|
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 "small print").
I will state that you are the only arb I know of who is confirmed to have voiced strong objections on the matters below. But those objections stayed internal and amounted to nothing. If 14 senior colleagues agree to grossly breach norms or act in a way that does, and you know their proposal will be a severe breach, then merely speaking up in their dialog (however strongly) but then acceding, is no less a lapse. So though I do regret it and I appreciate your efforts to ensure fairness, I must ask you the same questions as your colleagues also standing.
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.)
- While you protested internally at some things, 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 the point of causing you to express serious concerns. But beyond participating in internal argument, 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 ultimately be cajoled into placing "standing together" in a Committee above integrity. 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]
There's no way for me to answer all this simply, and delving into a point-by-point debate isn't going to be useful for anyone reading this page; so I'll answer on the substance.
You screwed up. Over at least two specific major incidents – and no, the Orangemarlin case isn't even one of them of any significance. In both those cases, I have chosen to give the most generous interpretation for events. One because it seemed the simpler interpretation (misremembering the events around the oversighted edits during your election rather than being deceptive), and one because I knew the intent behind your act (the email you sent to a grossly misbehaving editor, which can (and has) been read as very serious threat directed at that person, which I knew was intended as a "last chance to come clean" opportunity).
Both of those incidents, even in isolation, look so bad and so damaging that the committee – as a body – felt that this made your position as an arbitrator untenable, and even your continued participation as functionary was viewed as highly uncomfortable.
I think the committee handled this very poorly at first; you were rather unceremoniously set aside with very little opportunity to defend yourself, although even I must admit that you were being more evasive than comfort would allow – I chalked this up to your usual care in crafting a detailed response before saying anything, but the vast majority of other arbitrators were not so generous in their interpretation of the delays. At that time, I felt you had gotten a bum rap, I was also one voice in a committee that functions by majority vote.
Things went downhill from there.
During the following two years, you have had numerous contacts with both the committee as a body and individual arbitrators. While it may have been understandable given you were under the impression that you had been unjustly treated, you personalized the dispute a great deal and came across as highly combative. During that period, you made a number of assertions to defend your prior actions that – in the end – either did not match or directly contradicted every bit of information we did have from the record or other parties. You know I cannot enumerate any of this here; but in the end even I was convinced that the evidence was so damning that there was no way you could possibly regain the trust of the committee.
I remain convinced that you never had any intent to deceive, and that the incidents themselves were errors rather than malice. I honestly wished that the way the committee chose to handle the matter (set you aside quietly, without raising a fuss and placing you on the stocks) would have allowed you to let the matter quietly drop while you set your efforts to other aspects of the projects. I still believe that things are nowhere near as bad as they look – but they look so bad that I also understand why the committee could not, and cannot, allow you to retain any kind of position of trust.
- The issue on this page is the Committee's untruthfulness and dishonesty which led to the "combative" dispute (and it was combative both ways, arbs and ex-arbs are no strangers to "robust" dispute).
- The first I heard was a completely unfounded claim by an arbitrator behind my back (CC'ed by mistake). I had to ask directly 3 or 4 times to get an admission of zero evidence and proving it was surely untrue to a neutral user wouldn't be hard. Things indeed went downhill from there. The case (such as it was) was fundamentally flawed - unless you want to start defrocking numerous other arbs and functionaries wincluding one of your colleagues and a WMF staffer at the time. There may have been legitimate robust disagreements or discussion, that was fine. Had they been fair that would have been fine. Gaming and fabrications are very not fine, and seeing all arbs go along with dishonest evasions was shocking. I am genuinely fearful for our community if that trend is not quickly halted and arbs are not made to take a hard look at what they did on their watch.
- It was the switch to illegitimate games and outright dishonesty that should never have happened and that's what I am asking: - "why didn't you prevent it or speak up". You saw clearly dishonest statements made - yet your reaction is I should not have combated them when they happened? You saw a user defamed but he/she was out of line to ask repeatedly for a rationale for the defamation when each reply evaded, made threats, and asserted (as you categorically knew untruthfully) that it was already sent? I underline I'm not discussing my actions, but the dishonest and improper case handling, which was rightly protested many times and where the response was essentially "we can get away with it because we're many and have high standing" (as it appeared).
- Specifics of poor handling are above. You have cites and dates by email to check them. A user who is sent untruthful information as a purported "case", then told they are "combative" for stating it's unfounded or has not been sent, will never feel they had fair handling. You didn't prevent flagrant Arbcom mistakes, and for blatant severe dishonesty like this "I was one of many" doesn't cut it. Though I'm sure that you sincerely wish it had been otherwise, you failed. You let dishonest case handling, and replies you knew were untruthful and were bound to be protested, happen on your watch.
- I know you cannot discuss the detail here. The place to discuss it was by normal email, honestly and directly, 10 months ago when I asked, or 9 months ago when I asked, or 5 months ago when I asked.
- Nonetheless if the Committee is sure then I would be fine seeing it at RFC, which was Jimbo's suggestion. It can only affect and reflect on myself and arbitrators, hence cannot harm others (other emails can easily be characterized or redacted) - and I'm sure enough of my ground to discuss having our dialog and the accuracy of your claim about the evidence both judged by the community, if the Committee is too.
- Meantime I conclude noting the actual core issue, the evidence of Arbcom gaming, you don't speak to at all. Deceptions and dishonesty are ignored or not contested. "One of many" isn't an excuse. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointing Coren. You were asked about poor Arbitrator conduct and scrutiny, so a few words explaining unambiguous Arbitrator lapses you knew of, or how you came to endorse or permit dishonest arbship in a non-public case would be helpful. "There is nothing more to say" [1] when you have in fact said nothing on the question and it relates to you endorsing dishonesty at a senior level, is... disappointing. Is that really your ethics? FT2 (Talk | email) 05:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FT2's first (lengthy) post here doesn't even pretend to be a question. It should have been posted on the talkpage. And, as I just mentioned on Jclemens's questions page, casting further accusations in the form of rhetorical questions ("Is that really your ethics?") doesn't make them real questions, either. I'm not going to say this on all the questions pages you have posted this stuff on, FT2, but please have the grace to move all of it to the appropriate talkpages. The candidate questions pages are for questions; avoid swamping them, please. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
|
