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

Timeframe
Hi all, as previously flagged we're trying out a shorter case timeframe instead of the full six-week palaver. However, also as flagged here, we'll ask around the case parties and arbs about what to do at Christmas: whether to suspend the case for a week or so or go on through. As a point of clarification, if the case runs into the New Year then 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 quite often, for example in the Kevin Gorman case of 2015-16.

Happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that several potentially-incoming Arbitrators have already voiced their opinion on this case in answers to their election questions, while current Arbs standing for reelection all declined to comment on specifics. I don't know if that should have an impact on future Arbs joining in, I'm just tossing the thought out there for consideration. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not ideal to speculate on case outcomes before the workshop, but FWIW the candidates who commented all qualified their views by saying they'd need to review the evidence, and/or narrowed their response to case acceptance. Of course if anyone feels that a current or incoming arb isn't acting neutrally, they can (and should) ask them to recuse. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus' section
asking here because for the moment I couldn't think of a better place. I'd be interested in your views on a wider interpretation of the "admin tools" question - on the principle more than the specific outcome. Your current evidence is on the basis that the alt didn't abuse the rights it was given; the key question is more the one outlined in the first paragraph by, that the paid editing alt received userrights that it would not have got from a neutral admin (or to put that more simply, that you used your tools while conflicted). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question to Salvidrim!
 * I think absolutely there would be support in the community for disallowing admins from using their tools to facilitate their own paid editing (including such things a granting userrights directly to their alts) and it would certainly fall within the spirit of the current version of WP:COI's recommendations to make requests at PERM for a neutral editor to review the request and that would have probably been the ideal thing to do indeed. The question "would a neutral admin have granted user-rights to my paid-alt if requested in early November" I think can only be answered with "depends on the admin but I don't think this is an unambiguous no", which is to say that, lacking a policy concerning paid-editors and their user-rights, I don't think it is "obvious no admin would have granted them" at that point in time.. However, these policy discussions are currently ongoing, and in fact I think the biggest parts of it only picked up as a result of my paid-alt (and KDS444's OTRS misuse)... saying my actions violated policies that were agreed upon after the actions were posed seems a bit creative to say the least (well, technically not agreed upon yet but discussions certainly strongly towards disallowing admins to use tools to facilitate paid editing). If my actions end up leading to an evolution of policy where language is agreed upon that disallows admins from using their tools in any way shape or form for paid editing (which is highly likely) and/or restricts what user-rights paid editors are allowed to hold (haven't seen this discussed much), then perhaps this whole thing will have some modicum of a positive consequence in providing clearer guidance for the future. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to include a word or three about the fact policy discussions happened after my actions and are yet unresolved (with diffs) in the main evidence page if it helps. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was kind of hoping you'd post this in the /Evidence section so we could keep it in one place, but whatever works. By the way, let me know if you want a word limit extension. There's not many case parties so I reckon it's ok to grant extra space if needed. Same goes for anyone else. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely going to need that extension hehe :p. I'm just posting the evidence as I see fit (I collapsed a list of linked quotes for space) without counting words, let me know if you ever feel I am abusing the evidence process. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

can you point to anything besides the compromised account issue, to support the allegation of a pattern of poor conduct? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question to Beeblebrox


 * Additionally, I'm not disputing facts but I'd like to see a link to the "previous compromised accounts" situation wherein "all admins were urged to strengthen their passwords" because I think the allegation that I neglected to heed the security advice needs evidence support. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  03:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I can point to this. Both represent a serious misunderstanding of what is expected of an administrator. Like I said, I think Salvidrim is generally a fine admin, but these are two very glaring incidents where he grossly underestimated what was expected of an admin. I’ll see if I can dig up the previous wave of admin account hackings, but even if it didn’t exist, recycling your password to secure an account with multiple advanced permisssions was never a good idea. Per Administrators, which well before the account was breached read ”It is extremely important that administrators have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices. ” Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As a personal view, an invitation to find a pattern of questionable judgement would need more instances than the one-off hacking and this alleged COI. That's not to suggests that the alleged COI could not be sanctionable of itself (point of this case is to resolve that); but per (for example) the Gorman case a "pattern of previous conduct" needs a reasonable body of evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to “go after” Salvidrim and dig up anything I can, but I have also noted that sometimes the committee forgets or is unaware fo previous incidents, so my only point was to make sure they were aware of another very serious incident involving this same admin, and it seems that I’ve done that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your views, we'll consider them along with the others. However it's worth pointing out that the COI policy puts Wikipedian-in Residence editors in a specifically different category to other "paid" editors, and regards WiR as benign. Changes to that would be up to the community, not Arbcom. As a personal view I also don't see much of an analogy in : this is a case about alleged misuse of editing/admin tools in association with pay, and no such allegation has been raised against Cyberpower (or against the WiR's). It's also not an examination of paid editing per se, just into specific allegations of misconduct within the paid editing rules.
 * Comment re Deryck Chan's evidence

As above, the Committee will consider what you've posted - I suppose the purpose of this comment is to make clear that some of it is out of scope, and to ensure we're not alarming WiR's and others with the thought that they may suddenly end up as case parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni’s section
Just as a note I’ve been having internet connectivity issues that won’t be resolved until late Sunday (briefly have access now). If I contribute tomorrow it’ll likely be on my new alt (User:TBallioni). Sorry for the partially complete submissions. The internet went off earlier literally as I was typing. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And apparently the cable company gods lied to me earlier when they said it couldn't be fixed without a technician. I'm back up for now. Will try clean up my section tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I went ahead and posted the evidence that took my words over 1000 (I think I'm at 1150, depending on how you count the headers and diffs). Per your statement above, I didn't think this would be an issue, but just posting here to formally request it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems, how about 1500 per party? I'll ask around for objections. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Breach of trust?
How is the community's level of trust with Salv measured? How does TonyBallioni substantiate the statement that Salv has lost the trust of the community? Has he taken a poll?--v/r - TP 03:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a very reasonable question, and it can only truly be answered through a new RfA, which is the entire point of this case. Before this case was filed, by my count 9 different editors from different backgrounds, including several admins and functionaries, called on Salvidrim! to resign as an administrator to demonstrate he still had the community's trust. He declined to do so on his own, so we are here to determine if his actions were a severe enough violation of community trust that he needs to show that he maintains it by having a new RfA. I think they are: an admin SPI clerk violating the sock puppetry policy and former ArbCom principles on sock/meat is a massive breach of trust that would likely tank any future RfA. Re: current community consensus on this, I'll quote in his statement for the case request There seemed to be a pretty strong consensus developing that community trust has been breached here. The COIN thread had I believe 9 different editors calling for Salv to voluntarily resign and stand at a new RfA. In the case request itself, by my quick hand count the margin calling for a desysoping was 2:1 if they expressed an opinion (15-8 out of 50 statements, the rest not expressing an opinion.) That is significant and shows that there is a large portion of the community that does feel that Salv has violated the trust that they had placed in him. The only way to see if he hasn't is to have a new RfA, and I think that is justified since we have a very significant policy violation here for the purposes in evading community scrutiny. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors at COIN demanded a resignation or new RfA. Editors who have professed elsewhere that they would advocate for banning all disclosed paid editors entirely forever and ever (even if that's not what policy or consensus prescribes). If you survey people in a Planned Parenthood you're likely to find a majority of pro-choicers... if you ask people at COIN about paid editing, they may display inhenrent bias against any paid editing and latch on any mistake to demand a blood sacrifice. I'm not defending what I did as acceptable or belittling the COIN commenters or their justified concerns, I'm just saying the venue and its patrollers carry an inherent bias and I, for one, am glad that it is the more neutral ArbCom that is evaluating the situation. (Admittedly, the Case request comments you cite came from a broader slice of the community). As ArbCom said themselves, any allegation that an admin has lost the community's trust or demonstrates a pattern of conduct incompatible with adminship should always be submitted to ArbCom, since ArbCom are the only ones with the ability to adjuciate allegations of desysoppability. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, when I said the oft-cited "not today, not tomorrow, not this week", I meant that literally. Not as a metaphor for "not ever". I posted that at the same time that I was announcing a full wikibreak, and I would have likely come back after a few weeks or months of reflexion, and possibly would have submitted a new RfA by myself. I was afraid of applying a not-fully-thought-through solution to a problem that resulted from a lack of thoughtfulness so I wanted nothing more but to back off and take time to think. Unfortunately an ArbCom case was opened right away before I had the chance to take any meaningful time off to think, so... we are where we are. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you can see how not today, not tomorrow, not this week comes across? If you still feel that you would have submitted a new RfA by [yourself], perhaps stating that somewhere "for the record" would ease many minds? COIN has a bias - I wouldn't call it a bias of being anti-paid editing, but more of a bias against those who attempt to subvert our paid editing policies. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you make a good point that this might be worth wording into actual diffed evidence, perhaps if ArbCom is considering my initial hestitation to hastily commit to a re-RfA as part of their Findings?  Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's pretty much as Tony says - we don't know if the community has lost its trust in Salvidrim! (who, for the record, I've always liked and respected as an admin), but I think there is sufficient suspicion for us to need to find out. Ben does make a good point in that the COIN venue is more likely to attract opposers than supporters, and I'll readily admit to my bias in being strongly opposed to any paid editor holding advanced permissions. But even accepting that, Ben no longer knows if he still carries the community trust to continue to serve as an admin. I personally would not want to continue to serve in an admin capacity if doubt had been cast by respected editors on my trust in the eyes of the community, and I would, at the very least, seek a reconfirmation RFA. I'm disappointed that Ben does not feel the same way. As an aside, had Ben promptly handed in his admin bit, committed to not doing any more paid editing (which is something he suggested somewhere), and run a new RFA, I would see that as an honourable act and would probably be in the Support camp. His reluctance to do that puts me on the fence now, but he still has that opportunity before the ArbCom case progresses further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with you, Boing. I don't advocate that the community does, but I don't want to see a finding of fact come out of Tony's assertion without factual evidence.  Perhaps a reconfirmation RfA is needed, and Salv has already heard it from me, but we need to make sure that Tony's assertion, that 9 users represents the community, doesn't make it to a finding of fact.  I get the feeling that Tony mostly agrees that the claim is weak, I just wanted to make sure.  9 editors do not an EnWiki community make.--v/r - TP 13:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel that the claim amounts to the strong possibility that the vast majority of the community, were they to sit and read the history behind all this, would feel uneasy. I don't believe Tony has put across that it is a "known fact" that the community has lost trust in Salv (because, lets face it, I imagine the majority of the community at the moment isn't following this case) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. A finding of fact that Ben has lost community trust would clearly be wrong based on only the evidence we currently have. As far as findings of fact go, I would hope for no more than something along the line of "Sufficient doubt has been raised to require a community reconfirmation at RFA" (and, depending on Ben's representation to the community, I still hope I could support - but I do think the community should decide). And I don't even think a desysop would be needed prior to that, providing Ben agreed to accept the outcome (which I'm sure he would). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all above and I tried to word it in such a way as to show that 1) a breach of trust did occur 2) the only way to determine if Salv has the trust of the community is through a new RfA. Point one is what is important here: his actions raise a credible question as to if he still maintains the trust of the community to the point where in my opinion the community has a right to determine if they still want him to be an admin. In terms of findings of fact, I’m not sure what I’m proposing on that point, but it wouldn’t be any stronger than Salvidrim! has acted in a manner that violates the trust the community places in administrators, which I think is true, and also doesn’t make a factual claim as to community support, which we can only tell through an RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Spot on then, I think we're all on the same page.--v/r - TP 15:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to ask the question: is RfA a valid way of measuring community trust at this stage, or has it been at any point since the issue came to light? Or is it more likely that if Salv had agreed to a reconfirmation RfA at any point after the COIN thread started that it would just be a show trial where every member of the community with an opinion on paid editing could take it out on him? If it's the latter (as I expect it is) then such a discussion wouldn't be useful at all in gauging community trust. If the case arrives at a finding that Salv has acted in violation of community trust (Tony's most recent wording in this subthread) then the only appropriate remedies are either he keeps the bit with a formal admonishment, or he is desysopped. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks an awful lot like circular reasoning. A reconfirmation RfA is not a valid measure of community trust because the community does not trust the user enough for them to pass a reconfirmation RfA. Notwithstanding that most of those involved in the COIN thread were the same folks who voice an opinion on every RfA anyway, it wouldn't be any more or less of a show trial than every other RfA where every user who's ever had a negative experience shows up with a pitchfork and a highlighter.  G M G  talk   19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I believe that humans are messy in general, I think that is a dim view of the community when it actually goes to make decisions about actual people. One can only acknowledge that there are hard core, and loud, people on the "wings" of the paid editing discussion for sure that are going to !vote purely their ideology, but in my view most of the community ~can~ think about specific issues clearly.  Salvidrim and everybody should  be aware that the community has never taken it well when somebody used advanced privileges for pay as I laid out in my evidence.
 * I think there are some people who would be willing to still trust Salvidrim. There are people who will look at what he has done, including what he wrote here in this case, and will not be willing to. And yes there will be loud people on the wings. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as in real life, I don't think you can necessarily assume that people will always "vote" as their assumed ideology would indicate they will. For instance, I'm very strongly opposed to paid editing -- I think you know that -- so I was disappointed in hearing about Salvadrim!'s actions, and called for him to resign the bit.  (Not necesaarily the paid editing per se, but the actions surrounding it, which I think are rather inevitable to come up when an admin is paid to edit.)  However, if he was to stand for RfA again, with a statement that he would not do any paid editing in the future, I would be extremely likely to vote in support of that candidacy, because I've found him to be a good and helpful admin in the past.  My anti-paid editing ideology would not prevent me from doing what I think is best for the project, which would better off with him as an admin than not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is what i mean. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Evidence removal?
removed evidence from Tony's section .... the same evidence which has been presented in my own section, in the case request, and on COIN. Not sure what that is about? Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * contacted me about this off-wiki, and I'll let him post here about it. The objections I do have here are that it was implied in the edit summary by that the evidence was inadmissible (I take privacy very seriously, so wouldn't have intentionally posted inadmissible evidence if I had known it wasn't wanted here). The other thing is that my words were pasted together together by excising parts of a sentence rather than just simply removing it all. I've removed it all myself because without the rest of the prose it simply is a statement taken out of context and implies that the focus of my statement was about Soetermans. I don't mind having a clerk take appropriate actions, I do mind having a sentence I never wrote with a different tone placed instead. I don't mean to be pissy, I just think Kostas should take care with his actions. (Also, just to note, Euryalus was great in his email, and I personally don't have any issues with the action itself, just that it wasn't exactly implemented in the best way). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * of course I do not believe it was done intentionally and I am really sorry if the edit summary gave you this impression (although inadmissible merely means that this evidence cannot be accepted, at least not publicly and doesn't imply bad faith or so) Regarding the refactoring, it seems that removing the whole thing would have been better, so my apologies on that --Kostas20142 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But the evidence isn’t inadmissible. It was simply supposed to be removed from here. Inadmissible implies will not be considered, which I have been assured by Euryalus isn’t the case. As I told him via email, I was glad he contacted me before you removed otherwise I wouldn’t have known what was going on based on your edit summary (and Salv seems to be in that boat. All I’m asking is that you choose your words carefully. This is an admin behavior case on one of the most contentious community issues. People shouldn’t have to expect an arbitrator to clarify the meaning of what a clerk did on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed clarification would be nice on whether it's admissible or not because it has been removed from Tony's section but not mine................... so are you saying it's not okay for Tony to present the evidence, or that it shouldn't be presented at all? Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not presented at all on-wiki, for everyone. So, can you please refactor your section appropriately? --Kostas20142 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we get an arb to clarify this. It’s become a mess. I don’t mind my stuff being removed, but this was just implemented poorly by Kostas. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all. Its not inadmissible, just better that where evidence even tenuously links accounts with real-life identities, we receive and consider that privately. There's no harm done in this instance, it's an "abundance of caution" thing. -- Euryalus (talk)
 * I understand the community and ArbCom's abundance of carefulness w/r/t WP:OUTING but I'm really hoping nobody's worried about that in my case, my stuff literally cannot be more public and wide open than it already is. :p Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate that. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Clarification on the facebook messenger thing in case there is any ambiguity. A link to it was first posted by Salvidrim! in this diff where Salvidim wrote: "...here is the chatlog of my talk with Soetermans about the AfC drafts (released with his consent of course)...". Please also be aware that Soetermans also wrote, in his first comment on-WP on these matters, here: " explained a lot of the situation on your talk page. .... I had my doubts (as you can see in the screenshot of our Facebook messenger conversation), but I did it anyway. ..." and a bit later wrote at COIN the following: "...When  asked me I had my concerns (see this screenshot from our Facebook messenger conversation). I thought that ..."
 * The facebook chat has been linked in WP by both people involved in it and obviously with the consent of both people.
 * WP:HA is absolutely clear on this - if people voluntarily make off-WP stuff available on-WP then referring to it is fine.
 * I could see some valid (in spirit) objection being made to suppress this if it were disclosed either accidentally or in some other context and is being referenced here in some way differently than how the disclosure was intended to be used. But they both posted this information in WP very specifically for the community, in public, in response to the matters being discussed here.   Suppressing it actually frustrates their intended purpose in posting it.
 * Whether Arbcom will consider that screencap to be accurate and a complete disclosure of what they discussed is another matter, but there is no violation of privacy. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, we have a copy of the screenshot and it will be considered. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. It would be ... unfortunate if Arbcom bases whatever decision it makes in part on the disclosed messenger chat but refuses to say that because it considers the chat record to be "private". As you know some of the controversy around Arbcom decisions in the past has been due to Arbcom coming out with a decision but being unable/unwilling to explain it due to privacy concerns.  There is no need for that here, with regard to this piece of evidence. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't particularly mind the presence of the messenger post, especially as its been publicly acknowledged by both parties to it. But abundance of caution and all that. In the spirit of transparency there's also been a couple of other bits of private evidence submitted, which in at least one case contain personal information which can't really be reposted here. It's not super-secret stuff, but it does contain identifiable info about an individual. We'll anonymise the allegation and ask the relevant party about it, probably tomorrow. But I doubt the case will hang on this piece of evidence alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog section
2 things.


 * I have asked User:JacobMW to give evidence. See User_talk:JacobMW.
 * I don't know if Arbcom is considering the timeline provided at COIN as part of the evidence already, or not. If the committee would prefer that it be included in the evidence section here in the case, I can copy/paste it into my evidence section. Just let me know (and I will assume that a "yes please do" means it is allowed per the limits on length and links) and that no response means that it is being considered and there is no need to include it here. (it would just be silly if the decision didn't use it due to lack of it being hosted here)  Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. Agree with the point about no obligation to be involved.
 * Yes that timeline (and the following conversation) are useful. Way too long to paste the entire thing into evidence - do you reckon you could just add a link to it with a sentence or so on the contents? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, I will add a bullet to do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Word count is really long there - can you maybe trim the quotes a little? Also, I might add you as a party so we can get you to the propsoed 1500-word limit. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know if my opinion on this counts for anything, but considering the discussion started on Jytdog's talk page and he was very involved with the COIN thread (timeline and all) I think being a party would be justifiable. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your opinion counts for a fair bit. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can trim, i was just thinking it was too preachy anyway. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cut down to ~550. Enough I hope? Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More than enough, thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:TParis I understand that you have strong feelings (and hurt ones) about paid editing. But we make it hard to desysop admins to give them protections to make hard decisions in the course of their work serving the community.  What is going on here with Salv is nothing like that.  He selfishly used the bit for personal gain - with bad judgement on several levels that he now acknowledges. But then he made another selfish decision, going into litigation mode to try to keep his bit, trying to wrangle the protections we give admins to his favor.
 * I really get it that you have bones to pick on the paid editing thing, but in my view this is not the place to pick them. Please don't go further down that path. It is not good for you or anybody in my view. Please reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your sensitivity toward my position is always very appreciated. Even when we disagree, you always come off like a genuine person.  But, in this case, I think it's misplaced.  I've already expressed to Salv my feelings on the PERM issue and suggested a reconfirmation RfA.   I'm more concerned about a weak claim making it to a finding of fact than I am about championing a cause.  A claim was made about Salv's level of support from the community based on 9 edtors in a COIN discussion.  The COI Noticeboard & the COI talk page are, also, full of people who have strong feelings about paid editing.  A broader discussion in an appropriate noticeboard, such an AN, would've determined the community's level of trust.  Or an RFC/U if we still had such things.  As long as there isn't a finding of fact without supporting evidence, there is no problem.  Anyway, once again, I appreciate your sensitivity toward my feelings.--v/r - TP 14:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I agree that in a context like this in which people are making cases, rhetoric gets pushed too hard on all sides sometimes.   None of us should be in this context.  I have been wondering if we should take a poll at WP:AN to take the temperature of fellow admins (not to seek action).  I am not sure that would be appropriate .... Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I already suggested to Salv privately that he do this in an RFC/U style. I don't want to speak for him, but said he felt it may be seen as undermining this Arbcom case were he to do it now.  Don't hold him to my paraphrasing, but what do you think?--v/r - TP 14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to Salvidrim taking some action at this point... If Salvidrim wants to take some different action himself, in my view Salvidrim's best hope to keep his bit at this point is to resign and go for a new RfA, which would show that he trusts the community and will listen to its consensus, and follow it. Which enough people might find persuasive enough to support him.
 * He could ask Arbcom to table this while he takes a poll and promise to resign if the outcome is anything other than normal RfA level support... but I think this would be seen negatively, as asking the community to take yet more time on him and as twisting whatever forum he chooses to this strange purpose (we got rid of RfC/U as you know, so some other forum would need to be.... bent to this purpose)... and the outcome would probably be negative.
 * If you or me or somebody else were to take a straw poll at AN this would be about gathering evidence to read on this Arbcom case, and that would be a different matter.... Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I am unaware of anybody with the bit going to RfA to do a "confirmation" and if so how consensus is assessed in that context. Has such a thing ever been done? (I don't follow RfA closely so am not aware.  If there is no precedent this would be a 'bending' of that forum, which is what i meant above, and why i am saying "resign then RfA" in which case the RfA would be just like any other, in terms of a non-admin asking to be made one and normal assessment of consensus)  Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There was one done here, though in that case User:HJ Mitchell did hand in his bit first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe Sarek has done one too. Generally, the way it is closed it determined by the candidate.  Others may feel differently, believing that 60% is needed to reconfirm trust.  It's not a defined process which is why we have Arbcom to remove the bit if needed.--v/r - TP 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

that is quite a history There is somebody who is very human and very self-aware. Has some character issues but worked with the community to manage them. Yes, this is what we want admins to be like.
 * WP:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 30 June 2008 made admin
 * WP:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 the "confirmation RfA" made voluntarily, directly in the wake of what HJ Mitchell did and referring to it. Passed with a strong warning.  10 May 2011
 * WP:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3 after ArbCom decision that came close to de-sysopping him, voluntarily gave up the bit, went for RfA 10 months later, and failed. 27 January 2014
 * WP:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 4 succeeded. 20 February 2015

Whether it makes sense for Salvidrim to ask Arbcom to table this while he does a "confirmation RfA" (or maybe RfCA) is up to him. Whether Arbcom would agree to table this, and if they agree to, what Arbcom would choose to do after the RfCA was closed and after Salvidrim then would take whatever action he would take, would also be Arbcom's decision.

I think it is an interesting option, now that I know there is precedent and I encourage Salvridrim to do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should really ping User:SarekOfVulcan since we talking about him. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would be interested in your thoughts on this whole thing if you care to give them somewhere, Sarek. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not, at this point. I might later, if need be. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AFC submission
Is there a link to the original AFC submission that's now being disputed? Thanks. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See the timeline at COIN. It has all the diffs. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See my section for more details. The original AFC submission, Datari Turner, was deleted, as was Dan Weinstein (business executive), but you can still see the history of the third at Reza Izad. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. I found the AfD for Datari Turner and that satisfied me that the article wasn't up to snuff.  If it had been any good I'd consider bypassing the AfC bureaucracy to be unobjectionable, but here, yeah, there's a problem.  173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I disagree with that. Based on the same evidence you've seen -- that is, I cannot se the deleted article -- and after doing some research on the Internet, I think it's more likely than not that the subject was notable, and should have an article. However, in my mind that really doesn't excuse the actions under review here, which are really the issue, not the suitability of the article.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, I found a garbled-up snapshot of the article off-wiki and can't speak to notability but will say it wasn't as obviously spammy as some of the stuff we see sometimes. But, my own experience at AfC is that it (maybe not rightly) imposes a significantly higher standard than "this would probably survive AfD".  By that criterion, since the Turner article failed AfD, it might well not have passed an independent AfC. Still, I don't agree with Jytdog's picture at /Evidence of the "spirit of AfC".  AfC was created to prevent attack/hoax BLP's (viz. Seigenthaler) from being created by non-logged-in users, and expanded in scope to keep out spam and provide some guidance to new editors writing unsuitable articles.  But it's already gone overboard even at that, so I wouldn't want to widen its perceived authority even further. BMK, if you want to see the article and reach your own conclusion, you might ask at WP:REFUND to get it restored to draft space or userfied.  That would allow seeing the original submission too. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Response to Softlavender's evidence
As brief as possible a response to elements in 's evidence:
 * I don't think it's fair to take a sentence snippet out of my self-nom and decide it was "my main rationale"
 * I said "I don't find off-wiki sleuthing as abhorrent as others do", which you quoted, but then referred "my love of off-wiki sleuthing" -- that's a huge leap.
 * I literally didn't know the comment had been deleted before you mentioned it had been (presumably by subreddits mods?), but I'm sure GW as an Arb can relate their contents accurately.
 * Calling the tweet "an attack" seems like quite a stretch... "I'm kinda sad that someone whose work I respect (@molly0x57) seems to hate who I am and what I do. :( Although she has clearly expressed why" - sure it was a mistake tagging her because she and others sensed it as an attempt to "rally my posse" against here (notwithstanding the fact I have no such posse and am barely on Twitter).
 * Of course some insist on shining a spotlight on the fact I accidentally clicked "rollback" instead of "thanks" on Soetermans' user page, but neglect to mention I immediately self-reverted the misclick because that would defeat their rethoric that it wasn't a simple misclick
 * The first instant of contact with MisterWiki was shown to ArbCom when I submitted as private evidence my e-mail exchanges with Jacob, including the first e-mail ever. Soetermans told me Jacob had asked if I could e-mail him about an issue he hoped I could help with, and I did e-mail Jacob asking what was the issue he needed help with. (Ended up being about changing an artist's music genre, which I declined to do and instead explained WP:GENREWARRIOR and policies to Jacob).
 * Your closing remarks mention "COI evasions, errors of judgment, and policy violations" but your evidence does not include the latter (policy violations), so maybe there is a section that you forgot to post? Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to from Softlavender

 * RfB rationale in full:


 * So.... RfB? Are these even still a thing? In the past years I've had a few people, including crats, ask me to run for RfB (Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34 regular, it's where stuff with the best interesting-to-stupid-drama ratio happens''', and if I'm gonna be active there anyways, maybe having to preface every comment with is a bit silly.  (bolding mine to show where I took the "main rationale" -- my exact words)

Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * However the main reason I think I'll accept the suggestion to run for 'cratship is that as a WP:BN regular, it's where stuff with the best interesting-to-stupid-drama ratio happens, and if I'm gonna be active there anyways, maybe having to preface every comment with is a bit silly. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of the most-recent Reddit post, the fact that even Reddit (which is awash with things like graphic dick pics) deleted it, if that is the case (it was posted 8 months ago and still existed in late November, so why is it gone now?), shows how bad it was. I read the post myself and it was worse than I described (I don't think it's appropriate to put the details -- they are pretty scandalous -- on this page but I can e-mail ArbCom and GW can confirm). One RfB !voter (in addition to GorillaWarfare) characterized it as "criminal activity" . -- Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of the tweet, GorillaWarfare experienced it as an attack:, . -- Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your diff does not support your assertion that this was an attack (or perceived as such). Evidence is meant to be factual, no place for flowery language, interpretation or paraphrasing. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since GorillaWarfare is the only person who can accurately characterize how she experienced the Tweet when it occurred, I'll ping her:, can you clarify here? I realize you have recused yourself from this case, but surely you can opine on this. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I felt it was an attempt to draw outside attention (from his Twitter followers) to me. I wouldn't necessarily call it an "attack" since the language of the tweet wasn't attacking me, but it did seem threatening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response GorillaWarfare; I've changed it to "call out of" which seems the simplest wording for that. Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable way to put it, thanks :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of the revert on Soetermans' userpage, Jytdog called you out on it on his usertalk and only now are you saying it was meant to be a "thanks". Nor did Soetermans receive any thanks from you anywhere near that date (20 October):  --Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "only now are you saying it was meant to be a thanks" ...... 20-Nov: Meant to hit thanks, accidentally hit Rollback Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then why didn't you say that on Jytdog's talkpage? You blew him off, and didn't post that explanation on the COIN board (which I didn't check minutely) until 14 hours later, 4 hours after Jytdog had closed his talkpage thread. Softlavender (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He initially asked about it, I blew it off as a simple mistake in-between Jytdog and me discussing other actual issues because a misclicked revert which I instantly undid was just so amazingly trivial amongst the rest of the situation, and only when he rementioned it on COIN did I realize Jytdog really wondered whether something nefarious had gone down so I added precision to my explanation. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  22:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I've removed it. (I removed rather than struck in order to reduce word count; if you'd prefer that I kept it and struck it instead, let me know.) Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

evidence phase closes soon
Hello. I would like to inform parties and other interested contributors that the evidence phase will close at 15 December, 23:59. After that time, new evidence may not be accepted. However your contribution at workshop phase is still welcome. --Kostas20142 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)