Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Roger Davies

Question from FT2
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.

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 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)



I have moved this thread to the discussion page, further discussion on this topic will likely breach privacy policy.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)