Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:16, 7 February 2019

Shortcuts

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Original announcement

sounds reasonable -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Same, and I'll also voice and add my appreciation to

ArbCom for choosing to disclose this information publicly. All drama and whatever aside: I believe that transparency, by principle, is important; it's a big part of what makes this encyclopedia open and free, as well as part of the reason why it's so popular and widely-used world-wide. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Were the people whose private information was accessed or shared inappropriately informed? Natureium (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What did the OC say, if that can be disclosed onwiki? --Rs chen 7754 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that question. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've also made an onwiki inquiry on Meta. I agree a public statement from the OC and/or WMF would be appropriate. --Rs chen 7754 20:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: When was the complaint filed? It is disturbing that they have not given an update in several months. --Rs chen 7754 01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: In August. Katie^talk 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is completely unacceptable on their end. I have started a more pointed inquiry on Meta: [1] --Rs chen 7754 02:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754, This is not a surprise to me. I made a report back in November to the OC, and had to ask in December if it had even been received. I still have not heard back since the acknowledgement - tho to be fair I wasn't sure if I should hear back ordinarily. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - I agree with the time taken and thank the committee for sharing this. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

When in doubt, I take you literally, but I thought I'd leave that note not necessarily for you but for others who may know less about the more or less shady bits. Spanking--well, "chastise" was the best word I could find in my thesaurus, which admittedly is more like a concordance of the collected works of De Sade. Seriously, I agree with you and wish the Ombudsman/woman/men would be more present. I knew (but forgot) who the Ombudsperson was that I was in contact with, but if it hadn't been for those interactions I'd never have known. Then again, so frequently these problems have privacy concerns at their center, and so any exposure is often another infraction. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Risker: (For one, I am glad you cleared up the RfA thing because I was under the impression that the question was about whether the nominee receives a routine CU. I did not imagine that people would even consider doing a CU on all the voters). So if I understand this right though, there is no way to check an individual CU to see what checks they made in a given timeframe? Specifically, which account they made checks for (without the personal info) and any comments associated with that check (if comments are even a thing). How does Wikimedia safeguard against abuses after a user becomes a CU? I am curious about this backend process I have not really thought about before. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT: All of that is logged in meticulous detail and available to any CheckUser. We do not currently do routine audits of those logs unless specific issues are brought to our attention, but I would absolutely like that to change. I've proposed as much several times while on the Committee and will do so again when I am next active. Unfortunately, that's not likely soon, due to personal circumstances. If another arbitrator wants to take up that banner, I would fully support it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can review the log for individual checkusers. All checks require an 'edit summary', although for about 90% of them it will be a link to a specific

SPI, but that is pretty much all the info that will be there. Summaries that aren't to an SPI are more likely to be scrutinized, unless there's a known reason for the CU to be doing something different. For example, a lot of my recent CU edit summaries refer to possible compromised accounts, since I did a lot of the legwork on that investigation, but my work in that area was well known amongst CU colleagues. There have been some (global) discussions on how the CU tool could be improved, and logs and searching of logs have been brought up as having significant potential for improvement. In fairness, though, the tool works "well enough" and rewriting the code is a very major undertaking because it's not had much work in at least the 10 years that I've had the CU bit. Until there's a CU community consensus on what can/should be improved, and those recommendations have made it through Legal and Security, only mission-critical changes would be made. We had an Audit Subcommittee for several years, but it was not as effective as I think many of us hoped it would be; in particular, only a few of the members even looked at the logs. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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 by multiple experienced functionaries. Worm^TT(talk) 20:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

@Drmies: it exists, for sure! What information it is able to see, is subject to various "bugs", as described below! This rather renders it meaningless. MPS1992 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Amory has pointed out below, Alex was referred to the Ombudsman regarding his use of Checkuser, not Oversight, so I'm not sure why the Ombudsman's investigation would be rendered meaningless because of a bug that affects one portion of the search capability for the Oversight log. As a side note, it's one bug, not "various bugs", plural. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.

talk) 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

]

@

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)[reply

]

(

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

]

@Amorymeltzer: it is surprising that a "current bug" with suppressed edits, only comes to light when the actions of editors able to suppress edits are questioned. Would it be possible to prevent any such suppression of edits by that subset of editors, until the "current bug" is fixed? MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: the only time I personally look at the suppressed contributions of a user is when debating whether or not to {{OversightBlock}} people. Those are pretty rare (and we are required to request peer review when making one.)

This big is not confined to en.wiki. Amory and I tested this on multiple wikis with -revi:even stewards can’t view it on other projects. There is no coverup. There’s just no real reason to use this feature frequently, so it makes sense it only comes to light when we need to look. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: If it's used so infrequently, there would be no issue with suspending this ability until the "bug" is fixed, right? MPS1992 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspending *what* ability? Surely you don't mean suspending suppression, which occurs usually dozens of times a day and mostly involves issues of privacy or inappropriate release/use of personal information. And there are other ways to look at the logs; it is one particular search feature of the logs that is affected by the bug. The information is still there, it's just not as easy to find in the logs as it could be. Risker (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re asking. If you’re suggesting getting rid of suppression until this is fixed, I don’t think that makes sense. We can still view the suppression log, which oversighters regularly patrol. The issue is we cannot see revisions from specific users who have made edits that are suppressed that have been suppressed by searching for their username in the logs, or clicking the link beside their contributions. This is an ability that isn’t used that frequently (by me at least, and I suspect by most oversighters), and doesn’t really impact our ability to hold each other accountable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so long as you're both confident of each other's ability to "hold each other accountable" -- yes, that's two of you jumped up to decry any suggestions of suspension, very quickly -- then us ordinary editors are all feeling completely reassured. MPS1992 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that suppressed content has the potential to ruin lives, right? We can still view the actions by individual oversighters. We just can’t view the content people have contributed that is suppressed from their contribution history. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're asking for all use of suppression on a global scale to be suspended entirely until a bug that affects one method of searching the logs is fixed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for anything, and I think your interpretation of my questions and suggestions is out of order to say the least. What is lacking, increasingly, is trust. Battering down questioners until they stop asking questions, is not going to help bring that trust back. MPS1992 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: You suggested that we prevent any such suppression of edits by that subset of editors. I don't think that you really meant to suggest that we completely disable the ability to suppress "Hi my name's Bob McRealname i'm 9 years old and my home address is...", but I'm curious as to what you mean by that subset. The only editor (publicly) "under a cloud" has already had the tool taken away. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply sceptical about what's gone on here, and about "bugs" only being found after people under clouds left in those circumstances long, long ago. But it seems that a variety of experienced editors don't share my concern, and also have grounds for saying "nothing can be changed". Well, OK, I'm going to leave you all to do whatever it is that you do. MPS1992 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As a reminder, the issue here was misuse of the CheckUser tool, not Oversight, and the individual in question no longer has either permission, so I don't think any of this is worth furthering. There's a weird bug, it was found, it will get fixed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Arbs, thank you for the statement. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]
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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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" [7] is another speculation about an editor's motivation. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC); edited 23:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:AE complaint rather than just continually berate me with apparent violations of sanctions. I don't believe I've violated them in any sense but your continual accusations need to be addressed by a wider audience. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Softlavender please stop harassing me, following my edits, claiming at every opportunity that I am violating sanctions, it's evident that it's not really the case and I don't appreciate the undue involved attention from you. If you continue to do this then I will request assistance from Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

talk) 23:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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".

talk) 23:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

The Ombudsman Commission does not make public their inquiries or the results of them, generally because it's impossible to do so in a way that would actually inform the community. I admit even coming forward with as much information as I did about this situation has been a somewhat frustrating experience, because there's much more I'd like to say but cannot. I'm glad we could provide some information, in any event, even if I wish it were possible to provide more. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that they don't take this as an attack on them personally, but from what I've seen (both onwiki and during my steward term) they don't seem to be responsive, and when they are responsive they sometimes make some odd pronouncements. I remember that a large number of CUs/stewards on checkuser-l sharply disagreed with the findings of one case that happened when I was on the list. --Rs chen 7754 01:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are very tight-lipped, but they usually at least issue activity reports every six months, which they have failed to do at all for 2018. These reports are very basic and I can't see how, given their usual caseload, it would take more than hour to get them done, yet despite repeated requests for them they've not been done.

talk) 02:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that's a substantial problem. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, a new Ombudsman Commission was just installed (see meta:Talk:Ombudsman_commission#2019_Ombuds_Commission_announcement and SRP of the changes). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Galahad (OC member)

Hi everybody,

First of all, my opinion not represents the Ombudsman Commission. I make this comment trying to keep the community informed

Understanding the community position since there is no information on this case, I can only say that the commission is still investigating this case. Per the change of members, the case take more time for resolution. For my part, intend this case be resolved quickly due the upcoming elections.

Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^{(eswikivoyage)} 03:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (Sorry if my english are bad. My skills has oxidized)[reply]

@Galahad: Thanks. SMDH Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Galahad. I think the big concern here isn't the new Commission and the transition period, which has only been for a couple of days now, but rather why the previous group didn't respond within five months. Hopefully this year's group can be a bit more responsive. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was assuming they reviewed this and came to some sort of decision and just failed to issue their usual report. This makes it sound like they've done nothing and left it for the new guys. Not encouraging.

talk) 06:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm pretty sure an hour, as you suggest above, is very optimistic. I hope very much that they spend a lot more than that on issues that are so important. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-Mario case

When an ordinary sysop discloses some confidential information, the ordinary follow-up is a reduction Super-Mario $\mapsto$ Mario: when confidence is lost, tools are to be lost either. But when an extraordinary sysop is convinced of five breaches of confidentiality, he is not reduced to the simple-Mario state. He is granted a special courtesy escape, that had the appearance of a voluntary resign of special privileges, while keeping the administrative capability. This opens a new category of players: the Hyper-Mario ones, who are granted three lives instead of two. But the main point now is not to discuss this "courtesy escape bargain". The main point is that trying to reobtain the Check_User abilities while non mentioning they were lost under a cloud is nothing than an unilateral denial of the bargain... and another proof that confidence would be foolish. A re-opening of the case and a full reduction Hyper-Mario $\mapsto$ Super-Mario $\mapsto$ simple-Mario seem to be in order. Pldx1 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop status

Several above have argued that Alex Shih retains the tools because there was an abuse of CU, not an abuse of admin tools. But isn't blocking someone who is opposing an RfA you nominated, on the face of it, an abuse of the tools as well as an abuse of CU? If he has been de-functionaried for abuse of CU, isn't there an equal case for de-sysoping him for abuse of the tools? I don't know what the other four cases were (and it seems unlikely that we will know many details, at least until the log search is fixed). But if, as suggested above, the information Alex disclosed which has since been oversighted was in log records, it seems likely that these were also cases where CU abuse went hand-in-hand with tool abuse. GoldenRing (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick, Pldx1, and GoldenRing: the idea of desysopping did get discussed when the issues first came to light. I can say this because I was the one who raised it. However, a desysop by the committee without a case is very difficult to do, by design. We have two procedures to do so and neither particularly fit. There were a large number of other factors, from the fact that the highest priority was on his CUOS permissions, to the fact that prior to starting on the committee he had been a perfectly fine admin who held the respect of the community. I could go on about other factors, but when it came down to it - Alex chose to resign, and the committee believed this was the best outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Boing!

Just a couple of thoughts. While Arbcom handled the original investigation and resignation with discretion, and some above have commended that, part of me thinks there's another side to it. The thing is, we the Wikipedia electorate voted Alex Shih into high office, he violated that trust very badly, and we weren't allowed to know about it. In fact, he was even allowed to lie publicly about his reason for resigning, generating undeserved public sympathy. If he hadn't had the gall to run for Steward, we'd never have known how badly we were let down by an Arbcom member. I'm not going to accuse Arbcom of a cover up, but I do think there's something wrong here.

My other thing is that this is a perfect example of why we need a community de-sysop procedure - for when an admin doesn't misuse any admin tools but, thanks to an egregious violation of a core Wikipedia policy and of community trust, they wouldn't stand a chance in hell if they tried RfA now. If Alex has any honour left, he should resign from admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 === Sysop status ===
 Several above have argued that Alex Shih retains the tools because there was an abuse of CU, not an abuse of admin tools. But isn't blocking someone who is opposing an RfA you nominated, on the face of it, an abuse of the tools as well as an abuse of CU? If he has been de-functionaried for abuse of CU, isn't there an equal case for de-sysoping him for abuse of the tools? I don't know what the other four cases were (and it seems unlikely that we will know many details, at least until the log search is fixed). But if, as suggested above, the information Alex disclosed which has since been oversighted was in log records, it seems likely that these were also cases where CU abuse went hand-in-hand with tool abuse. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
+:{{ping|Nick|Pldx1|GoldenRing}} the idea of desysopping did get discussed when the issues first came to light. I can say this because I was the one who raised it. However, a desysop by the committee without a case is very difficult to do, by design. We have [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions|two procedures]] to do so and neither particularly fit. There were a large number of other factors, from the fact that the highest priority was on his CUOS permissions, to the fact that prior to starting on the committee he had been a perfectly fine admin who held the respect of the community. I could go on about other factors, but when it came down to it - Alex chose to resign, and the committee believed this was the best outcome. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 ===Thoughts from Boing!===