|
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").
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) - you knew this from personal knowledge.
- 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, which you personally endorsed and hence knew about beyond doubt, but you didn't speak up externally despite personal knowledge that an Arbcom email was fundamentally in error.
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]
- FT2, let's put the cards on the table. At the time that you voluntarily resigned checkuser and oversight, the Arbitration Committee was not aware of a very specific action you took, which at the time you took it you clearly identified as something you were doing on your own initiative without any backing from any other party. You crossed a bright line with that action, and it is one that has almost invariably resulted in the user being banned, no matter how lofty their intentions were. The Committee was hesitant to take that step in your case for two reasons: first, the action did not come to light to the full committee until February/March 2010 although it occurred in September 2008; and second, publicly releasing the information had the potential to inflict further harm on non-Wikipedians, some of whom had already been victimized on our projects. To this day, you still do not recognise how inappropriate your action was, and you have consistently sought to blame everyone else including fellow arbitrators, functionaries from other projects, and even WMF staff, for any consequences of your own action. The Committee does not have to publicly justify a refusal to return advanced permissions to users, but in your case there was ample reason to refuse to do so. The Committee (and when you were still on the Committee, your fellow arbitrators individually or as a group) have asked you questions about this and other issues on multiple occasions going back almost to the beginning of 2008, and you have almost invariably obfuscated, dodged, deferred, dissembled, and postponed responding. Even those responses you've ultimately given to have often been shown to be incomplete or inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the Committee does not require any further information to refuse to grant you access to advanced tools.
Lessons have been learned from the intertwined events that are being obliquely discussed here. The recently ratified arbitration policy now specifically permits the Committee to remove members who do not meet the conduct criteria, something that was not in place in 2008/09 when both your arbitrator colleagues and the community as a whole had expressed such serious concerns about your activities. Criteria are now established for removing advanced permissions from functionaries, and explicitly require that any return of tools is at the pleasure of the Arbitration Committee. The Audit Subcommittee, including representation from the community, has now been put in place to review issues related to checkuser/oversight use. Outside of our own project, the better-staffed WMF community relations groups are in better position to address users who are problematic across multiple projects, stewards are much more willing to act and to participate in (or even lead) such investigations, and WMF-wide terms of service and community-proposed global ban policy are undergoing extensive community comment prior to their formal adoption. But none of this requires that elaborate, detailed processes be used to keep privacy-related tools out of the hands of those who misuse information gathered as a result of using those tools. I'm sorry, but I'm with Kirill here. If I'd known in late 2008 or early 2009 about your personal actions that occurred in September 2008, I would have concurred with site-banning you. I know you took those actions with the heartfelt belief that this was the right thing to do, but at least since February/March 2010 you have consistently been told that they were inappropriate and serious violations of policy, and I have no reason at all to believe that you understand that. For the record, you have also emailed me personally with a further extremely long, apparently personalized message that repeats several of the points above. Risker (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record I stated in my original question that I had emailed you. The email contains dates and cites so that you can check facts without having privacy issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This matter had massive imminent likelihood of enduring real-world harm to non users -- and enduring harm to one or more children under 13. Its handling was judged by many and won wide endorsements and commendations from your peers and others of Arbcom-level standing. Overall, too many people throughout have sided against your view and went on verifiable record saying so to make a case. Enough arbitrators or equivalent knew of it through disclosure (2008). Just the one objected, a year on, and even he complained that nobody agreed with him. You've seen the cited evidence, you cannot argue that I took a view not taken by many others of similar standing to you. Far from unrecognizing the seriousness, you have the evidence showing how very seriously it was taken and the reason those who endorsed concurred on doing so.
- The issue here is your conduct as an arb, here at ACE where you argue you hold high standards. I am asking why you tolerated, endorsed, and allowed claims you knew to be dishonest, in Arbcom emails, and why you didn't openly protest when you saw your colleagues engaged in tendentiousness, threats, and defamation. You knew personally, that facts stated in several Arbcom emails were flat falsehoods. You also didn't check evidence carefully and as a result there were numerous wrong assumptions never checked properly which were then discussed as if factual and appear to be relied upon (you had examples of two serious wrong assumptions by email).
- Private cases are the most important for Arbitrator integrity since the community cannot scrutinize them. But you didn't. Not one arb has attempted to show that these lapses were at minimum some kind of good conduct, honest mistakes, reasonable errors, or show good faith. It's also notable that every last one of your colleagues here has evaded the question of Arbcom's wrongdoing. Not one has tried to argue these breaches didn't happen.
- Now in 2011 you are standing for Arbcom again. It's a role that requires a high level of integrity of your conduct. On your watch, emails with knowingly dishonest statements were sent. You gamed (or allowed gaming) at Arbcom level. You had full knowledge precisely what you were enabling and what was going on all that time and it wasn't fending off improper or already-answered questions, it was unambiguous obstruction of proper discussion of a defamatory claim made by the Committee, and related matters. The ACE question is "You enabled, personally participated in, and endorsed your colleagues' gaming in a case at Arbcom level. Why?" FT2 (Talk | email) 17:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FT2, I have no idea on what basis you're making many of your claims, and your point of view is revisionist history at best. You suggest that the entire Arbitration Committee of 2008 not only knew of the email you sent at the time you sent it, but explicitly approved of it in the form in which you sent it; bluntly put, that's nonsense and we both know it. You told *some* arbitrators of that time *some* of the information relating to this investigation, but carefully compartmentalized the great bulk of the information. Even when this matter first came to light in 2010, the sitting arbitrators requested explicitly that you provide ALL of the information that you used to come to your conclusions, and you have never provided it. This has definitely created increased difficulty, not only on our project but on other projects as well, in identifying and addressing continued inappropriate behaviour by the user involved. The information you continue to broadcast on this and other pages contains inaccurate dates, truncates portions of discussions and appears to be based on selectively leaked emails chosen with an agenda in mind. Your insistence that you have been treated unfairly has little resonance when you spent three years avoiding answering legitimate questions from your colleagues on the Committee and later the sitting Committee. More importantly, you keep referring to some sort of "case". There was no case, FT2. When the Committee was trying to figure out what to do with you in December 2008/January 2009, you were right there on the mailing list not answering the questions we were asking, but it was not a case. When you asked for checkuser and oversight back, only then were you questioned about the email: an arbitrator to whom it had been forwarded asked you to verify if you had indeed sent it, because he wanted to believe you wouldn't have done such a thing. Unfortunately, his good faith was for nought; you confirmed you had sent it, and made it clear then that you still believed it was the right thing to do. This too was not a case, it was a discussion about whether or not you were trusted by the Committee with checkuser and oversight tools, and when further questions were asked, you never responded, so you did not get the advanced permissions back. We entertained a further request from you later in the year, when you were asked certain questions which you have never answered. That wasn't a case either. When considering whether or not to post a notice about your candidacy last year on behalf of the Committee, the sole consideration was that you were obfuscating and dissembling in your statements, and failing to tell the truth about your interactions with the Committee; it would have been unethical to permit your version of events to stand uncorrected.
This discussion is at an end; you've actually not asked anything other than rhetorical questions in this section, and I fail to see why I should not just flip this entire section over to the talk page. Risker (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
