Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Original announcement

• sounds reasonable -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

@Euryalus, Newyorkbrad, Doug Weller, DGG, and DeltaQuad: Since you were arbitrators when Alex resigned, I thought it was appropriate to ping you to this discussion Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I imagine this is regarding Alex's running for Steward on Meta. My suspicion is that you guys are going to get yelled at for not disclosing this earlier by 50% of the people here, and are going to get yelled at for disclosing it in the middle of the Steward election by the other 50%. So before that happens, just wanted to sneak in a comment first that I appreciate both the initial discretion, and this timely statement now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC).
• Were the people whose private information was accessed or shared inappropriately informed? Natureium (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Natureium, where private information was published, it was of course oversighted, however I do not believe any of the subjects have been directly informed, though I do know that some are subsequently aware. Worm^TT(talk) 19:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned, I feel like that if it was my information accessed, I'd want to know about it. When will this be rectified (or maybe who will rectify this situation?) Cheers! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would also like to thank the committee for taking the necessary step of alerting the community to this. Like Floq I think the initial discretion was warranted, but now that he was running for steward on a platform of being the de facto CU for zh.wiki this was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• What Floquenbeam said. I recall a somewhat similar (although not identical) situation that came up during the time that I was on the Arbitration Committee. I agree with the steps that were taken at the time and also agree that it is appropriate to share further information at this time. Risker (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• What did the OC say, if that can be disclosed onwiki? --Rschen7754 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Rschen7754, I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that question. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  In the past, there has not been any issue with a complainant revealing the status of an OC investigation as they know it (i.e. if it is still in progress, if it was declined, etc). The status of an investigation itself is not private information under the access to nonpublic data policy. I've sent the Commission an email requesting clarity and a public statement, if possible. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've also made an onwiki inquiry on Meta. I agree a public statement from the OC and/or WMF would be appropriate. --Rschen7754 20:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: I am a signatory to the OC complaint, and they have not updated us on the status of the investigation nor have they given us a time frame for completion. Katie^talk 20:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - I agree with the time taken and thank the committee for sharing this. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think it would have been very unfortunate to allow the Steward election to run its course without disclosing this information. Valid concerns regarding previous inappropriate use of the Checkuser tool(s) is directly relevant when it comes to electing an editor to a role where they will again have access to permissions involving privacy. The statement by the Committee is appreciated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is weak. Checkuser is routinely used during RFAs. I could go right now and find unsubstantiated CUs run during RFA. Why have you chosen to single out Alex Shih? This comment is based on BURob13’s question to Alex at the steward election page. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser is *not* routinely used during RFAs; in fact, such checks are very rare, and normally are well-substantiated in advance, often at WP:SPI or potentially as a private discussion at the checkuser mailing list or between two or more checkusers. I'm concerned that you have the impression it is commonplace and routine. Risker (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Risker could you provide any data to back that up? My impression is that C/U is run on most new accounts or IP comments at RFA. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless on the statistics (which I have not looked at), there is a difference between an uninvolved CU running a check based on legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing and the nominator of an RfA in the 'crat chat zone CU blocking an oppose. That is pretty clearly prohibited by the local CU policy: The tool may never be used to: Exert political or social control. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going into "when did you stop beating your wife" territory here. You're the one alleging that checks are routinely being performed, so it is up to you to substantiate your statement. Without some evidence, CUs should not be randomly poking around in the CU logs, either. Risker (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a CU, and a former Arb, and running CU on people commenting in an RfA is not standard. I'm not saying it's never done, but I don't remember ever having done that, or that it has ever come up on the ArbCom or the CU mailing lists. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me for interacting with you again, but actually the point is that it's more about the community understanding and believing in an Ombudsman rather than hearing second-hand anecdotes of "chastisement" (wow, spank me) from those involved. Ombudsmen usually issue statements about significant cases, rather than stay silent (perpetually). This would be a good opportunity for the "Ombudsman" to speak to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Risker, wait CU's aren't audited? It isn't standard practice to systematically check random checkusers to see whether or not they made unsubstantiated checks using the logs? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how systematic the reviews are now, although like most CUs I will look for outliers and red flags in the last few screens of the logs. I don't know the details of the information that was reported to the OC or Arbcom. What I was responding to was Mr Ernie's demand for proof that CUs aren't routinely done in relation to RFA, which would probably require a review of potentially hundreds of accounts (the voters) to see whether they appear on the CU logs. The CU log search functions aren't all that refined or flexible, because they're not intended for this type of research; carrying out such a study would have the potential to unnecessarily intrude on the comparative privacy of hundreds of users, particularly when there is no objective basis on which to carry out the study. Just because we all have access to the logs doesn't make it okay for us to routinely carry out searches to see if any particular user has been checked or what the result was, if available. Aside from a quick look for outliers in the logs (which aren't focused on whether specific users were checked, usually), the primary function of the CU logs is to review whether *known* problem editors have been checked in the past. Risker (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I won't be going into detail about the substance of the concerns. Suffice it to point out that there is unanimous support amongst the committee who voted for this statement, and the ombudsman report was sent be multiple experienced functionaries. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Unanimous support by the committee does not in any way inspire me that it was the correct decision. This statement is weak and smacks of revenge. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree Mr Ernie, and if the "Ombudsman" has any substance (indeed, I'm not even clear if they exist, I have my own concerns [see below] which may need to be addressed, but I doubt this "Ombudsman" even has any credence), then they will release a statement and cover this issue properly, rather than leave it to Alex's former colleagues to decide on this and make such muffled statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you questioning if ombuds exist? They aren't mythical creatures, they're a committee. Natureium (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

m:Ombudsman commission.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Funniest comment of the year! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Ombudsman commission exists. A while ago I made a mistake after having run CU, and was properly investigated and chastised. It was, in their judgment, an infraction but one that could and should be forgiven, and it's a mistake I've not repeated. No, I have faith in the existence of the Ombudsman commission and that they take their job seriously. Unless, of course, it was just a pack of dogs that had learned how to type and ask incisive questions... Drmies (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I think it's important to note that the RfA CU was not the only concern raised with the Ombudsman. In fact, it was the fifth concern listed of five, and I would consider them to be listed roughly in order of importance. WTT mentioned above that private information had to be suppressed on-wiki related to some of the issues. Extremely bright lines were crossed here. In any event, my concern with the RfA CU is less about the fact that a check was run and more about a clearly involved CheckUser running it. If Alex had concerns about that editor, based on his obvious involvement, he should have forwarded it to another CheckUser to determine if a check was warranted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so my curiosity got the better of me and I went looking for those supressed edits so I could see for myself, and all I found in Alex's contribs was "No matching items in log". So, either something isn't adding up here or the material was not actualy supressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this needs proper explanation. And per my post below, I'm now wondering if I need to submit details to the "OMBUDSMAN" relating to a similar breach conducted by one of the other Arbs mentioned above. But if the "OMBUDSMAN" is just a mythical thing with no influence, is there any point? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the suppressions were not of edits, but of logs. Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Worm That Turned: I think there's something wonky with the suppression log. I checked up on edits I knew to be suppressed. They appear in the search results when searching with the "target" field, but when anything is entered in the "Performer" or "Revision author" fields, all my results are blank. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)​​There's a current bug with suppressed edits, I've filed a phab ticket. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if CU and Oversight should appear in user rights log but they are also missing at Special:UserRights/Alex_Shih. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

CUOS changes are logged at meta. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those are placed and removed by stewards, so will appear in the meta logs, e.g. me ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that if I had been eligible to vote I would have supported the statement. Doug Weller talk 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Arbs, thank you for the statement. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Why has Alex Shih been permitted to retain his +sysop permission ? I would have thought the level of either incompetence or misuse of the CU/OS tools and non-public information being discussed today would be incompatible with retaining any advanced permission, or perhaps, depending on the severity of the issues at hand, incompatible with continued editing access to Wikipedia itself. Nick (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Presumably it would create too much dramaz and need too much explanation to the mere paeans of Wikipedia who actually generate and curate content. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, that post appears to violate your sanction against speculation about the motivations of editors, and a few other of your posts on this page are bordering on violating or appear to violate your sanction against reflections on editor(s)'s general competence [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not at all, nothing to do with speculation on anything, neither competence or motivation, but I have evidence supporting the fact that a previously sitting Arb supplied me with a link to material which had been suppressed by oversight. That's not a speculation about anyone or anything, it's just fact. I've already requested that the former Arb in question give me their perspective before I take it to the Ombudsman. Thanks for coming by though. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  And actually, if you honestly believe that any of your diffs are a violation of the sanctions on me, then I WILL start yet another ARCA tomorrow to ensure they are discussed, this is definitively bullying on a grand scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  None of the infractions referred to, borderline or otherwise, are about the issue of that single Arbitrator. They are about editors you have responded to here, the Ombudsman commission (who are editors whose general competence you have reflected on), and ArbCom's lack of considering to desysop Alex Shih (whose [ArbCom's] motivations you speculated on regarding that lack). And now "definitively bullying on a grand scale" [6] is another speculation about an editor's motivation. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC); edited 23:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't even know who the Ombudsman are, so to claim they are editors about whom I am making judgements is fundamentally flawed. You are seeking, very hard, to catch me out at every step of every edit I make (and that, itself, will a claim you can hold against me, ironically). Stop it now, please. Your approach is really unhelpful and really rather disappointing for someone with such experience. And I'm sure you can make that into yet another violation, so please take it to Arbcom rather than continually finding fault in every single thing I write here. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that any evidence was presented that he abused admin tools as opposed to functionary tools, and arbcom doesn't go looking for cases. In most cases where tool misuse is pointed out and the user in question gives up those tools that's the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I can also see the source of TRM's skepticism as apparently the OC forgot to tell anyone what they'd been up to for the entirety of last year. Now that all this is going down they are "working on it". Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. While TRM presented his argument in a bit of a snide way, his argument seems to be that the OC lacks responsiveness and I would generally agree. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure of information

Interesting, I note that at least one other member of the previous Arbcom furnished me off-wiki with information about a highly sensitive (oversighted) subject a year or so ago. Alex is a good guy, and was our only hope for the last group of Arbs. This is terribly sad. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)