Nihonjoe Has Been Naughty

[greenday61892]

I'm really surprised to see the de-crat remedy. Losing tools for not abusing that particular set of tools (yes, as far as admin tool are concerned, the protections were not a good idea, but as said by others, I think it's easily possible that an admonishment could be just as appropriate.)

Also, just as a technicality - an editor doesn't "have" to be an admin to become a bureaucrat. So even if you want to desysop over the protections, no crat tool were used.

That said, I get the point about commuity trust. But I think Maxim's points are well taken.

Basically, you all are standing on a fence. And discerning minds could argue falling on either side of that fence.

This almost seems to be coming down to subjective whim of each arb. But this isn't like deciding what punctuation to use in an article, or what color a template should be. This is a person.

So I dunno if this is what we want from Arbcom. Maybe it is - but does this fall under: "do the things that community can't seem to"? Because I think the community has shown many times in the past that they can "vote" personal subjective whims.

Just something to think about I guess. - jc37 18:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That is a TON of words to say effectively nothing at all

[Vigilant]

They're all "people", you dingbat.

I'm sorry your friend made such poor choices.

[Disgruntled haddock]

jc37 doesn't seem to be much aware of crat culture. Aren't the bureaucrats supposed to be boring and risk-averse by nature? The second any of them does anything the least bit controversial it seems they resign the bit (or have it taken away from them). Hell, I'm surprised Primefac still has the bureaucrat permissions after this case...

[Zoloft]

This topic is about discussing the blog post and activities at Wikipedia related to it. I moved some 30 off-topic posts to the Oubliette.

[Kraken]

I'm pretty sure me and Tim were discussing "activities at Wikipedia related to it" in those last few posts, were we not?

[Randy from Boise]

I'm pretty sure me and Tim were discussing "activities at Wikipedia related to it" in those last few posts, were we not?

I'm not sure if there's an equivalent adage from cricket, but baseball's words to the wise are: "don't argue balls and strikes with the umpire."

t

[Zoloft]

You both had moved on to broader topics of governance, such as whether the whole concept of bureaucrat should be 'deprecated.'

Plus we had a lot of Dennis Brown back-and-forth and some petty insults.

It's much nicer now. *puts away bowie knife*

[Kraken]

I'm pretty sure me and Tim were discussing "activities at Wikipedia related to it" in those last few posts, were we not?

I'm not sure if there's an equivalent adage from cricket, but baseball's words to the wise are: "don't argue balls and strikes with the umpire."

My sport is association football. The referee knows his place, and dare not deviate from the codified Laws of the Game, or else. A ref this weekend dared to not give a penalty kick when a player had clearly made a "child's mistake" and he wasn't minded to decide a game on such things. It did not go down well. Still, I dare say we don't attract millions of viewers across a continent, so......I shall not argue the point.

[sásamh]

I'm pretty sure me and Tim were discussing "activities at Wikipedia related to it" in those last few posts, were we not?

I'm not sure if there's an equivalent adage from cricket, but baseball's words to the wise are: "don't argue balls and strikes with the umpire."

My sport is association football. The referee knows his place, and dare not deviate from the codified Laws of the Game, or else. A ref this weekend dared to not give a penalty kick when a player had clearly made a "child's mistake" and he wasn't minded to decide a game on such things. It did not go down well. Still, I dare say we don't attract millions of viewers across a continent, so......I shall not argue the point.

I am disappointed to see that anti-Arsenal bias is present here.

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

I don't think there are any "Mormon" threads. There's an ANI thread about an editor who works for BYU. No one wants to touch that one and I don't blame them.

[rnu]

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

I don't think there are any "Mormon" threads. There's an ANI thread about an editor who works for BYU. No one wants to touch that one and I don't blame them.

The request for closure is lying there like a wet turd since 25 March.

[sásamh]

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

There's an ANI thread about an editor who works for BYU.

So.... Mormons

[Giraffe Stapler]

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

There's an ANI thread about an editor who works for BYU.

So.... Mormons

No one is being discussed on the noticeboards because they are LDS. No one is being blocked because they are LDS.

[Jester]

Now that this arbitration is coming to a close can we expect that Mormon AN to close? I suspect the implications of blocking a WiR has led to much behind the scenes teeth gnashing.

There's an ANI thread about an editor who works for BYU.

So.... Mormons

No one is being discussed on the noticeboards because they are LDS. No one is being blocked because they are LDS.

It's still an ANI thread related to Mormonism and thus a "Mormon AN".

[Beeblebrox]

I haven't been following the case too closely, but the result is fairly clear: Nihonjoe will not be an admin or 'crat anymore, and a new VRT Queue is to be established to deal with reports of COI editing that are not appropriate for on-wiki discussion. Fram and Primefac escape unschathed, more or less. It is still numerically possible Fram will get "admonished" and that is possibly the only reason there is no motion to close. Fram will not give a shit either way, I suspect.

From what I can see this is actually a pretty decent result without a lot of fluff, although It's a little odd to see an FoF about Kashmiri with no corresponding remedy even suggested, that's a bit of a loose end. One thing I felt I struggled with as an arb was trying to get the committee to limit itself to the core issues that actually need the committee to decide them.

I see they have now formalized the meanings of "reminder, warning, admonish". Not 100% sure I agree with how they structured it but on the whole it does clarify the different meanings of the three terms in arbspeak.

[Vigilant]

Fram admonished

2.1) For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.

Support:

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not Fram's first rodeo. Fram was desysopped (by the WMF, which we ultimately assumed) in part for harassment...and now here we are again, talking about Fram and harassment. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Fram's response to HJ at the workshop asserting that repeated outing on-wiki is justified by their mistrust of off-wiki processes is tone deaf at the least. Cabayi (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Fram promised to not do this again. However, it still happened. Sending a clear statement, and consequences for not following policies of submitting private evidence is better than hoping for the best. Hopefully this will never be needed. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I find my colleagues who trust Fram's commitment to follow a core behavioral policy to be hopelessly naïve in light of his response to HJ Mitchel. I fully expect that Fram will out someone again if it furthers his goals. When it happens, I also expect members of the committee to find new and exhilarating reasons to protect him from the consequences of his actions. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I've read Fram's reply to Barkeep on the talk page many times. While it is an improvement on what they said earlier in the case, ultimately I am concerned that Fram will be before the Committee again, having violated a policy in the name of the encyclopaedia. While having principles and sticking to them are admirable traits to have, there are limits to those bounds and I am wary that Fram is unaware of where those lines are (or worse, chooses to cross them, as I believe they did on 28 February). Sdrqaz (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per my vote for the reminder. Maxim (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I lay out my thinking in depth on the PD's talk page in Fram's section in trying to decide which way to go. Ultimately I've decided that the commitment will be a credible one and so this is more than needed based on the evidence we have in this case which is pretty limited. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I support the reminder but I don't think this is necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary per Barkeep. Moneytrees(Talk) 20:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I can certainly see the point of view of my colleagues in the support section, but ultimately I do not think this is required based on the evidence we have and Fram's committment. I sincerely hope I am not proven wrong. firefly ( t · c ) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments
Proposed as a stronger alternative to 2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh, Guerillero, and Maxim: FYI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing Fram's response to Barkeep's statement on the talk page before voting on this. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Remember which way you voted and try not to cry when I do my thing.

[Jester]

Fram admonished

2.1) For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.

Support:

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

...

Remember which way you voted and try not to cry when I do my thing.

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for HJ Mitchell's name and photo

[ArmasRebane]

I can see the argument that if a user's infractions don't involve the tools, it doesn't make sense to remove the tools, but at this point there's been no shortage of cases in front of ArbCom where they've decided to remove the tools as per "lack of trust", and basically none of those people have ever gotten the tools back,* which suggests it's the right move. It's a cultural shift.

(*I suppose Fram is the only example?)

Most of the arguments I see against it these days are more of the super Mario effect type ("they should be blocked, but instead they just lost the tools", not that the tools shouldn't be pulled.

[Emptyeye]

I can see the argument that if a user's infractions don't involve the tools, it doesn't make sense to remove the tools, but at this point there's been no shortage of cases in front of ArbCom where they've decided to remove the tools as per "lack of trust", and basically none of those people have ever gotten the tools back,* which suggests it's the right move. It's a cultural shift.

(*I suppose Fram is the only example?)

Fram didn't actually get his tools back (If I read what you're saying correctly)--his post-Frammageddon RfA failed (Or he withdrew it) because there were a lot of people that voted to the effect of "Oppose--he got screwed by the WMF[1], but the conduct concerns are legitimate and he shouldn't be an admin regardless."

[1] I'd also he also got screwed by ArbCom trying to endorse-without-endorsing the initial tool removal at first, until one of the Arbs (GorillaWarfare maybe?) finally said "No for better or worse if we're ruling on this we need to own it in our name", but that's neither here nor there.

[Beeblebrox]

In which the committee forgets it is not, in fact, in charge of the volunteer response team as a whole:

(VRT admin hat on) At this juncture, I'm not even sure that a queue like that is possible - the VRT admins have several questions to that effect. It would have been very nice to have a discussion about this before a formal announcement came. Arbcom, are you planning on reaching out to the VRT admins about the new queue? If so, when? It's been two days... ~ Matthewrb

[Wikiguy.DC]

JJMC89 (T-C-L) took away all of the user rights Monson gave himself once it became clear he would be desysopped. Monson has since applied to have them all back and Joe Roe (T-C-L) has already denied the request for the autopatrolled flag, because paid editors don't get it.

[rnu]

JJMC89 (T-C-L) took away all of the user rights Monson gave himself once it became clear he would be desysopped. Monson has since applied to have them all back and Joe Roe (T-C-L) has already denied the request for the autopatrolled flag, because paid editors don't get it.

Template editor: denied
Rollback: denied
Autopatrolled: denied
File mover: denied
Page mover: open
Pending changes reviewer: open

[Yngvadottir]

JJMC89 (T-C-L) took away all of the user rights Monson gave himself once it became clear he would be desysopped. Monson has since applied to have them all back and Joe Roe (T-C-L) has already denied the request for the autopatrolled flag, because paid editors don't get it.

Template editor: denied
Rollback: denied
Autopatrolled: denied
File mover: denied
Page mover: open
Pending changes reviewer: open

Nihonjoe is making himself look venal in my eyes. Up to the admins considering each request, but he loses more of my respect by this scrambling to get his hats back. In particular, if he wants autoreviewer, I think he should create a few well referenced articles on topics totally unrelated to his religion, his friends and acquantances, and his past or present employment. Maybe on older SF??

I thought Floquenbeam (T-C-L) might be an example of someone desysopped by ArbCom who regained the tools, but I was misremembering. Their second RfA came after they were desysopped by the WMF, resysopped on petition, and voluntarily resigned to submit their case to the community. Respect.

Fram didn't actually get his tools back (If I read what you're saying correctly)--his post-Frammageddon RfA failed (Or he withdrew it) because there were a lot of people that voted to the effect of "Oppose--he got screwed by the WMF[1], but the conduct concerns are legitimate and he shouldn't be an admin regardless." [SNIP note about ArbCom's reprehensible role]

What I noticed was all the opposes that amounted to "Was desysopped by the WMF; must have done something bad." I wish Fram hadn't withdrawn; (a) it might have turned around and (b) just maybe the crats would have done the right thing and discounted those votes. Altho' with what we've since learnt about the crats, HAH.

Anyway, Nihonjoe ...

[tarantino]

Nihonjoe is still a global-renamer, So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[Vigilant]

Suuuuuure.

[Kraken]

Seems to be showing his true colors in appealing those rights removals.

A belligerent, entitled arrogant ass who seems to think he's the real victim in all this. Someone who either doesn't know or doesn't care that what is coming out of his mouth often doesn't match observable reality. Someone to whom explaining themselves in the face of objections is somehow beneath them. A burden. A waste of their time. Which is valuable.

Unsurprisingly, ArbCom seems to have been a total failure with respect to determining this is who he is when it matters. When things are not going his way.

Or they would have taken sensible precautions beyond simply demoting him as an Admin. We would have some idea how Wikipedia intends to avoid a repeat of Action Target, for example. Hopefully it is now harder due to the loss of these lesser rights.

I wonder where all those people who claimed that a single apology for a single failure was sufficient are now. How many of those people were Administrators? Not that it matters. If ArbCom is the only means by which they can have their competence assessed in a meaningful way, everyone might as well go home now.

[C&B]

Rollback: denied

Even rollback, which is usually dished out as confetti

[Vigilant]

He's done.

Someone just needs to drop a Scarlet A on his user page.

[ArmasRebane]

I can see the argument that if a user's infractions don't involve the tools, it doesn't make sense to remove the tools, but at this point there's been no shortage of cases in front of ArbCom where they've decided to remove the tools as per "lack of trust", and basically none of those people have ever gotten the tools back,* which suggests it's the right move. It's a cultural shift.

(*I suppose Fram is the only example?)

Fram didn't actually get his tools back (If I read what you're saying correctly)--his post-Frammageddon RfA failed (Or he withdrew it) because there were a lot of people that voted to the effect of "Oppose--he got screwed by the WMF[1], but the conduct concerns are legitimate and he shouldn't be an admin regardless."

[1] I'd also he also got screwed by ArbCom trying to endorse-without-endorsing the initial tool removal at first, until one of the Arbs (GorillaWarfare maybe?) finally said "No for better or worse if we're ruling on this we need to own it in our name", but that's neither here nor there.

No, I was unclear. I was trying to state that Fram was the only one I've seen who had the potential to get it back, I've never seen anyone else get within that distance (or even try, because they probably realize the only thing that would finish their chances even more than the Arbitration is a quick failed RfA afterwards.) There's enough people outside of having opinions about an editors' conduct who are happy to make it ArbCom's problem and if it comes back their way, they're likely to just agree with a cursory look. I did forget about Floquen, though I guess it's a slightly different case.

Given that one's permissions are essentially always at stake with an arbcom case, Nihon's actions are even more dumb from a practical standpoint. Your only practical chance of saving your tools at that point is to avoid arbitration or meaningfully engage with it, and he did neither.

[The Garbage Scow]

Seems to be showing his true colors in appealing those rights removals.

Just another hat collector in the end. He wants all this stuff back but hasn't used most of it in years or decades.

Yet again, we see how Legacy Admins (yes Sandstein, I'm a big meanine) can be bad for Wikipedia

[Randy from Boise]

The mean kids are exactly that to kids kicked out of the clubhouse.

Why the hell would a former bureaucrat not have an autoconfirmed flag?!? That's just a fricking insult...


t

[Beeblebrox]

Rollback: denied

Even rollback, which is usually dished out as confetti

I probably would've granted that one, because who cares, anyone can use Twinkle and I find its rollback function far superior, but I also can't disagree with the given reason for denying it.

Autopatrolled, on the other hand, that was a dumb thing to ask for.

I probably understand better than most how disorienting it can be to suddenly lose a bunch of buttons, but asking for autopatrolled back when ArbCom officially found you had a COI less than a week ago is pretty tone deaf.

[rnu]

Page mover: denied as superfluous given his status as global renamer. No comments on whether he should have the right.

[rnu]

Digging and digging and digging. Any bets on whether he will dig down all the way so he comes back out on the other side?

[Kraken]

Why the hell would a former bureaucrat not have an autoconfirmed flag?!? That's just a fricking insult...

The insult is having a Bureaucrat who flouted the rules and acted like a dick when called on it.

Get your priorities straight Tim. You're being made a fool of by your supposed betters.

They work for you, not the other way around.

I'll keep asking until someone answers. Where is the reassurance Action Target (T-H-L) won't happen again? What did Nihonjoe ever say during this case to specifically acknowledge what he did wrong there? Own the sheer stupidity of the views he expressed in his evidence. The attempted justifications. The bizarre logic.

Until that reassurance appears, withholding autoconfirmed seems wise. It stops him moving an article like Action Target from his user space to main space once he has left his summer temp job at the company, in the apparent belief that change is status removes his COI so he doesn't have to declare.

You know the alternative. Having people scrutinize every company or product edit he ever makes, in ways he really doesn't like. Ways that Wikipedians really don't like. But which are necessary to protect readers of Wikipedia.

You remember the readers right Tim? The real people behind the 40,000+ views the Action Target article received between the time Nihonjoe moved it to main space and the time he declared his COI on its talk page, under duress, whinging about being harassed, telling people he had a life.

Wikipedia is a negligent actor in scenarios like this. The model doesn't work. In the entire time Wikipedia hosted an undeclared conflicted creation in the Action Target page, it's only been edited by 22 accounts not named Nihonjoe. The vast majority of those were bots, unregistered editors and even a different employee that Nihonjoe had the cheek to revert!

The handful of experienced editors who touched it never looked deeper into why this article was on Wikipedia. Presumably because it would be a fricking insult to suspect Nihonjoe of being anything other than whiter than white.

Now we know.

Now he pays the price.

The iron price.

[greenday61892]

Digging and digging and digging. Any bets on whether he will dig down all the way so he comes back out on the other side?

lmao Joe spare us the "woe is me I got my perms removed it's not faaaaaaair "

[Vigilant]

@Hey man im josh: I disagree. I'm being refused a permission that's generally easy to receive based on a decision made based on alleged evidence ArbCom refuses to disclose to me. I can't imagine what there is to get upset about. </sarc>
Regardless, go ahead and cancel this request. I have better things to do with my time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The decisions claims I made three paid edits, out of over 123,000 total edits. There is no article (nor has there ever been an article) for the company for whom it is claimed I made paid edits, and I have never planned (nor do I have plans) to make an article for that company. How they claim to have come to the conclusion that I made paid edits is a mystery as they refuse to share this alleged evidence, especially since there can't be any evidence of paid editing since I've never been paid by that company or anyone representing them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: It felt like a continuation of the false "you're a paid editor" thing. If that's not what it was, then I apologize. I'd forgotten that was part of the autopatrolled features. I haven't had to pay much attention to that since my edits have been autopatrolled since 2005 or 2006 (or whenever it became a thing). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe's paid editing (II)

3.1) Nihonjoe engaged in undisclosed paid editing when making edits related to Hemelein Publications.

Passed 7 to 2 with 1 abstension at 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor Joe...

[The Garbage Scow]

Digging and digging and digging. Any bets on whether he will dig down all the way so he comes back out on the other side?

lmao Joe spare us the "woe is me I got my perms removed it's not faaaaaaair "

Trying to re-litigate the case at a permissions board. He might keep pushing it until he gets blocked for disruption.

[Giraffe Stapler]

This paragraph blows my mind.

@Joe Roe: The decisions claims I made three paid edits, out of over 123,000 total edits. There is no article (nor has there ever been an article) for the company for whom it is claimed I made paid edits, and I have never planned (nor do I have plans) to make an article for that company. How they claim to have come to the conclusion that I made paid edits is a mystery as they refuse to share this alleged evidence, especially since there can't be any evidence of paid editing since I've never been paid by that company or anyone representing them.

"That company" is his own company, Hemelein Publications. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say with "I've never been paid by that company". Is he claiming that he earns no money from his business? Weird flex.

[greenday61892]

Digging and digging and digging. Any bets on whether he will dig down all the way so he comes back out on the other side?

lmao Joe spare us the "woe is me I got my perms removed it's not faaaaaaair "

Trying to re-litigate the case at a permissions board. He might keep pushing it until he gets blocked for disruption.

Ohoho, please? It felt the entire time (and frankly still does with him immediately asking for perms right back) like he believes he's above the rules and so if him pushing even further gets him even more blocking.... maybe it's cruel of me but the way he's acted is one of my biggest autism "it's not just" triggers

[Kraken]

Someone be a dear and copy this over to AN/I for me.....

==Topic ban for Nihonjoe from company and product editing==

In a recent ArbCom case, Bureaucrat Nihonjoe was found to have "engaged in undisclosed paid editing when making edits related to Hemelein Publications."

Based on the given Principle "Paid editing", this was seen as UPE rather than simply failing to declare a conflict of interest, on the grounds that "Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia."

Arbitrators made this determination using private evidence that the community at large is not privy to. The logic of the Arbitrators is clear from their individual comments.....

* "[Nihonjoe is] compensated to promote Hemelein Publications and all of their edits related to this constitute undisclosed paid editing." (Aoidh)

* "[Nihonjoe's edits relating to Hemelein] feels unequivocally like UPE. Nihonjoe should have known better and there were too many of them for me to close my eyes to it." (Barkeep49)

* "[the edits] do meet the definition in my opinion. I would expect an administrator to know the boundaries around paid editing, and avoid even the appearance or suggestion of such." (firefly)

* "I believe that Nihonjoe was paid to promote Hemelein." (Sdrqaz)

* "Per Aoidh and Barkeep." (Moneytrees)

* "...this meets the threshold of WP:PAID. (Z1720)

Nihonjoe is now vehemently protesting this finding because it is why he can't be given the auto-patrolled right.

Describing the finding as "false", he has stated "I have never been paid to edit anything on Wikipedia. There's no possible evidence of that that could exist as it's never happened." and "there can't be any evidence of paid editing since I've never been paid by that company or anyone representing them."

Nihonjoe is deliberately misrepresenting what was determined, and is being rude, sarcastic and even insulting to those who are interpreting it on its plain meaning. He has engaged in undisclosed paid editing because he was paid to promote the company. Editors are in no position to challenge this finding.

Unless or until Nihonjoe files a formal appeal protesting this finding, I hereby propose that Nihonjoe is topic banned from any edits relating to companies or products, broadly construed.

Yours, Mal Content. x

[Vigilant]

"Please," squacked the baby Crow, "Who will sacrifice themselves for me?"

[Randy from Boise]

Rollback: denied

Even rollback, which is usually dished out as confetti

I probably would've granted that one, because who cares, anyone can use Twinkle and I find its rollback function far superior, but I also can't disagree with the given reason for denying it.

Autopatrolled, on the other hand, that was a dumb thing to ask for.

I probably understand better than most how disorienting it can be to suddenly lose a bunch of buttons, but asking for autopatrolled back when ArbCom officially found you had a COI less than a week ago is pretty tone deaf.

I'd have thought you, of all people, would have been more sensitive to Arbcom&Co being mean assholes to the excommunique.

To review the Nihonjoe case: the edits were found to be pretty unproblematic, the lack of candor troubling, and the use of full protection buttons the main lasting issue.

It's completely ridiculous busting a bureaucrat all the way to tenderfoot based on the actual evidence presented at that particular lynching event.

t

[The Blue Newt]

"Please," squacked the baby Crow, "Who will sacrifice themselves for me?"

The thing is, this isn’t Crow’s fault, is it?

[Beeblebrox]

Rollback: denied

Even rollback, which is usually dished out as confetti

I probably would've granted that one, because who cares, anyone can use Twinkle and I find its rollback function far superior, but I also can't disagree with the given reason for denying it.

Autopatrolled, on the other hand, that was a dumb thing to ask for.

I probably understand better than most how disorienting it can be to suddenly lose a bunch of buttons, but asking for autopatrolled back when ArbCom officially found you had a COI less than a week ago is pretty tone deaf.

I'd have thought you, of all people, would have been more sensitive to Arbcom&Co being mean assholes to the excommunique.

To review the Nihonjoe case: the edits were found to be pretty unproblematic, the lack of candor troubling, and the use of full protection buttons the main lasting issue.

It's completely ridiculous busting a bureaucrat all the way to tenderfoot based on the actual evidence presented at that particular lynching event.

t

I admit I have a very superficial understanding of exactly what went wrong here. I was on a break for most of this, so I haven't actually looked at most of the evidence, but I feel my point remains: right or wrong, thinking you can get autopatrolled rights less than a week after the committee went on record saying you have a COI was a bad idea that was never going to go well. There was a an very very small chance that exactly the right admin would see and act on the request, and very very large chance that exactly what happened would happen.

I'm not saying it is right or fair, I'm saying it was easily predicatable and it was foolish to expect a different outcome.

[Vigilant]

"Please," squacked the baby Crow, "Who will sacrifice themselves for me?"

The thing is, this isn’t Crow’s fault, is it?

Asking someone to meatpuppet his utterings to WP:ANI is asking someone to fall on their sword for him.

[Kraken]

the edits were found to be pretty unproblematic

Which is a gross disservice to the actual evidence.

To take just one example, the very first diff in /Evidence, it shows Nihonjoe added the following text to the Provo, Utah article (headers included for context) in 2008....

Companies in Provo

Local Companies of Interest

.....

Heritage Web Solutions is a web design and web hosting company located in Provo, Utah and founded in 2001. According to Inc.com's Inc. 5000, it is the fastest growing company in Utah in 2007, the 3rd fastest growing IT company in the United States, and the 22nd fastest growing company overall.[9]

Even if we are completely ignoring the fact Nihonjoe wasn't telling anyone he had a conflict of interest with Heritage Web Solutions, the only way this is an unproblematic edit, is that it is true.

And I am even being very generous in saying it is true. Because it seems there is a really rather serious factual error. The Inc. 5000 is a listing of "The Fastest Growing Private Companies In America". It stands to reason therefore that all three of these "fastest growing company" claims are omitting the crucial qualifier, private company. But hey, it's only an encyclopedia.

Beyond simple matters of COI and truth, it is otherwise, a momumentally shit edit.

For a start, it is a gross breach of RECENTISM to treat a Wikipedia article on a town as if it is the website to report such things. Together with the headings, on it's face, this makes Wikipedia look like its purpose is to promote the virtues of Provo. Attract inward investment. Create jobs. All things Wikipedia is WP:NOT.

It also creates an implication that Provo only has one IT company. Another potential violation of NPOV. Is It true? Nihonjoe could give a fuck.

It also omits the reason (given in the source) for why this company is apparently doing so well. Marketing. From 2005 they spent a shit load on a telemarketing campaign followed by a shit load more on digital marketing. So yet again we can see Nihonjoe is trying to lie to the reader. Since if you didn't check the source you would have assumed the success was down to it being a good IT company, rather than simply good at marketing (perhaps because because were quick to realize the benefits of paying for edits to Wikipedia?)

The really hilarious part?* If this edit had been a faithful reproduction of the source (i.e., in full compliance with NPOV), readers would probably come away with a completely different impression of Provo and this company (and possibly even the purpose of the Inc. 5000).......

According to Inc.com, Heritage Web Solutions (founded in Provo in 2001) was the fastest growing private company in Utah in the IT Services sector, after a telemarketing and digital marketing campaign resulted in a sales increase from an average of 200 a month in 2004 to 800 a month in 2007.

Now it looks like Provo is a total shithole. Now it looks like Provo companies are all about smoke and mirrors, not offering a good service for a fair price. Now it looks like the Inc. 5000 is a yearly ranking of exceedingly small scale tulip mania.

Do you seriously think a single Arbitrator exaimed the evidence to this level of detail?

* The truly hilarious part is that Inc.com later revealed the truth about this company. They really were all about smoke and mirrors. Their rapid growth was a mirage, and their service was beyond shit. This is of course when it becomes relevant to examine the motives of Nihonjoe in making this edit. Whether he was directly paid to make it (highly likely I would say), or if he was subconsciously being influenced by his COI to make a blatantly non-neutral highly misleading edit that totally compromised Wikipedia content, to the point it now appears complicit in fleecing customers (100% certainty).

This is why you cannot divorce the COI from the edit.

And this is ONE EDIT from the filed /Evidence. The very first one.

We know what Nihonjoe would say. This is one edit in his entire body of work, his 123,395 edits and counting.

Eggsactly. Either Nihonjoe just had a bad day here, or he is a momumentally shit editor. I think everyone knows the truth now. We know what kind of editor he is. The /Evidence goes on to show he edit warred with another editor to defend this edit. His behavior over his autopatrolled right shows he hasn't changed.

He has never disavowed edits like this, perhaps because they were a long time ago and he has a better understanding of policy now. Of what Wikipedia is all about.

No. He is defending them. He is proud of them. He is running enthusiastically with the idea this case was merely about his failure to file the correct paperwork, but his edits were otherwise fine.

Delusional.

He is still a risk. And ArbCom are still a poor excuse for, well, anything resembling oversight.

Edit: add a missing url

[Pelican]

* The truly hilarious part is that Inc.com later revealed the truth about this company.

I think you forgot to put in the URL here – seems to be referring to this article: Amid Customer Complaints, an Inc. 500 Company Closes.

[Kraken]

"Please," squacked the baby Crow, "Who will sacrifice themselves for me?"

The thing is, this isn’t Crow’s fault, is it?

Asking someone to meatpuppet his utterings to WP:ANI is asking someone to fall on their sword for him.

I guess "Someone be a dear" and "Yours, Mal Content" was too subtle for you.



It's a satirical take on the fact that even now, with the truth of this one paid editor finding officially recorded and fully explained, the editor community is incredibly reluctant to stop a defrocked priest from mocking and insulting the common man in his efforts to claim up is down and black is white.

The community is weak. Unwilling to deploy the tools that are in their gift. The stocks and electronic tags. Too in awe of their false idols and undeserving Court.

They need strong people to help them find their voice. Through gentle satire. Done with love. Sympathy. Empathy. An acceptance on our part, we malcontents, that Wikipedia is a dark and terrifying place for the little people.

Join us, why don't you. Come into the light. The torch is mightier than the blowtorch.

[Kraken]

* The truly hilarious part is that Inc.com later revealed the truth about this company.

I think you forgot to put in the URL here – seems to be referring to this article: Amid Customer Complaints, an Inc. 500 Company Closes.

Correct.