Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih

Statement by Paul August
Please accept. Paul August &#9742; 22:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "but in a role that lends itself to them." Really? This needs an explanation. Paul August &#9742; 00:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I want to thank the three editors who filed this case request for having done so. It seems to me that it would be a difficult proposition for there to be a full case, because (1) the most pertinent evidence cannot be posted publicly on a case page, and (2) ArbCom are, almost by definition, already familiar with the most pertinent evidence. But now, with the formal filing of a case, the Committee is no longer restricted by the rules that would apply to desysopping without a case request. You are free to resolve the situation via a motion, and doing it via motion is the way that you should go. There appears to be more than enough evidence for you to determine that Alex is desysopped under a cloud and, should he return, can only regain the permissions via a new RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Two points in follow-up:
 * After seeing Alex's statement here, I increasingly feel that a very significant problem is how he has been misleading the community as to what actually happened. I'm very sympathetic to allowing a graceful exit from ArbCom, so if it had stopped there, I would not object to his attempt at face-saving. And he could have gone on doing other things as an admin. But he continues to insist that he did not really do anything that would have required his stepping down from ArbCom and that it was more like he simply came to feel that he didn't fit in with the Committee anymore. And that makes me doubt that he would refrain from, for example, misusing rev-deled information in the future.
 * AGK should consider whether, if a CU uses the tool to obtain personal information without a strong need, and is then careless about handling that personal information, we should just regard that as something that comes with the position. If that's OK, then don't anybody run a CU on me.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In light of comments about his retirement, I'll remind the Committee of how retirement during a case request was handled in the recent past: . These kinds of things have a tendency to set precedents, so I strongly recommend consistency in how you do it. It's reasonable to accept and then suspend the case, but the recent past example also included a conditional block to make it stick. Here, the corresponding measure would be to require either a resumed case, or a new RfA, to continue as an admin. Failure to include that as part of a suspended case would make retirement a get-out-of-jail-for-free card. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nick
I would urge the committee to accept this case, and to desysop Alex by motion.

The abuse of functionary level permissions which are only granted to sysops (either due to technical limitations or customary practice) constitutes, in my opinion, both abuse of the functionary position but also the lower level sysop permission, without which the user in question would never have been given access to the higher level permissions. I cannot see how it can be appropriate for someone who has breached the non-public information policy and who has misused permissions granting access to highly sensitive user data (checkuser and/or oversight permissions) to retain access to sensitive deleted material (via the sysop permission). I don't like the outcome of the whole resignation event - it means that a user will have to abuse their permissions twice or more - firstly to lose access to checkuser/oversight, and then secondly, to lose sysop, despite evidence existing of their risk in retaining access to sensitive information through continued sysop access.

I will also add - the community has clearly lost confidence in Alex, looking at the comments from English Wikipedia users at the Meta Steward voting page, if we were looking at a desysop discussion on our sister projects (where permitted) it would likely be the case that Alex would be desysopped. I do recognise, however, people may choose to vote differently when voting for a steward versus voting for a user to be desysopped, and the Meta vote can only be used as a barometer for how the community is feeling.

-- Nick (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm gravely concerned by AGK's statement which says A series of serious errors were committed by Alex Shih, but in a role that lends itself to them. I would like to ask AGK, the Arbitration Committee and Ombudsman Commission to reassure the committee that Anthony and other arbitrators haven't, in so far as they're all aware, also made a series of "serious errors" with the checkuser tool. Nick (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Amorymeltzer
There are five user rights at Special:ListGroupRights that are associated with both Checkuser and Sysop user groups, four of which may be abused:,  ,  , and   (the fifth,  , is hardly relevant here). If in the course of committing any of the multiple Checkuser policy violations noted in ArbCom's Statement (or any other alleged/uninvestigated actions) any of those permissions were used (such as viewing a deleted page), then they are also misuses of the sysop user rights. I imagine something will be initiated here regardless of this fact, but nevertheless it should be considered whether, in addition to the points made by the three filers, administrator tools were indeed misused in the course of misusing Checkuser. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 22:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pythoncoder
The length of WT:ACN alone (118 KB as of Feb 9, 22:54 UTC / 17:54 EST) shows why a case is necessary. The community has clearly expressed a desire for ArbCom to decide whether this user should retain their admin tools. I will not at this time use this section to make a judgment on whether this user should be desysopped. Thanks to the proposers for stepping up. Please accept this case. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude
I'm not really following this train at all. The community is motioning for the dismissal of Alex Shih from the admin role on the basis of evidence that is known to exist, but cannot be submitted to the community for review. That evidence has been reviewed by ARBCOM, because they are capable of reviewing it, and subsequent to that review they removed the CUOS tools from Alex Shih – I'm not interested in distinguishing "resigned under a cloud" from "had the tools removed" – for misuse/gross misuse. That should be it, shouldn't it? ARBCOM can review the evidence, the community cannot. ARBCOM has reviewed the evidence, the community will not. Yet the community is requesting a case for review; where ARBCOM has already conducted the review. If the breaches rise to the level of desysop why hasn't ARBCOM already desysopped? what function do you serve if you aren't fulfilling the purpose you exist for? If the breaches do not rise to the level of desysop... why are we here? for a pound of flesh? shits and giggles? the communal shower? Perhaps the above can be summarized in a single question: why are two cases of review needed for ARBCOM to perform its core duties? I'd hate to be Alex Shih right now, having already had ARBCOM breathing down my neck and with the community now coming in and saying breathe harder and longer. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alex was and remains, by all accounts, a fine administrator when he does not have access to nonpublic information doesn't really jive with Alex's conduct since then, which has evaded accountability and thwarted attempts by the community to evaluate whether he continues to hold their trust does it? How can a fine administrator seek to evade accountability? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am dismayed that such a statement would be made by an arbitrator, since it gives the impression that the Arbitration Committee would not treat violations of the access to nonpublic information policy with the appropriate severity - I wonder if that's why we're here for round 2. Has ARBCOM failed to treat the issue with appropriate severity? if so, why? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
This is a no-brainer, and while I am Alex's biggest fan (when he was the only realistic and rational link within the Arbcom nominees to the community), this should just be dismissed and Alex de-sysopped. I think that to actually vote in favour of months of mud-slinging, accusation, name-calling, etc is completely unjustified at this point and would demonstrate a clear detachment from Wikipedia's best interests. Alex is a great Wikipedian and, having been through the horrors of this committee's casual inability to function anywhere near correctly or quickly, he doesn't deserve yet another post-mortem. De-sysop per AGK's statement, and move on. We don't need a three-month drama festival to see the already pre-determined outcome. Nothing more useful will come from Arbcom, that is _for sure_. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RhinosF1
Given that CheckUser and Oversight privileges are only (even if just by consensus) handed to syspos and sysops are expected to have support of the community, I believe arbcom should hear this case and remove Alex's admin rights by motion. I would also recommend that he is not allowed to start an RfA without another user agreeing to co-nomimate him rather than just starting one himself. It seems clear that Alex has breached the trust of the community and therefore should retain adminship. Again, I ask arbcom to accept this case and as the only ones who can desysop Alex by motion allowing him with the supply of others in his own time to launch a new RfA. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support imposing the injunction below requested by User:AGK RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Majora
I urge the committee to accept this request or, at the very least, deal with it by motion. As I was reading this I was compelled to make a statement due to 's incredible decline rationale. A series of serious errors were committed by Alex Shih, but in a role that lends itself to them. makes it seem like functionaries breech trust all the time and we should all be ok with that, nay, we should expect it since the role lends itself to such abuses. This is an incredible abdication of the role the community put arbitrators in and to decline this request after sweeping it under the rug to begin with would be nothing short of telling the community that oversight of some of the most sensitive tools made available to editors is a pipe dream that should just be ignored completely. --Majora (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
"Failed to disclose their many mistakes" but "pointedly brief and technically accurate" also describes the statements "I am not a crook" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". These are misleading statements, and for an admin to make a misleading statement about the loss of their user rights while applying for new user rights should, at the very least, be formally reviewed. Levivich 01:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Lourdes
I am surprised at Alex's lack of judgement. His proceeding ahead with the steward election, despite fully realizing the complicated scenario it might lead to, looks either immature or an attempt to game the system to gain a moral upper hand. I am thankful to the Committee for bringing this up to the community. Thankful also to the filing editors. Given this kind of scrutiny and the circumstances involved in this case, I can't imagine how Alex would be able to continue here on Wikipedia even as a normal editor. Sorry to see such a fall in grace. The Committee should act with discretion and speed in such cases.

Statement by Kurtis
I think it's fair to say that virtually everyone (myself included) saw this case request coming from several light years away. I'd even played with the idea of submitting it myself (and I never submit anything to ArbCom beyond statements like this, and the occasional bit of evidence), but I was going to settle for just posting on his talk page and politely suggesting that he resign as an administrator. My hope was that he'd spend a year or two away from the tools, use that time to reflect on why the community has lost confidence in his judgement, and work to gradually rebuild trust. Then after some time has passed, he could maybe look at submitting a new RfA where he owns up to everything, apologizes for his mistakes, pledges to take greater care with sensitive information going forward, and perhaps people would be amenable to giving him another chance.

At this moment, I'm sad to say that I do not consider Alex Shih's position as an administrator to be tenable. Having the sysop flag grants an editor the ability to view deleted pages and revisions, thereby giving them access to potentially sensitive information. We know of at least five or six instances in which Alex used his checkuser permissions against their intended purpose, in breach of most any applicable privacy policies. This is a basic expectation to which we hold not only checkusers and arbitrators, but anyone entrusted with advanced permissions. Given everything that's come to light over the past few weeks, it is simply not possible to grant Alex clemency and allow him to continue on as an administrator.

The committee needs to accept this case, though a resignation on Alex's part could save us the trouble of going through the motions. With that said, I'm sorry to see it come to this. While I admit to being disappointed with how events have transpired, my hope is that we can move on from this unfortunate episode in time. Kurtis (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
I also think that we need to have a case. When Alex resigned and explained his reasons in the way he did, I could understand why but was unhappy that the result of doing it that way left him with the respect and indeed sympathy of the community. I didn't think he deserved this not just because of mistakes but because I thought that some of them showed very poor judgement on his part which would lead to more problems in the future. Of course like others of my colleagues I thought the Ombudsman report would bring these to light fairly soon. Then I started to hear rumours that he would run for steward. That seemed to me to be unlikely as the job requires someone who doesn't make mistakes and the report was going to show that he wasn't suitable for such a role. The rumours turned out to be true and he ran without disclosing the fact that there was a pending report or any hint of the real issues that led to his resignation. In fact his explanation for leaving the Committee was " "It comes down down (sic) to personal reasons and incompatibility with the bureaucratic structure. When I ran for the committee, I did mention that if I cannot initiate some sort of reform, there would be no point to stay." Although I know nothing about his personal reasons, to the rest I can only say that it is incompatible with the Committee's recent statement. When the Committee made that statement he even called the comments "falsehoods" off-wiki. What level of poor judgement leads someone to run for a such a senior position of trust where he will be called upon to use the very tools that he'd been mishandling in the past and when those errors were bound to come to light? Maybe the community should forgive his first misrepresentation. It shouldn't forgive the second. Administrators must be trusted. When they clearly cannot be trusted, they should lose the tools. That should be the core issue in this case. Doug Weller  talk 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
Unless Alex chooses to resign right away, I think a case would be useful to evaluate the following questions:


 * 1) Are the CU / private data issues worthy of a desysop?
 * 2) What about some of Alex's controversial behavior/casting aspersions between his resignation and the start of the steward elections? (example: WP:CUOS2018)
 * 3) What about his deception of the Wikimedia community in his steward nomination?
 * 4) * Technically it happened on Meta - but if successful, while Alex could not have run checks on English Wikipedia (under the homewiki rules) he would have had complete access to the CU logs, all OS content, and all checkuser-l and checkuser wiki content. Is this still within ArbCom scope? I would assume so under the "take notice" part of Arbitration/Policy
 * 5) * What does this mean for other users who might find themselves in a similar situation? If they are sanctioned on enwiki, are they required to disclose this when they run for steward? (At what point does something become serious enough to need to be disclosed)? What about for any CU/OS position on another Wikimedia wiki, since they get access to checkuser-l and the CU wiki? I think that a summary desysop solely based on point #3 with no principles or guidance in this regard would not be a good precedent to set. (Example: there have been unsuccessful candidates at enwiki CU/OS elections who have run on other wikis or for steward that would give them access to some enwiki CU/OS data - including myself. Are any future candidates in this category going to suddenly be risking desysop/other sanctions on enwiki?)
 * Or, is it the loss of trust that is the direct issue? Without a community desysop process, it's always been difficult to desysop solely based on that.
 * 1) Maybe it's not your place, but the OC really dropped the ball here and it might be appropriate to "take notice" of that as well. --Rschen7754 08:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dlohcierekim
While Alex's lapse in judgment in not withdrawing from the steward race is concerning, and though his (apparent) mishandling of sensitive information alarming, I don't think we can stretch these into the shape of something requiring desysop. The remedy for both problems is to deny him access to the CUOS tools, and that has been done. Havng said that, ArbCom needs to look at this and decide what remedy is now warranted, so it is only right that they hear this case. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite Alex's unfortunate retirement, I would like ArbCom to continue on with this. Most of the investigative work has been done and the committee should be able to come to a decision. I will AGF that Alex's retirement is heartfelt and not playing dodgeball. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that we could avoid desysop, but that seems to be the way the wind is blowing. I look forward to Alex's return. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by KTC
Given Alex's conduct and accountability both before and after, and the committee apparent decision at the time not to give desysop a full consideration due to a lack of an open case, this need to be accepted. The committee can deal with the case by a simple motion, or a shorten case if it decides, and acceptance does not mean sanction must be passed, but desysop or otherwise in this case should be an explicit decision of the committee rather than well we don't have a case so we don't even have to think about it. -- KTC (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb. -- KTC (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 but it's not as comparable since the rights had already been removed through L1 in that case. -- KTC (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne
I urge the committee to take this case for 2 reasons.

One is that administrative tools give access to deleted content. While theoretically all edits with sufficient problems should be suppressed, this doesn't always happen (it also doesn't happen instantly but that's much less of a concern here since I think if the content has just been recently deleted someone is likely to tread with far more caution). Since it's nearly all private I'm unable to judge, but are arbitrators confident from what they've seen that Alex Shih isn't going to mishandle deleted stuff which should be kept private, due to a brain fade/lack of judgement?

The second reason is a bit weird since it's not directly related to on-enwikipedia conduct but I'm concerned that Alex Shih didn't see the inevitable consequence of them running to be a steward. To my mind, not anticipating what would happen and how the community would react suggests such a serious lack of comprehension of how things work that I'm not particularly confident of their ability to use the tools. There's also the question of whether they should have considered themselves fit for the role, regardless of what happened. (I concentrate on the former mostly because my first thought when I read this mess a few days ago was "how on earth did you not realise this was going to happen?" as to my mind it was such a basic and obvious thing.) Note that personally, I'm not actually so concerned about how they responded after (from the admittedly little I've seen). I can appreciate how difficult it must be to handle all that has happened and am reluctant to significantly fault them for it.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
given this, I think he means Wikipedia. I’d urge the committee to resolve this by motion. I know cases are normally accepted and suspended pending unretirement, but this is unique in that the committee already knows all the relevant facts, and Alex has responded to them both in public (here) and in private 6 months ago. There would be no point in a full case, and as he’s already made a statement, a motion should be acceptable as the committee will be able to consider it while voting on a motion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
Personally I think this should be declined and him desysopped right now but ofcourse that's never going to happen .... so the next best option is to accept this. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SemiHypercube
I think that Alex, unfortunately, should be desysopped, with or without an ArbCom case, as his violations of CU/OS policy do seem to be misuse of admin tools. SemiHypercube 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1
We have been told that the undisclosed 2018 case was dealing with five characterized breaches of confidentiality committed by Alex Shih in his role of Checkuser. This case was settled by allowing him a courtesy escape. Nothing more was done than accepting a simple resignation from the positions of Arbitrator and Checkuser (some words were sent to some quite dead body, without resulting into any resurrection). But this was nevertheless a clear case of a resignation under a cloud. By so blatantly lying about the reasons of such resignation, Alex Shih has broken his parole and the former courtesy escape settlement has became mot. As a first result, Alex Shih has by himself reopened the case. As a second result, Alex Shih has proven beyond any doubt that he must be discharged of any position of trust if we want to prevent any further trouble. Pldx1 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * About the alleged retirement. Due to the recent behavior, another courtesy escape should not be granted. Alex Shih has to be stripped from any position of trust. And this must be implemented clearly as a discharge for cause. Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Given Alex's retirement I think accepting but suspending the case would be the sensible way forward. This has been done before, I can't remember the details ottomh but it was something like a motion suspending the case with provisions that: I'd suggest that (if they haven't already) the Committee make notes on the arbwiki so that a future Committee has the information it would need to deal with a resumed case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If Alex returns to editing before his administrator tools are removed (for inactivity or any other reason) then the case will automatically resume at that time. He must not use his admin tools until the earlier of the case closing or the arbitration committee passing a motion otherwise.
 * If Alex does not return to editing before his tools are removed (for inactivity or any other reason) then, the case will be procedurally closed. Alex may not regain the tools without first passing an RFA.
 * Not the example I was thinking of (it was more recent than 2012), but yes that's the sort of thing I mean. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
Given that there is no new evidence to be presented, the main issue is interpreting community desires. As such I believe a motion or case can proceed, and it may be best to deal with this matter expeditiously now. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galahad
This case has undoubtedly made a significant precedent. As a member of the Commission, I must indicate that the measures in this regard were suggested and are left to those responsible for executing them. I am concerned about the comments of certain members, so if they consider that there is a possible violation of the policies, feel free to request an investigation (by mail)

On the other hand, due to the statement of the Arbitration Committee and the community request, a public statement was planned on this particular case. However, the retirement of the defendant requires a change about the proposed plans.

Greetings, --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 23:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I urge the committee to decide this by a motion that desysops per level 2. It should be obvious that there have been serious lapses that have resulted in a complete loss of trust. It's not so much the CU error, though that was a serious lapse in judgement, but the subsequent ones, that have been rehashed and re-rehashed plenty by now. Alex seems to have retired, but given the situation he should not retire with the admin tool in place. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)