is so lopsided that there's obviously nothing to discuss (which the community reaction makes clear is not a reasonable interpretation here.) Even if ArbCom thinks they're unlikely to do anything, there are very few places where such cases can meaningfully be heard at all, which means that a rejection doesn't leave many options. Additionally, I simply don't see how anyone can look at that discussion, with its four abortive closures, and say that the community has handled this (how could they? Parts of the evidence can't be discussed!) Even if the case ultimately ends up being straightforward and little comes of it, it would salve tensions to make it clear that the evidence has been thoroughly investigated and discussed at the place intended to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by JoelleJay
Like most editors above, and for most of the same reasons, I recommend ArbCom take this case. Additionally, I ask that the expectations of both editors reporting COI to ArbCom and ArbCom itself be clarified. I think a major contributing factor to the OUTING of alleged COI editors on-wiki and on WPO is dissatisfaction with how ArbCom handles private reports. Editors sending evidence are completely in the dark as to whether we will get any further communication regarding a report, so we are left wondering: has our evidence been discussed at all? if the committee decides the evidence isn't serious enough to investigate, will we be notified with the reasoning? if a decision is made to deal with the COI privately, will we be notified of this and what the remedy was? is the committee's remedy (or lack thereof) the final say, or can editors pursue without prejudice other means of addressing the issue on-wiki e.g. by filing a public ArbCom request (obviously keeping anything private out)?

For reference: a couple months ago I submitted a report on a different COI and UPE allegation I had seen off-wiki, and apart from the initial semiautomated notice of receipt, I have not gotten any further communication about it from ArbCom. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by kashmiri
I apologise for not commenting sooner. The last two weeks discouraged me from contributing to Wikipedia, after a depressing experience of reporting this COI concern at WP:AN and a reproach from an admin for precisely following Wikipedia guidelines. I simply couldn't gather myself and restart contributing to Wikipedia meaningfully.

I'd like to make it clear that I did not want to turn it into an Arbcom case. Naturally, COI editing was always seen as an annoyance and a major reliability challenge for Wikipedia. Its prevalence has forced the community to adopt relevant policies such as WP:COI. Wikipedia also has partially incompatible policies on anonymity and outing, with the right to anonymity usually given higher rank than COI editing. However, while the community may tolerate anonymous COI violations in case of ordinary editors, my understanding is that those in a position of trust should remain transparent as regards ongoing policy violations.

In messaging with Nihonjoe, I was not at all malicious as his fellow crat Primefac (I apologise unreservedly to Primefac, it was another editor) an editor accused me in what can only be construed as a sad attempt to shoot the messenger. Instead, I encouraged Nihonjoe, rather politely I believe, to come clean on the allegations – and either deny them outright or admit an error of judgement, apologise to the community, consider relinquishing cratship in a symbolic gesture of accountability, and move on. No lengthy discussions, no storm, everyone's face largely saved.

As it's turned out, Nihonjoe was unwilling to address the allegations, quoted wrong dates ("by mistake"), misleadingly attempted to conflate WP:COI and WP:PAID, and as of this writing the community isn't yet sure whether he has declared all his COIs. All of this IMO has gone way beyond an instance of benign promotion of own employer in an article or two: we are now facing a question of admin conduct that may affect the ability to perform objectively, and/or impact on the community's perception of doing so. In these circumstances, I'm of the opinion that ArbCom should accept the case. Primefac might want to review their potential participation from the perspective of WP:INVOLVED.

I have no opinion about additional scopes, such as Fram's block, as I did not follow them. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  15:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
I think if someone from ArbCom had had commented at the AN discussion saying to email evidence to them and they will take a look, things could have gone much better (there's no reason for anyone to ask ArbCom for a case for an intervention here - ArbCom can invoke its power To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons from WP:ARBPOL). Instead a current ArbCom member shut down the discussion without the matter being resolved satisfactorily (which I understand why for privacy reasons, but that doesn't mean the issue shouldn't be handled).

This is not going to be the last time something like this happens (i.e. an offwiki website outs an editor to expose policy-violating editing), so I think ArbCom should look into creating a standardized way of handling this in a way that makes it clear to the community that this is in fact being investigated but without people feeling the need to make onwiki comments on the edge of outing (sure, people could have emailed ArbCom earlier, but per JoelleJay's comment private reports need to be handled better). Galobtter (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (COI Management Case)
It appears that ArbCom is about to accept this case, and I agree with the action. I also agree with the statement that it is very important to define the scope of the case.

Two conduct issues and one policy issue have been mentioned in this case. The original conduct issue is any conflict of interest in the past or present by Nihonjoe. The secondary issue that was mentioned was Fram and Primefac. The policy issue is the tension between conflict of interest and the policy against doxing an editor, in particular a pseudonymous editor.

First, there seems to be agreement that a case should be opened concerning possible conflict of interest by Nihonjoe. I am still not entirely sure what bureaucrats do other than to have a crat chat when an RFA is marginal, but I am aware that bureaucrats are granted an even higher degree of trust than administrators. In any case, ArbCom should have the option of desysop in this case. Maybe that is already established.

Second, I partly agree and partly disagree that the Primefac-Fram issue has been resolved. The issue of Primefac's block of Fram has been addressed by its transfer. The initial suppression of Fram's post seems to be agreed to be correct. However, in my opinion, ArbCom still should review Fram's conduct. Fram posted material that needed to be suppressed. That raises questions about Fram's judgment that may reflect on suitability to be an administrator. This is not the first time that such questions have been raised. Trust and Safety or the Foundation had some questions that resulted in their block of Fram, since reversed. They were wrong in needlessly interfering with the ability of the English Wikipedia to govern itself, but their action should be taken as a warning if not an admonition. ArbCom should review the status of Fram. It is not sufficient to leave the oversight block alone with review.

Third, it is being recognized that there is a tension between the conflict of interest policy in general and the paid editing policy in particular, and the policy against doxing. If the rule against doxing is paramount, then either ArbCom must affirm that the rules about conflict of interest and against paid editing are unenforceable, or ArbCom must verify that in camera mechanisms for dealing with and against pseudonymous paid editing are adequate. That is a false choice, because one option abandons trust in the encyclopedia, so it is essential to ensure that there are adequate procedures to deal with pseudonymous paid editing

ArbCom should accept this case, with three concerns: possible conflict of interest by Nihonjoe; the reliability and suitability of Fram as an administrator ; and the handling of reports of pseudonymous paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree
Fram is no longer an administrator. As they have indicated that they will email in future rather than post on-wiki, and been unblocked, I do not think they need to be examined any further. Primefac's involved block was a rare lapse of judgment for which he has already apologized for and pledged to do better in the future, so similarly I doubt any further investigation of this aspect of the case is necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nardog
The question of what constitutes paid editing as opposed to "simple" COI has been brought up (by Dennis Brown, Joe Roe, and Ymblanter, among others). I suspect this is something WMF Legal is more equipped to clarify than is ArbCom, as it's a matter of the terms of use rather than of local policy. Consider asking them if it's pertinent to the case. Nardog (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jessintime
On February 28, Nihonjoe denied having any conflict of interest with the author D. J. Butler. Tonight (March 4) Nihonjoe listed D. J. Butler as one of several articles for which he now has a conflict of interest -- see User:Nihonjoe/Contribs/Intro -- because he "published a collection of his short fiction." Jessintime (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)