I was offered (and accepted) a contractual engineering position with the WMF as Tools Lab Operations Engineer effective February 25, 2013. While this position is entirely unrelated to the English Wikipedia proper, it does mean that I am now a paid employee of the Foundation and this raises a potential issue with my seat on the Arbitration Committee.
I have informed the rest of the Committee that I was in discussions with the Foundation about that position as soon as the process had begun and explicitly stated that, from that moment on, I would recuse entirely from any deliberation in the unlikely event that it involves a WMF employee. This recusal, of course, will remain in force until I am no longer an employee of the Foundation.
My duties at the WMF, in short, are to provide new tools and system administrator support to contributors running bots and other external tools on the new Wikimedia Labs, and to ease their transition from the WMDE-provided toolserver that is scheduled to be decommissioned later this year.
I anticipate no interaction between that position and my responsibilities to the Arbitration Committee, and can think of no plausible scenario where my work with the Foundation would ever constitute a conflict of interest. That said, I also understand that the community is ill-at-ease with direct involvement from Foundation employees in the day to day management of our project, so I invite comments here about whether there seems to be risks that I have not seen, or if further measures would be necessary to maintain the community's full confidence in my ability to remain impartial.
I expect that the Committee as a whole will deliberate on the propriety of my remaining an active member of the Committee while I am under contract, and that they will pay close attention to comments given here. In the event that it is found untenable to have a sitting member of the Committee that is also a Foundation employee, I shall step down from my ArbCom seat until I am no longer under contract.
— Coren (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Update
editGiven the feedback (both here from the community and within the committee), it seems clear that there are no insurmountable concerns about my holding both roles. Nevertheless, in addition to automatically recusing from any deliberation that has a member of the foundation staff as a party, I will:
- be liberal in recusing from cases where even remote overlap of the roles may come into play;
- be responsive to expressed concerns regarding said overlap; and
- reevaluate the situation in toto (a) in a few months and (b) just prior the next elections to see if problems (real or perceived) have cropped up that would make it wiser to leave my ArbCom seat for a new candidate.
Comments
edit- Personally, I don't see this is a big deal or a cause of concern, WMF employees have served in highly sensitive volunteer positions in the past without major problems that I'm aware of (Bastique and Guillom as Stewards, I believe). Snowolf How can I help? 21:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I trust that you are capable of determining whether or not you need to recuse yourself. I forsee no issues. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what I think of this, but I'd say that one should be cautious to recuse wider than just WMF-related cases and also include cases involving allegations of problematic bot usage (Betacommand and Rich Farmbrough, for instance). Good luck. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- A fair point. Although I trust Coren to know when there is a conflict of interest, it may be best for him to recuse from all bot-related cases to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I leave it to Coren to decide whether that is appropriate for him or not. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would actually disagree on that. I think it's important to have people who are technically minded on bot cases. Though depending on the case, it's also possible that Coren would have a COI because he is a (inactive) BAGer. Legoktm (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- It has not yet occurred, that I can recall, but I would certainly recuse if a case involved a conflict between the BAG and a bot operator regardless of this job.
That said, I don't think that a blanket "all bot operators" recusal is necessary or helpful: collaborating with tool writers on the infrastructure is not a fundamentally different proposition than having worked on the same article, say. Certainly, I would be no less careful about listening to concerns on any individual case about whether I should recuse. — Coren (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I think this is an issue worth discussing, however. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Appreciate you bringing this up. I agree with Deskana's first comment, and likewise agree that it wouldn't be good to promise recusal from certain kinds of cases beyond ones involving WMF-related people. Please make recusal decisions on a case-by-case basis, like you have before being a WMF employee. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I think this is an issue worth discussing, however. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- It has not yet occurred, that I can recall, but I would certainly recuse if a case involved a conflict between the BAG and a bot operator regardless of this job.
- I would actually disagree on that. I think it's important to have people who are technically minded on bot cases. Though depending on the case, it's also possible that Coren would have a COI because he is a (inactive) BAGer. Legoktm (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- A fair point. Although I trust Coren to know when there is a conflict of interest, it may be best for him to recuse from all bot-related cases to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I leave it to Coren to decide whether that is appropriate for him or not. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned, this isn't uncommon as Snowolf has pointed out. It does mean there is a chance that Coren will have to recuse once in a blue moon, but he is pretty conservative about that stuff, so I don't foresee a circumstance where the community would think he should and he would disagree. That said, announcing it and making it highly public was the right thing to do. Good luck with the new job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- From my POV, speaking as a staffer, I think it's awesome we have you aboard :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just looking forward to using the cool new tools you are going to develop.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) - First off, let me say that I'm thrilled for Coren, and that I think the WMF has made a good choice here. I do have concerns, however. There is an ongoing perception that the Committee is heavily influenced by the WMF, and that the WMF and its Board are in turn significantly influenced by the Arbitration Committee. Sometimes, there is at least some truth to that perception. We had one case in the past year where interactions between the Committee and WMF staff played a key role; this came to light only in the voting phase, where it would have been too late for Coren to recuse had he been an arbitrator at the time, and would have adversely affected the outcome of the case no matter what it turned out to be. Just within the past week, the Board of Trustees has cited an Arbcom decision to explain in part their reason for withholding support of a fairly significant movement organization, and there was discussion and concern about that possibility even at the time of the decision. The Committee had to draw to the attention of the WMF certain behaviours of WMF staff using staff permissions or tools being tested by staff only on two occasions in the last six months; the behaviour of co-workers would be another area of COI for Coren. In most arbitration cases, arbitrators and others use tools that currently exist on the toolserver and have not yet migrated to the labs; Coren's legitimate efforts to interact with the creators or "owners" of such tools may be perceived as his wearing two hats to get the tools the committee uses moved to his preferred location.
Do I think Coren has a genuine conflict of interest on a daily basis? Not at all. Do I think that his concurrent employment with the WMF and membership on the Arbitration Committee will be distracting and drama-inducing, laced with periodic conflicts of interest? That's extremely likely. The work of the Arbitration Committee is challenging enough without getting sidetracked by a constant need to address perceived conflicts of interest. I don't see WMF employment and Arbitration Committee membership as a good match. Risker (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for being candid, Risker. However, I think you are overestimating the importance and number of cases where conflicts of interest, even if just perceived rather than actual, would play a role (or would have played a role in the cases you mention), and overplaying the difficulty involved in a recusal in those cases where it happens – even if it has to take place late in the case as would have happened once in the past four years.
Mind you, I am aware of the risk that this could affect perceptions even if it turns out there is no substantial issue in the vast majority of cases; hence this consultation. But, in the end, if it turns out that I would have to recuse on half of the issues that reach the Committee during my contract (which would surprise me no end), that leaves me available to contribute positively for the other half. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you would have had to recuse from 3 of 11 cases in 2012, or 27% of the total, without addressing the number of other matters you may have had to recuse on as well. That's not small beans. However, your response to me, stating flatly that you think you should remain on the committee even if you have to recuse half the time, indicates that this is a pro forma rather than substantive offer. Risker (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well the way I see it, there is no way to replace Coren partway through the year. Even having him to help on some cases and matters would be better than not having him at all. --Rschen7754 03:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, or perhaps not if we wind up having lots of people derailing processes because they don't want an WMF staffer involved in their case. I guess the question at the heart of it is "would the community have elected a WMF employee to the Arbitration Committee?" If the answer in your mind is no, then how would you justify someone remaining on the Committee once they join the WMF staff? At the end of the day, I believe that there will be a significant negative effect on the community's perception of the Arbitration Committee as being independent from the WMF. Risker (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well the way I see it, there is no way to replace Coren partway through the year. Even having him to help on some cases and matters would be better than not having him at all. --Rschen7754 03:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you would have had to recuse from 3 of 11 cases in 2012, or 27% of the total, without addressing the number of other matters you may have had to recuse on as well. That's not small beans. However, your response to me, stating flatly that you think you should remain on the committee even if you have to recuse half the time, indicates that this is a pro forma rather than substantive offer. Risker (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for being candid, Risker. However, I think you are overestimating the importance and number of cases where conflicts of interest, even if just perceived rather than actual, would play a role (or would have played a role in the cases you mention), and overplaying the difficulty involved in a recusal in those cases where it happens – even if it has to take place late in the case as would have happened once in the past four years.
- By "contract-based" position, I assume this has a time limit? --Rschen7754 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does, the contract is for a year (well, 52 weeks). — Coren (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fairly common practice to hire IT folks on contract to see if a position is a good fit -- often the contract will be renewed if it is. I'm assuming Coren is not making a commitment now not to continue working for WMF after the contract expires? NE Ent 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making any such commitments, obviously, but the mandate is pretty well defined and is likely to be wrapped up (or mostly wrapped up) by the end of the year. It may well occur that a renewal is proposed, or some new mandate if the Foundation liked my work, but I think this is a bridge that is best crossed when reached. By the time such a discussion takes place, we'll be in a considerably better position to evaluate whether and how much being on staff affects being on ArbCom in practice rather than by guesswork. — Coren (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fairly common practice to hire IT folks on contract to see if a position is a good fit -- often the contract will be renewed if it is. I'm assuming Coren is not making a commitment now not to continue working for WMF after the contract expires? NE Ent 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does, the contract is for a year (well, 52 weeks). — Coren (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- My biggest concern would be cases involving bot operators or toolserver/Labs users, but I think a solid commitment from Coren to consider (and talk over with his colleagues) recusal in those and WMF-related cases is workaround enough - they're not all that common, and they're pretty well identifiable when they do happen. As far as WMF or bot aspects entering an already-ongoing case, unless there's some arbcom policy that prevents arbs from recusing mid-case, I expect that could be coped with with a late recuse and a re-counting of what proportion of votes makes a majority. We do already have arbcom members who liaise with the WMF - I think both Newyorkbrad and Risker have done (do do?) so - and I would expect the same from Coren as I would from liaisons: careful recusal hygiene and attention to what, if any, biases would exist due to working closely with staff. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is a significant difference between an arbitrator selected by the Arbitration Committee to represent its interests to the WMF, because it's indelibly clear who is being represented. Newyorkbrad and I have acted in that role for different purposes, as has Coren during his last term in office, and other arbitrators have as well for specific issues. Risker (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- As Arbitration Committee members do liase with WMF, they implicitly represent English Wikipedia; as an employee of WMF an Arb would not be independent, causing real or perceived conflicts of interest when its appropriate for English Wikipedia to inform the Foundation they're being stupid. No man can serve two masters. That said, the phrasing at the top of the page, and Coren's reply to Risker lead me to believe he's going to take the job and not resign from the committee regardless of what I, at least, say, so it's probably a waste of time to comment further. NE Ent 03:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would not have solicited comments if stepping down from the Committee was not under consideration, and will do so (or make any other adjustment) according to what the other arbitrators feel is appropriate. I expect that they will carefully read this discussion, and opine accordingly. In other words, further comments are exactly not a waste of time. — Coren (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think this should be workable; the case Risker describes (at least the case I believe she is referring to) was quite unusual. That being said, if this employment turned out to be on a more permanent basis, I think that closer to the elections the situation should be reevaluated. --Rschen7754 03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oddly, I didn't find anything particularly unusual in that case. It's certainly not the first time that someone under consideration for Arbcom sanctions has appealed to the WMF for assistance, and I'd be surprised if it's the last. Risker (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is only in that particular case where the WMF interactions affected the outcome of the case though, from my recollection. --Rschen7754 03:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c) Risker, you are conflating different unrelated things. I don't believe anyone ever directed their "appeal to the WMF for assistance" towards the Engineering and Product Development team, nor would anyone even vaguely involved in community relations be anywhere around my workflow. I'm not even going to be physically located at the SF office. — Coren (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand you'll be working remotely, and I understand that it's unlikely that appeals for assistance will wind up with the Engineering & Product Development team. I have sent you some details via email that do relate. I do actually think that your being on the EPD team might benefit Arbcom indirectly by encouraging development/transfer to Labs of tools and bots that would be useful for the committee - kind of ironic in a way. Risker (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oddly, I didn't find anything particularly unusual in that case. It's certainly not the first time that someone under consideration for Arbcom sanctions has appealed to the WMF for assistance, and I'd be surprised if it's the last. Risker (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have adequate insight to recognise any but the most obvious conflict of interest involving yourself. But you want to do the job, and presumably most of those who elected you (though I've obviously changed my view) want you there, so, if the remainder of the committee is willing to tap you on the shoulder every time your involvement in a case will undermine the community's confidence in the process, and you're prepared to heed them, then I support you remaining on the committee. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am specifically NOT taking a position on the question at hand. (For full disclosure, I recommended Coren for the job, and had at least two conversations with the hiring manager about it). However, I do wish to say that I hope that all involved - the committee, Coren, and the WMF, will be conscious of the role of the arbitrator-liaisons and my own role in liaising to the committee. I can think of nothing worse than having one stream for "official" things, and a backchannel stream for carrying messages as well. I hope we don't go down that rabbit hole. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should RESIGN from arbcom temporarily until such a time as you do not work for them. When your contract is completed then you could take that up again, preferably via a vote but that's up to the crats. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. The merest hint of any Conflict of Interest could lead to unwanted drama, especially so, given some of the matters that are laid at the feet of this Committee. It would be the clearest indication that the issue of possible Conflicts of Interest need not take up any time especially if the matter is in a grey area. If his skills are required at any step, then surely he can be consulted. When his contract is over, I am sure the re-assurance brought about by his resignation would be a good thing for others to emulate. Remember that it is not just whether procedures are in place to remove the possibility of Conflicts of Interest, but whether the greater community sees them as working well: resignation (even if temporary) adds to the confidence required here. DDStretch (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I trust Coren to recuse if there is a conflict - as any ArbCom member should do under any other circumstances. If he doesn't, then is the time to call for resignation. If a particular problem is in a grey area, he should consult with his colleagues (as any should...) Peridon (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations on this appointment Coren. I'm going to repeat here part of what I said just now on the mailing list as a rather belated response to you raising it there back in January (that head's-up was absolutely the right thing to do) and your notification here. My view is that the closest analogy to this so far is back when Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry stood down (at the WM-UK Board's request) after accepting a position with Wikimedia UK. That was announced here and discussed here. There are obvious differences between the two situations, but some similarities as well. I do think you can do both roles, but you need to be aware of possible COIs, be prepared to accept others telling you that you have a COI that you might not be fully aware of, and re-evaluate the situation periodically and be very clear where the boundaries lie. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it is clear that if outcome of this discussion and the ensuing deliberation is that there is no serious issue with my retaining my seat, it's important that it be reevaluated once we have a better idea in practice of whether, and how much, the two roles intersect. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- First on the position—as a regular user of toolserver tools, and an observer that things were changing on that front, I am thrilled to hear that Coren will be involved. That makes me feels much better.
- On the conflict issues, I appreciate that Coren is announcing this, and soliciting comment. I see some useful thoughts in the discussion so far. I agree that the borderline of recusal is an important issue, and the net is probably wider than simply WMF employees. At the risk of a naive question, am I correct that one can recuse, without removing oneself from all involvement? I can imagine some sort of bot related case where it might be best if Coren declined to case any votes, but was willing to act as an expert on technical matters? While I can image a recusal that would mean excluding oneself completely, i.e from the relevant email distribution and any discussion with any parties, I'm hoping there is a recusal where one feels one shouldn't vote, but one can answer questions.
- I confess I'm struggling to reconcile my likely reluctance to vote for a WMF employee, with my lack of concern over an Arb member becoming an employee and remaining on the committee. Some of those concerns struck home. However, given that Coren is on the committee, and the contract is relatively short duration, and Coren's job duties are not, for example, designing dispute resolution or working on editor retention, but in a much more technical area, I'm happy supporting his continued role. I think it is worth reassessing at the time the contract is renewed (if not, becomes moot).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- A crossover of skills and roles can be a good thing. Open disclosure is good and yeah, keep an eye out for possible COI and consider a low threshold for recusal. If the community as a whole is concerned about COI, I'd think about resigning at that point but we can wait and see. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with this for now. It could be revisited in three or six months, and the rest of the Arbs can tell Coren to quit if it turns into a practical problem. Risker calculates that Coren would have needed to recuse on 27% of last year's cases. Given the amount of work involved in an ArbCom case, I think that having Coren recused on a quarter of them is fine: that just means that he will have more time to work on the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you don't mind a few thoughts from a non-admin. I see no need for pre-emptive resignation if there is no immediate, actual conflict. As I see it, the conflict is potential or theoretical. If any of those potential conflicts were to become actual conflicts (in a manner that requires more than temporary recusal) then a more definitive position may be required. Your commitment (above) to revisit this when you have a better appreciation of potential conflicts strikes me as quite sensible. But for now, I'm confident that should a conflict arise, you would recuse yourself as appropriate. I also have faith that the other members of ArbCom (having had your interests disclosed to them) would speak up if they thought a conflict had arisen. Whether you might want to step down temporarily is another matter altogether. There is merit, I think, in suggestions above that holding WMF and ArbCom roles simultaneously might lead to accusations of a conflict, even where none actually exists. Indeed, you seem to have recognised that possibility already by posting this query. Whether you can (or want) to handle the potential drama is a matter for you. But I'm not the secret ballot type, so I have no problem telling you that I voted for you and would have no problem doing so again with the above declaration attached. Stalwart111 06:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm surprized this is being asked. The experience of WMUK last year shows very clearly that in the high visibility environment of the Wikimedia movement exceptional caution needs to be taken to avoid any potential COI, or the appearance of it. In theory managing potential COI is fine, but in our case ir's not enough. If you had been a WMF employee at the end of the Fae case last year, when as I recall you supported the notion (wrongheaded imo) that a WMF employee had taken part in an attempt to "subvert or suborn" Arbcom, you would have had an actual COI. One could also arise in any case where involved editors had had public disagreements with WMF employees or trustees, which I would have thought might occur rather easily. That's before the general issue of any relevance to WMF's section 230 position is considered. That your area of work for WMF has nothing to do with anything like this is beside the point. You should resign from Arbcom before beginning employment (oh, that's today) and only return if re-elected in an election held after your employment is finished. Note that Richard Symonds (User:Chase me...) rightly resigned from Arbcom when he was employed by WMUK. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings. My recommendation is to stay at ArbCom until the next elections are held. Coren has only served as a Arb for roughly two months, and resigning won't be beneficial, given that we have three open cases at the moment. So, I'd advice Coren to evaluate, the next November, if he believes that his new job is being hazardous for his role as an arbitrator. If so, then leave the seat open; if not, then there's nothing to worry about. — ΛΧΣ21 16:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that there should be separation between ArbCom and the Foundation and that one foot in each camp is not appropriate. I suggest a speedy resignation of one or the other position. Carrite (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Risker's comment ("I don't see WMF employment and Arbitration Committee membership as a good match.") sums up my feelings in all respects. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see any reason why WMF employment and ArbCom membership should be mutually exclusive. The concerns, as they appear to me, seem to be based on the dislike many have for the WMF. If those people should use their opinion of the WMF when voting, they can do so; however, it should not be used as a reason for Coren to resign. Ryan Vesey 23:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Risker, and Johnbod. The intersection of Arbcom cases and WMF is nearly 100% (WMF is appropriately concerned about community 'health'), and intersection of Arbcom cases and WMF Engineering is pretty high too. Members of the engineering department regularly comment on arbcom cases, or comment about arbcom in general (usually negative comments in my experience), especially on any high profile case or when they disagree with arbcom. This happens onwiki, and on mailing lists, public and private. I doubt they are going to avoid such comments in future, which means they will be perceived to be influencing Coren, or Coren be influenced by comments they have made before the case. Coren can say he didnt see some comments, and he might be right, but perceived isnt about other peoples opinion rather than reality. To when know to recuse in order to avoid perceived CoI, Coren would need to email all WMF employed active editors asking them if they have commented on the parties or primary aspects under consideration, and review them before knowing when to recuse. Or at least those editors who are in his line of command and team members. It is a minefield that is a distraction to both Coren and his fellow arbitrators. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)