111:
131:
487:
91:
121:
37:
141:
185:
101:
151:
386:
the sense of
Salvidrim! not going to RfA himself to assess the level of community trust in him; the fact that we were having an Arbcom case at all, became part of the issue. Salvidrim! was transparent about his paid editing, and he was very forthcoming in providing private evidence to Arbcom, and everybody appreciated both.
364:
A lot of people thought this was a case about the principle of whether it is OK for admins to edit for pay, commercially, but it wasn't. It was really, really local – just about how
Salvidrim! conducted himself and what the consequences would be. It involved Soetermans a bit but there was no real
689:
This was a concern I had about the decision and ultimately why I opposed it. I estimated that it was going to be taken as "the" definition of paid editing. Anyone glancing over it would not necessarily pick up on the nuance of the context of the case, the qualifier of "core" in the sentence, or the
382:
You won't find that in writing anywhere else in
Knowledge (XXG), but I believe it expresses the living consensus in Knowledge (XXG), and it is present in every other publishing institution that takes its responsibilities to readers seriously. We as an editing community are living our way into what
385:
The key findings of fact were about
Salvidrim!'s poor judgment in avoiding community review. In the surface of the decision it is clear that this was about avoidance of review of conflicted edits. In discussion of the desysop decision, you will see that this was also about avoidance of review, in
690:
Committee's ability to realistically define paid editing in any respect. Voting discussion is not included in the case remedy summary where much of these details are discussed. We also deal with the fact that several stakeholders have very different views on paid editing. As was the case with the
615:
Seconded, it was a fine and helpful op-ed: ArbCom matters are always tangled and difficult to follow from outside. On another matter, it is remarkable that admins are permitted to do paid editing, as this could easily "give the wrong impression" to non-Wikipedians: we know they won't do anything
295:
Community discussion during the case was robust with over a dozen editors (not including the committee or named parties) providing input. Discussion covered not just conduct specific to the case, but broader questions of community response to paid editing in general, the onus on admins and other
248:
case doesn't evaluate "community trust", there isn't even really a reliable way to do so - we all know RfA is broken ... I also really dislike making arbcom decisions with a view toward "how things look from the outside" or out of "pour encourager les autres" considerations, but in thinking this
291:
based on private correspondence indicated that he had "repeatedly coached on how to avoid drawing community scrutiny" (Finding of Fact 2A). Although several arbs had already voted to desysop, these actions appeared to galvanize the final few votes and 2A was specifically cited by at least one.
30:
Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018: In deciding to de-sysop an admin for efforts to evade discussion and review of paid edits made on behalf of a PR firm, Arbitration
Committee doesn't significantly change the rules around paid editing, and leaves it up to the community
630:
I appreciate the directness and conciseness of the op-ed. These cases involve live discussions which anyone can join and I think it is great when people outside arbcom are kind enough to try to summarize and explain the cases. This summary matches my own view.
272:
389:
The desysop was not a happy outcome but in my view was appropriate. I think even those opposing the desysop, wished that Salv had put his admin status up for community review after all this broke, and before the Arbcom case was filed.
377:
are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal
673:
to, or for the benefit of, an editor, which is what was involved in this case. I do not believe we were trying to address all the possible types of more incidental benefits, which remain within the community's purview to define.
691:
199:
572:
668:
Thanks for the summary of the case and the decision. As the person who drafted the paragraph on the scope of "paid editing," I would not bold it the way it is shown above. The core definition refers to
474:
465:
531:
246:
t's hard to avoid the conclusion that we have to do something serious about a volunteer administrator using both the admin tools themselves and his standing within the community for personal gain...
521:
546:
511:
77:
516:
695:
504:
332:
It was left to the community at two open RfCs to decide whether administrators or others with advanced rights may use their privileged toolset when engaged in disclosed paid editing (
526:
414:
296:
trusted roles to provide transparent and well-separated actions, and the roles of various reporting and enforcement mechanisms such as noticeboards. Process vulnerabilities such as
498:
56:
45:
536:
649:
I seem to have adopted this column at least for the time being, so if anybody wants to take a shot at a future op-ed, or even take co-authorship credit, drop me a note ☆
94:
774:
449:
21:
750:
745:
740:
719:
735:
309:
The case was closed without new major policy. Two items concerning paid editing were fine-tuned in the committee's decision (emphasis that of the
334:
224:
730:
486:
227:(AfC) drafts created by other editors into mainspace. A proposed prohibition on paid editing by these editors was only supported by
50:
36:
17:
338:
234:
Arb
Opabinia regalis, who abstained from the vote to de-sysop, had this to say about the case and the arbs' reasoning in it.
708:
683:
658:
644:
625:
606:
252:
242:
219:
by bureaucrats less than hour after the majority vote was cast. Salvidrim! and
Soetermans were found to be in breach of
324:
Conflict of interest extends to "any article or subject that firm has been retained to edit, even if they were
756:
621:
428:
No new cases were accepted by the committee. A request titled "Michael Moates White House press corps" was
317:
Paid editing is defined as "an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to
639:
602:
679:
373:
2) Because
Knowledge (XXG) is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that
368:
The most surprising thing in the case to me, is the 2nd stated principle, which I will quote here:
617:
104:
632:
598:
568:
124:
282:
202:
was opened on 1 December, and closed on 7 January. As reported in the previous two issues of
675:
374:
303:
220:
207:
134:
154:
706:
223:. Both editors were prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving
768:
654:
452:, adding new requirements for administrators when imposing page-level restrictions.
144:
597:, I think your op-ed was very nicely done. Just wanted to make a note of that. :)
594:
358:
168:
114:
700:
249:
through I find it hard not to consider the larger implications of the case.
210:(paid editing guidelines), conflict of interest, and administrator conduct.
281:
based on private correspondence indicating that
Salvidrim! had initiated a
184:
650:
455:
437:
345:
228:
164:
213:
A majority of the arbs voted to de-sysop
Salvidrim!. Salvidrim! then
397:
191:
First arbitration committee decision of 2018 was not rendered by
328:
to take action in relation to that specific article or subject".
192:
55:
239:
485:
183:
35:
72:
Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
275:
began to appear on 31 December. Included in the notes was
31:
whether to apply special restrictions to administrators.
584:
577:
557:
430:
404:; responses and critical commentary are invited in the
298:
287:
277:
261:
215:
582:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
616:stupid, but the press could hold other opinions.
450:a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure
413:(Want to write an op-ed of your own? See our
8:
718:Explore Knowledge (XXG) history by browsing
285:at the request of an unnamed banned editor.
206:, this case centered on the provisions of
775:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2018-01
444:Discretionary sanctions procedure updated
692:WMF statement on paid editing and outing
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
585:
561:
71:
372:
29:
7:
178:Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case
400:are not necessarily shared by the
57:
28:
567:These comments are automatically
319:or for the benefit of that editor
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
578:add the page to your watchlist
200:Conduct of Mister Wiki editors
1:
405:
709:16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
684:02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
659:23:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
645:22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
626:09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
607:16:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
791:
304:sockpuppet investigations
257:
396:Views expressed in this
383:that means concretely.
306:were concerns for some.
575:. To follow comments,
490:
478:"Arbitration report" →
381:
313:, not the committee):
283:checkuser block review
188:
40:
489:
375:conflicts of interest
370:
365:controversy there.
225:Articles for Creation
187:
39:
571:from this article's
470:"Arbitration report"
299:"corruption of AfC"
562:Discuss this story
542:Arbitration report
491:
216:requested de-sysop
189:
69:Arbitration report
46:← Back to Contents
41:
586:purging the cache
532:Technology report
458:
440:
348:
341:
326:not directly paid
288:Another statement
273:proposed decision
269:
268:
51:View Latest Issue
782:
759:
703:
642:
637:
589:
587:
581:
560:
522:Featured content
509:
501:
494:
477:
469:
453:
435:
433:
419:
415:submissions page
410:
343:
333:
301:
290:
280:
265:
264:
262:Opabinia regalis
240:
218:
171:
153:
152:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
790:
789:
785:
784:
783:
781:
780:
779:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
755:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
726:
715:
714:
701:
640:
633:
591:
583:
576:
565:
564:
558:+ Add a comment
556:
552:
551:
550:
502:
499:16 January 2018
497:
495:
492:
481:
480:
475:
472:
467:
461:
460:
448:ArbCom enacted
446:
429:
426:
411:
394:
354:
297:
286:
278:a new statement
276:
260:
258:
214:
196:
195:
181:
180:
173:
172:
162:
161:
160:
159:
150:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
58:16 January 2018
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
788:
786:
778:
777:
767:
766:
754:
749:
744:
739:
734:
729:
728:
727:
717:
716:
713:
712:
711:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
635:Blue Rasberry
628:
610:
609:
566:
563:
555:
554:
553:
549:
547:Traffic report
544:
539:
534:
529:
524:
519:
514:
512:News and notes
508:
496:
484:
483:
482:
473:
464:
463:
462:
445:
442:
425:
422:
421:
420:
362:
361:
353:
350:
330:
329:
322:
267:
266:
255:
254:
251:
244:
237:
197:
190:
182:
179:
176:
175:
174:
158:
157:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
787:
776:
773:
772:
770:
758:
752:
747:
742:
737:
732:
724:
722:
710:
707:
705:
704:
697:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
672:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
643:
638:
636:
629:
627:
623:
619:
618:Chiswick Chap
614:
613:
612:
611:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
592:
588:
579:
574:
570:
559:
548:
545:
543:
540:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
518:
515:
513:
510:
506:
500:
493:In this issue
488:
479:
471:
459:
457:
451:
443:
441:
439:
434:December 22.
432:
423:
418:
416:
409:
407:
401:
399:
393:
392:
391:
387:
380:
379:
376:
369:
366:
360:
356:
355:
352:Invited op-ed
351:
349:
347:
340:
336:
327:
323:
320:
316:
315:
314:
312:
307:
305:
300:
293:
289:
284:
279:
274:
263:
256:
250:
245:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:and failed.
230:
226:
222:
217:
211:
209:
205:
201:
194:
186:
177:
170:
166:
156:
148:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
721:The Signpost
720:
699:
670:
667:
634:
599:TonyBallioni
541:
517:In the media
505:all comments
447:
427:
412:
403:
395:
388:
384:
371:
367:
363:
339:WT:ADMIN RfC
331:
325:
318:
310:
308:
294:
270:
247:
236:
233:
212:
204:The Signpost
203:
198:
193:these judges
95:PDF download
757:Suggestions
676:Newyorkbrad
569:transcluded
271:Notes on a
145:X (Twitter)
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2018-01-16
751:Subscribe
696:our reply
573:talk page
527:Interview
424:New cases
769:Category
746:Newsroom
741:Archives
723:archives
468:Previous
431:rejected
406:comments
402:Signpost
378:wording.
311:Signpost
135:Facebook
125:LinkedIn
115:Mastodon
20: |
671:payment
335:VPP RfC
641:(talk)
595:Jytdog
537:Humour
359:Jytdog
221:WP:PAY
208:WP:PAY
169:Jytdog
155:Reddit
105:E-mail
736:About
398:op-ed
16:<
731:Home
702:Mkdw
694:and
680:talk
655:talk
622:talk
603:talk
476:Next
337:and
302:and
167:and
651:Bri
357:By
342:).
229:DGG
165:Bri
163:By
80:—
771::
698:.
682:)
657:)
624:)
605:)
466:←
454:–
436:–
417:.)
344:–
321:".
259:—
253:”
243:“
725:.
678:(
653:(
620:(
601:(
590:.
580:.
507:)
503:(
456:B
438:B
408:.
346:B
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
