Nihonjoe Has Been Naughty

[Giraffe Stapler]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

[The Devil's Advocate]

I have said this previously, but the COI guideline is essentially an enhancer. Non-paid COI editing has never been explicitly prohibited by any policy. Back in the early days it was freely permitted with it being only strongly discouraged in more recent years. However, the one constant has been that the other policies are emphasized. Basically, violating regular content policies while possessing a COI is a worst offense than violating them without a COI, similar to how violating regular content policies on a BLP is a worst offense than violating them on other pages. From what I have seen, Nihonjoe definitely violated a number of the regular content policies on the Aquaveo articles.

[Elinruby]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

Much as I hate to encourage Kraken (who should simmer down for a couple of days lest we all seem obsessed):

I don't know what happens in crat chats. Do you?

[C&B]

They are not really secret - WP:CRATCHAT (T-H-L), but I don't think I've seen them except for closing a discretionary zone Rfa. Pppery's was the last one to succed: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat (T-H-L). Last one to not: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MB/Bureaucrat chat (T-H-L).

It is an excuse for two things to happen. First, some crats who are forever on the verge of getting detooled for inactivity get the chance to come out of hibernation for a few hours and look important. Second, all crats get to look important for a few hours.

[Kraken]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

No, he would persuade his colleagues in a calm and reasonable way that there is no consensus to promote for perfectly valid sounding reasons that fully respect policy, principle and precedent. And his colleagues would feel compelled to agree and default to the status quo ante. Since to do otherwise would make it appear they are trying to force a controversial Admin candidate onto the community over their substantial objections as well as the concerns of one of their peers.

And it's not like he would have to persuade many of them. Some will already be opposing. Others will be otherwise indisposed. Others still will have to recuse for assorted different reasons, such as having presided over an Arbitration Case with the controversial candidate as a key party.

I mean, you don't expect the guy to just say Oppose per WP:DON'TTOUCHMYSTUFF do you? Give him some credit. He did just get away with abusing Wikipedia in ways that have previously been the stuff of major scandal, with a mere apology. The guy clearly knows how to manipulate people, and not just the little people.

[The Blue Newt]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

Much as I hate to encourage Kraken (who should simmer down for a couple of days lest we all seem obsessed):

I don't know what happens in crat chats. Do you?

I believe the point is that for most RFAs, the burrocrapping appears to be a rubber-stamp formalism. Hard to derail a 90% sorta-vote.

[Elinruby]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

Much as I hate to encourage Kraken (who should simmer down for a couple of days lest we all seem obsessed):

I don't know what happens in crat chats. Do you?

I believe the point is that for most RFAs, the burrocrapping appears to be a rubber-stamp formalism. Hard to derail a 90% sorta-vote.

I see your point. But Kraken has one too.

[Vigilant]

Joe's getting asked about his COI with Conduit17.

He then made this edit...

How many of these edits does Joe need to make to bring himself current?

[The Blue Newt]

So they keep the stupid Bureaucrat in post. While he's there, they at least know nobody who intends to take a hard line on COI can ever make it to Admin, let alone Bureaucrat.

How does that even make sense? Is Nihonjoe going to single-handedly stonewall the appointment of admins he doesn't approve of?

Much as I hate to encourage Kraken (who should simmer down for a couple of days lest we all seem obsessed):

I don't know what happens in crat chats. Do you?

I believe the point is that for most RFAs, the burrocrapping appears to be a rubber-stamp formalism. Hard to derail a 90% sorta-vote.

I see your point. But Kraken has one too.

Of course. Keeping a known offender sends signals, yep.

[Kraken]

According ot the blog post, Nihonjoe has yet to declare he has a conflict of interest with the following articles....

* Utah Speculative Fiction Council (T-H-L) (deleted, but disclosure should be noted on the AfD)
* Nausicaa.net (T-H-L)
* Life, the Universe, & Everything (T-H-L)
* Ancestry.com (T-H-L)

He also has to declare (on his user page) a conflict of interest with....

* Any edit related to Hemelein Publications
* Any edit relating to his wife

All of the above is required due to him having already declared a conflict of interest with Aquaveo and CONduit, which is sufficient together with the other various details in the blog post to identify him with a high degree of confidence that he is the Joe Monson of Utah who has a LinkedIn page naming him as a manager at Aquaveo.

Based on what he has forced people to do with Aquaveo and CONduit, it appears Nihonjoe is going to have to be asked directly and specifically if he has a conflict of interest with each of these, before he will make the required declarations.

The wife is the tricky one. Compliance probably requires him to tell the Functionaries who she is.

We already know ArbCom do not consider this a matter for them otherwise. Presumably because they can see what we can see. This doesn't require anyone revealing any personal information on Wikipedia to ensure compliance.

It would have been quite another thing if Nihonjoe had denied the accusations. But how could he? All he could do once he was caught, was act appropriately. Needless to say, he didn't do that.

The Wikipedia community seems content to delude themselves into thinking Nihonjoe is just a good guy who made a mistake for which he has apologized and Wikipediocracy are the bad guys.

This exercise in pulling teeth suggests a very different story. Just as his evasion suggested a different story. And his lies about only performing maintenance on Aquaveo suggested a different story.

It's his wife I feel sorry for. She probably has no idea she is at the fringes of a Wikipedia scandal right now. And he's not really doing a lot to protect her.

[C&B]

. And he's not really doing a lot to protect her.

He is a... Wikipedian. And as a demographic, they are not well known at protecting people's innocence.

[utbc]

And, Fram (T-C-L) is gone. Oversight block, so no drama onwiki. Same people who refused to take action against Nihonjoe, and blocked Fram, will be the ones reviewing the unblock request, assuming Fram appeals.

[eppur si muove]

And the Arbcom that did nothing about the outing of VM and Gitz will no doubt support Fram's block because he targeted one of their fellow power users, whilst when power users made it just as easy to identify Gitz and VM as Fram's post made it to identify Joe, then Arbcom refused to act except to boot out the person who should compassion for one of the victims.

[Ritchie333]

And, Fram (T-C-L) is gone. Oversight block, so no drama onwiki. Same people who refused to take action against Nihonjoe, and blocked Fram, will be the ones reviewing the unblock request, assuming Fram appeals.

Although I have butted heads with Fram more than a few times, I have generally observed:
* They are a good New Page Patroller
* When Fram gets obnoxious or behaves like an asshole, they tend to be on the right side of the argument.

I'll make popcorn.

[utbc]

And, Fram (T-C-L) is gone. Oversight block, so no drama onwiki. Same people who refused to take action against Nihonjoe, and blocked Fram, will be the ones reviewing the unblock request, assuming Fram appeals.

Although I have butted heads with Fram more than a few times, I have generally observed:
* They are a good New Page Patroller
* When Fram gets obnoxious or behaves like an asshole, they tend to be on the right side of the argument.

I'll make popcorn.

Any organisation that sets out with high-minded ideals eventually, ultimately ends up with only the cowards and the corrupt, as good people inevitably get disillusioned and leave or get booted out due to incompatibility. Fram was lucky in 2019; I doubt Wikipedia has the critical mass of people left who are both ethical and courageous, five years later. We've been booting out anyone who's bold enough to do the right thing and promoting to high places people who keep their head down and do nothing that brings them attention, in other words the cowards and/or the corrupt. Also working against Fram, not everyone who left in protest in 2019 came back; it's almost hilarious, but that's that many people not available to speak for them this time.

[Elinruby]

I just noticed that. Who re-opened the thread, Fram?

[C&B]

Now talk page access is revoked. After all, who would want an arbitrator out-argued in public? More than usual, that is.

[The Garbage Scow]

Hopefully Nihonjoe sees the fallout of his COI editing and learns to avoid it in the future.

Of course, it would have been better if he had just said "my bad" right off and promised to never do it again. Then the discussions could be closed and it would probably be fine. Instead his Saul Goodman act caused a huge shitshow where other people are getting indeffed.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Over on the re-opened AN thread, Bon Courage tests the bounds of what can be said:

Very few things on Wikipedia are 'prohibited'. But doing things you're not meant to do, repeatedly, tends to draw the disapproval of the community leading in the end to sanctions. Adding a book which is (say), your own, your friend's, or which stands to earn you money from sales, is a straight-up COI problem edit.

[Ming]

Well, there's plenty of drama NOW, with even a reference to good old WP:BADSITE (T-H-L), which Ming thought has been laid to rest over a decade ago.

And it seems obvious to Ming that using admin powers to protect COI should result in automatic loss of those powers.

[C&B]

Nihonjoe using his tools or Primefac using theirs? They have both covered up for COI by now. And more besides...

[Jip Orlando]

This has some shades of Legacypac (T-C-L), remember him? He ran afoul BHG with portals and was indeffed for harassment. I can't remember what it was- as it was in 2019- but I think it involved calling BHG a bitch. Nihonjoe and Fram? Arbcom in the near future. I'll have some of Ritchie's popcorn, please.

[utbc]

A case seems inevitable now. Question is whether someone is writing one up already.

[C&B]

Who will dare put the bell on the cat?

[Vigilant]

Well, en.wp finds a way to cover itself in glorious shit again.

[Vigilant]

Talk page access restored.

Primefac was involved.
That's clear.

Ingenuity doesn't understand TPA access rules.
That's clear.

Fram is right on the merits.
That's clear.


ARBCOM, here we come.

[Vigilant]

How much more damage will en.wp let Nihonjoe inflict before they do the right thing?

[Vigilant]

Nihonjoe lying some more

[C&B]

It looks like Mother of Jabbas (T-C-L) chose the right time to make his bones

[Vigilant]

This silliness reminds me a lot of the 'you can't say Laura Hale' nonsense.

The information is already out there and everybody knows it.
Nihonjoe is Joe Monson and he has a massive COI problem that dates back decades.

What's the point of pretending it isn't?

[Vigilant]

Good question

I made the block as an individual OSer. The OS team was already reviewing the first set of suppressed edits by Fram at the AN thread (which I asked for specifically because of my involvement), and after blocking I self-reported as per our policies and protocols. This is not an "unremovable" block, as the OS team absolutely has the ability to overrule me (which is exactly why we discuss all OS blocks). Primefac (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a newer administrator, so my experience in this area is less than most, but I tend to agree with David. It seems odd to justify a block where you admit you are involved by saying you self-reported afterwards. If the violation was so clear, could you not trust that another oversighter would make the block? To what extent are admins allowed to deliberately violate our policies, provided they admit it themselves? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

[utbc]

Good question

I made the block as an individual OSer. The OS team was already reviewing the first set of suppressed edits by Fram at the AN thread (which I asked for specifically because of my involvement), and after blocking I self-reported as per our policies and protocols. This is not an "unremovable" block, as the OS team absolutely has the ability to overrule me (which is exactly why we discuss all OS blocks). Primefac (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a newer administrator, so my experience in this area is less than most, but I tend to agree with David. It seems odd to justify a block where you admit you are involved by saying you self-reported afterwards. If the violation was so clear, could you not trust that another oversighter would make the block? To what extent are admins allowed to deliberately violate our policies, provided they admit it themselves? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The block was fine as long as he also removed TPA pending OS review. That's the blunder he made. Because of that, he can not make the strongest defence there would have been for an immediate block: that it was urgent to prevent further suppressible edits.

[rnu]

Good question

I made the block as an individual OSer. The OS team was already reviewing the first set of suppressed edits by Fram at the AN thread (which I asked for specifically because of my involvement), and after blocking I self-reported as per our policies and protocols. This is not an "unremovable" block, as the OS team absolutely has the ability to overrule me (which is exactly why we discuss all OS blocks). Primefac (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a newer administrator, so my experience in this area is less than most, but I tend to agree with David. It seems odd to justify a block where you admit you are involved by saying you self-reported afterwards. If the violation was so clear, could you not trust that another oversighter would make the block? To what extent are admins allowed to deliberately violate our policies, provided they admit it themselves? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The block was fine as long as he also removed TPA pending OS review. That's the blunder he made. Because of that, he can not make the strongest defence there would have been for an immediate block: that it was urgent to prevent further suppressible edits.

Yep. When you abuse your tools always do the stuff that you would do if the use were legitimate. Otherwise everyone can see that you knew that what you did was abuse.

[Giraffe Stapler]

It looks like Mother of Jabbas (T-C-L) chose the right time to make his bones

I think I would ask about the more obvious COIs, but maybe Mother of Jabbas is more cunning than I am.

D. J. Butler

Hello again Nihonjoe. Do you have a conflict of interest with respect to this article also? Mother of Jabbas (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not. I enjoy reading his books, and I've met him multiple times, but that's it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever promoted their works on a personal website or had your work included alongside theirs in commercial product? Mother of Jabbas (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, but maybe? I've told people I like his writing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Joe "Nihonjoe" Monson appears to have forgotten about the D. J. Butler works his publishing company has put out. You know how it is - you edit someone's book, publish it, add it to their Wikipedia article, and, then, a couple years later, you forget all about it.

[EDIT] Back in 2018, Joe Monson said:

FanX 2018 is next week, September 6-8, 2018 at the Salt Palace Convention Center in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. I’ll be helping out at the Bard’s Tower booth along with authors such as my good friend D.J. Butler.

[Silent Editor]

It looks like Mother of Jabbas (T-C-L) chose the right time to make his bones

I think I would ask about the more obvious COIs, but maybe Mother of Jabbas is more cunning than I am.

Not so cunning - Mother of Jabbas is now blocked.

[Elinruby]

It looks like Mother of Jabbas (T-C-L) chose the right time to make his bones

I think I would ask about the more obvious COIs, but maybe Mother of Jabbas is more cunning than I am.

Not so cunning - Mother of Jabbas is now blocked.

Wait what? I saw a polite question. Did it escalate from there?

[Vigilant]

It looks like Mother of Jabbas (T-C-L) chose the right time to make his bones

I think I would ask about the more obvious COIs, but maybe Mother of Jabbas is more cunning than I am.

Not so cunning - Mother of Jabbas is now blocked.

Wait what? I saw a polite question. Did it escalate from there?

Nobody may question the advanced permissioned.

[Kraken]

Does anyone even have the first clue what Primefac was trying to say to Fram?

As unlikely as it is given their obvious temperament issues that Primefac was trying in good faith to explain the situation to Fram rather than entrap him, I guess we have to show we're not the evil ones here by considering every possible explanation for their actions.

Nihonjoe added the title/year/publisher/ISBN of a book published by Hemelein Publications to the Wikipedia biography of an author. It is inarguable that Nihonjoe is Joe Monson and thus he is the Managing Editor of Hemelein Publications.

Is Primefac seriously trying to suggest that this edit is uncontroversial? That Nihonjoe should feel quite happy about making that edit directly, without making any declaration? Why?

There is no policy or guideline I am aware of that says Wikipedia author biographies must list every book by the author. Quite the opposite. So already this doesn't strike me as the kind of edit an experienced editor with no other motivations would make.

Quite the opposite on that score too. That particular biography now lists 38 separate works. Any day now I would expect a passing experienced editor to remove the lot, pending proof they merit inclusion in a selected bibliography (typically by citing a secondary independent source).

Or maybe not. COI editors typically exploit the fact Wikipedia has a large hinterland of pages for notable but not famous authors that are unlikely to see much interest from genuinely uninvolved editors. Wikipedia essentially becomes their own personal shop window, as both COI editors (or even straight up PAID editors) and fans gradually pad the biography out with lists of works.

And we can also see Hemelein Publications is a small publisher, so it stands to reason any mention of a book published by them on Wikipedia will lead to a non-trivial financial benefit. This holds true whether the author is famous or not. We know the book isn't notable. We know the book wasn't being added to Wikipedia for any other reason that to say it exists. It wasn't added with critical commentary.

So why would such an edit be uncontroversial for the purposes of the guidance? Especially given it was done recently enough that nobody can seriously argue Nihonjoe was unaware of the current community attitude to COI.

Without a declaration it feels like a blatant act of deceptively editing Wikipedia for personal financial gain. The only possible defences being that isn't only what Nihonjoe edits Wikipedia for and everyone else is doing it so why not him? Neither of which are very good as a defence.

Even with a declaration it begs the question why Nihonjoe would ever think he had the right to make that edit himself, rather than asking for advice at COIN or posting it on the talk page.

What Primefac said makes no sense on any level. Unless he is either wikilawyering, genuinely clueless, or desperate to deny the community their chance to pass judgement on Nihonjoe's trustworthiness as part of a transparent investigation into his COI editing.

Which of course doesn't need Nihonjoe to reveal any personal information, merely to declare he has conflicts of interest. If that reveals his identity by default, that's nobody's fault but the Bureaucrat who thought edits like that are how you genuinely keep your personal and Wikipedia lives separate.

Note that clear (and as far as I can tell so far unacknowledged) COI editing was going on at least until August 2023[34]. Fram (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a COI is not the same as COI editing. Adding someone's book isn't exactly violating WP:COIU, in that it is an unambiguously uncontroversial edit. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you were to be e.g. (Redacted). It's not just "adding someone's book", it's (Redacted). Oh, haven't they disclosed that yet, despite their "apology" and the forced COI declarations they already made? And oh, isn't ArbCom already aware of this after all of this? Oopsies... Fram (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not know when to stop. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above comment, editors with a COI are allowed to make uncontroversial edits to pages with which they have a COI. Discouraged, yes, but not prohibited. In the example above, a book is being added to an author's list of publications, and nothing more, which is why I said that it appeared to be an unambiguously uncontroversial edit per the guideline. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

[tarantino]

Wait what? I saw a polite question. Did it escalate from there?

The log says Mother of Jabbas is the globally banned AttackTheMoonNow (T-C-L), who is our not so new friend Kraken. I don't know how they made that determination.

[Elinruby]

Wait what? I saw a polite question. Did it escalate from there?

The log says Mother of Jabbas is the globally banned AttackTheMoonNow (T-C-L), who is our not so new friend Kraken. I don't know how they made that determination.

Aha. Thank you for explaining

[Kraken]

Wait what? I saw a polite question. Did it escalate from there?

The log says Mother of Jabbas is the globally banned AttackTheMoonNow (T-C-L), who is our not so new friend Kraken. I don't know how they made that determination.

That's news to me.

How did you come to that determination?

[tarantino]

Doesn't matter. We decided that we'd let you stay if you play nice after your first few posts made it obvious who you are. Everyone deserves a sixth chance :)

Please avoid the theoretical threats of violence, like the ones that got you banned from sucks.

[Kraken]

Doesn't matter. We decided that we'd let you stay if you play nice after your first few posts made it obvious who you are. Everyone deserves a sixth chance

Please avoid the theoretical threats of violence, like the ones that got you banned from sucks.

Well I'm flattered you think me so dangerous as to have been banned sixt times previously, but still worthy of another chance. I must be doing something right. I'm not sure what a theoretical threat of violence even looks like. Have you got any links?

Maybe there's more going on here than anyone who has advanced permissions is admitting. I certainly find it curious the alleged Mother of Jabba sock of the apparently very dangerous AttackTheMoonNow was only subjected to a {{checkuserblock-account}} rather than the standard very long very large range block and global lock.

[FelinaLavandula]

Can’t believe they indeffed Fram over this!

[Kraken]

It begins.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13410

Kinda.

[Ryuichi]

MODS: Request merge of viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13410 into this thread.

[Kraken]

MODS: Request merge of viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13410 into this thread.

Can I ask why? Readers surely aren't served by having a major issue being buried on page 5 of a thread that may not necessarily reflect all the things being discussed (COI vs OUT, badsites, Primefac, Fram, ArbCom).

Nihonjoe is a major part, but he isn't the trigger or the meat and potatoes beyond being the frame of reference. He especially won't be relevant if as I suspect he just keeps his head down and says nothing unless he is compelled to and the Arbs/community are fine and dandy with that being how a Bureaucrat behaves.

I've linked this thread and the blog post for full context. And that thread is linked from here.

[Wikiguy.DC]

I actually informed Arbcom about this not long after the inciting offwiki post and was the first person to do so. The thread did not get many comments and there wasn't a consensus for anything. Now personally speaking, I think a quiet note from an individual Arb to disclose COIs and be mindful of COI rules would've been a good idea and probably could have avoided this thread, but there was no consensus for that. Moneytrees(Talk) 7:22 am, Today (UTC−5)

Absolutely feckless

[Ryuichi]

MODS: Request merge of viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13410 into this thread.

Can I ask why?

Karasu-kun,
Because that and this are the same.

[C&B]

Wouldn't an Arbcom case normally get its own thread? And this seems more than a run-of-the-mill job