The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
I find it rather ironic that you would accuse me of taking part in "a dubious case held by email", and insinuate that I "didn't sound the alarm externally but acquiesced and let it happen". You recall, do you not, the Orangemarlin affair? I have never shied away from sounding external alarms when something untoward is taking place.
But I digress.
Let me begin by correcting an apparent misunderstanding in your comments: there was never a case against you, by email or otherwise. You made a certain request of the Committee, which the Committee declined. Now, you might think that our doing so was unfair, that we ought to have held a hearing about it, and so forth; but the point is that the request was the Committee's to grant or decline, and that the Committee is under no obligation to explain itself to your personal satisfaction.
As for why we declined your request: the various minor concerns aside, the substantive deciding factor was a particular email which you had written some time prior; no doubt you are aware of it. Having examined that email, it's my opinion that no further discussion is necessary; there is, quite simply, nothing that you could possibly say in your defense that would cause the Committee to find in your favor.
If you honestly believe otherwise, then all you need to do is to publish the email in question. Let the community see why we have treated you thus; if, as you apparently believe, your actions were justified, then you should have nothing to fear.
The Orangemarlin case did occur to me, with irony. The difference is I spent the whole of the rest of that year trying to ensure such a mistake could never happen again, and I didn't try and justify or evade responsibility via ARBCOM:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While I had relied on responses and input from others, I had also been concerned enough to recheck and re-recheck before accepting them and when it turned out they were flawed I didn't argue that other things somehow made that okay.
As you surely saw, knew and appear to have endorsed, the Committee attempted to argue by pretext and by gaming, and it's that which you - a highly experienced arb - tolerated without protest for months, which makes your fitness for another term questionable. Even the "substantive deciding factor" (as you describe it) was weak enough to need propping up by blatant unfounded pretences. It was co-authored and endorsed by a peer of yours, a sitting arb whom I see was not considered at fault for doing so. Wagons were circled. Should that sound like double-standards and gaming? It does.
As to the email you mention, indeed it won't be posted, and we do both know why. It was circulated off-list and off-wiki to protect people. The total focus of that email was to protect innocent non-users from very severe imminent malicious real-world harm to their lives, and that is very thoroughly documented - it included one or more children (under 13) whose identities were stolen and whose email addresses were used in a sexual context, and professionals whose jobs were at imminent risk. The email was consulted and aimed to procure an immediate stop to that horrible outcome. It was discussed carefully over an extended time by multiple users of very high standing from multiple projects as a last way to prevent severe long-lasting real-world harm to children and others after all else failed. Many of those consulted were deliberately independent/uninvolved to ensure it was not sent by mistake as being "too close" to matters. (enwp Arbcom can leak and this couldn't be allowed to.) As if that was not enough, it was also disclosed promptly on sending and resignation offered to WMF. You know and have seen the responses, the users confirming their scrutiny and views - they were solid endorsement whether before or after. I had sent you the evidence that your own colleague, a 2011 sitting arb and then-functionary, had even co-authored and thoroughly endorsed the very aspects you complain of, that he was asked as a final check "should it be sent" and stated it should, and he stipulated in final discussions the handling of disclosure to WMF staff which was scrupulously followed.
You saw the WMF email being misrepresented within Arbcom - how do I know that? Because I checked myself with the WMF staff member -- and that reply is on record too. (Your colleagues should never try to make false claims about evidence, it gets found out.) His actual stance? He not only endorsed too, but was severely critical of you and your colleagues at Arbcom. That's how bad judgment was at Arbcom here. I won't post that or the original email on-site, but you knew beyond doubt from your own records that my statements here (except one you lack sight of the evidence) are accurate.
Fast forward to 2010/2011. You allowed or condoned a dishonest case to be built up and allowed or condoned case handling intended to prevent any fair discussion. You were aware of the matters above and allowed them. You saw subtle but unmistakable threats and didn't object, internal agreements or proposals to prevent a proper case and didn't object, straw men and evasions and didn't speak out, unchecked and grossly untrue assertions treated like evidence and didn't object, and the rest. I expected better of you then and I expect better now. Trying to ignore the 90% of the case by arguing on one point, when even your sole "deciding factor" was exceedingly unfounded, and at worst a legitimate difference of opinion with many views on both sides, is close to 'lawyering. The rest just shows some arbs had an eager wish to find wrongdoing despite evidence, and others went along with it. That is something I never did. Jclemens' excuse is that he left it to "senior Arbitrators" - you included.
Back to Orangemarlin. I accepted the f***up in 2008 and I diligently used the rest of my term to try and change the Committee so it could never happen again to any user. That's how you do honest regret. That's integrity. What did you do when you had wrongful Arbcom process very strongly drawn to your attention? Did you not just accept and endorse it? FT2(Talk | email)15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your unwillingness to let the community see the email in question, I think we have nothing further to discuss. Suffice it to say that I reject, categorically, your assertions that it was in any way necessary or appropriate, or that the discussions you may or may not have had with certain other individuals regarding it somehow absolve you of the ultimate responsibility for having sent it. Frankly, had I known of your actions at the time, I would have banned you myself. Kirill[talk][prof]15:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, the email is not publicized because among other reasons it's not relevant to the question of your conduct. Arbcom is full of strongly argued diverse views and even in the underlying case I have provided exceptionally strong evidence. Discussion on the underlying case can happen another time.
The ACE 2011 issue is your conduct in reviewing that matter, as someone trusted and responsible for ensuring fair and honest case handling. You were a "senior arbitrator" (Jclemens) - someone others looked up to and possibly placed too much trust in. These emails by the committee, the tactics of goal-shifting, untruthful pretexts and defamation with no willingness to discuss or even explain, were very greatly your responsibility.
You watch Arbcom's mailing list in depth and you know the standards expected. You know what honest case handling is and that this wasn't. You have been the co-ordinating or deputy co-ordinating Arbitrator for 2.5 years. You "manag[ed] the organizational and procedural aspects of the Committee's day-to-day work", drafted some 60 cases, and have "participate[d] in just about every possible aspect of an arbitrator's role" (candidate statement). Your scope for excuse is very narrow since of all arbs re-standing this election, you had perhaps the most experience and chance to say "this isn't how it should be". But it happened on your watch.
Even on your own premise, you were badly out of step. Your other colleagues at the time who knew the case were firmly against you. Your fellow arb jpgordon had full disclosure, your current fellow arb John Vandenberg actually co-authored and signed off on it ("It is good"), another fellow arb in 2009 endorsed it in advance for sending ("Commend"), a 2007 arb attested to you that he had been consulted throughout on all ethical issues and endorsed it ("honorable, ethical"), a 2010 - 11 arbitrator lamented in both an external and an internal email that he had tried to whip up disapproval of it and failed ("nobody seemed to mind", good evidence I had not merely selected favorable views). So let's leave aside the hyperbole about bans - too many people throughout sided against your view and went on verifiable record, while the one who objected a year complained he had no support.
It is 2011 and you are standing again. Private cases are the ones needing the very highest standard of care and conduct since the community cannot review them. In this case there was severe gaming at Arbcom level. With your experience you knew precisely what you and others were doing all that time (it lasted months and involved many examples). It needs a very good explanation. You enabled, personally participated in, and endorsed your colleagues' gaming in a case. That's the issue here. Why? FT2(Talk | email)04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
