< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:38, 30 November 2010 view sourceSerpent's Choice (talk \| contribs)3,927 edits →Requests for arbitration: section prep← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:09, 30 November 2010 view source Serpent's Choice (talk \| contribs)3,927 edits : Opening RFAR: YellowMonkeyNext edit →
Line 5:		Line 5:


	== ~~<Insert the case name>~~ ==		== YellowMonkey ==
	'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)		'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

	=== Involved parties ===		=== Involved parties ===
	<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->		<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
	*{{userlinks\|~~username1~~}}, ''filing party''		*{{userlinks\|Serpent's Choice}}, ''filing party''
	*{{~~userlinks~~\|~~username2~~}}		*{{admin\|YellowMonkey}}
	*{{userlinks\|username3}}
	*{{userlinks\|username4}}
	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->		<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

Line 19:		Line 17:
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->		<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*Diff. 1		*Diff. 1
	*Diff. 2

	;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried		;Confirmation that other steps in ] 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 -->		<!-- 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 -->
			*]
	*Link 1
			*Various aspects of this dispute have been discussed at AN/I (], ], and several others), YellowMonkey's talk page ( and many others), and various other venues (including ] and ]). Because this arbitration request alleges substantial noncompliance with multiple aspects of the admin policies over a long period of time, and because the introduction of evidence supporting these allegations has made the environment at the RFC increasingly heated, I submit that further formal dispute resolution outside of ArbCom is likely to be counterproductive.
	*Link 2
⚫	=== Statement by {Party 1} ===

	=== Statement by ~~{Party~~ 2} ===		=== Statement by Serpent's Choice ===
			The current RFC for YellowMonkey is not formally closed. Because it has expanded considerably in scope, and because so much of the discussion centers around contentious administrative actions, opinions about how -- or whether -- to proceed have been mixed. Regardless of how it closes, it has moved well beyond its original purpose and much of what has been discussed is now outside the remit of RFC to address. If the Arbitration Committee is willing to accept a case regarding the administrative actions of YellowMonkey, I am prepared to offer additional evidence to support the following claims (limited diffs cited for brevity, substantially more detailed analysis forthcoming upon acceptance -- I'm probably going to technically exceed the length guidelines as it stands):

			*'''YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the ].'''
	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===
			**He has failed to provide appropriate (any) warnings.
			**He has failed to notify the blocked user. No diffs for these two at this stage; however, note that he has not had any interaction, including block templates, on the talk pages of any of the 80+ editors he has blocked since at least 1 June 2010.
			**He has set block log messages that fail to provide sufficient context for other administrators.
			***Most commonly, this consists of the blocking reason "sock", without any indication of the purported puppetmaster, almost always without any SPI or other on-wiki evidence for the block. Note that these are not "Checkuser blocks" as defined in the ArbCom statement (because they are not so noted in the block log), and so are expected to be subject to on-wiki review. In contrast, YellowMonkey ''does'' mark some blocks as Checkuser blocks.
			***In the case of one (admittedly problematic editor), he blocked with the reason "Block evasion" without providing supporting evidence and without the simultaneous blocking of any other accounts (that would have been used for the evasion).
			**He does not mark accounts blocked as sockpuppets with {{]}}. Any accounts he has so blocked that are marked have been labeled later, by other editors or admins. Example: versus but note that he has not used this template since at least 1 June 2010.
			**He has issued indefinite blocks in situations not described as appropriate by policy. In particular, he has indicated accounts are spam or vandal accounts and issued indefinite blocks, even when some contributions appear helpful (or at least in good faith), and without prior blocks or, at times, any prior warnings whatsoever.
			**He has issued indefinite blocks of IP addresses without {{]}}.
			**Several uses of the tool were in and of themselves problematic. The block of {{userblock\|Yogesh Khandke}} and the two indefinite blocks of {{userblock\|Quigley}} are foremost among these, but the block of {{userblock\|Abhayakara}} also deserves attention, as does the "useless block" ''unblock'' of {{userblock\|Dr. Blofeld}}. Each of these circumstances generated a substantial amount of community discussion and will require more space to discuss than is appropriate in the initial request.

			*'''YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the ] or the ].'''
			**He has applied semi-protection without "heavy and persistent" vandalism.
			**He has applied lengthy semi-protection as its first application to an article. For this and the above, see especially any of his semi-protections of Australian school articles, such as which received a 1-year semi-protection following one inappropriate edit by an IP.
			**He has applied semi-protection on articles in which he has substantial involvement as an editor. In particular, this applies to ], which he has edited over 200 times since 2006, and protected repeatedly since 2007 including indefinite semi-protection on 11 May 2010 that was overturned 4 days later via RFPP, only for him to re-establish it on 7 November 2010 despite only three IP-vandalism edits (from two IPs) in the previous 30 days and despite the presence of a different IP that had edited constructively during that time.
			**He has not applied protection templates to the articles he has semi-protected since at least 1 June 2010.

			*'''YellowMonkey has not acted in compliance with the ].'''
			**He deleted articles outside of any process. After ] was closed "no consensus", he deleted (and salted) the article anyway claiming interference in AFD by socks. DRV agreed with the deletion on its merits, but noted the failure to adhere to process. Likewise, although upheld at DRV due to copyright violation, the copyvio state of this article was not established at the time it was deleted. There was no AFD, PROD, or CSD justification given; this action was taken unilaterally.

			*'''YellowMonkey has not, at times, displayed the decorum expected of an administrator.'''
			**Comments about the WMF outreach to India that are intemperate and reflect bias.
			**Comparing the On This Day section of the Main Page to a "toilet exhibit" and an Indian slum.
			**Making unsupported accusations of Communist bias in an RFA.
			**''In general,'' he has not communicated his intentions, and has rarely responded to concerns about his actions. When he has responded, such as in the current RFC, his responses have been limited, lacking in an appreciation of the wider context, and historically, have not resulted in any changes in behavior.

			To the extent that the Arbitration Committee is concerned with the concept of "standing" for filing parties, I was not in any way involved with these circumstances prior to my evidence-gathering efforts at the RFC; indeed, due to personal reasons of health and workload, I have been at best an intermittent editor for the past year or two. However, it is my belief that this is a situation with a strong tendency to evade review, because the editors with the strongest claims to involvement in the dispute are often not entirely faultless, and are likely to be wary of the "conduct of all parties will be examined" environment of ArbCom. I have never operated an alternate account, edited in the principle areas at issue, or (to the best of my recollection) had any direct or indirect contact with YellowMonkey or any of the other most-involved editors. Rather, I am filing this case as a representative member of the community at large, in no small part because I feel that my evidentiary contributions to the RFC convey to me a ] upon them.

		⚫	=== Statement by {Party 2} ===

	=== Clerk notes ===		=== Clerk notes ===

Revision as of 17:09, 30 November 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
YellowMonkey		30 November 2010	{{{votes}}}
WikipediaExperts		29 November 2010	{{{votes}}}

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

YellowMonkey

Initiated by Serpent's Choice (talk) at 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey
Various aspects of this dispute have been discussed at AN/I (here, here, and several others), YellowMonkey's talk page ( and many others), and various other venues (including here and here). Because this arbitration request alleges substantial noncompliance with multiple aspects of the admin policies over a long period of time, and because the introduction of evidence supporting these allegations has made the environment at the RFC increasingly heated, I submit that further formal dispute resolution outside of ArbCom is likely to be counterproductive.

Statement by Serpent's Choice

The current RFC for YellowMonkey is not formally closed. Because it has expanded considerably in scope, and because so much of the discussion centers around contentious administrative actions, opinions about how -- or whether -- to proceed have been mixed. Regardless of how it closes, it has moved well beyond its original purpose and much of what has been discussed is now outside the remit of RFC to address. If the Arbitration Committee is willing to accept a case regarding the administrative actions of YellowMonkey, I am prepared to offer additional evidence to support the following claims (limited diffs cited for brevity, substantially more detailed analysis forthcoming upon acceptance -- I'm probably going to technically exceed the length guidelines as it stands):

YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the blocking policy.
- He has failed to provide appropriate (any) warnings.
- He has failed to notify the blocked user. No diffs for these two at this stage; however, note that he has not had any interaction, including block templates, on the talk pages of any of the 80+ editors he has blocked since at least 1 June 2010.
- He has set block log messages that fail to provide sufficient context for other administrators.
  - Most commonly, this consists of the blocking reason "sock", without any indication of the purported puppetmaster, almost always without any SPI or other on-wiki evidence for the block. Note that these are not "Checkuser blocks" as defined in the ArbCom statement (because they are not so noted in the block log), and so are expected to be subject to on-wiki review. In contrast, YellowMonkey does mark some blocks as Checkuser blocks.
  - In the case of one (admittedly problematic editor), he blocked with the reason "Block evasion" without providing supporting evidence and without the simultaneous blocking of any other accounts (that would have been used for the evasion).
- He does not mark accounts blocked as sockpuppets with {{sockpuppet}}. Any accounts he has so blocked that are marked have been labeled later, by other editors or admins. Example: versus but note that he has not used this template since at least 1 June 2010.
- He has issued indefinite blocks in situations not described as appropriate by policy. In particular, he has indicated accounts are spam or vandal accounts and issued indefinite blocks, even when some contributions appear helpful (or at least in good faith), and without prior blocks or, at times, any prior warnings whatsoever.
- He has issued indefinite blocks of IP addresses without {{indefblockedip}}.
- Several uses of the tool were in and of themselves problematic. The block of Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · block log) and the two indefinite blocks of Quigley (talk · contribs · block log) are foremost among these, but the block of Abhayakara (talk · contribs · block log) also deserves attention, as does the "useless block" unblock of Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · block log). Each of these circumstances generated a substantial amount of community discussion and will require more space to discuss than is appropriate in the initial request.

YellowMonkey has consistently acted not in compliance with the protection policy or the guide to semi-protection.
- He has applied semi-protection without "heavy and persistent" vandalism.
- He has applied lengthy semi-protection as its first application to an article. For this and the above, see especially any of his semi-protections of Australian school articles, such as which received a 1-year semi-protection following one inappropriate edit by an IP.
- He has applied semi-protection on articles in which he has substantial involvement as an editor. In particular, this applies to Ngo Dinh Diem, which he has edited over 200 times since 2006, and protected repeatedly since 2007 including indefinite semi-protection on 11 May 2010 that was overturned 4 days later via RFPP, only for him to re-establish it on 7 November 2010 despite only three IP-vandalism edits (from two IPs) in the previous 30 days and despite the presence of a different IP that had edited constructively during that time.
- He has not applied protection templates to the articles he has semi-protected since at least 1 June 2010.

YellowMonkey has not acted in compliance with the deletion policy.
- He deleted articles outside of any process. After this AFD was closed "no consensus", he deleted (and salted) the article anyway claiming interference in AFD by socks. DRV agreed with the deletion on its merits, but noted the failure to adhere to process. Likewise, although upheld at DRV due to copyright violation, the copyvio state of this article was not established at the time it was deleted. There was no AFD, PROD, or CSD justification given; this action was taken unilaterally.

YellowMonkey has not, at times, displayed the decorum expected of an administrator.
- Comments about the WMF outreach to India that are intemperate and reflect bias.
- Comparing the On This Day section of the Main Page to a "toilet exhibit" and an Indian slum.
- Making unsupported accusations of Communist bias in an RFA.
- In general, he has not communicated his intentions, and has rarely responded to concerns about his actions. When he has responded, such as in the current RFC, his responses have been limited, lacking in an appreciation of the wider context, and historically, have not resulted in any changes in behavior.

To the extent that the Arbitration Committee is concerned with the concept of "standing" for filing parties, I was not in any way involved with these circumstances prior to my evidence-gathering efforts at the RFC; indeed, due to personal reasons of health and workload, I have been at best an intermittent editor for the past year or two. However, it is my belief that this is a situation with a strong tendency to evade review, because the editors with the strongest claims to involvement in the dispute are often not entirely faultless, and are likely to be wary of the "conduct of all parties will be examined" environment of ArbCom. I have never operated an alternate account, edited in the principle areas at issue, or (to the best of my recollection) had any direct or indirect contact with YellowMonkey or any of the other most-involved editors. Rather, I am filing this case as a representative member of the community at large, in no small part because I feel that my evidentiary contributions to the RFC convey to me a burden to act responsibly upon them.

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

WikipediaExperts

Initiated by Sophie at 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

WikipediaExperts.com

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Can not be done because of the nature.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Can not be done because of the nature.

Statement by {Party 1}

I am guessing this me so, was recomended that this be posted here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WikipediaExperts

In user:Alpha_Quadrant's irc channel, he posted a website which allows users to pay $99 to get their atricle into wikipedia. WikipediaExperts.com has to have users here on Misplaced Pages and I am sure there will be sock accounts as well. Can we get a check for them? The ip from Whois says the IP for the site is 173.230.132.153.

Thanks - Sophie 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, if this were to happen and bussinesses start using Misplaced Pages for profit it would essentially undermine Misplaced Pages's founding purpose. --Alpha Quadrant 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Their FAQs
Q: Do I have full control over the content of the article? A: Yes. This is the case in the sense that we won’t post any article without your approval, and that you can later make any modifications to the article on your own. However, under Misplaced Pages rules, we are required to do our own research and submit a balanced article based on multiple sources. Misplaced Pages articles are NOT press-releases or advertorials written by the company or its ad agency. As specified in Misplaced Pages Pillars: “Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.” Q: Are there subjects not admissible to Misplaced Pages? A: Yes, and they are best summed up in another of the five Misplaced Pages Pillars: “Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.” Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Misplaced Pages? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Misplaced Pages rules and standards; however, Misplaced Pages does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted. Q: How long does it take you to learn that someone’s modified an article? A: We receive alerts instantaneously. Q: What’s included in your writing services? A: The writing service includes: * Necessary research needed, including an analysis of your website and other materials you may provide including related media coverage * Article creation in compliance with Misplaced Pages rules, and adjusting the article should it be refused by Misplaced Pages * The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application. Q: What’s included in the monthly monitoring and maintenance service? A: The $99 monthly fee includes: * Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software * Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted * Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes * The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.

Their FAQs

Q: Do I have full control over the content of the article? A: Yes. This is the case in the sense that we won’t post any article without your approval, and that you can later make any modifications to the article on your own. However, under Misplaced Pages rules, we are required to do our own research and submit a balanced article based on multiple sources. Misplaced Pages articles are NOT press-releases or advertorials written by the company or its ad agency. As specified in Misplaced Pages Pillars: “Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.”

Q: Are there subjects not admissible to Misplaced Pages? A: Yes, and they are best summed up in another of the five Misplaced Pages Pillars: “Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.”

Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Misplaced Pages? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Misplaced Pages rules and standards; however, Misplaced Pages does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted.

Q: How long does it take you to learn that someone’s modified an article? A: We receive alerts instantaneously.

Q: What’s included in your writing services? A: The writing service includes:

   * Necessary research needed, including an analysis of your website and other materials you may provide including related media coverage
   * Article creation in compliance with Misplaced Pages rules, and adjusting the article should it be refused by Misplaced Pages
   * The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.

Q: What’s included in the monthly monitoring and maintenance service? A: The $99 monthly fee includes:

   * Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software
   * Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted
   * Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes
   * The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.

See this page for any updates or what ever...

If you reply to me, please note I am 13 so please speak accordingly - Sophie 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Comment and decline: Sophie, arbitration is for a dispute that involves specific Misplaced Pages editors or specific disputes that involve only Misplaced Pages editors. WikipediaExperts is an external company that is not part of Misplaced Pages, and the Arbitration Committee has no control over their actions. Just as important, there is no Misplaced Pages policy that forbids editors who are paid to edit. In other words, you have no grounds on which to bring an arbitration case against WikipediaExperts. To other experienced editors and clerks: Perhaps someone could assist Sophie in exploring other methods of gauging community opinion on this question. I note that there was a recent thread on one of the administrative noticeboards relating to this issue. Risker (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline at this time. I agree with Risker that there is nothing for the Arbitration Committee to do in this matter, at least not at the present time. I also agree with Risker's other comments. I appreciate Sophie's interest in avoiding problematic types of editing and her calling this issue to our attention as someone else had suggested on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline; while it is unarguable that there is a fair segment of editors who find the very concept of paid editing distasteful, the fact is there is no policy that prohibits it per se nor has past attempts at reaching consensus on the matter met with any success. There may be something to arbitrate if an editor is found to edits inappropriately with a conflict of interest (with or without being paid for it), but at this time we cannot intervene against hypothetical editors, nor would we have a policy-based rationale for doing so. — Coren 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline - per Risker. KnightLago (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Decline per above. Kirill 01:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)