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)

• 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)

• +1 - I agree with the time taken and thank the committee for sharing this - Whilst some could say "Brilliant timing" it's just one of those things. –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)

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)

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)