User:Jbhunley/Letter to WMF Ombudsman Committee

meta:Ombudsman commission
cu-ombuds-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org
16 September 2019

To whom it may concern;

As you may or may not be aware there has been quite the kerfuffle going on at the English Wikipedia. One of our administrators was banned by a new authority Trust and Safety arrogated itself - the ability to ban editors from a single WMF project and for a defined term. In this case one year.

This Partial Temporary Ban differs from the Global Ban which has historically been reserved for long term disruptions of multiple projects or where legal considerations are in play in that it was used to punish behavior which has historically been left to the purview of the English WP community and its Arbitration Committee. Because of this the community vocally demanded that the ban be reviewed. Jimmy Wales said OK and T&S provided the Arbitration committee a, we are told, a pre-redacted copy of their case report but refused to allow them to discuss it in any was or to provide any information to the community about its contents. Not even the number of complaints.

However, it has been repeatedly said by members of the Arbitration committee that there was no behavior by Fram which was not openly and publicly visible on Wikipedia yet they still claim that T&S is preventing them from discussing this publicly known information even in generalities because of the meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy and specifically the meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. (Collectivly herin called 'confidentiality agreement')

I believe this to be a assertion to be incorrect on its face:

Without an unacceptable failure on the part of OVERSIGHT and T&S none of the behavior/diffs, after scrutiny by a T&S member, can be reasonably thought to have the potential to be nonpublic personal data.
By virtue of being publicly visible on-wiki the agreement expressly excluded is from its terms Exceptions to nonpublic personal data. Nonpublic personal data does not include any information which (a) was publicly available at the time of disclosure;.... IANL but I can read and reason and assume a two part test when for determining whether material is within the purview of the confidentiality agreement:

Was it ever something which could legitimately be described as nonpublic personal data? In No then agreement is not germane; If no:
Was it publicly available at the time of disclosure? If yes it is explicitly excluded by the terms of the agreement.

In the event I am incorrect in this or, as I believe is the case, you require a potential violation of the agreement before you investigate I draw your attention to SilkTork, an Arbitrator with access to the dossier provided to the committee by T&S. He has been carrying on a conversation with Fram on meta:User talk:Fram in that discussion he has openly and flagrantly been violating the claimed embargo on this information, yet is concerned enough to harshly criticize Fram for "speculating" about editors who he has had prior conflict with. The specific instances where SilkTork has presented information he represents as being from the embargoed source:

This thread titled 2019 report to T&S:LouisAlain] where in he clearly states
"The first piece is one of the reports submitted to T&S. I gave the impression earlier ("The complaints in 2019 all relate to ArbCom") that the reports were all about attacks on ArbCom or related to ArbCom cases - this is not actually so. In the Appendix of the T&S document are letters and reports, one of which links to the ANI report on your interaction with LouisAlain. "
In the thread Deleting Rama's uploads on Commons where he says
"There is a report (not from Rama) about you going through Rama's uploads on Commons and deleting them."
We also have
"I'm looking again closely at the T&S document for incidents after the 2018 warning. The Foundation received two complaints in late 2018. The names are redacted, but looking at the dates and the incidents and the wording, it is clear that the complaints were from two different people, though both were about your attention to one particular user. T&S examined the complaints and while there was some concern that you were continuing to breathe down the neck of that particular user, there was both sufficient justification for your concern about that user's edits and sufficient doubt that you hadn't deliberately targeted that user that the complaints were logged but no action taken." and "The complaints in 2019 all relate to ArbCom. Four complaints." [1]
...and finally
"[I[t would have been inappropriate for us not to look into the concerns raised in the document… Incidents such as those ...the refocus of attention on a contributor who had requested that another admin should look into their behaviour if there was a concern,.." [2]

I believe it commendable that SilkTork is attempting to address these matters with Fram in an open and public way but, he should not have had to. and having to use his kindness and candor in this way is repugnant. However, secret evidence is abhorrent and evidence which is openly and publicly available yet is called "unknowable" by even the person subject to sanction based on it is a sickening perversion. Nothing less. I request that you obtain a copy of the redacted dossier from a member of the Arbitration Committee and review its contents with respect to the WMF Confidentiality Agreement. Should it be found in part or in whole not to be subject to the agreement I request that you do all and/or any of the following:

Promptly inform the Arbitration Committee of what they may and may not discuss openly. Either specific material or classes/kinds of material.
Publish to the community or provide to me the advice, in such detail as is permissible, provided to by you Arbcom
Issue a public statement or a reply to me stating your findings and conclusions.
A reply directly to SilkTork stating your findings and conclusions.
Prepare or order the preparation of a copy of the material in the report which is not subject to the confidentiality agreement and publish it on English WP or provide it to me.

Should you find that all the material and specifically the material revealed by SilkTork to be subject to the confidentiality agreement then, please provide to him, me and publish on Wikipedia your findings. Thank you for your prompt and attention to this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me preferably on my talk page, or should the matter require discretion via the Wikipedia email interface.

I remain.
With kind regards,

Jbh ^Talk 06:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

en:User:Jbhunley

Case tracking

No response or acknowledgement from the Commission as of: 20:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Posted follow-up [3] to Ombudsman Commission member Jamie Tubers on Meta: 23:55 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- No response of acknowledgement as of: 20:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Posted follow-up to Emufarmers [4] on 20:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Case tracking

See also