Hi,
This question is about a dubious case held by email, so I'm asking all candidates who were sitting arbs. My apologies for timing (see "notes").
Cases held by email or involving private information need special care since they lack public scrutiny. In a major email case this year any arbitrator applying basic due diligence would have spotted very serious errors. Instead you ultimately went along with the following lapses on your watch.
- No proper case was presented although repeatedly requested, nor evidence backing defamatory claims.
- The party received evasive and ultimately dishonest answers from Arbcom to inquiries.
- No actual firm evidence that would stand the light of day existed on the discussed matters. You did not protest at the unsupported or unchecked claims, claims deliberately never specified or evidenced, or matters formally consulted, disclosed, and endorsed by arbs and equivalent, that can at best be seen as legitimate differences over approach.
- The Committee tried to backtrack and break its word (or argued it hadn't agreed when it very explicitly had) - multiple arbs knew this.
- The Committee did not act over non-neutral arbs with heavy involvement in the issue, later found not to have recused. (As came out afterwards.)
- You did not openly protest at the refusal of fair hearing, nor at the tendentious way these were gamed - such as refusing for 6 months to provide details of defamation or any formal case, then claiming untruthfully they had been sent, finally then claiming the matter was closed so none needed to be provided, and other steps taken by the Committee to obstruct fair discussion.
- You did not protest when your colleagues showed a gross breach of neutrality by revealing their eagerness and desire to find something actually wrong and their despair at being unable to do so.
- You either didn't check "facts" in the case yourself, or protest at Committee emails that were grossly in error or "straw men". (Your colleagues didn't check basic facts much either.)
- When the Committee engaged in strenuous bad faith and games and could not be persuaded to cease, you didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen.
We trust Arbitrators to make evidence-based and fairly considered decisions in private and check facts. If the Committee fails at this and abuses its trust we need arbs who will prevent it.
The lack of genuine case, evidence or reasonable discussion, and its replacement by unfounded defamatory claims, pretexts and assumptions, was a lapse to a point that you as a diligent member should have expressed serious concerns. You should have sounded the alarm externally. But you did not. You were silent.
Details of example lapses
|
- The Committee sent a proposed AC/N statement in December 2010 stating the Committee "has become aware" of some matters, worded as if to imply something hidden. This was grossly misleading since I had myself notified the Committee almost 2 weeks before, in accordance with usual standards, to check if the matter should be disclosed. The Committee's email - containing a 24 hour ultimatum - was delayed nearly 2 weeks then sent at 1 AM UTC on the Saturday of the one weekend I had specifically said I was unlikely to be able to receive or read email.
- A second email in January 2011 (same matter) was also grossly in error. Its contents were blatantly contradicted on Arbcom's own records and agreements, to the extent that any diligent Arbitrator checking however briefly would notice. Again it seems no fact-check took place.
In January 2011 a blatant defamatory statement which I won't repeat here (same matter) was made in a Committee email. I asked the Committee to let me know specifics and evidence. The reply was a "straw man" giving no comment on the specific defamatory claim I asked about. I asked again, pointing out that an opinion of this defamatory kind needed to be evidenced; without details I could not respond. It was clear and specific as to the defamation being asked about, but the reply was again evasive as to my actual question. I asked a third time for details to back up the defamatory claim -- and was surprised now to be told it had been answered "repeatedly and at length", which was categorically untrue and the Committee knew it. So I pointed out that I had merely received emails answering questions I hadn't asked. The next reply appears to be a subtle coercive threat based on an assumption I would not wish details made public and stating an answer would only be provided - if I insisted - publicly. I ignored it and pointed out (5th attempt to get a reply) that if a reply had ever been written as claimed to my actual inquiry then anyone could cite a date it was sent or forward it, but the Committee would be unable to as none had been. Awkward silence fell. The Committee, and every Arbitrator on it knew the Committee's claim of having sent details backing the defamatory comments were untrue. To a final request to back up the defamatory claim it had made over 6 months ago, the Committee's response was effectively dismissive, a one line statement that any defamation resulting from the Committee's statements or handling was not the Committee's problem. No explanation, case, or evidence backing any defamatory claim had been sent in all that time.
- In the same issue as above, the record shows the underlying matter was legitimate and consulted, and considered by those in senior positions as being correctly consulted, handled, and endorsed. Names, cites and checkable details of those users were provided. At least one arb with close knowledge stated this as well. That should have been the end of the matter. It would have been on any neutral review of evidence. Several had placed their view on verifiable record, including a member of WMF staff. The Committee not only continued to maintain an impossible claim that the matter was a unilateral decision (against the evidence of many users of senior standing who had endorsed or been consulted) but also "circled wagons" around a sitting arb who had been involved, consulted, and had endorsed and "signed off" on the matter.
- Specific tactics were apparently discussed to frustrate ongoing attempts to obtain a proper case statement or hearing.
In March 2011 an arb apparently stated "The trouble is that (the user) does deserve a hearing" - evidence that none had been given. (And why would giving a hearing be "trouble"?) Similarly to cap it all, it seems that after most of the above, a sitting arb then commented that they would have "loved it" if there had been evidence of a specific wrongdoing. If accurate this makes clear that there was an eagerness to find some fault although in reality there was nothing but high quality conduct. No wrongdoing had ever existed - one does not express a wish for evidence to exist if it already exists. More seriously how can any arb be "neutral" who is expressing how they would "love" to find adverse evidence in their off-wiki communications? Other arbs had apparently also expressed such a wish.
- Instead conjecture - mostly wrong - filled the gap. Grossly wrong assumptions were apparently made in secret and treated equivalent to evidence, but with no checking of their accuracy, and with no notification or opportunity to rebutt with good evidence.
|
Notes
|
Checkable details (dates, cites, etc) sent by email; I will gladly hear explanations off-wiki to avoid placing you in any privacy-related catch-22. Errors will be retracted a.s.a.p., though I expect none. I accept I can't know what you did internally, that's only one part of it. Ultimately you were not diligent, did not protest firmly, or acquiesced in allowing gross errors and clear abuse to go ahead. Facts stated can be unambiguously substantiated, mainly from Arbcom's own records. Straw men (ie arguing points I'm not actually raising, as happened in this case off-wiki) will be met with disclosure as needed to show accuracy of statements, and if needed, with Jimmy Wales' recommendation of public scrutiny of the matter such as RFC. Impersonal pronouns used at times to keep it neutral in tone. Defamations and underlying case specifics not posted to keep the focus on the issues of arbitrator responsibility which is what matters here. I apologize for the timing, which should have been earlier (I had hoped to have it done well in advance for 31 Oct).
|
That reflects poorly on your conduct as an arb in 2010 - 2011. It seems you can be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity, and you don't diligently check facts or Committee emails. You are asserting that you can be trusted to hear cases conscientiously, neutrally, fairly, to a very high standard, and watch for the community over Arbitrator standards in non-public matters, for another two years, but these inevitably raise doubt.
FT2 (Talk | email) 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The start of this saga (which was never a case, to the best of my knowledge) predates my election to the committee. Indeed, we were at one point running with (against?) each other, near this time last year. As such, the principal events predated my tenure, and the discussion about what to do about the situation after I was appointed was generally amongst the senior arbitrators. Since you've apparently asked the same questions to four other arbitrators who were there for the entire series of events, I think I'll defer my answers. I reserve the right to answer the question more fully later, but it is conceivable that a complete explanation of this matter may require your permission for disclosure of private material. Would you grant that permission if it became necessary? Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in re-reading the above, I don't see a specific question. Is it anything more than "Can you please explain your actions or lack thereof"? Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's pretty much the question. But I'm asking you why you didn't call time on it. These things happened on your watch. Although the initial events predated your tenure, the gross mishandling this year did not (eg the defamation and subsequent gaming all happened from January 2011), and I am asking why you as one of our best, those with integrity, didn't speak up when events so clearly showed mishandling? Isn't excusing it by basically seeming to say you just went along with so-called "senior" arbitrators' questionable behavior the plainest evidence of lapse? Didn't you ever check the correctness and factual basis of emails the Committee drafted? Did you not notice valid case questions incoming and evasions outgoing, or that colleagues virtually never actually discussed confirmed hard evidence or gave "normal" straight replies? Where was your diligence, for the community as well as all involved persons? Why, when you had no real way not to have seen enough clues to have the thought it was badly suspect, did someone whose role requires great wiki-awareness and integrity and a fierce care for our project and its norms, elected to a position of "final resort" over disputes, ultimately opt to stay silent and go along with it? In light of the fact you did, a request to be trusted in that role of care and scrutiny in 2012 - 13 needs some explaining of apparent lapses in undertaking the role in 2011.
- This was the core role. It's why we have such scrutiny over appointments, because the community and all users have to trust arbs do right "in private" once elected.
- As said the aim is purely to get clarity on your request for a further term given the repeated failure to perform the role properly this time round - so if anything privacy-related would clarify but you feel you cannot talk about it here, allude to it in email or ask colleagues, or something - my word that if you need to, any good-faith explanation in email with a request to keep private will go no further and will be quickly and fairly responded, or reflected in a (non-privacy-breaching) post on-wiki if it genuinely explains anything. I fear it cannot but that ball must be left in your court. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me be perfectly clear here: Until and unless I receive your permission to specifically and completely disclose private material which I expect to be damaging to you, involving your conduct as a functionary, which may well lead to community sanctions on you despite the age of the conduct, I'm not free to answer the question. My recollection of the case (I no longer have ready access to the online archives) is that the discussions in 2011 were substantially about how to keep you from ever getting access to the functionary tools again, given what was perceived as a gross breach of trust, without the drama of an after-the-fact case which would not prevent future misuse, since you no longer had functionary tools when evidence of the misconduct was uncovered. Do you want the genesis of that dispute aired in public? If so, then I will answer your questions in full. If not, then my brief description of my recollection is all you will be getting. You've now posted a rant to five individuals, accusing each of us of gross malfeasance without any evidence. Would you like to see the evidence posted publicly, or not?
- I should be clear in turn. I don't do things I would be ashamed of publicly. I would wish to consider how to handle the matter properly but my own preference would be daylight and the judgment of neutral users or the community, if the Committee were agreeable. I do agree the debate got toxic and polarized; it's inherent that where one side acted in a way that appeared dishonest or gaming, the other would feel a need to rebut more firmly, leading to strong divisions.
- I would not make claims I could not support on a public venue like this, nor so specifically, nor if there was anything to hide. As I don't, you have my exact concerns and your suggestion of letting the entire matter be dealt with openly in public is acceptable in principle. I will say your colleagues internal "take" on the matter is badly flawed and I think they (and you too) have enough evidence to see that, if seen from scratch and in context.
- It's accepted you are bound by privacy. That's why I said I'd be fine accepting a valid explanation why Arbcom's conduct in case handling wasn't dishonest, wasn't gaming or why case handling was fair. You can give me that by email if you like, or outline it here, or we can present the entire background to neutral parties or the community if preferred. However the underlying case issue itself is all separate from WP:ACE and your conduct as an arb. Above is a clear summary of where case handling was dubious or dishonest. You have exact dates and cites for each in email. That's the issue for today. You don't need to break privacy for that. What you do need to do is explain why you, as a sitting arb, did not take action when you saw such case handling, why you allowed emails as described to be sent with your apparent approval, and what that says about your handling of the role in 2011.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 01:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about me just linking to the place on Wikipedia Review where all of this was discussed, by way of background? (The irony being, that, post-leak, that's an easier place for me to find this content) That seems like the simplest way to get the background out in the open, but I would like you to find and review it first to make sure it's not misquoting you in any way, or otherwise mischaracterizing the email you sent. Does the thread in question (which I will not link to here, but I'm sure you can find it) accurately represent your correspondence with the committee up through 2010? I have copies of everything since my appointment in my personal archives. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it's not clear if you are requesting verification of anything on WR about the original email, links to leaked emails that are salient, the dialog prior to your appointment, or background for statements about Arbcom case handling, I'll summarize all of these by email and please let me know by return which you need more clarity on.
- The fact the leaker provided corroborative evidence to my benefit does not make any of his/her actions even slightly more acceptable. It was a gross breach of trust and I would not willingly link to or give it oxygen if you paid me, since I can point you to the original list versions instead. Assuming the few parts I took note of are accurate (based on Arbcom and others' reactions and the context) you already have exact snips by email so a search the usual way in your usual email will do what you need.
- I would underline though that the actual case is a distraction here; the issue at ACE is why the unambiguous gaming and other case lapses by arbitrators during case handling were allowed to happen repeatedly on your - or anyone's - watch. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Casting accusations in the form of rhetorical questions doesn't make them actual questions, FT2, and this should have been taken to the talkpage from the start. Though I don't suppose your classic question-begging techniques will... oh, never mind, just move the whole shooting-match to Talk. This page is for bona fide questions. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- (Side-thread replied on talk page - FT2 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
|