Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione

Statement by Lukeno94

 * This is pretty open-and-shut. All the evidence one needs to place an indefinite ban is present at Editor review/Wifione, and Wifione's only defence in the recent ANI has been a hilarious WP:BADSITES-based one, where everyone who happens to comment at WO must be a sheep toeing the "party line". Some of the evidence is highlighted clearly in diffs in that thread as well. Wikipedia has enough paid shills as it is; we should be actively banning the ones who do get caught (this is not the same as paid editing, by the way) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that Wifione has directly, and nakedly, stated their intention to delete and obfuscate that editor review here. Not only that, Wifione appears to be an abuse filter manager - which makes it very easy for them to censor criticism. If they do delete the editor review, then I will repost it in my userspace straight away. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Wifione: Your words in the ANI thread do not lie. You absolutely did threaten to delete your editor review, and there is absolutely no other way of interpreting "Why don't you or Andrew make a copy before I delete it? For your benefit, I'll keep it as-is for a couple of days more." Just in case you try and obfuscate that, I've saved the entirety of ANI from that post's time, and will add the whole section to my userspace if you do try and hide the ANI thread. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Only in Death: Whether direct admin bit abuse has occurred not is both academic and irrelevant at this point. Behaviour of this kind absolutely warrants both a desysopping and a full-on site ban - we cannot allow administrators who have a history of abusing the system to retain their bit, particularly when it comes to BLPs, which Wifione has a large history of inserting extremely inappropriate content to, and censoring others. Allowing Wifione to remain on this site as an admin, or indeed at all, sends out a message to everyone that it is OK to be a paid shill, and it is OK to violate several of the core policies of this site, and that we won't do anything about it. To suggest that desysopping is not warranted suggests that you've not looked at any evidence whatsoever. Also, premature Arbcom case? This should've happened 6-12 months ago, when Wifione tried to avoid all of the awkward questions from their editor review. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I can find a dubious block that isn't related to this case at all, and is in fact very recent indeed. User:Matt 20123 was blocked indefinitely for "Repeated removal of warning notices without acknowledgement; disruption suspected in future", despite the user talk page policy only restricting the removal of unblock requests - something the user did not remove, and indeed, had never posted. Indeed, removing warning notices is explicitly stated as "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." This block also came two days after the user had last edited anything in mainspace, and less than 24 hours into an existing block. Extremely poor indefinite block that was punitive, not preventative, as the user had no chance to reform post-block. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dusti; I agree with Nsk92's assessment of the case's current status. ANI cannot decide if a desysopping is required or not, let's not forget. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dusti: There doesn't need to be obvious evidence of tool misuse if the user has been manipulating Wikipedia in pretty appalling ways to further their POV. Besides, I pointed out above an extremely dodgy block that shows a poor grasp of the blocking policy; Wifione was clearly listening, as they unblocked/reduced the block (don't remember exactly which) within about half an hour. This user is not fit to be on Wikipedia, and certainly not to be an admin. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Brief comment by Biblioworm
I have absolutely no involvement in this whatsoever, but I wanted to say that Wifi should not be allowed to delete his editor review. Doing so would be evasion of accountability. -- Biblio worm  19:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
While there are many issues at play here, I think Arbs should pay close attention to the potential WP:BLPCOI issues regarding this editor. There has been persistent editing by various COI parties to sanitize the BLP of a person from one institution, while simultaneously seeking to trash the BLP of someone from a rival institution. Wifione has engaged in the same behavior, including being the original author of the trashed BLP who added the various attacks against the individual in the first place, and is possibly also a COI party given certain clues. Articles pertaining to this potential COI appear to be the focus of most of Wifione's article contributions and so any avoidance of accountability on the matter should be addressed forcefully. At the bare minimum Wifione should not be allowed anywhere near this topic, though I expect a desysopping would be in order as well given the severity of the misconduct. I take no stance on whether the conduct is severe enough to warrant a ban from Wikipedia altogether, though there is obviously precedent for that sort of response even when it concerns an admin.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
As all issues are bog-standard editing issues (COI, NPOV etc etc) of which there is ample evidence, a simple topic ban from the areas would suffice. This is well within the ability of AN/ANI to impose (I did actually propose it, but any discussion or investigation was effectively cut off by this premature request for arbitration). As there is no accusation of admin-bit misuse, there is no need for arbcom involvement at this time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Nsk92
I disagree with both Only in Death and Lukeno94 in their characterization of this case. @Only in Death: I don't believe this case is suitable for an easy resolution at ANI. The issues and conflicts raised here have festered for a number of years and to an uninitiated observer, such as myself, they appear to be fairly complex. DGG's comments at Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management are illuminating in this regard and they show, in my opinion, why this is not a very easy case to figure out. I think it requires greater care and more in-depth analysis than an ANI discussion usually allows, and ArbCom seems to me to be the right venue for sorting things out in this case. @Lukeno94: by the same token, this does not appear to me to be an "open-and-shut" case, not at all. I have read through Editor review/Wifione and also read the wikipediocracy article mentioned in the statement of Maunus (Maunus' statement seems to have been removed since then). There are a number of accusations raised against WifiOne in various places. The more explosives of these seem to be: that WifiOne is actually Nichalp; that WifiOne has engaged in undisclosed paid editing; that WiFiOne has an undisclosed substantial COI related to the locus of this dispute. In Editor review/Wifione WiFiOne has unequivocally denied all of these. If some of WiFiOne's opponents wishing to participate in this case do maintain that some of the above mentioned charges are true, they need to say so directly and unequivocally in this RFAR request and provide some supporting evidence here, with diffs, (and not simply refer to previous threads elsewhere). The remaining charges seem to be that WiFiOne has engaged in POV pushing and some BLP manipulation to advance a particular POV. These are very serious accusations, but they are also usually the hardest to prove. Vejvančický's statement above does a fairly good job in laying the ground for some of these charges, and I must admit that I find the information presented by Vejvančický very troubling. Still, IMO, this is not the sort of a situation that could be described as an "open-and-shut" case, and the exasperation evident in DGG's comments at Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management underscores the difficulty in untangling what's what here. If WiFiOne's opponents, including Lukeno94, have some extra direct evidence, in terms of diffs, timeline, editing patterns, etc, in addition to what is given in Vejvančický's statement above, they should certainly provide it here. You can't expect the arbs to wade through the links to the various prior discussion threads on their own if you want the ArbCom to accept this case. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dusti: I suggest that you read through the current ANI thread and the links listed by Guy Macon at the start of Editor review/Wifione, including User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_152. Do you really think that more AN/ANI discussions would do any good here?  I think Jehochman's description of the situation in his comments above is correct. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion from SB_Johnny
A rather large and thorough collection of evidence regarding this case is publicly available on Wikipediocracy, and frankly I can't see how going through the motions of a full case will yield anything more than arbitrarily scheduled weeks strife, drama, and public spectacle. I strongly recommend the committee privately consider the option of passing a motion or motions before endorsing a case. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 02:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dusti (uninvolved)
The information and dispute here haven't gone through any other dispute resolution processes unless I'm missing something. AN and/or AN/I haven't sufficiently been used to try passing any appropriate topic bans, etc. as stated by someone above who tried doing so but that discussion was cut short by someone jumping the gun and filing an ArbCom case. All I see here is an upset crowd throwing allegations, of which there's no actual allegation of abuse of the admin bit. There are other sufficient avenues that we should try first. This falls outside of the purview of ArbCom at the moment I feel. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be completely missing something, and forgive me if I am, but - I'm not seeing any allegations of administrator tool abuse, so why would desysoping be necessary? Dus<b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 02:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
I'm actually inclined to support Wifione, insofar as it pertains to the question of whether or not he is a paid editor on behalf of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management. The whole point of AGF is that we base dispute resolution around the presumption of innocence. Unless there is incontrovertible evidence that Wifione is engaged in paid editing &mdash; not just editorial tendencies or things that can be chalked up to mere coincidence &mdash; I do not think he should be desysopped or banned. Is it possible for someone to have a strong bias pertaining to a specific topic without having any direct affiliation with it? Absolutely, and it's important to remember that Wifione likely saw himself as attempting to prevent the perception of bias in the articles referenced at his editor review. The fact that he has at least responded to the concerns raised shows that he is someone who can be reasoned with. Having said that, I think it would be best if he agreed to a voluntary restriction against editing pages related to IIPM or Almaty University, broadly construed. Those are the areas in which his edits have been questioned, so ceasing his activities there should resolve the issue at large.

I disagree with a number of other commentators who believe that this can be handled via motion as opposed to a full case. We're not just looking into whether or not Wifione's edits are biased; he stands accused of paid advocacy, which is a far more serious allegation and brings the credibility of his edits into question. A case is needed to determine whether these accusations have genuine merit. It would also give prospective participants the opportunity to provide the committee with any relevant non-public information, assuming such evidence exists. Kurtis (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Wifione (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Smallbones at 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification Fluffernutter
 * diff of notification Bilby
 * diff of notification Jayen466
 * diff of notification HJ Mitchell


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione
 * Please delete this princple, or copyedit it to "6) ... The Committee ...has... a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry ..." where the ... indicate words I've removed.

Statement by Smallbones
The principle seems to say that we do not have a policy on undisclosed paid editing or that ArbCom and admins cannot even consider enforcing the current policy WP:Terms of use and guideline WP:COI (1st section which repeats the relevant part of the ToU), or perhaps not even any part of the ToU.

WP:Terms of use is clearly Wikipedia policy, stating so itself (since 2009), and being categorized as such, and in a policy navigation box. Denying that this is policy, would be creating policy by fiat, and be a constitutional crisis for Wikipedia (i.e. ToU don't apply here). The principle was not needed to decide the case, so there is no need to even appear to be denying that WP:Terms of use can be considered by ArbCom.

The thread at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision discusses this at great length. It says everything that needs to be said IMHO. But do note that IMHO 3 arbs expressed some level of agreement or sympathy with my position in that thread. I'll inform all non-arb participants of that thread, listed above, about this request but don't really think they need to expand upon what they've already said.


 * I'm sorry to repeat myself from the talk page thread, but I just don't understand how anybody can say that WP:Terms of use is not currently a Wikipedia policy.
 * the page itself states "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."
 * it is listed at List of policies
 * and at Policies and guidelines
 * it is categorized at Category:Wikipedia policies‎
 * and at Category:Wikipedia legal policies‎
 * and listed on the template:legal policy list
 * the relevant section here is repeated word-for-word at WP:COI, a guideline, and ArbCom does enforce guidelines when necessary.


 * I also find it disturbing that folks will say that there is no consensus for the policy when the largest RfC in history was conducted less than a year ago with 80% of the respondents supporting the change to the ToU. The fact that it was conducted, as required by the ToU, on meta rather than en Wikipedia, strikes me at best as a technicality.


 * Now I don't understand the distinction being put forward between accepting WP:Terms of use as policy, but saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce it.
 * As I understand it ArbCom has the power to enforce any persistent violation of policy. This is supported by Policies and guidelines


 * "In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."


 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

, just a small correction, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies does list the TOU as policy:

"Policies

These are all official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikimedia wikis

These policies, in addition to the terms of use, apply to all Wikimedia wikis." (my italics)

, I just can't imagine somebody seriously writing "the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding."

The "WMF's unilateral tweaking" was the largest RFC in history. 1103 users (79.4%) supported the change to the TOU and only 286 against it. That's 4 supports for every 1 against. Folks who say that there is no community support for the TOU either haven't paid attention or want to exclude a large number of the members of our community. If anyone - arbs or otherwise - want to change the outcome so that the TOU is no longer policy, the TOU describe how they can do that. It certainly hasn't been done yet. There's no requirement that another RFC has to be run so that policy can be enforced. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter
The Wikimedia Terms of Use are English Wikipedia policy. That is made clear in a number of places, including the Terms of Use themselves, the English Wikipedia page that redirects to the Terms of Use, and our own conflict of interest guideline. The Wikimedia Terms of use prohibit undisclosed paid editing, in very exacting terms. The Terms of Use also spell out exactly how a community would go about opting out of that section of the Terms of Use; none of these steps have been followed - or even begun, as far as I know - by the English Wikipedia. That means that, by the terms that we are all agreeing to by using this site, the ToU's paid editing policy is our paid editing policy. Now, perhaps this somehow slipped through without anyone in the community noticing the extremely long and involved discussion that led to the adoption of the current Terms of Use. Perhaps the community would like to opt out of the Terms of Use using the provision the ToU provide. However, the community has not opted out of them, which means that, at least for the moment, they are our policy, unless and until the community locally opts out of them in the manner laid out by the ToU. Now, does all of this mean Arbcom has to be the enforcer of All Policies Ever, Including Paid Editing, All the Time? No. But it does mean that Arbcom passed a remedy which is literally false: "[paid editing] is not prohibited by site policies." Perhaps Arbcom meant "disclosed paid editing is not prohibited", a true statement (which would be odd, in a case centered around accusations of undisclosed paid editing, but hey, it could happen); in that case, the statement needs to be clarified so that it is no longer ambiguous. It doesn't appear, looking at the Arb responses thus far, that that is the case, however. At least some Arbs appear to literally believe the Terms of Use don't apply on the English Wikipedia, which is...rather a problem. If this is what Arbcom meant, then I would hope that they would read the documentation they missed and correct their finding. All that said, however, it looks like this clarification request is pretty likely to go nowhere, whether because the Arbs aren't familiar with local and/or global policy or just because they are reluctant to modify a finding they passed. That could be a problem going forward; it could not be. It depends on whether Arbcom actually believes this policy doesn't exist and intends to base future decisions on that, or whether it just wants us all to go away and stop talking about this finding so it can hear itself think. I'm hoping it's the latter, and I hope that once this furor dies down, Arbcom will quietly avoid handling future paid editing issues as if there were no policy governing them.


 * I can only speak for myself, but it is not at all uncommon for me to come across new editors (especially at AfC) who are very, very clearly paid editors but who are not disclosing it. To make up a situation by way of example, if someone is creating a page called ABC Widgets, and they have the username JohnUniqueName, and clicking the article's external link to ABCWidgets.com shows that "John UniqueName" is their PR manager...it would beggar belief for that to be a coincidence. Now, if ABC Widgets is pure G11 fluff ("ABC widgets is the bestest widget producer in Countryistan, call us at 555-555-5555 for low, low prices!"), their status as paid/unpaid is irrelevant, because either way, they're spamming. But if the article is more borderline ("ABC widgets is a widget producer in Countryistan. It has won the Golden Widget award from Widgets 'R Us three years running and is considered the premiere widget producer in Countryistan"), it becomes very relevant whether this is a good-faith editor who's here to help build the encyclopedia, or someone who's here to promote ABC Widgets. It is not necessary to out JohnUniqueName publicly to deal with this; in most cases a quiet, non-specific word with them ("Hey, so our ToU require people editing for pay to disclose, please give that a read and see if it applies to you") will do, and in cases where it doesn't, a blocking admin need only use "undisclosed paid editing" or the like as a block summary (I would add "and forward the evidence to Arbcom for review", but you guys appear loathe to get anywhere near any of this lest you get stuck with yet another job). tl;dr: It's not at all uncommon to come across cases where this distinguishing between paid/neutral is relevant if you spend any amount of time in new-page-related areas; please don't tie our hands by retaining a finding saying that we aren't allowed to do anything about them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're looking in the wrong place for the ToU -> enwp policy confirmation. If you read past the beginning, down to this section of the ToU, particularly the end of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" subsection, you'll see it quite explicitly: "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." (emphasis mine). The enwp community may opt out of the ToU's paid editing policy, but it has chosen not to (or has been unable to get consensus to do so, perhaps), which means the global version is our version, and you're (we're) accepting those terms by contributing here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby
When the Terms of Use were changed last year to include a requirement for paid editors to disclose their relationship with clients, this became the English Wikipedia's policy. Since being enacted seven months ago, the various projects have had the opportunity to create alternative policies which would override the ToU. Commons has done so, but to date the community here has not agreed to an alternative. Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the English Wikipedia does not have a policy in regard to paid editing.

The fix is an easy one - strike the principle, (as it had no particular bearing on the findings), or just strike the first sentence, which would leave us with:


 * "The Committee [has] a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

The principle would then be accurate, it would not in any way change the findings, and the principle could then be easily reapplied to future cases. I'm not concerned as to whether or not the committee chooses to enforce the disclosure requirements, but this would bring the principle in line with the current situation on WP. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade, the community was involved in creating the policy, as it has been expressed in the Terms of Use. Along with the policy are explanations of how it should be applied, clarifying the example you give . The en.wp community can, if we choose, create an alternative policy, but until we do we have the one that was created via the broader Wikimedia community process. I agree that there are questions about how to apply it, but those are separate as to whether or not the policy holds.
 * At any rate, I'm surprised that this is an issue - as far as I'm aware, the disclosure requirements did not come into effect until after Wikifone edited the articles, so a change seems unlikely to have a bearing on the decision. It does suggest some confusion on the part of ArbCom about the current situation with paid editing, so I echo Smallbone's concern about the principal being applied again, but hopefully that won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies - I agree that enforcement is a problem, and I'm not asking ArbCom to try and enforce the policy. My concern is only that the current principal is incorrect - whether or not ArbCom chooses to enforce the policy, the statement that there is no policy prohibiting paid editing is in error. If it isn't going to be reused that's probably not a big concern, but the worry is that the principal may be reused in future cases, or people may take it as written. - Bilby (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
The most elegant solution is to strike the principle, as there is neither a related finding of fact nor a related remedy. This leaves the committee free to formulate something more developed if and when a related case arises. Andreas JN 466 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
The principle is correct as written. Even if ToU enforcement were ArbCom's job (it's not, the WMF employs lawyers for that), there is no clear enforcement mechanism and it's not ArbCom's job to come up with one. The effects of paid editing, on the other hand, (disclosed or otherwise) are very much within ArbCom's remit because there have long been clear policies which enjoy community consensus and specify enforcement mechanisms (for example, we routinely block people for POV pushing or advertising).

There is no need to prove paid editing, and encouraging attempts to do so is to encourage precisely the sort of opposition research that the likes of Phil Sandifer, WillBeback, Racepacket, and others were banned for. There's a reason we ban people for that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging it—it's entirely possible to push a POV without being paid and to be paid and write neutrally. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad editing is very easy to prove and is dealt with quickly (that's what I do on Wikipedia when I'm not bogged down in explaining what I do to people who, meaning no disrespect to them, spend very little time on the front line and so don't realise just how academic this issue is); all it takes is diffs and analysis. Bad motives are impossible to prove with on-wiki evidence, and require digging through people's personal and professional lives, which is one of the few things that gets an almost automatic siteban. Yes, it's entirely possible that somebody who is only here to promote a company does it because they're paid to, but while you're all sat round discussing whether or not they're paid and should have disclosed it, I've blocked them for advertising and have moved on to the next one and the one after that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
1) Amend your dicta that was unneeded for the case. 2) The TOU is a basis for all kinds of policy on Wikipedia. 3) It's silly for the committee to claim it cannot enforce things without confession, it does it all the time (eg notthere, sockpuppets, etc., etc, etc.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

HJMitchell's claim of "no clear enforcement mechanism" is plainly untrue, there are only a very few enforcement mechanisms on wikipedia, for all breaches of site norms. There is no need to "prove" any breach (which is what the committee's, "not a court" principal means), there is only the need to have consensus that a duck appears to be a duck. As for whether paid COI runs the unacceptable risk of skewing coverage and making the pedia less reliable, consensus already is that it does (see the guideline), and that consensus is the only one that conforms to the reliable sources on COI and common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

HJMitchell: So? Policy sets out norms. Be neutral, use RS, don't OR are non-self executing norms - but exist for people who don't know what they are doing in writing an encyclopedia. Anti-COI, is just a prophylactic subset, for people unfamiliar with dealing with their own COI. As for evidence that always varies from case to case, suspicious activities and suspicious statements, confession not required. COI rules are not about motive, they are about the appearance of relationship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller: What policy are you being asked to impose? Your just being asked to cut back on things unneeded for your decision.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

When you pressed save just now and every other time, you agree to the Terms of Service in WP:TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) It's the agreement we both made when we pressed save and it sets out obligations between us, and every other community member. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) :It guides you and me in using this site that is Us - (aka, the community) and it sets out responsibilities that are the way we are to act to the other users and readers - it is meant to be a benefit to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asking or arguing but WP:CONEXCEPT would be another manifestation of the relevant consensus in addition to the fact that we all in the community agree to the terms set out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well. It would be prudent for arbcom not to make statements that are over-broad and unneeded, and so you should go along with the motion, as you suggest, this is a poor place to 'have it out'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policy. "By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's what we all in the community consent to by using this site. There cannot be a more universal consensus than that. (The page you link to says that the Terms of Use apply to the English Wikipedia site - as does almost every page on English Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is asking the comitee to declare anything. The purpose of this is in fact to get you to not to declare the principle under discussion. However, because it just took you that many words to qualify the needless and infilicitous principle, the commitee should either qualify or strike. Strike would be simplest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community already does have and has used the sanctions against a user under the TOU, so your second paragraph is incorrect, and just makes the retroactive argument all the more needless splitting hairs around a useless principle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The committee is not being asked to enforce the TOU policy, here. Prudence dictates that the committee cross that bridge should you come to it, and that will depend on the facts and circumstances existing when and if that should ever occur. There is usually little consensus about hypotheticals precisely because they have no facts - and issues of enforcement are approached constantly and consistently on this site in the course of specific facts, not hypotheticals. (see eg, ) As for "precedent", that is at best a technical truth, here, when the committee's past statements in its decisions are often used and quoted during and in the committee's work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but part of the reason why all this past explaining is problematic is this clause is stated as a general principle, with no application made to facts (findings) or remedies - so it hangs there as a principle without application to the case. As for the FergusM matter, the community mentioned the TOU often as a reason for the enforcement (up to the very end of the ban discussion) and that appears to be consistent in that, that very part of the TOU is in the community's COI guideline (the policy/guideline distinctions seemingly made are also rather odd, considering it does not matter to your decision - guidelines are something you deal in too, when behavioral issues arise). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You mention "child protection". I, and perhaps others here, are mystified as to what that has to do with "paid editing." Can you explain? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Admitting I have never communicated privately with the committee and obviously don't know how the committee privately discusses off-wiki evidence but you would seem to have cases of basically two types, one where the committee decides it can act (combining on wiki and off wiki evidence, or just looking at on-wiki evidence) and the other type, in which case the committee refers it to other organizations or does nothing with it. Even openly labeling an account (which I suppose the committee need not do), as breaching site norms is not problematic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, and get some rest. In all these years, we also have not solved the neutrality problem, or the OR problem, or the CopyVIO problem, or the true RS problem, etc, etc. but they are in their nature just something we work on everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I was going to add this before you responded. so I will add it here, concerning specifically "enforcement", WP:Policies and guidelines says: "editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines". That responsibility still exists when you are on the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid
Reading through everything out of interest, there seems nothing out of place, incorrect, or policy-setting with the clause under consideration. With all due respect to the request initiator, the proposed rephrasing would not magically change the status quo, either, but it would at a minimum result in an error by omission with regard to the committee's responsibilities and powers. I would suggest that the committee decline the request, and if really feels the need for ArbCom to have the power and responsiblity of enforcing ToU, that they use the usual channels for changing enwiki policy. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of 's comment, perhaps the principle should be revised as follows? "6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy." This would help clarify that paid editing isn't banned on Wikipedia, but that undisclosed paid editing can lead to ArbCom actions and remedies. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New proposal for the revised principle: "6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy. The Committee does not have a mandate to investigate undisclosed paid editing itself." would this address your concerns with the existing motion? // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Konveyor Belt (uninvolved)
While the TOU are site wide policy, I believe the "site policies" referred to in the decision were local policies, which, unless something has very drastically changed lately, do not disallow paid editing, undisclosed or otherwise. If that is the case, then the principle is fine as written.

As for the WMF policies taking precedence over local ones, sure they do, but as they are WMF policies, they are not for us to enforce. The WMF must do it themselves as it is their policy. And as they seem unwilling to do so except in egregious cases, the point is moot.  Konveyor   Belt   17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
This request for amendment seems a transparent attempt to make "policy" by fiat. The fact is, the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding. A radical change of policy such as the banning of paid editing needs to come through a community RFC — and good luck with that. The statement on paid editing in the Wifione decision was well considered and accurate, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @ - I was thinking, "gee, I never saw the vote to which you refer." That's because it was on Meta, not En-WP. Get back to me when you subtract all the massive number of unsigned and unverifiable IP votes from this greatest of all plebiscites. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James
If arbcom is not taking any stance at this point in time one way or the other they should simply delete the statement in question.

It appears that further discussion is required on this issue by the En community. Is there evidence of a policy against paid undisclosed advocacy editing? Yes sure there is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, however if there is a job posted on Elance to have an article written about X. When the job is closed and article X appears on Wikipedia, it is not unreasonable to deal with the new article as if it were created by a paid editor and the editor who created it as a paid editor (likely a sock puppet if not disclosed). It is also not unreasonable to request Elance take down the account that took the job if it did not disclose. The community attempting to address spamming / promotional editing is not "harassment" or "threats". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
The principle as written in that case ("The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies.") is fine, and the proposed amendment by user:smallbones here is wishful thinking on their behalf. Paid editing is not prohibited, neither by site policy nor by the TOU amendment. The TOU only requires disclosure of paid editing, and that only came into effect after the period of contributions by Wifione that has been determined to be problematic. As far as I know the TOU itself doesnt explain how to handle non-disclosure prior to the TOU amendment, however that was answered on the talk page by the LCA team; see meta:Talk:Terms_of_use.

The TOU allows each community to enforce the TOU (and any other WMF policy), but does not mandate it, and that does not translate into a mandate for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to enforce it either, as that mandate should come from the local community. I would hope that any non-trivial violation of the TOU is referred to the WMF legal team, as a TOU ban can only be made by the WMF as it is their contract with the user. If a person has violated the TOU, they should be banned Wikimedia wide — it is not a site specific policy.

Statement by User:DGG
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

I'm unfortunately recused from this case for a concern irrelevant to this particular matter, so I'm commenting here. I agree the AC should not make new policy. But it does enforce all aspects of existing policy relating to behavior on the enWP, unless there are specific provision to the contrary. It does not need a statement for each such policy that it falls under the jurisdiction of arbcom. It does automatically. Existing policy is based on the TOU, and the TOU is policy on all matters with relevance to enWP. As it is the basis on which any of us edits in any capacity, it is in fact superior in position to all local policy here, except to the extent where it permits local variation and  to the extent that local policy may be regarded as an interpretation or extension of it. The TOU have a policy that undisclosed paid editing is not permitted. This provision permits variation to a limited extent, but the enWP has not (yet) chosen to vary it, and is therefore bound by the statement in the TOU. I would if I could make a specific motion to the effect that To avoid doubt, it is existing policy based on the TOU that undisclosed paid editing is prohibited in the English Wikipedia. Editing in this prohibited manner is editing behavior, and therefore under ArbCom jurisdiction, and so I would if I could make a motion that To avoid doubt, the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over undisclosed paid editing, subject as in other matters to superseding office action in particular cases. Wheat Arb Com & the community would do in the way of procedures and standards are secondary matter for subsequent discussion, and I do not think their premature discussion helpful--the first step is to determine the actual policy, and the second to decide how to implement it--or even whether implementation is feasible. I agree that resolution of this case does not require these two statements, but it is usual to give potentially relevant statement of policy, to avoid doubt on the matter. As the question seas raised here, the statements should be made. I intend to propose that the committee make such statements by motion independent of this case, but if it fails to do so, I would urge the community to do so. I do not at the moment propose it to the community, because I still hope to propose these motions from the Committee and take a public vote on them to determine and demonstrate the extent of support they have within the committee. it is obvious that we on arb com think differently  on these two issues, and the way to find the current consensus is by such a discussion and vote, and the community has the right to see it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, within the present committee i agree with your prediction that it would be a landslide for the opposition. I am not so sure about what the  vote would be in the community .I take a long view of things, and hope to see what I say now to be standard doctrine in 2 or 3 years. That's the usual timescale by which I accomplish things here. Instigating sudden fundamental action is not my style; inducing gradual appreciation for the need for it very much  is.  DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
I am late to this party; sorry for that.

Quick note about me: I work the COIN board a lot, acting on postings there and I (along with Smallbones, who started this request) was involved in discussions at the COI guideline about how to implement the amended ToU in our COI guideline. You can see the changes by which the ToU were added to the guideline in this set of diffs, which were worked out over about three weeks. The Talk page discussion, as you can imagine, was elaborate. We were not able to agree on whether the ToU is WP policy - there were strong views on both sides. What we did with the COI guideline, was basically bow to the ToU, recognizing it as a higher and binding authority on us. (Note: The ToU amendment allows communities under it to enact different approaches to paid editing, which we have not done and which I believe we as a community are not capable of doing; we are too divided. Without enacting our own approach, the ToU is binding on us.)

What has happened since then, is that in practice (the true source of policy), we bring the obligation to disclose paid editing to the attention of editors with an apparent COI all the time, and violations are acted on.
 * The template we use for warning editors about minding COI explicitly cites the ToU - see Template:Uw-coi.
 * Also, I have witnessed admins indeffing editors for violating the Terms of Use. For instance,  did so, and the block was reviewed by  and upheld.  I know   has been minding paid editing, I don't know whether he has actually blocked someone for violating it.

In my view, in practice the Terms of Use are being implemented as policy.

I request that Arbcom consider amending the statement under clarification to state something like: OR
 * the WP-en community is obligated to follow and enforce the Terms of Use, which obligates paid editors to disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and to follow project policies and guidelines related to paid editing
 * undisclosed paid editing is against Wikipedia policy, via the operations of the WMF Terms of Use and the practice of the WP-en community.

Please do consider alternative motions before closing this. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Wifione: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Wifione: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 17 and Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 18 and it's pretty clear that the community can't agree on this. I also thought that someone was going to raise a new RfC. Until the community can agree on a policy, I don't see how or why we should be imposing one, which is what this request would do. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we should impose anything. We should, however, simply strike principle six by motion, and thus make no statement on the matter at all.  As we decided the case, it was wholly irrelevant to anything; so we have no need to try and rewrite or copyedit it, simply striking it solves all the problems. Courcelles 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was looking more at the arguments than the request. Striking it would seem ok. Salvio, are you objecting to that? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what I got: 6) While undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policies, there is not a current mandate from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation for the Committee to enforce of this policy. Further, the arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting the community from enforcing the site policies around undisclosed paid editing, or from creating a framework to allow the committee to do so. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy. How does that sound? -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, insert that into the Wifione case... and what does it add? We didn't pass any FoF's related to paid editing, nor base any remedies off of such accusations.  This isn't the place to hammer down the Committee's position on various kinds of paid editing and spend two weeks going around in circles.  We sidestep all of this by simply looking at the final decision, finding the part that doesn't belong in the document, and excising it. Courcelles 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It addresses what was presented in evidence. We didn't pass any FoFs or remedies on it because we don't have the enforcement mandate, not because it was useless to the case. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * et al. Are you actually asserting that the TOU aren't policy? If you are, then are you also going to throw the BLP, NFCC, NOR, Global ban, Global CU, Global OS, Privacy, Access to nonpublic data and Arbitration policies out the window as well? They were applied to the English Wikipedia by the WMF/Jimmy without a local community consensus. -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement as written is not incorrect, the only provisions in the TOU or local policies relate to a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing) not paid editing as a whole. I therefore see neither need nor benefit in amending the remedy as written. It is however true that this principle does not directly impact the outcome of this case - it was included to reference why we were not making any findings regarding the allegations of paid editing that were repeatedly made against Wifione. So, while I would not oppose any motion to strike it from the case, I don't see doing so as an especially productive use of the Committee's time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside whether it actually matters whether someone is being paid (I really believe it doesn't - if the are improving the encyclopaedia we want them; if they are not currently improving the encyclopaedia work with them until they either are or it becomes clear they cannot or will not), we are not tying anybody's hands with this - "paid editing" is not prohibited by any policy, the subset "undisclosed editing" is prohibited but is not mentioned in this principle. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no policy about "paid advocacy", whether disclosed or otherwise, the terms of use talk only about undisclosed "paid editing" Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, everyone needs to be aware that terms of use also prohibit "violating the privacy of others", including "Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of [..] violation of privacy", "Engaging in harassment, threats, [or] stalking...". Any attempt to discover whether someone is or is not an undisclosed paid editor must be careful not to breach these clauses of the terms of use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't add much to what I said at discussion at the case page (and am unsure why this request is here, does it really need said again?) We can't actually tell if someone is editing for pay unless they disclose it voluntarily, and if they disclose it voluntarily, it's not against the TOU. Checkuser doesn't let one peek into a person's bank account. So, at the end of the day, we can handle inappropriate editing (POV pushing, misuse of references, etc.), regardless of motive, but I don't see how we're supposed to figure out why someone was behaving that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support striking this principle. The current wording isn't correct, but the principle itself is also not so necessary to the case so as to make me feel like we need to spend time crafting better wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's an issue with a principle (which I think there is, here—although I and others interpreted this to mean that there is not local policy about paid editing, the ToU is policy, and the principle currently suggests otherwise), we should fix it regardless of timing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the merits and I disagree on procedure. Arbitration cases coming, as they often do, after years of heated disputes and, as they say, drama  need to put an end to the controversy they deal with. If we start tinkering with cases immediately after they close, that goal is negated. The time to raise issues concerning a proposed decision is before it is passed. Not after.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We regularly tinker with cases after they close; that's the whole point of amendment requests. We've never spoken of any time restrictions around when amendment requests can be filed, and I disagree that we need some arbitrary time period before amending a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question to my fellow Arbitrators: Why, when we passed this at 12-0 is it now completely incorrect and irrelevant? Is it because it's now in the spotlight? Why not fix the issue instead of dumping it to bring it up again in the future? (I already understand Courcelles' objection and I've replied to it above) -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn about the spotlight, but we goofed here, plain and simple. It happens, we need to fix it and move on.  We can either fix it by striking the principle (we don't have to mention everything from evidence in a decision), or by making the exact change  proposed above.  But merely adding the word "disclosed" would make even less sense in the context of the case than striking it, as absolutely no one accused Wifione of being a disclosed paid editor.  But at least that would make the principle into a statement that is actually true. Courcelles 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Courcelles, I agree with the majority of what you had to say there. I still wish a chance to modify the wording a bit though, even with Coldacid's proposal. I'm still thinking of exact wording though before I motion it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In a separate point, how did this become site policy? We are looking at a two man change in Nov 2009, since when do two editors determine what is and isn't English Wikipedia policy? If it's the WMF's, then it should say it's WMF policy. If it's a global one, per the global RfC, then it should say global. Pointless argument, read down --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree to them, in an legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, not the English Wikipedia Community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid. The first line of the overview in the ToU states "These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both." It doesn't mention the community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that my point is actually a pointless argument. My objection to this being site policy is the fact that the community can't come to an agreement about it. I feel (and yes, feel, so in legal/policy terms it has no application) that there should have been a provision indicating that a consensus, instead of a policy would be the determining guide. Because this is policy set down by the WMF, which yes we agree to by obligation of using this site, the English Wikipedia did not make it's own consensus like in the creation of normal ENWP policy. So while it is site policy, I feel there is a community "will", if you may, to not go with it, because the consensus (for or against) does not yet exist. But again, none of it matters in the grand scheme of things, because were looking at this as letter of the law (or policy, if that fancies you). I do understand that this is site policy, whether I regretfully say yes with every edit or happily say yes with every edit. Are we still disagreeing on the facts at this point? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, yes, this is site policy, and I've stricken my above paragraph. My comments above don't really matter in the grand scheme of this ARCA/Motion, so you can just ignore them, or if you really want we can continue on my talk. Was there anything besides whether or not this is site policy we were disagreeing on? I want to make sure i'm not skipping over anything. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Over-broad, ok, I can see where that comment comes from the specific wording of whether it's policy or not. As for unneeded, I disagree, see my comments with Courcelles above. And I'm not saying this is a bad place to have talk about the motion. I said it was a bad place for me to place my objection to the way the ToU was written. I've stricken the relevant part from my oppose below. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if I accept that the TOU is policy, the TOU also explicitly prohibits invasion of privacy. I have yet to see an allegation of paid editing that did not include an invasion of privacy in some form or another. Furthermore, there are no enforcement provisions. The idea that it therefore falls to ArbCom to fashion an enforcement process out of whole cloth is bizarre. But, if there is to be a process, it needs to be constructed with the fully informed consent of the community and must not sneaked in like via the back door. In essence, the community needs to agree to each aspect of the following question: "Do you consent to ArbCom, on the strength of an anonymous email denouncing you, launching a secret and amateur investigation into your private life - to pry into your location, ryour job title and your employer - then to discuss that investigation at length with others on secret mailing lists, and the perhaps site-ban you with no means of appeal?" Finally, I cannot begin to understand why people are so very keen for ArbCom to create a secret Star Chamber process to tackle paid editing, and then act as judge, jury and executioner when perfectly good and highly transparent processes are already available to deal with POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battlefield conduct and so forth.  Roger Davies  talk 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . The TOU is the legal agreement between the WMF and each individual editor. Think of it as n x individual "contracts". [The http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF policy page] does not list it as a policy.  Roger Davies  talk 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . Whatever the truth of that, it's not ArbCom's job to declare policy. In fact, we are specifically prohibited by ArbPol (itself ratified with 87% support) from doing so. But much more to the point, this principle refers to the Wifione case and, also per ArbPol, sets no precedent. In the context of the case, the allegations of paid editing refer to articles which the editor stopped editing in 2013, at least six months before the 16 June 2014 TOU amendment concerning paid editing came into effect. Simply put, the TOU stuff is irrelevant.  Roger Davies  talk 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to the case, in that it guided our decision to not direct address the undisclosed paid editing concerns. It's not necessarily necessary. There is still no community policy for enforcement of this aspect of the ToU. A clarification of the above might be prudent, I'm not sure that the principle was as clear as we would have liked. If arbcom decisions set binding precedent, I'd find this necessary to clarify/address. But as they do not, and it does deal with our decision making on the case, I'm not very bothered by it. In terms of the ToU/policy argument, the terms of use are policy. However in terms of any mandate for enforcement, despite a lot of handwaving there isn't any consensus (either formal or de facto) for how/if arbcom should address them. I also lie in the camp that we should not. NativeForeigner Talk 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'll need to deal with it when we get to it, but I do think that this is a statement that was crafted specifically to this case, in the context of this case. If we deal with a undisclosed paid advocacy case (or even a case request on the topic) we could craft a position more specifically oriented. In terms of the FergusM incident, that was the community acting through consensus, there were also issues of COI editing at play, and given all factors, action was taken. Here we were saying "we're not considering paid editing, because that is the thing we are least comfortable dealing with/enforcing, and our conclusion would be the same whether or not there really was paid editing. NativeForeigner Talk 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I plainly oppose that and would be more than happy to go on the record as such, though I see no such need to play politics (based upon statements here, it would likely be a landslide towards the opposition, as you know.) I find it exceedingly unlikely the community will give us jurisdiction over paid editing, when there was clamoring about the off wiki consequences of us being in charge of child protection! If they do, I have major concerns, but I'll address them if it comes to that. I know you have strong feelings on paid editing, my thoughts in terms of why it is problematic are similar, but to as a committee to have explicit jurisdiction over such matters is more than concerning for me. NativeForeigner Talk 09:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things with very real world consequences that can deal with off wiki information and private information. Hence both have substantial ramifications, and are the two actions where arbcom would step off-wiki the most. Potentially we could address it with on-wiki evidence only, but thus far that would seem to be atypical of most paid editing accusations. NativeForeigner Talk 12:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could agree that it wouldn't cause problems. Whether or not we take the corrective action we're analyzing input, which if not sent to the committee, would absolutely be considered doxing, then acting on it. We lose the ability to communicate any subtleties, mitigating factors, circumstances, which we would analyze if we blocked. But if we block, we're taking full responsibility and analyzing private evidence, for which the community will ahve no view, when enforcing the terms of use. And per Roger Davies above, we are not some sort of court of paid editing. Although the committee was never set up to do a substantial amount of what it does today (WP:BASC etc), it was certainly not set up to be a panel of members for enforcement of a legal document, in private, with no due process, while somewhat encouraging the breaking of the firmly established site policy that doxing is forbidden. I'm quite tired, hopefully this was somewhat coherent. If this issue sticks around (I am hopeful we can adequately resolve this specific issue in a reasonable amount of time) I may write at length about my feelings on the matter. I will say, when I joined the committee last year after dealing with the WikiPR/morning277 stuff, I was frustrated with the handling of it. I wanted the committee to take a more defined role in paid editing. But soon after joining arbcom (even in light of the RfC on meta about paid editing), I realized that my hopes that arbcom could simply resolve the paid editing issue were wildly optimistic, and ignored that arbcom is comprised of 15 volunteers, not 15 attorneys with the ability to serve warrants. (No magic 8 ball either) In my eyes, at this time, without a clear foundation policy, the best we can do to balance the privacy of users, established site policy, and the global ToU, is to act in cases of egregious COI issues, such as Wifione, independently of any paid editing (as we did, and the above Principle points towards). This brings up a good question: how did this COI/(possible!?!) paid editing last for so long without being dealt with. That's a question that the community should seek to answer, in addition to the paid editing one. The fact that User:Vejvančický as well as the (indef blocked) user User:Peter Damian were the ones that truly pushed the case through (organizing off-site) does raise solid questions about the quality of our in-house handling of such issues. I will posit that how we deal with article quality/COI concerns is much more important in the short and long term than how we deal with cases of undisclosed paid editing: presumably undisclosed paid editing leads to the first issue, but many other problems do as well. As far as I am concerned until we recieve clarification from the foundation on how the ToU should be enforced, the focus should be on fixing issues of COI and content, (and, if there is momentum to do so) establishing a local consensus on paid editing. (and how it relates to other policies, such as WP:OUTING.) I understand the tendency to throw this at Arbcom and say "Arbcom deals with private things, and policy, they should fix the undisclosed paid editing thing!" But we are (in my opinion) ill-suited to do so, and the community should work to establish local consensus on the issue to either give or explicitly remove the mandate from arbcom (my feelings on what I think it should do are clear). It might also be reasonable for users to ask the foundation for their feelings on enforcement. When I say that we don't have a mandate, it's not for a lack of wanting to solve the issue. It's because I really do believe arbcom is not the right body of people people to solve this issue. As such the community hasn't formed a consensus as to how these issues should be handled (at all, let alone by arbcom), I maintain there is no mandate that we act on paid editing. Sure, send us cases of coi the community cannot solve, but I do not think that paid editing is something for which a user should be explicitly brought before arbcom for and sanctioned for. Damaging content with COI? Yes. But undisclosed paid editing on its own should not be. This isn't a feel-good solution, where the community can wipe its hands and say "we solved the paid editing problem" As I see it, at the present, with ambiguous local policy, and a global policy whose enforcement raises the "inquisition-like" concerns above, the best we can do is mitigate issues of undisclosed paid editing with good quality vetting of articles for COI/POV issues. NativeForeigner Talk 13:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is very much a work in progress, and it needs to be viewed as such. I think this will take some time, effort, and serious community thought, and won't be solved by attributing it to arbcom. Hopefully through this process of (general) improvement, these issues will be ironed out. But sometimes it takes them being highlighted for the community to make any real progress on them. Thanks for the thoughts. I really hope the community can work a reasonable policy out, although this is a difficult issue, and it may take quite some time. If there is any general guidance I would give, it is that the community should work out processes which are implementable, not ones which look good from a PR perspective. NativeForeigner Talk 13:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Paid editing principle in Wifione case stricken)



 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Utterly and completely irrelevant to the case as decided. Also, at best, a half-true statement. Courcelles 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am honestly shocked that so many of my colleagues do not think that the TOU are policy. I would like to point them to the list of policies that I outlined (above) that they enforce yet weren't created by EN Wikipedia. While my personal choice would be my proposed wording, I am in the minority and this is the next best thing. (I agree with Roger that sending Arbcom out on a paid editing exposition will end somewhere between The Big Muddy and a Star Chamber. I hope the community does not tempt fate and add this to our long list of responsibilities.) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from on proposed wording but the principle doesn't mention the TOU at all, it only talks about site policies, ie the policies of the English Wikipedia. Our own local policies refer to "site" meaning the English Wikipedia, and the TOU refers to individual wikis as "sites or Projects" so there's no conflict there. If we really wanted to labour the point I suppose we could add the word "local" before "site policies" but given that "site" has exactly the same meaning in the principle, the TOU and in our site policies, I really don't think it's necessary. And, on reflection, do you?  Roger Davies  talk 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems unnecessary to the case as a whole. While I'm firmly in the TOU=policy camp, I think the wording of the principle is actually legit (undisclosed paid editing is forbidden, paid editing is not), but it's clearly confusing and isn't important to the outcome of the case. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The principle is fine as is. Also, I do not really appreciate the fact that we are trying to amend a case so soon after it was closed; even assuming for the sake of the argument that the principle was incorrect, there was plenty of time to raise the issue before we finalised the close. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not for sweeping it under the rug and waiting for it to come up again. As several people talked about on the talkpage, we need to amend this, not strike it . The only thing I really ever viewed as an issue was the wording that said the ToU was not policy, and i'm still not 100% convinced that is right either . This needs time for discussion here. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After further review, i'm still here in opposition. If we look closely at the ToU, it says it prohibits non-disclosure, not paid editing. Therefore the original statement is correct and need not be amended. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was inactive on the case, so coming to it with fresh eyes, for whatever that's worth: I see absolutely nothing wrong with the principle, and I would dismiss this request. AGK  [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if we accept the rather tenuous "TOU is actually policy" argument, that really gives no idea as to what would be done here. If we're going to prohibit some types of paid editing, we need to hash out what is and is not acceptable in attempting to demonstrate someone is engaging in it, what exactly is prohibited (I presume we wouldn't prohibit a biology professor from updating taxonomies, for example), and how to balance the very real tension between this and the outing concerns that would inevitably pop up. That is, I think, a discussion that needs to happen, but it is something that needs to gain community consensus, not be imposed by us in a haphazard and ad hoc fashion as various things come to us. This is a perfect example of why ArbCom does not and should not make policy. Right now, there is no community mandate regarding paid editing, so the statement is accurate. That doesn't mean the community can't or shouldn't come up with policies around the issue, just that, to date, it hasn't happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After consideration I think the principle should not be struck. If anyone wants to propose a tweak, ok, we could consider it. I'll also state that I am definitely against ArbCom doing it's own sleuthing to uncover undisclosed paid editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to tweak it, we should consider User:Coldacid's suggested version. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * I agree with Salvio that the principle is fine as it is, so I'm not going to support this. As removing it from the case doesn't impact the decision, striking it is pointless but ultimately harmless so I'm not going to oppose it either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing statement could be interpreted in a few ways, at least one of which was not our intention. But as it was part of the decision making in the case, and we are free to reword/refactor going forward. (I'm sure in a subsequent case we wouldn't recycle this verbatim, something like Coldacid's would be more likely to be used.) On the whole, have been sitting on the fence and will remain there. NativeForeigner Talk 13:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

November 2023 update
disclosed is a sock of Wifione and has been blocked. See the declined ArbCom case request at Special:Permalink/1183169230. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)