If Wikipedia won't ban Salvidrim, who would they ban?

[CrowsNest]

So, it comes as no surprise that the promised four week special hurry up finish it by Christmas deadline to Salvidrim's Arbitration case, itself an extension to the three weeks from Nov 22nd, has failed to be met. But in this new year of 2018, we do at least now have a Proposed Decision. And it seems to confirm what I suspected, namely that there wasn't even going to be an option on the table of Salvidrim being banned. This is frankly, ridiculous.

Proposed Decision

To recap, he colluded with a colleague to ensure his paid for edits bypassed established protections against conflict of interest, made worse by the fact elements of what he did would not have been possible were he not an admin.

This is Protect Your Own writ large. If Wikipedia won't ban an Administrator for such things, then it has absolutely, positively, no moral standing at all to be expecting new users to abide by their COI rules. Not least since it is well established that doing so doesn't even protect oneself from near constant levels of suspicion and bad faith from established users and admins.

People have even been deliberately doxxed by Wikipedia admins as punishment for not following their rules about paid editing, and under no circumstances is it ever accepted that they may have simply made a mistake or misunderstood something, as Salvidrim is attempting to use as his defence. So there can be absolutely no excuse for not throwing the book at one of their own being caught red-handed. Not if they want their rules to be respected.

They already readily admit the rate of compliance is something like 1%, so one would think they would be mindful of doing everything they can to demonstrate to the other 99% that this is an area of Wikipedia where there is absolutely no favouritism or corruption, that the COI rules are applied with an even hand, their only purpose being to protect Wikipedia as an institution, and no other interests are in play.

[Renée Bagslint]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

[Poetlister]

Salvidrim is a member here. No doubt he can speak for himself.

[Renée Bagslint]

No doubt he can. But CN's posting was about the spineless of ArbComm, an issue on which Salvidrim may have a view, but for which he is not answerable.

[CrowsNest]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

[Renée Bagslint]

I would have said the real life equivalent is to show leniency to police officers (participation) or rich people (contributions). Oh, wait a minute ...

[Kumioko]

If the Arbcom does anything, which is unlikely, they will desysop them. Since Salv is an admin and Arbcom clerk, it's extra unlikely. Given that they already showed bias towards his case by renaming it to not reflect his name, it shows what that result might be.

However, since they took the case, they have already determined there was guilt so they must do something. What they will probably do is admonish Salv, insert a topic ban with some ambiguous verbiage, maybe ban a couple of others if they can find some non admins involved and try to craft a win.

[Randy from Boise]

He'll lose tools.

RfB

[Kumioko]

He'll lose tools.

RfB

You might be right, I agree there is a chance but I still lean towards a more likely conclusion of admonishment.

[Renée Bagslint]

They are caught in a cleft stick. If they punish Salvidrim, they give ammunition to those critics who say that the admin system is fundamentally broken; if not, they look pusillanimous. So win-win, really.

[Kumioko]

I just looked at the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision and it seems to infer they are talking about me, but could be Wikicology, but I cannot be sure. I used to be FB friends with a lot of EnWiki folks (about 100 at one time) but I removed all but a few including removing Salvidrim.

Because I never personally had a problem with Salv, if that is the case and they are talking about me, I don't believe he has ever proxy edited on my behalf, but even if he did, the rules very clearly state "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits."

So, as long as the edit was independently verified to be an improvement, there is no problem, according to Wikipedia's own policy. Throw in a dose of IAR and you're good to go unless Wikipedia and the Arbcom is now more about finding a reason to justify a punishment than in improving content, which I suspect has been the case for some time. Especially when directed at me and others like me who have stood up to their bullying and abuse!

[Poetlister]

No doubt he can. But CN's posting was about the spineless of ArbComm, an issue on which Salvidrim may have a view, but for which he is not answerable.

The thread title suggests strongly that Salvidrim is some egregiously bannable person, more so than most. I was proposing that Salvidrim might wish to defend himself against that charge.

[Randy from Boise]

No doubt he can. But CN's posting was about the spineless of ArbComm, an issue on which Salvidrim may have a view, but for which he is not answerable.

The thread title suggests strongly that Salvidrim is some egregiously bannable person, more so than most. I was proposing that Salvidrim might wish to defend himself against that charge.

Oh, he's absolutely gonna lose tools. But he's committed self-criticism, to borrow an old communist concept, and is a "net positive" for the project, so the chance of him being made to walk the plank is near zero.

RfB

[Newyorkbrad]

I just looked at the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision and it seems to infer they are talking about me, but could be Wikicology, but I cannot be sure.

It has nothing to do with you.

[Newyorkbrad]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

[Kumioko]

I just looked at the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision and it seems to infer they are talking about me, but could be Wikicology, but I cannot be sure.

It has nothing to do with you.

Thanks for confirming, I was leaning against it but you have to admit I did fit the description.

[Kumioko]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

Believe it or not I fundamentally agree but I also think it depends on the bad decision that was made. Was the bad decision merely a an overzealous page protection (which doesn't really harm anything) or is it an admin who used their admin tools to circumvent policy for the purpose of favoring an article they were paid to write.

That to me is a lot more severe and I even like Salvidrim. Now I'm not saying they should be desysopped for 1 infraction, but what else is it we don't know about? They got caught once, but it doesn't mean it was the only time they did something questionable and the way they skirted the rules right on the edge shows they knew it wasn't above board and it begs the question of whether this is an isolated incident.

[Renée Bagslint]

...
I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

That is not the problem that people are concerned about (in passing I note that "that cannot be right" so often means "I don't like it but can't say exactly why"). Suppose A is an administrator and B is not. A and B have been engaged in equally disruptive behaviour. Should A and B be treated differently? Suppose A has made 10000 good edits and B has made 10 good edits. A and B have been jointly and equally engaged in disruptive behaviour. Should A and B be treated differently?

In real life: A is a surgeon who has saved numerous lives on the operating table. B is a Silicon Valley billionaire who has created a new industry and brought work to thousands of people. C is a senior police officer. D is unemployed and livng off welfare. Each of A,B,C and D has driven their car drunk and knocked down and killed a little old lady. Should A,B,C and D be treated differently?

However, rather than debate the matter here, agreeable though that might be to the participants, perhaps the matter should be debated at Wikipedia, with ArbComm publishing and justifying the principles that they intend to use. If the generality of editors know and accept your principles, however unfair or unjust they seem to me, then it is, as they say, your funeral.

[CrowsNest]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

Not only is it eminently right, you've just proved it by not giving any other reason for why it is not right other other than the mere fact the rate of error is higher in one than the other. What matters is not the rate, but the damage and the consequences. What matters is deterrence. What matters is equal treatment. What possible argument can you make that Salvidrim's record makes his actions here any less damaging than if they had been done by a newly promoted admin? This is the very definition of a Vested Contributor problem, his long service has earned him a lesser consequence for his mistake, in the asbcence of any logical argument for it. It breeds complacency, the exact sort of complacency that leads to the sort of mistake and error of judgement Salvidrim is guilty of here. This is ArbCom, it doesn't deal in the sort of mistake that can realistically be argued to be mitigated by ratio alone.

[CrowsNest]

Unbelievably, it's looking like he might even escape with his tools unmolested. The reasons are baffling, having nothing to do with the facts of the matter which promoted the case, but merely reflect their current confusion over whether they need to see evidence of a pattern of misconduct or if the single in issue is serious enough (something they should have done their due diligence on as part of the acceptance process), and their current confusion as to whether they exist to provide leadership to the community through the vehicle of policy, or merely give a formal voice to their stated wishes presented in an ad hoc fashion in response to individual incidents that go on to form a case (it is obviously the former, but the latter is what you get after years of substandard candidates picked in sham elections).

[Kumioko]

Not surprising to me at all unfortunately. As someone who likes Salvidrim personally, I think it's good for him but from a Wikipedia policy standpoint he is an admin and was never really in any harm of losing the tools with this motion. As bad as paid editing sounds, he didn't do anything to another admin, so as long as he has done no harm to his brothers and sisters in blue, they will support and protect him (like renaming the case to deflect heat away from him). As we can all see, the non admins are faring far worse.

Arbcom really should have desysopped him but again, they failed to do their jobs and showed the community not only how incompetent they are, but why the community doesn't need an Arbcom or its absurdly difficult processes that the Arbcom themselves violate whenever they find it convenient.

[Poetlister]

In real life: A is a surgeon who has saved numerous lives on the operating table. B is a Silicon Valley billionaire who has created a new industry and brought work to thousands of people. C is a senior police officer. D is unemployed and livng off welfare. Each of A,B,C and D has driven their car drunk and knocked down and killed a little old lady. Should A,B,C and D be treated differently?

There was a recent case in Britain where a female medical student was not sent to prison because the judge did not want to ruin her future career.

[Ihatemyusername]

In real life: A is a surgeon who has saved numerous lives on the operating table. B is a Silicon Valley billionaire who has created a new industry and brought work to thousands of people. C is a senior police officer. D is unemployed and livng off welfare. Each of A,B,C and D has driven their car drunk and knocked down and killed a little old lady. Should A,B,C and D be treated differently?

There was a recent case in Britain where a female medical student was not sent to prison because the judge did not want to ruin her future career.

That at the very best is an oversimplification.

[Kingsindian]

I don't know much about this case. My summary is as follows:

Salvidrim used a declared paid account to make paid edits. He only started paid editing very recently. He used the main (admin) account to give the paid account rights to move a page. The page move was a mostly stylistic one (moving "Studio 71" to "Studio71"), and he thought that it was no big deal -- which was probably a bad decision, because stylistic page moves are often controversial on Wikipedia.

He then put two articles in the "Articles for Creation" (AfC) queue (where they are supposed to be vetted by uninvolved editors). He thought the articles would surely pass AfC, but thought the AfC process was quite slow. In a conversation a friend (also a paid editor) suggested that he should review the articles to hurry the process up because they looked fine. This undermined the entire process. The friend (Soetermans) reviewed the articles and promoted them. The articles were then overwhelmingly deleted at AfD. In at least one case that I've checked: Reza Izad (T-H-L), there are some sources to establish notability. If it had been created by an undeclared paid account, there's a good chance it wouldn't have been deleted.

If I'm elected SUPREME ARBCOM LEADER I'll do the following:

• Salvidrim is banned from paid editing for some time.
• Desysop is iffy, since he actually didn't use his admin tools for anything serious. However, there's no way he'd pass RfA with something like this on his recent record. And many people don't think that admins should be engaging in paid editing at all. So, overall, desysop goes through.
• No ban from Wikipedia: Topic ban is enough.

Arbcom seems to have done approximately the same thing, except that the first point was deemed unnecessary since Salvidrim says that they don't plan to edit for pay in the future. What if he changes his mind?

[Casliber]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

Not only is it eminently right, you've just proved it by not giving any other reason for why it is not right other other than the mere fact the rate of error is higher in one than the other. What matters is not the rate, but the damage and the consequences. What matters is deterrence. What matters is equal treatment. What possible argument can you make that Salvidrim's record makes his actions here any less damaging than if they had been done by a newly promoted admin? This is the very definition of a Vested Contributor problem, his long service has earned him a lesser consequence for his mistake, in the asbcence of any logical argument for it. It breeds complacency, the exact sort of complacency that leads to the sort of mistake and error of judgement Salvidrim is guilty of here. This is ArbCom, it doesn't deal in the sort of mistake that can realistically be argued to be mitigated by ratio alone.

Courts in the real world take into account character records etc. in various cases. There are other obvious reasons than the ration alone, including someone's dedication to the project etc. Obviously it makes more sense to be keep productive contributors contributing even if they make teh odd mistake from time to time.

[lonza leggiera]

...
I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

That is not the problem that people are concerned about (in passing I note that "that cannot be right" so often means "I don't like it but can't say exactly why"). Suppose A is an administrator and B is not. A and B have been engaged in equally disruptive behaviour. Should A and B be treated differently? Suppose A has made 10000 good edits and B has made 10 good edits. A and B have been jointly and equally engaged in disruptive behaviour. Should A and B be treated differently?

In real life: A is a surgeon who has saved numerous lives on the operating table. B is a Silicon Valley billionaire who has created a new industry and brought work to thousands of people. C is a senior police officer. D is unemployed and livng off welfare. Each of A,B,C and D has driven their car drunk and knocked down and killed a little old lady. Should A,B,C and D be treated differently?

…

Allow me to pose a different scenario. Suppose the same A, C and D as above all have impeccable driving records, and had never before even been summonsed for any alleged offence whatever, let alone convicted of one. The same B, on the other hand, has numerous convictions both for speeding (120kph through a 40kph school zone, in one case), DUI and dangerous driving. His immediately preceding conviction, for all three offences, as well as for failing to stop and render assistance after an accident, resulted from an incident in which he knocked a 15-year old potential champion athlete off her bicycle thus rendering her paraplegic. He had just regained his provisional driver's licence following a 2-year jail sentence for his previous offences, and a subsequent one-year disqualification from driving. Should B now be treated any differently from A, C and D?

[CrowsNest]

One of the "Principles" is

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

So we have an explicit statement of the superior rights and privileges of administrators and vested contributors. Is this a first?

Been standard boilerplate ever since Corbett-gate, as far as I recall. It's bad enough the concept even exists, given it completely undermines a central tenet of Wikipedia, namely that everyone is equal. But to use it for things like this, the real world equivalent would be to show leniency for grand larsony if they're a first offender.

I understand the concerns that people express about a "vested contributor problem," but the alternative is not to sanction people by focusing on their mistakes in a vacuum. Suppose that Administrator A made 5 bad decisions and 1,000 good ones. Administrator B made 5 bad decisions and no good ones. If you oppose the principle of taking editors' overall histories into account, that would mean that A and B automatically should be treated exactly the same. That cannot be right.

Not only is it eminently right, you've just proved it by not giving any other reason for why it is not right other other than the mere fact the rate of error is higher in one than the other. What matters is not the rate, but the damage and the consequences. What matters is deterrence. What matters is equal treatment. What possible argument can you make that Salvidrim's record makes his actions here any less damaging than if they had been done by a newly promoted admin? This is the very definition of a Vested Contributor problem, his long service has earned him a lesser consequence for his mistake, in the asbcence of any logical argument for it. It breeds complacency, the exact sort of complacency that leads to the sort of mistake and error of judgement Salvidrim is guilty of here. This is ArbCom, it doesn't deal in the sort of mistake that can realistically be argued to be mitigated by ratio alone.

Courts in the real world take into account character records etc. in various cases. There are other obvious reasons than the ration alone, including someone's dedication to the project etc. Obviously it makes more sense to be keep productive contributors contributing even if they make teh odd mistake from time to time.

If character and dedication is deemed relevant in deciding the sanction, why isn't more being made of the fact a veteran editor like Salvidrim just one day apparently decided, fuck this volunteer lark, it's time to convert all this trust and respect I have earned into getting Paaayeeeeeed! Indeed, why has more not been made of the fact it was his stubborn insistence on having his day in court, which ensured it had to happen at all. Is there no such thing as honour and falling on your sword with these people? Not a great message to send.

The answer of course, is that this isn't a court, these aren't judges, so they're incapable of seeing the very compelling reasons that make the case that the sanction due, for reasons of deterrence and public faith in the system, should be worse given the nature of the violation and who he is, not more lenient. If an admin can do this and get away with it by not only not being banned, but with the very real prospect of not even losing the prized position of trust that facilitated part of it, then that sends the message that there is really no reason for anyone to follow the rules.

The very fact this is being downplayed by Wikipedians as a mere mistake, and isn't being described in more accurate terms, like a gross abuse of trust, a gross dereliction of duty, a severe miscalculation, a huge error of judgement, etc, etc, shows there's no real intent here to treat this with the seriousness it demands.

Wikipedia has for years made the mistake of processing ArbCom cases with more concern for the interests of the accused than the interests of the community. The price is already being paid, they're the just too blind to see it.

[Kumioko]

Actually I would argue the Arbcom rarely cares about the accused, per sey. What the Arbcom concerns itself with is maintain the status quo and making sure that the system isn't disrturbed. As such, when they accept a case, it's predisposed to making a ruling of guilty for someone because if they didn't think there was a case they wouldn't have accepted it.

Having said that, as we can see with this case, the Arbcom heavily favors admins in their process. So although yes they do, occasionally, desysop an admin, these cases are outliers and they only get desysopped if that admin did something to, or in contrast to, another admin. For example, if an admin blocked 100 editors and it was determined to be in error, it's unlikely anything would be done even if they determined malice. If however an editor stands up against an admin who makes a rash action, even one that blatantly violates policy, the other admins and arbs will find a reason to justify the action to maintain the system. Additionally, if an admin overturns another admin action, even one that violates policy, they are likely to get targeted for desysop because they overturned another admins action. Of course the political credit of the admin also comes into play, such as if an arb or CU overturns an admin, but generally the rules prevent admins from interfering with admins actions. They are allowed to do what they want to editors.

As in this case we see an admin commit a very serious policy violation and walk the razors edge of the line on several other issues but the Arbcom finds some impressive legal sidestepping to ensure that admin gets off with nothing more than a warning so they can keep the system in place.

Arbcom isn't about right and wrong or about what policy has been violated. It is a process that ensures only admins can punish other admins and thereby ensure that the current Wikipedia punishment system where admins are given a much, much higher bar to justify wrong doing, is maintained. If Salvidrim wasn't an admin, if he was a regular editor, they would have banned him! As such, the Super Mario Effect is still the rule of the land.

[CrowsNest]

I don't know much about this case.

Starting point for anyone should be his own confession, posted on his user page. It should be noted this version was only posted a week into the Arbitration case, replacing a more....incoherent.....version, which essentially tried to argue a case wasn't needed.

I tried to edit for pay using a declared alt. I used my admin tools to give page-mover to my paid alt, and used page-mover for paid editing. I colluded to have an AfC draft approved by another paid editor outside of due process. I thought my experience made me able to manage COI on my own and that because things were done in good faith, not nefariously, that everything was gonna be okay. I bullshitted myself into believing I was acting in accordance with policy. I was arrogant and negligent, and when confronted, I dug my hole even deeper before fully realizing the extent of my own issues. I fucked up. I'm sorry for everyone I've disappointed.

The problem with Wikipedia is that they basically ignored this confession, and have proceed with the case as if it was never even made (except to lavish praise on the accused for his transparency and remorse), and indeed with no apparent cogniscense that even before this confession, the facts of the matter were known and not in dispute, the only dispute being what to do about it. Predictably, as was obvious from the prior discussions and the case request, the idea there was anything else in his history on which a pattern of misconduct could be demonstrated, has proven to be weak sauce, a totally irrelevant waste of time.

Salvidrim has played the Wikipedia game well, no doubt due to his extensive experience. People will no doubt wish their real life mistakes ended up being handled in this fashion. The worst he's facing is ArbCom translating his confession into formal speech, and a couple of minor restrictions that don't amount to a hill of beans, easily worked around. He keeps his rusty sheriff badge, and he doesn't suffer the indignity of a formal ban from paid editing, even though it's clear he had mentally accepted it was both appropriate and in his best interests. And I repeat, the prospect of a site ban isn't even on the table. He has achieved all this, despite his own admission he was slow to realise his mistake, which made a case inevitable.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't know much about this case.

Starting point for anyone should be his own confession, posted on his user page. It should be noted this version was only posted a week into the Arbitration case, replacing a more....incoherent.....version, which essentially tried to argue a case wasn't needed.

I tried to edit for pay using a declared alt. I used my admin tools to give page-mover to my paid alt, and used page-mover for paid editing. I colluded to have an AfC draft approved by another paid editor outside of due process. I thought my experience made me able to manage COI on my own and that because things were done in good faith, not nefariously, that everything was gonna be okay. I bullshitted myself into believing I was acting in accordance with policy. I was arrogant and negligent, and when confronted, I dug my hole even deeper before fully realizing the extent of my own issues. I fucked up. I'm sorry for everyone I've disappointed.

The problem with Wikipedia is that they basically ignored this confession, and have proceed with the case as if it was never even made (except to lavish praise on the accused for his transparency and remorse), and indeed with no apparent cogniscense that even before this confession, the facts of the matter were known and not in dispute, the only dispute being what to do about it. Predictably, as was obvious from the prior discussions and the case request, the idea there was anything else in his history on which a pattern of misconduct could be demonstrated, has proven to be weak sauce, a totally irrelevant waste of time.

Salvidrim has played the Wikipedia game well, no doubt due to his extensive experience. People will no doubt wish their real life mistakes ended up being handled in this fashion. The worst he's facing is ArbCom translating his confession into formal speech, and a couple of minor restrictions that don't amount to a hill of beans, easily worked around. He keeps his rusty sheriff badge, and he doesn't suffer the indignity of a formal ban from paid editing, even though it's clear he had mentally accepted it was both appropriate and in his best interests. And I repeat, the prospect of a site ban isn't even on the table. He has achieved all this, despite his own admission he was slow to realise his mistake, which made a case inevitable.

That is an absolutely perfect way to deal with the indictment. Probably the tactic is ancient and related to religious sects, but I'm most familiar with it in its Soviet form — "criticism/self-criticism" — in which the figurative guns of the collective entity, be it a party unit or a shop organization or a political group, are trained on someone who has broken from prescribed norms of behavior. One must either accept these "criticisms," wholly and abasely, with a detailed "self-criticism" of one's "wrong" behavior and promises to return to behavioral norms to (hopefully, perhaps) save one's place (or, during the 1937-1939 Great Terror, save one's skin). Otherwise, one is permanently excised from the group, with all the loss of status, income, employment, etc. that entails

In Mao's China this same principle was enshrined — often with physical beatings — as the struggle session (T-H-L).

No doubt some cults work the same way, enforcing behavioral norms.

Such a form of defense is not a sign of a healthy legal institution, putting things mildly, but it is nevertheless a perfect defense tactic in his ArbCom Struggle Session if Salvidrim has any hope whatsoever of hanging on to his Administrator status.

RfB

[Anroth]

I believe scientology has a similar codified process.

[Renée Bagslint]

I think the discussion over A,B,C and D makes my point very well. In a real-world justice system, sentencing is a difficult and delicate balancing exercise, conducted in the public arena. In the cargo-cult world of Wikipedia, simplistic solutions are determined behind closed doors.

[Poetlister]

I think the discussion over A,B,C and D makes my point very well. In a real-world justice system, sentencing is a difficult and delicate balancing exercise, conducted in the public arena. In the cargo-cult world of Wikipedia, simplistic solutions are determined behind closed doors.

In a real-world justice system, judges are very experienced and highly trained. Very few senior Wikipedians have that sort of experience, so of course they can't do it as well as real judges.

[MrErnie]

Rob switched his desysop vote, increasing the likelihood that it will happen. I like Salv and hopes he retains his tools. I don’t see paid editing as the big unforgivable sin that many editors do. Some of our editors in ideological topics are motivated by personal reasons that constitute a far greater COI than a couple dollars for a random article here and there. As long as the edits follow policy what’s the problem?

[Kingsindian]

RfB's analogy with "struggle session" is apt. I have often talked in the past about the complaint made by many people that the subject doesn't "admit to their mistakes" (it was used in the Andrew Davidson case too). This is a silly requirement.

Anyway, after reading the stuff on Salvidrim's user page (which I listed in my summary as well, so I didn't miss anything of any significance), I think the remedy I already suggested is good. Desysop, topic ban from paid editing, no ban from Wikipedia.

He keeps his rusty sheriff badge

I don't know where you're getting this: at the current time, the desysop motion has 7-2 support (Was 6-3 before BU Rob switched their vote).

[Renée Bagslint]

Rob switched his desysop vote, increasing the likelihood that it will happen. I like Salv and hopes he retains his tools. I don’t see paid editing as the big unforgivable sin that many editors do. Some of our editors in ideological topics are motivated by personal reasons that constitute a far greater COI than a couple dollars for a random article here and there. As long as the edits follow policy what’s the problem?

Wikipedia needs an enemy, along the lines of Goldstein in 1984. Currently it's paid editors and their sockpuppets. It doesn't matter if they exist, or if they're doing what it's claimed they're doing, so long as you say it often enough and loud enough. If there were not some secret enemy, supposedly working tirelessly to undermine the project, to blame everything on, then the toiling masses might have to face up to the fact that Wikipedia is a hell-hole by design, that its primary purpose is to exploit them for the benefit of a favoured few, and that it cannot and will not be fixed.

[Poetlister]

Some of our editors in ideological topics are motivated by personal reasons that constitute a far greater COI than a couple dollars for a random article here and there. As long as the edits follow policy what’s the problem?

That is perfectly true, but you can't expect the Wikipedia community to be as rational as that. It has been said that the issue is that Jimbo doesn't want anyone but himself to make money out of Wikipedia. Possibly that's part of the explanation.

[CrowsNest]

Rob switched his desysop vote, increasing the likelihood that it will happen. I like Salv and hopes he retains his tools. I don’t see paid editing as the big unforgivable sin that many editors do. Some of our editors in ideological topics are motivated by personal reasons that constitute a far greater COI than a couple dollars for a random article here and there. As long as the edits follow policy what’s the problem?

The part where his edits didn't follow policy? As much as some would like it to be the case, he's not before ArbCom for having been engaged in policy compliant paid editing while also being an admin. This isn't even currently being proposed, it is only being requested that use of tools for disclosed paid editing be banned. Which is merely begging the question, how did anyone ever think it was allowed, or needed to be explicitly banned? WP:INVOLVED would seem to cover it already, in spirit, if not in letter. Who in their right mind would ever believe an admin using their tools in a way that potentially financially enriched them, would ever look to an outsider as beyond reproach?

[Randy from Boise]

The voting on some of the more draconian proposed sanctions is the most interesting thing to me. DGG is clearly the most actively anti-paid-editing of the Arbs, joined by Euryalus and with — somewhat surprisingly — Opabinia r. as the third most hostile Arb.

RfB

[Bezdomni]

In response to the thread title, do you want a catalog? There's some fresh blood at AE. Guess who's in the middle of it?

[Randy from Boise]

In response to the thread title, do you want a catalog? There's some fresh blood at AE. Guess who's in the middle of it?

Sandstein (T-C-L), for one.

That dude would have be a dungeon torturer for the king in another time...

Looks like a couple of the usual conservative suspects are going down for playing in the politics playground...

RfB

[mynameisnotdave]

After DeltaQuad's support, Salvidrim is being demoted, unless the extraordinary happens.

[Beeblebrox]

He’s just spared them the trouble and resigned as an admin.

[Kumioko]

He’s just spared them the trouble and resigned as an admin.

That will save him a little dignity. At least he can go out on his own instead of being compelled to leave because Arbcom said so.

Having said that, most folks like him so my guess is if he waits a few months and reruns he'll probably regain the tools. Most of the community doesn't really care about paid editing so most either won't remember or won't care in a few months.

[MrErnie]

He’s just spared them the trouble and resigned as an admin.

That will save him a little dignity. At least he can go out on his own instead of being compelled to leave because Arbcom said so.

Having said that, most folks like him so my guess is if he waits a few months and reruns he'll probably regain the tools. Most of the community doesn't really care about paid editing so most either won't remember or won't care in a few months.

It is very unlikely he will regain the tools. Many RFA voters will simply that he resigned / was desyoppsed by Arbcom and look no further.

[CrowsNest]

He’s just spared them the trouble and resigned as an admin.

Doesn't save them any trouble, this will simply mean they have to reword it to reflect his decision, as happened with The Rambling Man. All he has done is fallen on his sword, but only after he has been dragged from his house and bundled into a police car under a sheet, and processed at great expense by the state. The Japanese wouldn't be impressed.

[Salvidrim]

I've avoided reading this thread for the week but now that the dust is settling there's just a few comments to add I think

He'll lose tools.

Short, direct, and as always almost presciently accurate. You wouldn't have some lotto numbers too?

Since Salv is an admin and Arbcom clerk

Never was an ArbCom clerk.

Having said that, most folks like him so my guess is if he waits a few months and reruns he'll probably regain the tools. Most of the community doesn't really care about paid editing so most either won't remember or won't care in a few months.

I think taking 2018 off will be a beneficial break. We'll see in 2019. But I don't have high hopes. I've hardly ever been uncontroversial.

Salvidrim is banned from paid editing for some time.

I'm still taken aback by ArbCom's avoidance of making this effective. Obviously it goes without saying that I'm not stupid enough to dip even a toe in that swamp again, but I would have thought this one so... obvious.... but ArbCom apparently opted to consider this "outside of their authority" for some reason.

He’s just spared them the trouble and resigned as an admin.

To be fair, I don't think "resignation" is accurate. Once it was clear the desysop was going to pass, I decided to hasten the removal of the bit so I could move on right away and not wait for some closure vote and implementation notes or whatever. But it was still very much an ArbCom desysop. But I wanted my last admin action to remain what it was.

[CrowsNest]

(drafted before the above, but might as well post it anyway......)

Actually, this is fucking pathetic. As has been observed at WP:BN by Alex, he claims to have "made his peace" with being desysopped a mere half an hour after the proposal had reached majority. He now wants to "move on without delay". I bet. A better example of gaming the system, you would probably not find. To belabour the court analogies, I don't think this level of procedural farce is even possible in a real court - when is the last possible moment you can switch your plea to guilty?

Even worse, no less than three Arbitrators have taken the shameful step of using the excuse Salvidrim has now resigned, to abstain from taking a position. Absolutely disgusting. What more sign do people want that ArbCom now has literally no role to play on Wikipedia? What did they actually do in this case? Provide any clarity on unclear aspects policy? Provide leadership on the role and standards expected of administrators? Break the deadlock in any existing community disagreement? Resolve a long running dispute in a final and binding manner? No, no, no and no. It's been more like a group therapy session, both for Salvidrim and the Arbs.

And I repeat, amid all this farce, he is still not facing the actual sanction he deserves. Super Mario lives, he is just mere Mario now. Nice work if you can get it.

[Kumioko]

Oh sorry, I thought you were an Arb clerk at some point in the past

[CrowsNest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =818596072

Don't mourn or lament the outcome. And don't ask me to run for RfA right away -- I'm taking 2018 off of any responsibility beyond that of a mere editor.

Given a major aspect of this case was an inability to second guess one's own decisions, now might be the right time to point out some might see this is extremely presumptious, and or patronizing. Maybe there's an element of sarcasm or dark humour I'm missing, but I also read it as self indulgent. Regarding crucial aspects of regulated behaviour, such as avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest and adhering to community norms, your position and responsibilities are unchanged, you've not been demoted to a floor cleaner. Cases like yours really do dispel the myth that being an admin carries with it a higher expectation in such matters. It goes without saying, but seasoned veterans will appreciate your promise not to run for adminship for at least a year isn't binding, and in light of this case and your general reputation, expecting it to be kept under some kind of code of honour, would seem unwise. A year is also magically the same amount of time an ordinary editor would have actually been banned for major COI violations. A coincidence? Or your idea of adhering to a community norm? I am genuinely interested to see what would happen if you ran again straight away, so feel free to do so, for the benefit of science.

P.S., on the issue of perceptions, probably best not to make edits like that in diffs which nominally look (and are labelled as) archival.