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

Kostas20142's section
I would like to ask all you that intend to participate at workshop to give to your subsections titles that summarize and reflect their content. Leaving the template as name makes linking to them practically impossible. If you need some ideas on how to name them, you can take a look at here or here. The first link is from the workshop phase and the second from proposed decision phase of a recent case. would you mind fixing it when you have time? --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus' section
A quick point on workshops. I think the workshop is the most important part of the case, because it's where the real debate should occur on a) what a case is really about, and b) how seriously we should treat each allegation. It's also the most unpleasant part of a case, because some case parties will feel like their positive contributions are disregarded, their errors held up to impossible scrutiny and their future editing hit with draconian penalties. A degree of this negativity is unavoidable if there's to be a full and frank discussion of the case. But at the risk of sounding soft-hearted: apologies in advance for any hurt feelings, and a general urging for everyone (Arbs, the community, case parties) to avoid hyperbole and back up proposed remedies with references to the evidence.

In a continuation of a practice from 2015, NYB or I are likely to post some proposals in the workshop. The aim is to ensure a wide range of views are presented and discussed so the PD stage contains no surprises. It also aims to foster discussion. Please note there is no difference in status between workshop proposals presented by Committee members and those presented by other parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Question
I don't remember ever have commenting on or contributing to an ArbCom proceeding before so the various ins&outs of the various sections is a little daunting (plus the sheer page size...). What I need to know is if there is a place to just make some comments-in-general? I stumbled upon this case last week and don't have proposed remedies or enforcement or findings of fact but I do have a reaction, as an editor and as a member of the editing community. I think that General discussion would be the appropriate place to post but wanted to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, general discussion section may be used for comments related to the page. Feel free to post them there. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx . Yeah I just have some thoughts, not really enough for my own whole section of findings-of-fact/proposals/remedies/etc.  Just had noticed that General discussion didn't have any posts yet so wasn't sure where I should contribute. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Unorganized Mess
This is starting to look like an unorganized parade of silly findings of fact to contradict other findings of fact. I'm now 4 for 4 on calling out 's and 's FoF as inappropriate. Can I ask you two, and especially Toni because I'm pretty sure Jytdog gets it at this point, to base FoF on diffs & policies. FoF should be backed up by diffs found in the "evidence" phase. Not raw feelings, inferences, intuitions, and guesswork. Please stop mucking up the Workshop with nonsense. That's not how Arbcom works and you'll be sorely disappointed with the outcome if you don't adjust your vector quickly. You're supposed to start with evidence, build FoF and principals, and then remedies on that. You don't start at the remedies and then try to build the foundation for it. That's why you're not finding support from Arbs. You want Salv desysop'd and you're ignoring policies and favoring guidelines and guesses that support your wants rather than building up. You're making a really poor case.--v/r - TP 16:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We disagree here: mine are very tightly construed and based on diffs and policy, and most of them have received positive feedback from either arbs or the community. There are some that are more contentious, but we are working them out. You might disagree with my interpretation of the evidence, as is your prerogative, but they are valid interpretations. Also, please spell my name correctly. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am mistaken, TParis, but my understanding is that the proposals are exactly that. If Arbcom doesn't find them useful, they will not adopt them and they will just be dead proposals. That is how I have been treating this.  If I am misunderstanding something please let me know.
 * I do understand that there are very different views on this case and even what evidence is relevant. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TParis I also want to add, that you and I ~seem~ to have a shared view of what Salvidrim should have done, and should do even now.  The problem is what to do, when an admin won't do what they should do.  I don't know that bringing this to Arbcom was the optimal next step after COIN, but it is what happened and where we are.  If we can get this matter dealt with here completely, then that would be less community time taken up with these matters which as I have noted arise totally from Salvidrim pursuing his own interests above the community's (not him doing the work of the community but controversially) and other people being upset with that, in various ways.  If Arbcom will only look at a narrow scope and that leaves fundamental issues unaddressed that people will want yet more discussion about at AN or elsewhere, then that will be what it will be.  Yet more time sucked, but what it will be.
 * So yes, I am unambiguously framing this case as broadly as I can, understanding full well that Arbom may choose a narrower scope. I understand that you don't agree with that, but I wanted to explain where I am coming from. What I don't understand, is how you see all this being resolved.  I would appreciate hearing that, if you would like to say it. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an argument that we stop the Arbcase and I'm not arguing for you to change your views. I'm just trying to suggest that your FoF need a bit of work if you want them to be successful.  That's all.--v/r - TP 04:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I tend to think that Wikipedia in its entirety is an unorganized mess. { But the bottom line is that the drafting Arbs will decide what to use and what not to use – and what does not get used will be quickly forgotten. However, I do note that nearly everyone's findings of fact do not include diffs repeated from the evidence page. I vividly remember a stink about that issue in an earlier case a few years ago, and I'm just making note of the fact that, in practice, there is a noticeable lack of consistency over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors PLURAL
Just a note in passing that almost all FoFs/remedies focus on only me but ArbCom chose to open the case about "Mister Wiki Editors", not about "Salvidrim" -- I don't object to renaming the case to "Salvidrim" if that's what ArbCom thinks is best, but the Workshop should follow the case scope and naming either way. Ben · Salvidrim!  &#9993;  18:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * People are writing proposals based on what they see as the core issues. In my view the issues with Soetermans were fully resolved on November 20; this case is happening because you are an admin, and is about unresolved issues about your behavior and privileges here.  There is a plural in the case title, in my view, because part of what you did involved the MEAT/canvassing thing with another Mister Wiki editor. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, I agree with everthing you're saying :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A general thought and a proposal
I said this in the workshop but I just wanted to call it out more broadly. Lots of folks think this case is about whether admins can/should edit for pay, and I worry some that people will look back on this (whatever way it comes out) as some kind of precedent.

I have actually been looking out for two kinds of good test cases for some time now. One would be an editor with a COI (or a paid editor) who declares but edits directly, all the time, and they actually are able to produce decent, policy-compliant content almost all the time. (In other words, they consistently choose Wikipedia's interests over their external interest). Would the community be OK with that? (I think it would... but so much would depend on the quality of their editing generally...).

The other is an admin who edits for pay commercially and doesn't do things like Nalchamp and Wifione, and sockpuppet and violate NPOV so blatantly.... but instead behaves and edits pretty well. How will the community deal with that?

This case, is not a good test case for the latter. Salvidrim's own paid editing per the paid account's contribs lasted only three weeks and didn't progress much beyond moving articles around, uploading some pics and adding them to articles, and using talk or AfD pages. The experiment foundered before it really got off the ground due to specific judgements, attitudes, and arguments that everybody (including Salvidrim) recognize were bad.... and then exploded into this when (in my view) some of that same bad judgement and attitude got expressed about what should happen next (namely, Salvidrim not seeking community validation of his bit). That conversation would have been interesting, but would also have been anchored to the specifics of what happened here as well as the rest of Salvidrim's behavior in WP. It also would have been specific.

Because of its specifics, the case cannot be used to generalize. Except maybe as yet another example -- one among very many here in WP and in the real world -- that COI (including that acquired by taking on a paying client) really can and often does affect one's judgement. But that is nothing novel, and really has nothing to do with Salvidrim being an admin who edited/edits for pay commercially.

In any case, the problems that have arisen in the past (and this one) have all happened when people didn't disclose that they were editing for pay when they got the bit, or started editing for pay after they got it. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Workshop phase closure
I would like to remind everyone that the Workshop phase closes at 23:59 22 December 2017. Please submit your proposals or comment on the already existing ones until then. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence Workshop ;) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Would some little arb or clerk like to add a correction on the workshop page?
I just noticed this. Jytdog posted a proposed principle about "Expectations of admins", namely "Administrators are expected to use the tools with careful judgment and to lead by example, are accountable to the community, and are meant to be extremely careful with the security of their accounts." The three users who commented on this agreed, except that they protested against the "careful with the security of their accounts", as none of them were aware of Salvidrim!'s account ever being compromised. I went to point out that it was compromised in 2015, under circumstances indicating a lack of care, as described in Beeblebrox's evidence. But it turns out the workshop is closed. Not a huge deal, but can Bishzilla add a comment, please? Or some other little clerk? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Given we're voting on a proposed decision at the moment it's probably not too relevant or necessary to change it, especially given that it's recorded on the evidence page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)