Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Missvain: removed arbitration request – declined by majority of committee (arbitrator performing clerk's function per clerk notes section)
Line 6: Line 6:


<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
== Missvain ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] '''at''' 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Pudeo}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Missvain}}



;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMissvain&diff=636406281&oldid=636254759 Diff Missvain]


;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain&oldid=590854982#Paid_editing Missvain talk thread 1]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain&oldid=590854982#User_page_update_and_non-responsiveness_above Missvain talk thread 2]

===Statement by Pudeo===
Adminstrator {{u|Missvain}}, previously known as SarahStierch, was forced out ([https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html WMF email]) from her Wikimedia Foundation employee position due to a conflict of interest, editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients on January 9, 2014.

Back in January, there were several threads on her talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain&oldid=590854982#Paid_editing Thread 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Missvain&oldid=590854982#User_page_update_and_non-responsiveness_above Thread 2]) requesting a comment and clarification from her regarding paid-editing. Some criticized her for not responding and suggested that ArbCom will have to take action if she does not reply, while others assumed good faith and allowed her to have a "wikibreak". However, she did not leave a single reply on her talk page and instead archived the threads: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Missvain&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=1 Missvain's January 2014 contribs].

Missvain has not commented on the issue since that, either. Thus, she has failed to comply with [[WP:ADMINACCT]] and it looks bad to just ignore things until enough people have forgotten. Her username change from SarahStierch to Missvain in July 2014 is also problematic in regards to accountability, even if the change was done for legitimate reasons.

It is unfortunate this request is filed only now, but seeing as the case even attracted mainstream media attention and the paid-editing happened here, I think sweeping things under the carpet is not the way to go. I filed directly this request here because the ArbCom is the only place where admins can be held accountable or desysopped and Missvain has ignored the previous threads.

Due to the WMF already investigating and acting on the COI, perhaps the ArbCom could process this as a Motion instead of a full proceeding. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 02:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:@{{u|Missvain}}, @{{u|Beeblebrox}}: My motivation for requesting this was finding out that the threads were not answered at all, despite some editors already criticizing unresponsiveness back then. There may be legal issues, but from a community viewpoint atleast, 11 months of silence doesn't feel like it has been "resolved". --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 03:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:I will quote {{u|Eric Corbett}} from the second thread linked 10-Jan-2014: "The general pattern I've observed on WP is to ask for time in the hope that the storm will blow over and the fundamental reasons for it can then safely be ignored. Until the next time. I don't consider that to be very honest." Turned out to be quite prophetic, no matter how serious the reasons were. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]][[User talk:Pudeo|']] 14:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Missvain ===
If people want to remove my administrative rights that's fine. I can live with that. I cannot legally discuss what happened in January at this time. Here is as much as I'll say, for the pity party: I already lost my job, had to move in with my parents, and still can't get a full time job because this crap was posted all over the internet, and had to change my username back to my original username because of harassment I was receiving through my SarahStierch account, among other places on the web. So, losing my admin status won't be the worst of it. As long as I can keep contributing as an editor. Sadly, it'll be one less woman as an admin, but, that doesn't matter here. Feel free to take away my admin rights - I really don't want to be involved in any drama. I don't have the mental capacity to deal with that here on Wikipedia, which means I won't be participating too heavily in any "trial" that I have to go through. I've already been there, done that, so I'd rather people just take away my admin rights if this is going to have to be dragged into something. Thank you, [[User:Missvain|Missvain]] ([[User talk:Missvain|talk]]) 02:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:Oh, and for the record, I was unaware that this was going to be done and I have never interacted with the editor who is posting this Arbcom case. Thanks again, [[User:Missvain|Missvain]] ([[User talk:Missvain|talk]]) 02:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Cullen328===
I have developed a friendship through Wikipedia with Missvain, who I will call Sarah since that is her name. I am also friendly with {{U|Carrite}} (Tim) and hold him in high regard. Carrite was an active participant in the January threads linked now by Pudeo, the complaining party, and Carrite was attempting to detect articles that Sarah may have been paid to edit. Please read his full comments back then in context. I do not know for sure whether Sarah was paid to edit any articles, have not asked her, and do not intend to do so. But I do have some personal knowledge of how one of those articles, [[Sun King Brewing]], came to be written, and possibly a second; information which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carrite&diff=prev&oldid=590185312 shared with Carrite on his talk page] back in January. I truly believe it highly unlikely that Sarah was paid for the Sun King Brewing article, though I can't know for sure. My point is that just because someone claims that Sarah was paid to edit this, that or another article, does not mean that the charge is true. Lots of charges are flung around when an editor comes under attack.

Sarah has paid a heavy price for whatever infraction she might have committed as a Wikimedia Foundation subcontract employee. She lost her job, her economic security and her home. Over ten months later, she is struggling to recover. Sarah is a person deeply committed to the free knowledge movement and Wikipedia in particular. She has been a highly effective advocate for bringing under-represented groups into editing this encyclopedia. Her own contributions to the encyclopedia are formidable. I attest that she is a good person.

Wikipedia has never had a clear-cut policy forbidding paid editing. I will acknowledge the possibility that Sarah may have done something that led to her losing her WMF job, though I don't know the details. But I see no evidence at all that Sarah has abused the administrative toolset as a volunteer, or that anything she has done justifies a desysop. I urge ArbCom to decline this case. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ReverendWayne ===

The matter that was resolved 11 months ago was the employment by the Wikimedia Foundation of a person who apparently was paid, or solicited payment, for editing English Wikipedia. Whether being an administrator on en-wiki is also incompatible with paid editing would seem to be a separate question. Even if it's not a violation of policy, paid editing by an administrator is at the very least a legitimate community concern that [[WP:ADMINACCT]] requires an admin to address. We should not consider these concerns to have been resolved by a wikibreak of whatever duration. [[User:ReverendWayne|ReverendWayne]] ([[User talk:ReverendWayne|talk]]) 05:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

:@{{u|Salvio_giuliano}}: It's simply wrong to say that [[WP:ADMINACCT]] applies only when admin tools are used. For example, the infractions listed under "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)" do not require use of the tools. "Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)" by definition does not involve the use of en-wiki admin tools.

:This Arbcom appears to be set to leave its successors an unfortunate precedent here. Administrators can consider themselves permitted to do paid editing, and they won't be required to answer any inconvenient questions about it. [[User:ReverendWayne|ReverendWayne]] ([[User talk:ReverendWayne|talk]]) 15:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

::@{{u|LFaraone}}, @{{u|Seraphimblade}}: Please help me understand how you read [[WP:ADMINACCT]] as applying only to misuse of admin tools. Why does it say "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" if only administrator actions need to be accounted for? How is "Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)" done by using admin tools? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here; a response would be very much appreciated. [[User:ReverendWayne|ReverendWayne]] ([[User talk:ReverendWayne|talk]]) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by I JethroBT ===
I understand that editors may be frustrated at not getting straight answers about this. I guess I kind of was too at first. But honestly, what does the community gain by going through Missvain's contributions and interactions in an attempt to create a piecemeal and speculative narrative of what happened? If Missvain is legally bound to not reveal the particulars of her situation, I do not imagine this case is likely to be of help to anyone. Arbcom's acceptance of this case would encourage the kind of empty and accusatory speculation that has forced her to do things like change her username. I would not be surprised if she were to be further harassed during the course of this case. We would not learn anything we do not already know. There is no evidence she misused administrative permissions in this situation, and there is no evidence of any ongoing problematic or disruptive behavior. As {{u|Cullen328}} mentions above, Missvain continues to work productively in building this encyclopedia as she always has, particularly on the [[WP:GLAM|GLAM]] scene and in organizing underrepresented groups in the editing community. I advise against Arbcom accepting this case on the basis that there is no evidence of a behavior that requires sanctions. [[User:I JethroBT|<font color="green" face="Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></font>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 06:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fram ===
@Missvain: "Sadly, it'll be one less woman as an admin, but, that doesn't matter here." No, that doesn't matter here, and it is very poor form of you to play the "I'm a woman so protect me" card. No one should be attacked or targeted because of their gender (or basically anything but their editing and interaction with other editors), but no one should get preferential treatment or even sympathy because of their gender either.

@Beeblebrox: How was this "resolved" 11 months ago? I can understand the argument that this is not ArbCom worthy or not a reason to desysop, but it's hard to see how this was actually resolved. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Carrite===

I don't agree with Sarah Stierch/Missvain about every aspect of Wikipedia, as anyone reading the Gendergap-l mailing list in recent days is probably aware. That does not for a single second alter the fact that I hold her in the very highest esteem as a Wikipedian. I am befuddled (1) that there is any kind of action proposed against her; and (2) that my name has been dragged into it. After Ms. Stierch's (sanctimonious, hypocritical) dismissal by WMF, I dove deeply in her edit history in an attempt to see how much of the dreaded bogey of "paid editing" seemed evident in her previous year of work and how much was exaggeration and bullshit. I spent several hours digging. The answer: the amount of actual paid editing that Sarah Stierch did was somewhere between "damned little" and "very damned little" as a fraction of the whole, none of which was really problematic, and none of which was prohibited by either site rules or the WMF's ''post facto'' change of the Terms of Use. Ms. Stierch was basically thrown under the bus with the clucking of salaried tongues as an act of calculated posturing on the part of WMF. There is no case here. It is completely ridiculous. Shame on Pudeo for attempting to bring it. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by NE Ent ===
I simply cannot comprehend the thought process behind this filing; it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever and the effect is only to further embarrass an editor. Please decline this case as soon as feasibly possible. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 11:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved John Carter ===
Based on Carrite's comments above, this really, really looks more than a little like a witch hunt targeting someone who seems to have perhaps engaged in a smaller degree and amount of problematic editing than many sitting admins have been found to do. Standards of civility would make it very difficult to say what I really think of the idea of making Sarah go through all this again, so I'll stop there. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 17:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Alison ===

Is there some benefit to the project as a whole from taking this case, because I'm really not seeing it right now? My understanding is that it ''was'' resolved almost a year ago now, and that everyone had moved on. Not everyone, apparently. I'm really not seeing any rationale for dragging someone through the WikiSupremeCourt again other than 1) a hidebound application of [[WP:ADMINACCT|"the rules"]] because rules, 2) starting a witchhunt, 3) enacting a punishment or 4) all of the foregoing. So which is it? - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Hawkeye7 ===
There is no rule against paid editing. There is no allegation whatsoever of impropriety in the use of the tools. There is no editing dispute for the Committee to arbitrate. The notion that [[WP:ADMINACCT]] covers this is grotesque. I urge the committee to decline to take this case, which amounts to little more than bullying. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Mark Miller ===
What's the hubbub? What I read is that an editor either observed or participated in threads demanding another editor speak about their edits. Because there was no response this case was filed? OK...but ARB COM is not a medieval inquisition meant to get editors to talk or denounce paid editing. This seems geared towards forcing user Missvain to do something or make statements against their will. It really is a torch and pitchfork filing.--[[User:Mark Miller|Mark Miller]] ([[User talk:Mark Miller|talk]]) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Devil's Advocate ===
Greetings Arbs (Arbs: Ah nah, not this guy again!), I could not help but notice this discussion taking place. Coincidentally I have a small morsel of information that may be of concern. You see, Miss Stierch [[Wikipedia:Meetup/College Park/WMST Summer|hosted an edit-a-thon]] earlier this year. As you can see from the page, it came with this statement "Participants will be encouraged to either write new articles about subjects that interest them, or to expand articles that interest them. All participants will have 'edits that stick' by 5 PM." Now, edit-a-thons are quite standard and lovely in how they may induct new editors into the fold in addition to potentially adding quality content and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them, but there are a few peculiar incidents here. First is that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/College_Park/WMST_Summer&diff=610830167&oldid=610830014 one of the articles created] appeared to be of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Missvain/sandbox&oldid=610822886 special interest] to Stierch and [https://twitter.com/sailorsuzaku/status/471714599348477953 one of the individuals] speaking at the event where the edit-a-thon was held. In itself, again, this is quite an innocent thing, but then there is the question of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoe_Quinn&diff=610862526&oldid=610853267 this action] taken by Miss Stierch with regards to the article. An admin removing a speedy deletion request with such a statement is certainly suggestive of an admin action and it also just appears more credible given her admin status. In fairness the article made a decent case for notability and was kept in a subsequent deletion discussion, but other actions are similarly sketchy.

Another article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/College_Park/WMST_Summer&diff=610829631&oldid=610829275 that was created] has far less indication of notability, yet Miss Stierch goes in and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gouri_Dharmapal&diff=610861383&oldid=610852541 declares it obviously notable] by removing various relevant tags. The kicker of course is that organizer of the event where the edit-a-thon took place, as well as a fellow member of the Fembot Collective alongside Miss Stierch, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minnie_Bruce_Pratt&diff=610818401&oldid=610650877 expanded the article] on a poet. Among the details added was that a new edition of a poem collection had been [http://www.sinisterwisdom.org/sites/default/files/CrimeAgainstNaturePR.pdf released] in conjunction with a group called ''Sinister Wisdom'', which is interesting because the person who added this detail not only wrote a foreword for this edition, but is [http://www.sinisterwisdom.org/node/28 editor of the group] releasing it. A notability tag had been on this page for some time and Miss Stierch dutifully came along and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minnie_Bruce_Pratt&diff=prev&oldid=610866916 removed it] declaring this poet "hella notable" despite there not being any clearly reliable sources provided. Now, I have not looked over all material from this event or other events to see if this behavior is repeated in the same or more serious fashion, but someone with a history of paid editing on Wikipedia taking these kinds of actions might need to have her conduct given deeper scrutiny. Perhaps, if someone finds evidence in a similar vein, we can consider further investigation.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="vermillion">'''The Devil's Advocate'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="burntorange">tlk.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Devil's Advocate|<font color="red">cntrb.</font>]]</sub> 22:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
=== Statement by uninvolved Coretheapple ===
(edit conflict with Devil's Advocate) Someday there may come a time when Arbcom will want to intervene in a paid editing dispute, but this is not it. I find this whole thing very strange, and do not understand why this case is being brought so long after the underlying event. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 22:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* Given the special circumstances of this case request, the decision reached by a majority below to decline the request needs actioned as urgently as possible. Although I am an arbitrator, I will perform the clerks' function here by removing the case request as declined in the interests of expediency. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 22:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Missvain: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Missvain: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

*I don't see a case here unless there is some very, very compelling evidence of an ongoing problem. Like something more recent than a matter that was resolved 11 months ago. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::'''Decline''' as useless drama-mongering. there si no ongoing problem requiring us, or anyone else, to resolve it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*Paid editing is not, in itself, something the community has decided is worthy of a desysop. Unless someone can bring forth evidence of an ongoing or serious abuse of administrative authority, I would not be inclined to accept this case. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. Absolutely nothing has been presented to indicate abuse of tools. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. [[WP:ADMINACCT]] only applies to administrative actions and unless you can provide evidence of Missvain's abuse of her sysop tools or position, there's nothing for us to do here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 09:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Paid editing is not against Wikipedia's rules. Many things that are often associated with paid editing are, such as POV pushing, tendentious editing or ownership of articles, but the act of editing Wikipedia for pay is not. I've said before and I'll say again, I'm willing to hold admins to a higher standard, but I see absolutely no evidence of misbehaviour from Missvain. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 10:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
* Per Dave, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 10:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' in the exercise of discretion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 12:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Salvio. '''[[User:LFaraone|L]]<font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:LFaraone|Faraone]]</font>''' 18:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Nothing here. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 3 December 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=636526265"