2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments

[Dysklyver]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pointments
http://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/18/2018 ... -comments/

Lots of admins will be arguing over stuff here, TonyB and SQL are running, so the Whaledad issue is popping up as well.

[Kumioko]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pointments
http://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/18/2018 ... -comments/

Lots of admins will be arguing over stuff here, TonyB and SQL are running, so the Whaledad issue is popping up as well.

Just another round of bullies and abusers making sure the editors in the site stay right in their place. TonyB is just another yes man so he won't do anything to rock the boat and SQL is very little more than than. Neither one cares about the problems, they are hatchet men who enforce bad blocks, bad policy and help to make sure that admins don't get held accountable. So IMO based on those qualifications they are both well qualified for these positions.

[Graaf Statler]

Whaledad is the sysop of Wikiquote-NL.

The story of ToniBalloini was of course much more complicated because dirty Trijnstel, Moira wiki witch the human bot (with Ymnes as a pilot), Mdd, the man who doesn't even understand himself, and many other wiki troll stars were involved. Tonibalioni is as dirty as can be, and that is the truth, but not Whaledad. So, our Tonybalioni, who had renamed his username as a spambot name was trying the Dutch Arbcom backdoor because they didn't want Whaledad as a CU. But Arbcom-NL wouldn't didn't play his dirty game.

Perfect candidate to show us how right the name Trollopedia is! Ponzipedia for Everipedia, and Trollopedia for Wikipedia, perfect! It is really unbelievable if such a huge troll gets access to CU data! Corrupt from top to bottom!

[Eric Corbett]

It is really unbelievable if such a huge troll gets access to CU data! Corrupt from top to bottom!

Does it really matter? CU data is available to the admins of any web site, nothing special about it, and it's so easily spoofed or obscured anyway.

[Kumioko]

It is really unbelievable if such a huge troll gets excess to CU data! Corrupt form top to bottom!

Does it really matter? CU data is available to the admins of any web site, nothing special about it, and it's so easily spoofed or obscured anyway.

As I have mentioned before, the CU tool is easily manipulated by people who want to intentionally use it to block IP's or editors en-masse. Especially when the people using the tool don't care about collateral damage, are lazy, stupid or some combination of these like Bbb23 (all of the above). When you know that CU's will zealously block anything even remotely connected to you, it becomes very easy to bait the trap.

[Kumioko]

In a related story, it seems that:

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Guerillero (talk · contribs) are removed.

At their own request, the Oversight permissions of NativeForeigner (talk · contribs), Snowolf (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) have also been removed.

So Wikipedia lost 4 OSers today alone. This seems very odd so something must have happened behind the scenes recently we are unaware of.

[Kumioko]

In a related story, it seems that:

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Guerillero (talk · contribs) are removed.

At their own request, the Oversight permissions of NativeForeigner (talk · contribs), Snowolf (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) have also been removed.

So Wikipedia lost 4 OSers today alone. This seems very odd so something must have happened behind the scenes recently we are unaware of.

Yeah doesn't look like they are going to say why that happened. Just speculating that the WMF is wanting less functionaries who don't do much actual work. My understanding is the OS tool gives view access to some very restricted information in places, and there is quite a lot of this "reduce the attack vector" going on.

My thinking was that the so called trust and safety did or said something behind the scenes that made them jump ship. My guess is James Alexander is going to take the initiative to take over oversight of these functionaries and they wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe will see something coming soon, maybe it's just coincidence but if James is trying to wrestle control, we'll see a lot more leaving because aside from his position, no one really trusts him and no one feels safe with him around and having access to their personal data.

[Eric Corbett]

My thinking was that the so called trust and safety did or said something behind the scenes that made them jump ship.

Seems like a reasonable assumption.

[Dysklyver]

In a related story, it seems that:

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Guerillero (talk · contribs) are removed.

At their own request, the Oversight permissions of NativeForeigner (talk · contribs), Snowolf (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) have also been removed.

So Wikipedia lost 4 OSers today alone. This seems very odd so something must have happened behind the scenes recently we are unaware of.

Yeah doesn't look like they are going to say why that happened. Just speculating that the WMF is wanting less functionaries who don't do much actual work. My understanding is the OS tool gives view access to some very restricted information in places, and there is quite a lot of this "reduce the attack vector" going on.

My thinking was that the so called trust and safety did or said something behind the scenes that made them jump ship. My guess is James Alexander is going to take the initiative to take over oversight of these functionaries and they wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe will see something coming soon, maybe it's just coincidence but if James is trying to wrestle control, we'll see a lot more leaving because aside from his position, no one really trusts him and no one feels safe with him around and having access to their personal data.

This does seem very likely. Who knows, maybe OS will end up being an office only tool. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Kumioko]

I don't really have a problem with OS being available for use, because really what does it do? But I do have strong feelings that the CU tool should be taken away from the community because they are obviously using it abusively. Having said that, I don't trust James Alexander and his crew with it either so it's a double edged sword. If this is the case, then there really isn't much point in passing a tool from an asshole to an idiot.

I think it's more likely like I said that the T&S team will try to take over oversight of these functionaries under the guise that they are performing a function that is inherently inline with the mission of the Trust and Safety section. Normally I would say that is a completely reasonable thing to do but not as long as James is there and not as long as others are in that section that have no respect for the project or the community. If the WMF wants to do this, they need to get rid of James Alexander and some of the other children in that section, otherwise they are going to see all or most of the CU's and OS's quit.

[Eric Corbett]

I don't really have a problem with OS being available for use, because really what does it do? But I do have strong feelings that the CU tool should be taken away from the community because they are obviously using it abusively.

It's quite obvious that at least some of the checkusers kept data they shouldn't and for longer than they should, so abuse in that sense, yes.

[Dysklyver]

I don't really have a problem with OS being available for use, because really what does it do? But I do have strong feelings that the CU tool should be taken away from the community because they are obviously using it abusively.

It's quite obvious that at least some of the checkusers kept data they shouldn't and for longer than they should, so abuse in that sense, yes.

Somewhat. Shame it can't easily be proven because that would be such a fun litigation. Not that I would do something like that.

[Kumioko]

I don't really have a problem with OS being available for use, because really what does it do? But I do have strong feelings that the CU tool should be taken away from the community because they are obviously using it abusively.

It's quite obvious that at least some of the checkusers kept data they shouldn't and for longer than they should, so abuse in that sense, yes.

Somewhat. Shame it can't easily be proven because that would be such a fun litigation. Not that I would do something like that.

Well it's not that hard to prove either in a variety of ways.

When most of us create articles or track the movements of our favorite foes, we do that on our local PC in some tool like Excel, word or Notepad++. There is no reason to assume any different about the CU's. Also, most of the admin/functionary types privately log the activity in the IRC channels either through Hexchat, mIRC or some other tool and that's probably a violation. Many certainly keep emails of discussions about certain issues they have with other admins, many almost certainly have offline logs or something they use to help them monitor and track the activity of their prey (sockmasters and the like).

Taking this even a step farther, some of the CU's are pretty zealous in their pursuits so I wonder if anyone has done a background search on any of the socks. Possibly even me. I wouldn't doubt for a second that James Alexander does it as part of his WMF ban process to verify the identity whenever possible of the person being banned (people aren't always as forthcoming as I have been with their identity). So I think its reasonable to assume that yes almost certainly people are keeping and storing "personal" information for their uses.

[Graaf Statler]

Also nice. The "discussion" on Meta starring TonyBalloini.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ta ... dad#E-mail

[Dysklyver]

IP's and useragents are both personal data since GDPR. However it is still a point of debate exactly how IP addresses should be treated.https://eugdprcompliant.com/personal-data/

What's the debate? Unless IP addresses are stored electronically somewhere data protection doesn't apply.

As far as I know, all IPs on this site are stored with their actual posts, so they are there as long as the posts are on the system, even if they are in a deleted folder visible only to the admins. Quite a few people here have known IRL identities. However, I don't think that anyone who can now see IP addresses is in the EU, and nor are the servers. Thus there is only a violation of GDPR if any former admins or moderators living in the EU have kept records, and I would be very surprised if they have.

Maybe, but GDPR applies worldwide to an extent no EU law has tried to before, even if it's unclear how enforceable that is

[GorillaWarfare]

In a related story, it seems that:

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Guerillero (talk · contribs) are removed.

At their own request, the Oversight permissions of NativeForeigner (talk · contribs), Snowolf (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) have also been removed.

So Wikipedia lost 4 OSers today alone. This seems very odd so something must have happened behind the scenes recently we are unaware of.

Yeah doesn't look like they are going to say why that happened. Just speculating that the WMF is wanting less functionaries who don't do much actual work. My understanding is the OS tool gives view access to some very restricted information in places, and there is quite a lot of this "reduce the attack vector" going on.

My thinking was that the so called trust and safety did or said something behind the scenes that made them jump ship. My guess is James Alexander is going to take the initiative to take over oversight of these functionaries and they wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe will see something coming soon, maybe it's just coincidence but if James is trying to wrestle control, we'll see a lot more leaving because aside from his position, no one really trusts him and no one feels safe with him around and having access to their personal data.

Late to the party, as usual... Speculation about something nefarious is fun, and I know you like to take jabs at James Alexander, but Dysklyver is probably right here--there's a much more obvious explanation for this. I'm not on the Committee so I was not involved in those conversations (and wouldn't be posting about it here if I was), but checkusers and oversighters are required to maintain minimum activity levels in order to keep their tools. ArbCom periodically reaches out to folks who are not maintaining those levels to ask if they expect to return to activity, or wish to resign the tools. You'll notice that those four oversighters who resigned/had their permissions removed had not done any suppressions in the past six months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Statistics

[Disgruntled haddock]

Oshwah has thrown his hat into the ring again for CU/OS. I don't like him very much. Aside from kludging up ANI with posts where every fifth word is bolded/italicized/etc (how annoying) he tends to shoot from the hip (I don't have diffs to support this, but trawl through ANI long enough and you'll find some). On the other hand people like him, he acts very friendly, and he seems to really love Wikipedia. Not sure whether that's a positive or a negative (h.t. to our hasten the day crew...)

[Kumioko]

Oshwah has thrown his hat into the ring again for CU/OS. I don't like him very much. Aside from kludging up ANI with posts where every fifth word is bolded/italicized/etc (how annoying) he tends to shoot from the hip (I don't have diffs to support this, but trawl through ANI long enough and you'll find some). On the other hand people like him, he acts very friendly, and he seems to really love Wikipedia. Not sure whether that's a positive or a negative (h.t. to our hasten the day crew...)

I used to like Oshwah when he was a regular editor but it seems like the more entrenched he becomes on the admin side the more of himself he loses. I don't think he would be bad per sey at being an OS or CU but I think he'd be a lot like several of the others. He would start off moderate and then in a short amount of time he would get more and more aggressive until he, as many others before him, adopted the attitude that he is infallible and that his decisions are equal to the ten commandments being sent from god himself.

Wikipedia has to many admins and functionaries like this already but the problem is that is what the culture expects. You have to be a yes person, vote with the peer admins and do as you are told and not rock the boat. Anyone who has a mind of their own and isn't inline with the hive mind has very little chance of being an admin or even staying in the community if they are more than an infrequent contributor. This next part is going to rub some people raw but I'm going to say it anyway and I don't mean this in a particularly negative way even though it may be construed that way. Wikipedia should be unbiased and the vast majority of the current admins in ENWP and even the editing community are liberal leaning democrat or socialist mentality, commonly gay or lesbian, mostly single, white male, largely Christian or Christian leaning. Now with all that, Wikipedia culture seems to be mirroring the culture of the US at the moment that unless you agree with their opinion and tow the line, you are a bully, misogynist, homophobe, etc. Most of which is bullshit of course but when you have a bunch of admins that will quickly defend each other, you end up with an environment like that on Wikipedia now where all the managerial roles are filled by people with the exact same mentality or those to cowardly to say anything out of fear of risking their "status". But this affects the Wikipedia content in a negative way because so much is under Topic bans, people won't touch it, so much of the content leans a certain way it falsely favors a certain westernized opinion, etc.

So if I was able to edit, I would probably oppose almost all the candidates currently running for OS and CU including Oshwah.

[Beeblebrox]

In a related story, it seems that:

In accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of Guerillero (talk · contribs) are removed.

At their own request, the Oversight permissions of NativeForeigner (talk · contribs), Snowolf (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) have also been removed.

So Wikipedia lost 4 OSers today alone. This seems very odd so something must have happened behind the scenes recently we are unaware of.

Yeah doesn't look like they are going to say why that happened. Just speculating that the WMF is wanting less functionaries who don't do much actual work. My understanding is the OS tool gives view access to some very restricted information in places, and there is quite a lot of this "reduce the attack vector" going on.

My thinking was that the so called trust and safety did or said something behind the scenes that made them jump ship. My guess is James Alexander is going to take the initiative to take over oversight of these functionaries and they wanted nothing to do with it. Maybe will see something coming soon, maybe it's just coincidence but if James is trying to wrestle control, we'll see a lot more leaving because aside from his position, no one really trusts him and no one feels safe with him around and having access to their personal data.

Ya’ll can drop the conspiracy theories. Maybe check the rolling statistics for some clue as to why at least some of these folks are no longer on the team. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Statistics

I personally find myself goading arbcom about at least giving lip service to the activity standards for functionaries at least once a year. I imagine I’m not alone in this. They normally give inactive functionaries some time to either leave voluntarily or step up and do something with the tools. They hadn’t done this at all in a long time so a larger number than normal wound up leaving at the same time.

I’m not sure we really need more, but the committee apparently thinks we do need replacements.

[Kumioko]

Thanks Beeblebrox, I don't remember seeing that page before. Looks like someone named Jimbo Wales isn't pulling their weight. Might be time to cut that one from the team.:-)

I always suspected Bbb23 was high on the list given that he CU's everything that burps, farts or breaths but I never thought he would be at 2000 a month. Personally I would guarantee 100% that there is zero chance that he is following policy with that number of actions. It looks like he basically suspects every new editor is a sock with that count. That's insane.

[Beeblebrox]

I have to admit I share the concerns that CU is used too aggressively and that results are often not in and of themselves conclusive evidence of anything. And I’m not 100% convinced all of the candidates presented will show the needed restraint, but despite having CU for years I’m still basically a novice with it and barely use it, so I’m not personally in a position to go double checking those more proficient with it. The Audit subcommittee was the local outlet for that, but their case load was so incredibly low that got dissolved, which leaves the Ombudsman committee, which I think is based at Meta.

Oversight is a whole other deal, especially now that most admins are used to using revdel, which works exactly the same way. The policy is fairly straightforward, the tool is pretty easy to use, and you can check what others with access have done easily and actually without anyone having the slightest idea you’ve done so. And we have pretty lively discussions on edge cases fairly regularly on the mailing list.

[WhoReallyCares]

I always suspected Bbb23 was high on the list given that he CU's everything that burps, farts or breaths but I never thought he would be at 2000 a month. Personally I would guarantee 100% that there is zero chance that he is following policy with that number of actions. It looks like he basically suspects every new editor is a sock with that count. That's insane.

I thought the same at first. Last month, for example, he checked over 2300 accounts, which approximates to just over 75 per day.

But the header reads: "Rolling six month CheckUser statistics". So might his figure for August be for that month and the five before? In order words, is his average about 400 per month, or slightly more than 12 a day?

[Dysklyver]

I always suspected Bbb23 was high on the list given that he CU's everything that burps, farts or breaths but I never thought he would be at 2000 a month. Personally I would guarantee 100% that there is zero chance that he is following policy with that number of actions. It looks like he basically suspects every new editor is a sock with that count. That's insane.

I thought the same at first. Last month, for example, he checked over 2300 accounts, which approximates to just over 75 per day.

But the header reads: "Rolling six month CheckUser statistics". So might his figure for August be for that month and the five before? In order words, is his average about 400 per month, or slightly more than 12 a day?

Nope those are monthly totals. Just compare the figures to the lower activity ones.

Not sure if it's a good idea to have Bbb23 doing half the work, the WMF might get ideas that two paid staff could do it.

[Kumioko]

I have to admit I share the concerns that CU is used too aggressively and that results are often not in and of themselves conclusive evidence of anything. And I’m not 100% convinced all of the candidates presented will show the needed restraint, but despite having CU for years I’m still basically a novice with it and barely use it, so I’m not personally in a position to go double checking those more proficient with it. The Audit subcommittee was the local outlet for that, but their case load was so incredibly low that got dissolved, which leaves the Ombudsman committee, which I think is based at Meta.

Oversight is a whole other deal, especially now that most admins are used to using revdel, which works exactly the same way. The policy is fairly straightforward, the tool is pretty easy to use, and you can check what others with access have done easily and actually without anyone having the slightest idea you’ve done so. And we have pretty lively discussions on edge cases fairly regularly on the mailing list.

The first thing about this is that the reason the Audit subcommittee had so few cases was because the community has almost no way to know if the CU did something wrong since they can't validate the action for themselves and since there is absolutely no regulation or accountability of those actions by the ones that do see it, nothing ever happens. So unless you get a case where one posted a log or something CU related in the open, no one would even know. Arbcom should have been regularly checking the work done on this as the only group with access to the data and authority to do anything about it but they failed at that as usual.

Going back to the issue with Bbb23, he is a perfect example of the problem the WMF developers were worried would happen when they fought releasing the tool to the community in the first place many years ago (about the time I started editing back in 2006ish). The CU tool doesn't give that much data and what it does give makes it easy to manipulate by people who know how it works. All I need to do is go to some network, make a few accounts, make it known it's me and tons of accounts get blocked, including innocent users, all because idiots like Bbb23 have no way of telling the wheat from the chaffe.

[WhoReallyCares]

I always suspected Bbb23 was high on the list given that he CU's everything that burps, farts or breaths but I never thought he would be at 2000 a month. Personally I would guarantee 100% that there is zero chance that he is following policy with that number of actions. It looks like he basically suspects every new editor is a sock with that count. That's insane.

I thought the same at first. Last month, for example, he checked over 2300 accounts, which approximates to just over 75 per day.

But the header reads: "Rolling six month CheckUser statistics". So might his figure for August be for that month and the five before? In order words, is his average about 400 per month, or slightly more than 12 a day?

Nope those are monthly totals. Just compare the figures to the lower activity ones.

Not sure if it's a good idea to have Bbb23 doing half the work, the WMF might get ideas that two paid staff could do it.

So what does the header mean: "Rolling six month CheckUser statistics"? What does this rolling six month pertain to?

As for Bbb23, he urgently needs professional help. What sort of self-loathing failure uses a website purely in order to block an average of 13 people per day? How much would you have to hate yourself to do that?

I could be a bore and mention that this worthless lunatic has only ever created three shitty little stubs, but I guess that's obvious and you knew it already [broadly construed].

[Kumioko]

The rolling six month thing is that when they add the next month, the oldest month drops off.

it's also important to mention that in addition to the 2000 CU checks Bbb23 makes, he also has a lot of blocks associated to that of accounts and IP's. He often reverts the changes they made or deletes the articles they created and he protects pages if they are clearly edited heavily by one of those accounts.

I would also point out that having that many CU checks shows a couple other things. It shows that there is no way he is doing his due diligence at determining which account is actually a sock and which is an innocent editor caught in the drag net or often which account belongs to which sock. It also shows he doesn't care about the collateral damage he causes and that he only cares about the numbers...how many CU's, blocks, deletes and protects he can do.

Using myself as an example, for about the last 6 months nearly all the socks I have created, a couple hundred at least, have been associated to the Dog and Rapper vandal, which is clearly a different editor from me. Most of them never even did one edit. This could be being done to associate me to them and act as a Joe Job to further tarnish my name or to prevent me from taking "credit" because I have been vocal about doing it. More than likely, it's just incompetence and the inability to distinguish one from another.

I have also seen a number of innocent editors blocked merely because I edited from that IP and I have seen several large IP groups range blocked simply at the mention of me using it. I want to be clear though that I haven't been doing vandalism. I have left a few comments on Jimbo's page or a few others stating "free Kumioko" or the like, but 99% of my edits have been positive including lots of vandalism reversions. Personally, I find more satisfaction in doing positive edits and letting the so called trusted admins do the damage when they vandalize my edits by blindly reverting and restoring the vandalism I reverted or deleting the articles I created rather than in doing vandalism myself. Hyperbole to the contrary, my interest has always been improving Wikipedia and I don't need to vandalize anything when the admins and trusted editors are willing to lie, cheat and violate policy top keep me out because of my association to WikiProject United States and by vocal criticism of the admins, the arbcom and the WMF's incompetence.

BTW, if they were to require an email address to be input and then include Email address and MAC address to the CU tool as well as a 2FA type initial account setup process, they would largely eliminate a lot of the problems that they currently have and the confusion of who is who. This would also give the added benefit of being able to better target vandals, trolls, etc. rather than globally blocking quadrillions of IP's at a time. Sure the MAC can be changed and the email forged, but that's hard enough to do or time consuming enough that most editors wouldn't be able to do it.

[Kumioko]

Late to the party, as usual... Speculation about something nefarious is fun, and I know you like to take jabs at James Alexander, but Dysklyver is probably right here--there's a much more obvious explanation for this. I'm not on the Committee so I was not involved in those conversations (and wouldn't be posting about it here if I was), but checkusers and oversighters are required to maintain minimum activity levels in order to keep their tools. ArbCom periodically reaches out to folks who are not maintaining those levels to ask if they expect to return to activity, or wish to resign the tools. You'll notice that those four oversighters who resigned/had their permissions removed had not done any suppressions in the past six months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Statistics

Sorry I didn't reply sooner someone just pointed out to me that I had somehow missed your comment.

You're right it is just speculation because for a project that is supposed to be "open" there is more secrecy and manipulation behind the scenes of the project than ever before.

You may be right that this is just routine cleanup of unused tools and you're right I am critical of James...because he is an incompetent schmuck that doesn't care about the project or the community. He is a rude, know-it-all jerk who cares more about being in control and intimidating people he doesn't like or doesn't fit his POV than doing his job. Look at the list of people who have been WMF banned? Do you see GRAWP in there? Or Willie on Wheels? Or The Dog and Rapper vandal or any number of other truly problematic editors? Nope, you see me, a long time and high output editor who was bullied out and banned because I wouldn't stop complaining about a bullshit ban. You see Birill who did a ton of work with Wikichapter NYC but didn't kiss ass or fit the gender norm good ole' boy network and a bunch of largely unknown editors. If James was competent in the least he would add GRAWP who's name, location, mothers address and even a picture are widely known. I hear that people know who the Dog and Rapper vandal is but I can't confirm that and I would think that Willie could be added just on username alone. My point is that James doesn't ban people who are problems for the project, he bans people who are inconvenient to him or his friends. That is why I continually insult James. Not because he's a fat slob, but because he is an incompetent fat slob!

[Beeblebrox]

I kinda knew this was coming but I din’t expect it in the middle of the selection process: a motion hasd just been put forth to loosen the activity standards for functionaries. While I basically agree that similar to admin actions, not all functionary actions are logged uses of a specific tool, the motion seems a bit vague to me.

[Kumioko]

I kinda knew this was coming but I din’t expect it in the middle of the selection process: a motion hasd just been put forth to loosen the activity standards for functionaries. While I basically agree that similar to admin actions, not all functionary actions are logged uses of a specific tool, the motion seems a bit vague to me.

Honestly why? There is no reason to loosen the standards. They should be tightening it to say they have to do at least 10 actions every 90 days and at least 3 per month, which frankly is being generous.

Bbb23 is doing 2000 a month, so if these actions are in fact valid then there is absolutely no excuse why all of them can't do at least a half dozen a month. Of course there can be exceptions but otherwise what's the point of having access? Why even run for the position if you're not just collecting hats?

I will even go so far as to exclude the Arbcom members from that statement. As much as I loathe the committee, I recognize the need for them to have access and I would even relax the requirements for them (I believe they are currently only allowed to use the CU and OS tools for cases) so they would have the same permissions to use them as needed as all the other CU's and OSers. In fact they should retain them after they complete at least a percentage of their Arbcom requirement (like at least half the agreed upon term). Frankly the Arbcom election process is more than sufficient to justify being equal to the CU/OS selection process anyway.

So if they are going to pass a motion to do something useful, that would be better.

[Beeblebrox]

Arbs get both tools by default and (along with Jimbo and members of the Ombudsman committee) are completely exempt from activity standards while on the committee. They are allowed to use them as they see fit but in practice many of them don’t, but they retain both tools (if they want them) after leaving the committee and rejoining us mere mortals on the functionaries team.

[Kumioko]

Arbs get both tools by default and (along with Jimbo and members of the Ombudsman committee) are completely exempt from activity standards while on the committee. They are allowed to use them as they see fit but in practice many of them don’t, but they retain both tools (if they want them) after leaving the committee and rejoining us mere mortals on the functionaries team.

Oh ok good to know thanks. I was thinking they were limited to using them only for cases and had to remove them when they left the committee but that makes sense.

[Dysklyver]

So what does the header mean: "Rolling six month CheckUser statistics"? What does this rolling six month pertain to?

It seems to mean "statistics from the last six months".

12-Month Rolling Period Definition (567 IAC 22.100): A period of 12 consecutive months determined on a rolling basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the first day of each calendar month.

Only it's six months...

[broadly construed].

That reminds me of someone.

[WhoReallyCares]

[broadly construed].

That reminds me of someone.

Ha! Of all the inane drivel on Wikipedia, I think "broadly construed" is my favorite.

I actually wonder how those pricks can write that nonsense and manage to keep a straight face. Broadly construed, of course.

[Kumioko]

[broadly construed].

That reminds me of someone.

Ha! Of all the inane drivel on Wikipedia, I think "broadly construed" is my favorite.

I actually wonder how those pricks can write that nonsense and manage to keep a straight face. Broadly construed, of course.

It's because they design the system to not be fair so that it can be manipulated and subverted however they want. Since the vast majority of the admins in modern times all have the same mindset and POV, it makes intimidation and fear easier to use and easier to force the community to do what they want.

[Disgruntled haddock]

[broadly construed].

That reminds me of someone.

Ha! Of all the inane drivel on Wikipedia, I think "broadly construed" is my favorite.

I actually wonder how those pricks can write that nonsense and manage to keep a straight face. Broadly construed, of course.

It's because they design the system to not be fair so that it can be manipulated and subverted however they want. Since the vast majority of the admins in modern times all have the same mindset and POV, it makes intimidation and fear easier to use and easier to force the community to do what they want.

"Large and liberal" reading is a guiding principle in statutory interpretation so it makes sense that Wikipedians in quasi-judicial positions would want to use similar language. Whether it's applied well on Wikipedia is another matter...

[Eric Corbett]

[broadly construed].

That reminds me of someone.

Ha! Of all the inane drivel on Wikipedia, I think "broadly construed" is my favorite.

Mine too, tied with anyone can edit.

[Eric Corbett]

"Large and liberal" reading is a guiding principle in statutory interpretation so it makes sense that Wikipedians in quasi-judicial positions would want to use similar language. Whether it's applied well on Wikipedia is another matter...

It's just an excuse for a game of connections. "How many steps would it take me to selectively interpret something as the direct opposite what was actually meant, or even not said or done at all?"

[Jim]

...tied with anyone can edit.

"Anyone can edit" is particularly special, though - in addition to failing in the sense of "is permitted to" it also comes a bit of a cropper if read as "has the ability to". I wonder if that means it's "incorrect, broadly construed"?

[Poetlister]

CUs can, and indeed should, exchange information. For cross-wiki vandals that can involve quite a few people. So the information undoubtedly does get stored.

While I don't doubt that CUs do indeed store data whether they're supposed to or not, information obviously can be exchanged without it being stored, or even stored without it being able to be retrieved.

It's certainly conceivable that all the e-mails and computer records get deleted immediately. However, it's rather unlikely. And I know for a fact that the logs of CUs that have been performed are kept for a year, electronically, and visible to other CUs and stewards.

[Beeblebrox]

I’ve never seen this selection process get so ugly before. The current method was developed in 2010, and was at first very mellow, a discussion and really not a vote, but somewhere along the way it seems to have turned into RFA 2, with everyone seemingly missing the point that the final decision is still 100% up to arbcom and this is just a consultation process.

[Dysklyver]

I’ve never seen this selection process get so ugly before. The current method was developed in 2010, and was at first very mellow, a discussion and really not a vote, but somewhere along the way it seems to have turned into RFA 2, with everyone seemingly missing the point that the final decision is still 100% up to arbcom and this is just a consultation process.

The problem is that the organisers forgot to add a massive flashing red box at the top of the page telling people that it's not a vote, every indication is people think it's an RfA.

[WhoReallyCares]

Just checked your blog, Dysklyver. Have I got this right -- that useless piece of lunatic shit, Oshwah, has just blocked the US House of Representatives?

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/28/wik ... -congress/

What the fuck is this? And is there really no one at all who can manage this online mental hospital?

[Dysklyver]

Just checked your blog, Dysklyver. Have I got this right -- that useless piece of lunatic shit, Oshwah, has just blocked the US House of Representatives?

https://thewikicabal.com/2018/09/28/wik ... -congress/

What the fuck is this? And is there really no one at all who can manage this online mental hospital?

Yes Oshwah blocked the entire US House of Representatives IP range for a week on Kavanagh hearing day.

Apparently there is a special procedure to follow when blocking the House, he had to notify a special ComCom group at at the WMF.

It's been sent through various aggregators, so I guess I am officially a news site now.

[BURob13]

I have to admit I share the concerns that CU is used too aggressively and that results are often not in and of themselves conclusive evidence of anything. And I’m not 100% convinced all of the candidates presented will show the needed restraint, but despite having CU for years I’m still basically a novice with it and barely use it, so I’m not personally in a position to go double checking those more proficient with it. The Audit subcommittee was the local outlet for that, but their case load was so incredibly low that got dissolved, which leaves the Ombudsman committee, which I think is based at Meta.

I felt the need to create an account here just to respond to this. The Arbitration Committee remains able and willing to investigate cases of misuse of the CheckUser tool, either in the form of an appeal of a CU block or in the form of a general audit complaint about a breach of the local/global CU policies or the Access to nonpublic information policy. We've done so multiple times during my term. The dissolution of the Audit Subcommittee did not alter our mandate to audit the functionary team. Separately, the Ombudsman commission can investigate these same types of complaints.

My general impression is that the Ombudsman commission primarily deals with whether the action of a CheckUser exposes the WMF to potential liability. The Arbitration Committee likely takes a more complete look at adherence to the local CU policy and community norms. I would probably encourage editors with any legitimate complaints to send their complaint to both. There's no downside in doing so.

[Kumioko]

I have to admit I share the concerns that CU is used too aggressively and that results are often not in and of themselves conclusive evidence of anything. And I’m not 100% convinced all of the candidates presented will show the needed restraint, but despite having CU for years I’m still basically a novice with it and barely use it, so I’m not personally in a position to go double checking those more proficient with it. The Audit subcommittee was the local outlet for that, but their case load was so incredibly low that got dissolved, which leaves the Ombudsman committee, which I think is based at Meta.

I felt the need to create an account here just to respond to this. The Arbitration Committee remains able and willing to investigate cases of misuse of the CheckUser tool, either in the form of an appeal of a CU block or in the form of a general audit complaint about a breach of the local/global CU policies or the Access to nonpublic information policy. We've done so multiple times during my term. The dissolution of the Audit Subcommittee did not alter our mandate to audit the functionary team. Separately, the Ombudsman commission can investigate these same types of complaints.

My general impression is that the Ombudsman commission primarily deals with whether the action of a CheckUser exposes the WMF to potential liability. The Arbitration Committee likely takes a more complete look at adherence to the local CU policy and community norms. I would probably encourage editors with any legitimate complaints to send their complaint to both. There's no downside in doing so.

Let me be the first one to say Welcome to Wikipediocracy and I hope you find the time and desire to comment on other discussions as well.

Having said all that, let me also be the first to call BS on the comment that Arbcom is ready, capable or willing to do much of anything except enable abusive conduct in admins and functionaries and make sure everyone knows that there are no winners when filing an arbcom case and the Ombudsman commissions is equally worthless and equally so tied down in bureaucracy most people wouldn't know how to contact them let alone think the OBM committee would do anything with the information. I do agree with your assessment of the Ombudsman being there more to protect the WMF from litigation than anything else though. On that I think we agree 100%.

Since your time in addressing complaints though let me ask this and I am not looking for names or specifics here. How many complaints has the Arbcom received about CU and OS abuse, how many have they reviewed as credible allegations and how many did they take action on?

[Dysklyver]

My general impression is that the Ombudsman commission primarily deals with whether the action of a CheckUser exposes the WMF to potential liability. The Arbitration Committee likely takes a more complete look at adherence to the local CU policy and community norms. I would probably encourage editors with any legitimate complaints to send their complaint to both. There's no downside in doing so.

I agree with you on this.

This is the link to the Ombudsman commission.

The Ombudsman commission is actually selected by the WMF itself, which is highly unusual as most roles are community selected. They also only serve for a year at a time which is a very short period when you think of other roles which are generally longer or indefinite. Some Ombudspeople have been on the commision for a number of years though.

[BURob13]

Since your time in addressing complaints though let me ask this and I am not looking for names or specifics here. How many complaints has the Arbcom received about CU and OS abuse, how many have they reviewed as credible allegations and how many did they take action on?

I don't have statistics readily available. We've received numerous appeals related to CheckUser and Oversight blocks. Well into double digits. We've lifted at least a few during my time on the Committee. I believe all such cases involved a justified check but a disagreement on the conclusion drawn from the technical data in light of a complete review of the evidence. Very few unblock requests related to CU blocks specifically allege abuse, but I always review the check to ensure it should have been carried out in the first place. I think that's a best practice even if a specific allegation isn't made. In that sense, I treat all unblock requests for CheckUser blocks as I would a credible allegation, if that answers that portion of your question.

[Beeblebrox]

I guess I was thinking more of general auditing and investigation of functionary actions as opposed to block appeals. I am of course well aware that arbcom is the only outlet for such appeals, having discussed my own OS blocks with the committee in the recent past.

[Kumioko]

Since your time in addressing complaints though let me ask this and I am not looking for names or specifics here. How many complaints has the Arbcom received about CU and OS abuse, how many have they reviewed as credible allegations and how many did they take action on?

I don't have statistics readily available. We've received numerous appeals related to CheckUser and Oversight blocks. Well into double digits. We've lifted at least a few during my time on the Committee. I believe all such cases involved a justified check but a disagreement on the conclusion drawn from the technical data in light of a complete review of the evidence. Very few unblock requests related to CU blocks specifically allege abuse, but I always review the check to ensure it should have been carried out in the first place. I think that's a best practice even if a specific allegation isn't made. In that sense, I treat all unblock requests for CheckUser blocks as I would a credible allegation, if that answers that portion of your question.

I have 2 fundamental problems with what you describe here focusing solely on CU rights.

First, how does the arbcom NOT track these things? You should be able to substantiate your efforts, at least in rough terms, easily and readily. That you cannot, would indicate a problem or an intentional omission or some combination of the two.

Secondly, most people who would have been affected by an abusive Checkuser actions wouldn't be able to even complain or likely wouldn't know how if they could. CU blocks predominantly affect accounts of new users and due to the complication of contacting the arbcom or even knowing who to go to, it's likely that the majority wouldn't even try. My second problem here is that abusively blocking an account isn't the only way to violate the CU rights. Even running a check without a reason is reason enough and I think it's safe to say that the only way Bbb23 can be CUing over 2000 accounts a month, is if they are actively and randomly CUing new accounts. We have all seen them CUing all new accounts on RFA's and other discussions, but the Arbcom doesn't seem to have done anything about that. I also have every single CU and OS on my watchlist and I haven't seen any discussion or indication that they have been checked, so I'm seeing holes in your argument here.

My third issue here and this is speaking as someone who has intentionally manipulated the results of the CU tool to ensnare innocent editors and IP's to show how bad the tool is, is that the tool is really, really, really bad. Technically and functionally it's crap and most of the determinations are gut decisions by the CU. Since the vast majority of the accounts blocked by CU's are "socks" and have never done one edit, the result is that it is stupendously easy to "fool" the CU and the tool into blocking loads of things. This is because they do not care about the collateral damage and have way to much faith in the tool and the CU.

[BURob13]

I guess I was thinking more of general auditing and investigation of functionary actions as opposed to block appeals. I am of course well aware that arbcom is the only outlet for such appeals, having discussed my own OS blocks with the committee in the recent past.

We definitely can perform such investigations, and have during my term on the Committee.

Kumioko, I'm not really interested in engaging you in a dialogue, given your repeated harassment of me by email. I'll just correct several incorrect things in your post so they do not mislead others.

1) We can and have investigated CheckUser actions in cases where the check did not lead to a block.
2) Bbb23 does not perform checks on 2,000 accounts per month. He performs about 2,000 checks total per month. One investigation can involve dozens of checks.
3) I don't know what you'd expect to see by watchlisting CUs. We're not going to discuss specific checks/audits on-wiki for obvious privacy reasons. That's conducted by email, generally.