Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 8 February 2019

Archives

Index 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, 52

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

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(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).

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~ 03:55, 7 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(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)

  MattLongCT, if your information is accessed by a checkuser, you would't know about it. This is standard operating practice on WMF sites, indeed on most websites and it is covered by the foundation's privacy policy. I will look into whether that should be different if the information is accessed against policy - my priority was to stop it happening again. Worm(talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned, this is much appreciated. Thank you. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 17:32, 7 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(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 20:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @KrakatoaKatie: When was the complaint filed? It is disturbing that they have not given an update in several months. --Rschen7754 01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: In August. Katie 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think that is completely unacceptable on their end. I have started a more pointed inquiry on Meta: --Rschen7754 02:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  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 04:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - I agree with the time taken and thank the committee for sharing this. –Davey2010 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

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(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 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)

@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)

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)

@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 20:50, 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages itself. Nick (talk) 22:17, 6 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)

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 00:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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. --Rschen7754 01:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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 03:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you arbs for the statement, and thank you to those who brought this issue to the general public. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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!) 03:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (Sorry if my english are bad. My skills has oxidized)

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

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)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps the process is more convoluted than we can imagine and they have been working tirelessly on it but ran out of time. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The activity reports are very,very basic. Here is the most recent one. There are no details or names, just a brief overview of what the committee has been doing so it isn't a complete black box operation. With no reports, we have no way of knowing if they responded to anything that came across their place in the last 14 months. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I have drawn the individual attention of the members of the last year's OC, to the issue of their activities in Alex's case. Let's see.

One of the outgoing members Billinghurst mentioned that she had been inactive in the committee from the middle of last year....... ∯WBG 16:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Excellent point. Some sort of reportage or accounting would be much desired. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, will give you a summary: I understand that due to the reports that are made, many believe that our resolutions can be made in an hour. Completely false. Our procedures take considerable time since they are complex situations (of course, they send us cases that are trivial, but are counted). About the case, I hope that in a 24/48 period we can solve it and be able to issue a resolution. Regards, --Galahad (sasageyo!) 18:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hyper-Mario case

When an ordinary sysop discloses some confidential information, the ordinary follow-up is a reduction Super-Mario ${\displaystyle \mapsto }$ 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 ${\displaystyle \mapsto }$ Super-Mario ${\displaystyle \mapsto }$ simple-Mario seem to be in order. Pldx1 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Best analogy I've read all day. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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(talk) 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that abuse of a 'functionary' permission relating to oversightable material (content or log entries) also constitutes abuse of the 'sysop' permission relating to deletable (or revdel) material (content or log entries) since those two permissions effectively are joined together. I would also argue that if a user can no longer be trusted to oversight material appropriately, they also cannot be trusted to delete material. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee and it is now firmly my opinion that Alex Shih is no longer fit to be an admin (though I will admit, that has been my opinion based on other factors for a number of months now). Nick (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think such a block would be a clear breach of WP:Involved. As a one-off, though, it wouldn't be enough for a desysop. Saying that, in my view Alex is clearly unfit to be an admin, as I suggest below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

We can't, of course, be entirely sure of the circumstances. CUing someone for opposing you RFA candidate is one thing; that someone quacking is another. If the latter was the case, then best practice (only practice) would have been to ask another CU to take a look. Sometimes we get excited and do things in haste that should have been left undone. For my part, I still can trust him with the rest of the tools if he avoids involved behavior in the future. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I can no longer trust someone with access to deleted and rev-deleted material after they have disclosed, on-wiki, non-public information to which they had confidential access as an Arbcom member, committing breaches of checkuser policy multiple times. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The CUing of an RfA !voter is, unfortunately, only one instance of several abuses of the CU and OS toolset, and inappropriate handling of non-public information, according to the statement from Rob at Alex's Steward candidacy page and according to the ArbCom announcement. I believe if it was a one-off event, the result would have been a strong rebuke from the Ombudsman Commission not to repeat such an occurrence (based on comments from another of the functionaries who had made similar errors in judgement with the CU/OS tools). Nick (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but then we have the question of whether the other abuses involved the misuse of admin tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:. I am not discussing the 2018 settlement. I have no doubt that the committee believed this was the best outcome, and committee's members were elected to balance the issues and take decisions. But now, this settlement has been torn into pieces by User:Alex Shih himself, so that issues are to be sorted again. By the way, I am not sure if we have to thank our arbs for their transparency/reactivity in this case: they were elected for that, weren't they ? Nevertheless, the said transparency/reactivity is noted and appreciated. Pldx1 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say, again, that arbcom is not an investigative body. As worm mentioned, the circumstances under which they can desysop without a full case are very limited. Anyone can file a case though, if they belive there is sufficient cause to desysop. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Were one to file such a case, I would argue contra. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There are some violations of the checkuser and access to nonpublic data policies that would not translate into the level of lost trust needed for a desysop. Generally speaking, a privacy violation could range from the incidental and inferential disclosure of a user's IP when placing blocks (something that is explicitly allowed by the nonpublic data policy when necessary to prevent abuse) to running checks on trusted community members and publishing the results offline. I'm not saying that either of these happened here, but my point is that there is a range of possible misuse that could have happened, and some of it towards the incidental disclosure end of the misuse spectrum would not necessarily translate to requiring a desysop in addition to removal of the CheckUser access. This problem is also confounded by the lack of information that ArbCom can release on what happened, making it very difficult for the community-at-large to judge whether the misuse of the CheckUser tool would necessarily translate into lack of trust with the sysop tool as well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of arguments about "loss of trust" from the community here. As an editor, I personally feel that when an administrator loses the trust of the community, they should be desysopped. As an arbitrator, our processes do not allow for desysopping of an administrator except in cases of gross incompetence or abuse of administrative tools. Administrative tools were not abused here, in my opinion. Once an editor is identified as a sock beyond doubt, a block is such an obvious action as to meet the exemption in WP:INVOLVED. While the check would not meet that exemption, once the check yields a  Confirmed result, a block would. No other instances in the Ombudsman Commission report related to potentially involved blocks. I don't see anything approaching a case related to abuse of administrative tools. When it comes to gross incompetence, I don't see lack of discretion with private information to be particularly relevant. Alex has been removed from all roles that provide access to private information, so his shortcomings there cannot cause further damage. Based on all that, as an arbitrator trying to faithfully execute the procedures for desysopping, I see no case here. If the community wants broader desysopping procedures to handle cases of "lack of trust", you would need to propose something at a wide-scale RfC. I would support, so long as the proposal had sufficient safeguards to prevent process harassment of admins working in difficult areas. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:ADMINACCT actually does allow for desysoping for gross breach of trust along with several other things beyond tool misuse, and the committee has desysoped for breach of trust before when no major tool misuse happened (Salv in the MisterWiki case). Like Beeblebrox, I'm not commenting on whether or not their should be a case, but there is a policy-based argument for a desysop here even without abuse of the sysop toolkit. Also, I just realized that Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.) is also mentioned as grounds for desysop, so violations of the privacy policy would seem to count as well. Again, not saying there should be a case, but that it isn't a black and white "he didn't use the sysop toolkit" question. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The policy goes on to give examples that I don't think this fits. I wouldn't say the access to nonpublic information policy is a basic policy that we expect all admins to understand and adhere to. But then again, if the community would want ArbCom to desysop when there is loss of trust as measured by substantial community desire for desysopping, why not create a community-based desysopping procedure? We'd be a rubber stamp if we interpreted calls for removal as gross loss of trust. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair view to take to the circumstances, I wasn't commenting on the specifics, just that there is a policy argument to be made here and that ArbCom has used in the past along with generic formulations such as "conduct unbecoming" to desysop without any tool abuse.Community-based desysop is the thing you and I probably disagree most strongly on, and I don't want to distract this thread with that, but I think an RfC on it now or on the "trust" principle of the current desysop policy would only muddy the waters and make what amounts to a pretty clear policy (if you do something that is a large enough mistake, intentional or otherwise, ArbCom can desysop you) less clear than it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Absent a general procedure for initiating the removal of administrative privileges, I think if the community wants to make an argument for a specific individual that trust has been lost, it can hold a discussion and open a subsequent arbitration case if warranted. I would prefer that the arbitration committee be conservative and not be too ready to assume that trust has been lost. However there should be a way to raise potential problems to the community at large while respecting the privacy of those involved and not revealing specific details. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to be clear that my above comment was not intended to suggest that someone should file a case, only that that is the only way a desysop is going to happen, and only then if there is sufficient evidence of a pattern of misuse of admin tools. If such evidence exists I have not seen it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think certain issues, including privacy-related ones, can cause a sufficient loss of confidence, even with a single occurrence. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between someone making an honest mistake and someone being malicious/abusing power. In the latter, I don't think one should retain admin rights. I'm not calling for a ban or block in this case, but violations of the privacy policy can be grounds for a m:Global ban, for example. Also, there is precedent for such a desysop: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block --Rschen7754 19:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Who woulda thunk it? Sending The Guardian information linking a user with a person? SMDH. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Ajraddatz: I'm a bit confused by your statement above. I'm reading you as saying that some mistakes are not serious enough for a desysop, which I agree completely with; no sysop I'm aware of has a perfect record. However, the violations in this case were clearly seen as serious enough that ARBCOM felt a resignation was in order. That's an entirely different level of "mistake" than an ordinary admin mis-step. If someone's judgement was so impaired as to make a resignation of the CU flag necessary, I cannot see how the sysop flag can still remain in place. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: On the one hand, I take your point; on the other I disagree. They are different tool sets with differences in openness. Admins are by nature under constant scrutiny and all we do is done in the open. There is no privacy at all in what we do. CU's are by nature secretive with their actions hidden from view. Everything must be held in private and confidential- secret. Alex's error was in making public that which should have remained secret. Even if done with the best of intentions, it was an unbecoming error for a CU. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've thought about this for a bit, and even typed out a couple of responses. I'm not sure how to expand on what I said without saying too much or stepping on ArbCom's toes, sorry. My thoughts generally align with BU Rob13's comment above. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Dlohcierekim and Ajraddatz: Those are fair points, but I think we're exploring a subtle but important area here, so forgive me for continuing this. Yes, a CU's activity is largely not open to scrutiny from most editors, and yes, the privacy policy (which I've had to become acquainted with, as an OS) is a complicated beast. Yet I don't recall any admin losing their bit for an action (or a single series of actions) based on a good-faith misunderstanding of the policy. Anyone who makes a mistake (and that's everybody) gets a "here's why you shouldn't do that again", and we move on. Mops have been taken away when admins showed a persistent inability to understand or unwillingness to abide by a policy, or for conduct unbecoming, and in each situation what was fundamentally at issue was temperament or judgement, not the understanding of a specific policy. To be clear, I'm not clamoring for a desysop here, but I do feel we're in a bit of a bind because the community hasn't the information to explore this further, but ARBCOM as a non-investigative body hasn't the remit to examine this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  I guess that’s why they have ombudsmen. I did not even know they have ombudsmen. And the WMF is probably investigating too. As much as we want to keep our own house in order, it’s being examined at the highest level. And we may never know the outcome, cause “privacy”. This why I’ll need to be careful if I ever become a checkuser-- my need to stick my nose into dark places. They say we are not employees, but we are. And other employees are not informed about an employee's "disciplinary" issues-- again citing privacy. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, that's reasonable. In some ways it goes against the grain for me in terms of everything being community-run, but I can't see a different way to do it that still maintains privacy. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  For what it’s worth, there is a simple way to address the question of if a desysop is needed: if someone thinks it is warranted or needs to be answered file a case request. No need for some community desysop RfC and ArbCom can review private info. The reason no desysop was considered here is because ArbCom can only do that in very limited circumstances without a case, and this doesn’t meet those. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 (because there obviously is information that we can't see and judge), 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 a n egregious violation of a core Misplaced Pages 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 (struck that part as it seems too personal) I think Alex should resign from admin, and run again at RfA if he wants to find out if he still has the community's trust. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (updated)

Oh, meant to also say but forgot - I do thank the committee for doing the right thing now and revealing this information in time for the Steward election voting process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't actually judge whether or not Alex's actions were an egregious violation ... it appears that a sockpupppet was exposed because of voting in an RfA because Alex checkusered the sockpuppet account. I do, however, find the ArbCom's actions in covering up the real reasons he resigned to be ... concerning. If Alex's actions were so bad that he had to be forced to resign, why was a totally different reason given to the editing community? To me, this smacks of thinking the normal editors are not worthy of being told the real reasons for something ... or it smacks of an elite trying to cover up mistakes made by other members of the elite. Either way, it smells. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point about the "egregious" bit, I've struck that. The RFA thing wasn't the only problem, though, as there were multiple instances of violations of CU policy (including on-wiki disclosure of non-public information), plus "other breaches of confidentiality in his use of private information received whilst on the Arbitration Committee". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's disturbing that Alex was allowed to quietly resign with no reason given to the community, after he violated the community's trust in a position he was elected to. While I could understand the Committee not wanting to stir up drama, they should be accountable to the community that elected them. Natureium (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Natureium: I definitely sympathise and would have preferred a statement last year. But remember, the Committee is a committee with all the advantages and flaws of a committee, perhaps heightened by the fact that it works mainly through email and even in those few times we had voice conferences (none last year I think) only a minority could ever attend. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I should note that we had no clue what Alex would say when he resigned. There was no planned "cover-up" or deal to allow a resignation with a misleading rationale; Alex posted what he posted of his own accord, and I did not expect it at the time. At least on my end, what he said caused a fair amount of consternation, because I did see it as hiding the "cloud" under which he resigned from the community. At that point, the Committee had an undesirable choice between publicly contradicting Alex's statement without being able to go into specifics, likely coming off as extremely vindictive in the process, or letting it go now that Alex was not in a position with access to the type of information he had mishandled. There were arbitrators that advocated both views for various reasons, but no majority emerged to post any particular statement until now, obviously. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consternation is perhaps an understatement for my feelings at the time. I didn't expect him to play it as a real life issue (or an issue with ArbCom bureaucracy which he's also said). Ok, I can understand to an extent why, but it left people feeling sympathetic and I think trusting. I had to bite my tongue (or the equivalent for my fingers I guess) not to say something. Without a statement from the committee there was nothing individual Arbs could say that wouldn't be violating confidentiality. I still think we should have made a statement but we didn't. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the arbitration committee can set some ground rules ahead of time, in preparation for any future occurrence? Something along the lines that arbitrators agree to allow statements to be issued by the committee on any claims of impropriety, at its discretion? isaacl (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

While I can see this value because each ArbCom is not strictly bound by precedent, this would almost have to be stated annually and might not be worth the effort it would take to reach consensus, especially when new arbs are still settling into their roles. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has the ability to decide for itself on its own procedures. Everyone running to be an arbitrator would be aware of the procedure ahead of time. If they aren't happy with the procedure, then they should abstain from running. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: On the other side though, if we cut ArbCom out of the desysop process entirely, it would be difficult to handle desysops based on a case like this that involved private information. That is one of the issues on wikis where there is no ArbCom (and in a lot of those cases WMF has to get involved). --Rschen7754 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Yes, indeed. I certainly wouldn't want to cut ArbCom out of it, for precisely that reason. I'd see a community desysop as an additional process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Term lengths and reconfirmation is something used on other projects, including with Stewards, to continuously assess community support and trust for admins on other projects. I have no idea whether it would be suited for the English Misplaced Pages, but it is a system that takes deals with this specific issue. Mkdw 23:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: the usual arguments again reconfirmation are that (a) any admin that has been active in any remotely controversial area will have pissed enough people off who didn't get their own way that nobody working in those areas would ever get reconfirmed even if they were doing a good job, leading to fewer admins and nobody working those areas; and (b) en.wp has so many admins that the process doesn't scale - RFA would be overloaded by reconfirmation RFAs. While (a) is a risk I don't think it's insurmountable, but it might some fixes to RFA. (b) though is a serious consideration - there are currently 1186 administrators, assuming an even distribution that would mean an average of 3.2 reconfirmation RFAs starting every single day with 1 year terms, 1.6 a day with 2-year terms or 0.8 per day (5.6 a week) with 4-year terms (if my maths is correct, which I'm iffy about). Longer than 4-year terms and you're not really gaining that much additional oversight. Very quickly you'd get voter fatigue, not much scrutiny and overloaded 'crats. I don't know what the answer is but reconfirmation RFAs on their own are not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Really great points. In looking at Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Reconfirm administrators it looks like this has been discussed numerous times. Mkdw 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Simple fix, in my mind: Existing admins are grandfathered in, and for all future admins a system similair to what's already used to elect arbs & stewards is implemented - nominations in a set timeframe (let's say every June), voting over the course of the following month, two-year appointments made in August good for 24 months. Dax Bane 01:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it would solve it, given that generally the controversial admins are not the newest ones (both because standards were lower, and because numerically 95%+ of our admins were not elected recently given how RFA is nowadays). --Rschen7754 01:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

But it would have the benefit of allaying some of the community's concerns. We might see more admin candidates and more successful RfA's 'cause the community would know that bad admins would not be around forever. And the retainable ones would be retained. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: ArbCom works in the most controversial areas, such that whatever decision the Committee makes gets heavily criticized. Yet individual members do get re-elected. I think that is indicative enough that the community can be trusted to make an appropriate decision regarding desysopping or reconfirming admins working in controversial areas. It is not working in controversial and/or difficult areas that matters so much as how admins conduct themselves. Working in a difficult area should not be an excuse to behave disrespectfully toward others. And generally it is disrespect that annoys people, not someone handing out a controversial sanction. All good admins handing out a controversial sanction will make themselves available to discuss the sanction, and will be open to reversing the sanction if presented with appropriate arguments and/or consensus that the action should be reversed. However, your other point on the logistics of taking over 1,000 admins through a regular reconfirmation process is well made. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The more formal nature of Arbcom elections may make a difference compared to RFA, as might the frequency of potentially controversial actions (almost all the users who would oppose an RFA in this manner don't get near arbcom as admins have dealt with them already) but my comment was mainly reporting the two most common arguments against reconfirmation RFAs as I remember them rather than expressing my personal opinion. I do agree though that running out of admins is not a significant enough risk to block the idea, especially when compared to the logistical issues which are. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• As a general comment, the situation was very complicated to navigate because it not only involved the Ombudsman Commission and the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee, but also the Wikimedia Foundation, for which the non-disclosure and access to private information agreements are signed. Confidentiality surrounds our process because of the nature of the information involved as well as anything related to the OmbCom and WMF, thereby greatly limiting our ability disclose much of anything. I know for many of us, it weighted heavily on our minds as to whether the committee should make a public statement at the time; simply acknowledge Alex's resignation and allow him to leave with dignity; or wait for all involved parties to reach a finding. We did not know how Alex would conduct himself immediately following his resignation or into the future such as requesting advanced permissions. Likewise, Alex was aware of the on-going situation and the potential for the circumstances surrounding his resignation to be made public. These situations are so rare and I imagine the circumstances each time have been very different that for the next time, all we can reasonably hope for is to use best judgement at the time with the available information. Mkdw 20:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions

So Alex breached the Checkuser policy, and the confidentiality agreement, and straightforwardly resigned his CU under a cloud. He subsequently filed to run in the Steward elections, where he lied about his reasons for resigning, while seeking re-appointment as a CU. This obviously calls into question his qualifications to be a Steward, and, potentially, his eligibility to even run. You were under no obligation to publicly announce this information. But once the Steward election comes into play, there are very real security concerns here, and surely you are under an obligation to forward this information to the relevant parties "upstairs". I know you guys obviously did the right thing here, but our local Arbcom is not ultimately responsible for oversight of the Steward elections. Were attempts made to notify the WMF and/or the Stewards of this troubling situation? If so, what was their position? If you had not acted, would anyone have done anything? I find it hard to believe that either party would be content to let a former CU blatantly lie to the global community about past misconduct while running for Stewardship. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to let the stewards know at least so they can in their personal capacity vote the candidate down, but in the rules there's really not a provision to disqualify a candidate from the steward elections for something like this (just like they could run for ArbCom again). WMF would have to make the call. --Rschen7754 01:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We know the Committee made the Ombudsmen aware in August. The Ombudsmen processes don't mention informing anyone about an investigation other than the complainer (in this case the Arbitration Committee). My reading of that suggests that once an investigation is complete, the requester is informed of the outcome regardless, and only if wrongdoing was found the subject of the investigation and the board of trustees are informed, the stewards are not directly informed but presumably will, if necessary, be asked by the board of trustees to remove permissions if they agree with the Ombudsmen's recommendations. The Stewards elections are organised by the stewards themselves, and the board of trustees are explicitly very hands-off regarding it. So, even if the investigation into Alex was complete and the allegations were upheld then it seems that the stewards would have no way of knowing this as Alex had resigned his permissions months back and so wouldn't need them removing. Iff this is the case, then it would make sense for the stewards to, in future, explicitly ask the Ombudsmen Commission about candidates, but (a) I strongly suspect that nobody thought before now that this situation could arise, and (b) it's outside en.wp Arbcom's scope. When this incident occurred back in August it was not foreseeable by Arbcom or the Ombudsmen that Alex would stand for Steward. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The WMF has been aware of these circumstances since the Ombudsman Commission report was filed, both by route of the Ombudsman and directly. From my understanding, all Ombudsman investigations loop in WMF Legal. ~ Rob₁₃ 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just in case she has any comment here: pinging @Kbrown (WMF): (known around here as Fluffernutter) who is the staff person who seems most closely connected to the OC. I think we all realize that by definition much of what the OC does is completely confidential, but I think some important questions are raised by this situation, like is it normal for issues to take six months to be dealt with, is the staff aware of these long delays, does the resignation under a cloud here impact qualification as a steward, etc? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, see my opinion here. Greetings, --Galahad (sasageyo!) 03:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let me clarify here. I said the activity reports for the last year could be done in an hour. They could. I also said I reviewed the same evidence the OC received and came to my own conclusions in about an hour. I did not suggest that the OC could or should handle a complaint in an hour. I was on the Arbitration Committee here and am well aware of how difficult it can be to keep things moving forward, and also aware that committtee membership has just turned over. I am sure the new members are getting together and deciding how best to proceed in this case, the only question is why the previous committee got the case nearly 6 months ago and failed to take any action. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Lack of activity

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Alex_Shih:_Statement_from_the_Arbitration_Committee, it is said that user:Callanecc and user:Courcelles are remaining inactive when the trustworthiness of a former member of their Arbitration Committee is discussed. You know, there is a rule of thumb about asking for explanations before commenting. And therefore, I am asking. Pldx1 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that these two arbitrators are fully inactive and away from Misplaced Pages. They may wish to comment when they return. Worm(talk) 09:10, 8 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)

What, pray tell, is "interesting" about that? --Calton | Talk 18:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's euphemistic for implying there was a double standard or uneven enforcement. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It would really depend on what information was shared with TRM - if it was copies of oversighted edits made by TRM then there isn't going to be a significant privacy issue with that in almost all cases; similarly if it was information about TRM then sharing that with TRM is going to be OK generally. Information about what was oversighted and why, without revealing what that information was specifically (e.g. "I oversighted those edits because they accused the subject of serious crimes in contravention of the BLP policy") can be fine also (depending on circumstances, obviously). If it was copies of (potentially) libellous information about a third party posted by someone other than TRM then that's very different. Without more information, that it is not likely TRM can provide publicly, there is absolutely no point to this section. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So nothing changed then...

In 2015 concerned with the flagrant abuse of wikipedians PII by supposedly trusted CU's (and Cavalry was far from being the first) I did a bit of research (some of the on-wiki questions can be found here which were kindly responded to in part by courcelles at the time) and pretty much came to the conclusion that CU had a)no oversight, b)no active auditing, c)no accountability, d)was actively engaged in processes that were both unsecure by their nature and encouraged abuse. This latest episode where someone was able to abuse CU, when found out about it was allowed to quietly slip off, the wider community was not informed their privacy was at risk, let alone where it was confirmed individuals privacy had been violated they were not directly informed (from reading the above). And lets not get into the legal questions to be asked in light of the UK and EU's GDPR obligations.... As it stands I think its now time to take a look at the community appointing some independant CU auditors, specifically to pro-actively question use of CU on ENWP on an ongoing basis and removing ARBCOM from any CU involvement. Because the current system is not working to prevent abuse and ARBCOM are actively engaged in hiding the abuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

These are very good points. Up above I said Checkuser is routinely used during RFAs, which prompted responses from Risker, Drmies, and others about how rare it actually is. Of course there's no way for us to know for sure, but I just briefly checked the last couple RFAs, finding Bbb23 striking sock votes left and right. Where does oversight of Checkuser fall? I found another example of Bbb23 running an improper check, but I will not share that publicly due to privacy concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)