Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you,Amalthea, for scripting and updating the CU stats. -- Avi (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Any way we could have a "total" entry in the tables? It'd be useful to see how OS and CU numbers have changed overall, and not just how the patterns of individual users have varied. Ironholds (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone could likely write a script to pull the data from the past few years; I don't keep it once I'm done. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pursuant to the motion concerning advanced permissions and inactivity, the appointment of Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs) to the Audit Subcommittee is terminated effective 3 September 2011 and his Checkuser and Oversight permissions shall be withdrawn. The committee has been unable to contact Bahamut0013, and this action is taken on the basis that he is not currently active on this project.

AGK (talk · contribs) is appointed in his place in accordance with the April 2011 Audit Subcommittee appointments motion. The Arbitration Committee thanks Bahamut0013 for his contributions to the Audit Subcommittee during his tenure, and thanks AGK for agreeing to accept full membership in the subcommittee for the remainder of Bahamut0013's term.

Supporting motion: Casliber; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; SirFozzie; Xeno.

Not voting/inactive: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Iridescent; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Roger Davies.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi, how exactly do I lodge a complaint against a use of Checkuser? Am I supposed to send an e-mail to the mailing list? Is there no on-site method? ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes; in general, complaints should be emailed to arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org. –xeno^talk 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The AUSC usually handles matters via e-mail, please direct all correspondence for the Subcommittee to arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org. Courcelles 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • FYI, while an on-wiki method of making inquiries would be an interesting idea, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee page is designed to give information about the AUSC, not to conduct its business. ENCRYPTMATRON, I have forwarded your filing onto the mailing list. If you could contact the list, that would be appreciated. Courcelles 14:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I endorse this request for an on-wiki forum for enquiries. Doing business through mailing lists, IRC, etc. is not very transparent, and something we should be avoiding where possible. Secondly having to use a "complaint" channel for a query is off-putting. Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC).
      
      • Hmm. Not sure if I follow... If someone just wants to inquire about something in general, they can post here, or one level higher. –xeno^talk 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (Above, Courcelles is referring to the post made to the project page by ENCRYPMATRON, which resulted in this onwiki response)
        • Yes, something in general, about the committee or its processes. But not a general query about an oversight action or a checkuser action, that is not a complaint. I haven't really followed the implementation of oversighting, but it does seem to me that there really needs to be (and it may be that there is and its just not easy to find) a top-level audit trail that is publicly visible - I'm actually fairly sure I used to be able to easily see stuff like "revisions redacted for reason X" , though I may be misremembering, now all I see is greyed out revisions (presumably a non-admin wouldn't see even those), no trace as to why, or who did the redaction. Obviously a detailed summary wouldn't be expected, just "Oversighted by Cyclops for personally identifying information." something like that. Moreover I would expect a public mechanism for monitoring oversight and ensuring that it is not being abused or allowed to become anything other than the extreme and extremely rare measure it was intended to be. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
          
          • There are compelling privacy-based reasons not to have a public oversight log, and the inability for non-oversighters to scrutinize suppression actions is precisely why we have an Audit Subcommittee that draws in part from the community-at-large for membership.

            I think we can probably note somewhere that 'inquiries' that aren't necessarily complaints per se may be directed to the subcommittee. –xeno^talk 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Further note: The mailing list is moderated:

Your mail to 'arbcom-audit-en' with the subject

    Oversight of XXXX

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

    Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.  If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:

    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/arbcom-audit-en/....

Not a terribly responsive system, by the look of it.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

• Almost all Wikimedia mailing lists are moderated to filter spam messages. –xeno^talk 12:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note: Some information is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics. Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC).
  

• RF - I know that this would not be apparent to you because mailman does not send "message approved by moderator" notifications, but your e-mail was accepted by a subscriber to the mailing list in under thirty seconds. The interim response that we had received your message and would reply in due course was sent four hours later, but I don't think that even that is at all an unacceptable delay. On the topic of a top-level audit trail: would it satisfy your qualms if the subcommittee were to state monthly the number of instances of possible misuse we had investigated? At present, the only statistics for AUSC activity we publish are full reports that are released publicly—but more goes on in the background. Regarding "mailing lists, IRC, etc.", we do not use IRC; we use mailing lists (and nothing else). I do not think it is feasible to operate on-wiki or using a mailing list that has a public archive. AGK [•] 20:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there are also summary reports made approximately every six months, with the last report being made in June 2011. –xeno^talk 12:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't mean to bump a very old thread, but my recent major edit relates to this topic. I don't think the Subcommittee's practices with regards to reporting was very clear, and it undoubtedly changed after about November 2009 when the "Log" of all complaints stopped being updated, so I rewrote the Reports page to accord with the status quo. RF, if this topic still interests you, the new page will probably explain things more clearly. AGK [•] 18:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the sorting function on the two tables appears broken. I don't know if this is an issue caused by the recent MediaWiki update, but the function appears to group the list by the leading number, then order the list largest to smallest. For example, MuZemike, Hersfold, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Xeno all have performed checks in September, ranging from 900+ to 9. However, these are listed together instead of placing the 900+ at the top and the 9 near the bottom. Does anyone know what happened? TNXMan 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a MediaWiki issue that has arisen from the 1.18 upgrade, and bugzilla has been filed. Risker (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right on. TNXMan 18:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Main statistics page

I've updated the statistics for CheckUser and Oversight use for the period 8 November–8 December 2011. With this update, Lar and YellowMonkey were removed from the CU statics because they have not had access to that function for over 6 months. Several members of the Arbitration Committee with oversight access, who rarely or never use the function, were not included in the suppression statistics; I have added them to the table, and updated their activity data for the previous six months. The three scrutineers for the 2012 Elections to the Arbitration Committee were given temporary CheckUser access on 3 December 2011, for the duration of the elections. At the time these statistics were compiled, Bencmq, Trijnstel‏‎, and Vituzzu‏‎ had performed no actions, and they have not been included in the statistics.

For this period, 4502 checks and 567 suppression actions were performed. AGK [•] 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stats manually updated for November & December from the logs. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Avi! -- Luk ^talk 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Effective 1 March 2012, Avraham (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), and Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Keegan (talk · contribs) who is expected to remain in office until 31 March 2012.

Support motion

AGK, Casliber, Courcelles, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Jclemens, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Xeno.

Not voting

David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SilkTork, SirFozzie.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Reports#July_2011_through_February_2012 is so cryptic as to practically convey no information to the average editor. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I sent in one of these reports and I honestly can't tell which one is referring to my submission. (I'd actually appreciate an email about that if someone has the time.) NW (Talk) 01:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your enquiries. I hope these responses provide some resolution:

ASCII, for the most part we are unable to explain the nature of subcommittee cases in more detail due to the private nature of functionary work. If we were to publicly explain why we dismissed a given complaint, then the nature of the associated action would be revealed. I suppose these anonymised reports are the auditors' attempt to: show we remain active; describe what proportion of complaints are instigated from within the subcommittee, within the functionary team, and from outwith both groups; and generally bring the community into the loop on our work (to as great an extent as possible). The alternative would be to keep mum on the entirety of our workload, which would surely be worse still.

NuclearWarfare, your complaint was mistakenly omitted from the summary, which is why you don't recognise a corresponding entry in the summary of activity. I'm not sure how we managed to make such an omission, because another auditor and Risker (our co-ordinator) reviewed the summary. Perhaps our objective was to remove unacceptable breaches of privacy, or inaccuracies, in the circumscribed wording, and in the process didn't recognise a case had been omitted; please accept my apologies. We'll include the summary of your case in the next activity report, so as to not reveal the nature of your complaint. AGK [•] 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an improvement. Sorry I did not see it after my query last September. Rich Farmbrough, 04:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

"One case resulted in a caution to the functionary and development of a best practice guideline, which was shared with all functionaries." Where is this guideline? Rich Farmbrough, 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

It is a reiteration of certain sections of the checkuser policy and the privacy policy. As such, they are already publicly available. Risker (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

<Sigh> Why didn't it say that, then, instead of trying to sound all important? Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

I have emailed the Audit Subcommittee with the following email:

In terms of use of the Checkuser tool, how many uses over the last 6 months were made by each checkuser that were not a direct result of an SPI. What were the reasons for these uses?

I hope that they are able to answer speedily, and we can see how our elected officials are using the power they have been entrusted with. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, there is no easy-to-obtain answer to this question; though all entries require a reason to be logged, when doing complex requests the log entry may not directly link to the SPI request but use a shorthand abbreviation. Some SPIs require dozens, even hundreds of checks, depending on how many socks are involved. Many checks are done in response to addressing cross-wiki vandalism and sockpuppetry, as part of the global checkuser team, and they will never be part of the SPI process. Some are done to verify the appropriateness of IPBEs, some to ascertain the appropriateness of new account creations on otherwise-blocked IP ranges, and still others to review unblock requests. Still more will be done to review the results of prior SPIs carried out by other checkusers, in a consultative manner or as part of a review of activities. Checkusers also have the authority in policy to conduct an investigation on suspicious accounts identified through other means than SPI requests (for example, an ANI thread, or behaviour on articles known to attract certain sockpuppeters). Risker (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It may not be easy, but it's the type of work we all have to do - as you will know I have done exercises like this myself to reassure users over the rate of errors in my edits. We should change the ways of working so that it is easier to do in the future, and we should look at better ways to ensure accountability. For example it would be easy to have a system where the purpose of a check was logged publicly, even if the detail wasn't. And we should change the policy allowing Checkusers to go fishing - no one else is allowed to do that, and with good reason. The founding fathers took the view (and it can be seen clearly, in several policies) that it is what you do that is important, not who you are. If there is not sufficient evidence for a SPI then we should not have an elite class of users who can check anyway. The idea is that checkusers are trusted to only use the tool in the conditions which the community would agree with - where an SPI would have been accepted. Your statements lead me to believe that a much lower threshold is being set. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, you seem to be equating "there is no SPI" with "this check would have been declined if brought to SPI". Those two statements, are, however, not equal. A request for an account comes in from a hardblocked range? It's checked, but there would be no place to file an SPI; usually the ACC request number is put in the log. Same for unblock requests when warranted. Obvious socks of banned users may be checked for sleepers, same for spammers, particularly cross-wiki ones, where enwp CU's will work with stewards, CU's from other projects, and Meta sysops to stop the problem. (Meta sysops are never given CU data unless they are themselves CU's or stewards, but that is the flag that allows global spam blacklist additions). As to "For example it would be easy to have a system where the purpose of a check was logged publicly, even if the detail wasn't." That would have to come from the Foundation thinking it was a good idea, and the developers writing it, and I'm not sure what ti would tell folks to see a log like "Courcelles got IP addresses for Example (unblock request)", because that's all the log is. To see what the checkuser saw requires re-running the check, and generating another logged action. I've yet to see any evidence that folks are abusing the ability to do checks for good reason without doing the paperwork at SPI; one of, if not the largest uses of CU is to control vandalism and spam; and the global ombudsman commission provides a body of review above the local ArbCom; the mandates of the Ombudsmen and the AUSC largely overlap in ensuring CU is only used for the reasons provided for in WMF policy. Courcelles 06:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making that equation at all. What I am asking for in the first instance, is a public record of how the tool is being used. all we know is who is using it. We have no idea it those 4000 CU actions are 99% SPI or 10% SPI, or what percentage are "working with the global checkuser", and importantly what percentage are done on a Checkuser's own cognizance.

Saying "I've yet to see any evidence that folks are abusing..." is possibly very reassuring to people that know you personally, but totally misses the point. It is a Ceaser's wife argument. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

Not only is there no good way to do that, the request is not even within the scope of the audit subcommittee. It "investigates complaints about the misuse or abuse of the advanced permissions, CheckUser and Oversight", and the only metrics it keeps are of the disposition of requests made to it. Since you just edited the page, I'm certain you had an opportunity to see that verbiage. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for an audit of the use of these powers. This should be standard procedure. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich I'm not clear on the benefit of your proposal. Let's suppose that your request, "In terms of use of the Checkuser tool, how many uses over the last 6 months were made by each checkuser that were not a direct result of an SPI. What were the reasons for these uses?", was granted. What would it tell us, and if the tool was being abused, what would prevent someone from lying or being vague in their explanation for the use of the tool so that they evade detection? Pine^✉ 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User Avraham is also a Beureaucrat and Steward. I think this should be noted here, just as a member's being an Arbitrator is. This seems elementary good governance - when power is concentrated in fewer hands that should be documented. It appears that the ArbCom do not think so, having tag-team reverted me, depsite Riskier saying "We publicise stuff as much as we can" (paraphrase). What do others think? Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC).

I must disagree that this is necessary, because Avi's role as a bureaucrat and steward have no bearing on his work as an auditor. No other Wikipedia organisation specifies the other roles of its member unless that role might be useful to the work of that organisation. For example, the list of members at WP:BAG highlights members who hold Bureaucrat or Toolserver access, because those two roles are very relevant to the work of the Approvals Group. The list does not specify members who are Bot Operators themselves, which is arguably a conflict of interest (though I entirely dismiss that notion). Arbitrator members are only differentiated from Community members because the purpose of their seat on the subcommittee is slightly different, and because the appointment and term length of a community seat is very different from those of an arbitrator member. Such is what I think; others' mileage may vary.

I think the "tag-team reverts" were made because any 'ArbCom page' (of which there are thankfully few) that does not contain actual arbitration proceedings may not, for the most part, be changed without the consent of a majority of the committee. AGK [•] 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the audit subcommittee two weeks ago with a concern, got a reply that the issue would be investigated, and was told that most investigations are wrapped up in seven days. I've heard nothing since. I emailed two days ago to ask for an update, and haven't heard any reply to that. I'm getting frustrated and concerned that everyone takes vacation at the same time and so no one is checking their emails. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that one of the requirements for audit subcommittee membership was that members are supposed to be checking their email frequently to deal quickly with issues that come up. In my view, 24 hours should be enough time to get at least an acknowledgement of an email that any user sends to the Audit Subcommittee. The lack of alertness and responsiveness is seriously concerning me. Security problems don't stop happening on holidays and weekends, and it seems to me that those who volunteer to be "emergency responders" like oversighters and Audit Subcommittee members should be expected to be responsive to emails promptly as a part of their job descriptions. The issue which I originally raised with the Audit Subcommittee concerned the length of time that it took to get a response to a different sensitive issue. I'm very concerned about the lack of responsiveness that I'm seeing with alarming consistency. It seems to me that there should be a clear and public policy that members in these types of roles commit themselves to responding within certain lengths of time to communications. Pine^✉ 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your e-mail. To clarify, complaints that the Oversight team did not respond promptly to your OTRS ticket are outwith the scope of the Audit Subcommittee. Please read WP:AUSC to understand our purpose. Regards, AGK [•] 11:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am now discussing this with WMF. Pine^✉ 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have now communicated with WMF and other Arbcom and/or AUSC people about this issue. It seems that some actions have already been taken to address my concerns, and more actions are coming. I will be paying attention to how this proceeds and have already given some suggestions by email. Pine^✉ 06:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It may well already be covered under the AUSC normal auditing procedures, (I don't know if it ends up in the normal suppression log) but in case it isn't, I wanted to make sure the sub-committee is aware of the oversight function in the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool, which would be subject to the committee's monitoring. Monty₈₄₅ 21:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They are aware that any suppresion is within their remit, and have been made aware that a suppression function was built into this tool. Thanks for noting it. Risker (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone who can update this page with the November statistics maybe? Trijnstel_talk 08:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello? If you wait a few more days, you can add December to it as well ... Trijnstel_talk 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Try pinging an ArbCom member? --Rschen7754 17:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to update the statistics for both permissions and both months on New Year's Day, when I have a social function in the evening but no plans for the rest of the day. Trijnstel, you ought to know that these statistics are updated sporadically (and justifiably so—even with my automated method, they're quite time-consuming to produce). It's not uncommon for us to have to update more than one month in one sitting. Thanks for your prompt, in any case! AGK [•] 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Updated through to December, with Amalthea's help. AGK [•] 14:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I did less checks last month than I expected. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission would like to consult the community on their opinions about the remit of the Commission. Please see this notice. Feel free to cross-post this notice to any appropriate noticeboard. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Auditing says the following:

All complaints about the use of CheckUser or Oversight privileges received by the Committee shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee by forwarding the complaint to the subcommittee's mailing list (arbcom-audit-en).

Wiktionary gives the following definition for wikt:complaint:

A grievance, problem, difficulty, or concern; the act of complaining.

Please see my email to the ArbCom list:

Hello ArbCom list members,

This is an appeal against a ban against User:Int21h enetered on 27 December 2012 16:46 by User:DeltaQuad. I have not appealed to this board against this action before. I request to reserve the right to continue this appeal to this board once this board actually tells me the procedure for such an appeal; my appeal may be different once I have been given a trial, been told all procedures for appeal, or been given evidence which to refute, if these events ever happen.

No community discussion has taken place with User:DeltaQuad; only 1 post was made by User:DeltaQuad on my talk page, stating he had secret evidence I was abusing multiple accounts confirmed my multiple CheckUsers. After initially pleading with this board by email on 28 December 2012 02:47, as the only entity with supervisory functions over this type of matter, to contact User:DeltaQuad to start community discussion, I was emailed by User:Hersfold on 28 December 2012 03:35 where he sugested I transfer control of my WIkipedia account to another email account, which I rejected. (As I cannot retain physical control of any other email account like I can my current one; in case someone hacks my password, I am not completely fucked. User:Hersfold, your advise is stupid, please don't advise anyone else of the same, or they may risk loosing their accounts forever.)

While User:DeltaQuad has stated this was for abusing multiple accounts, he did not say when such activity occured, or what identifiable activity actually met this definition. So I cannot refute it. While he stated that he banned my User based on evidence, this evidence is apparently secret and has not been provided. So I cannot refute it. IN SUM: No one has told me any usefully identifiable information which to refute. So, whilst I cannot actually refute any evidence but must somehow still "appeal" the decision, procedural decisions should be made about how the appeal should be conducted.

I don't think there should ever be a trial, only 1 appeal. CHECK! No problems there, that's what happening here and now! I don't think there should be any illusion of a fair trial here--there's isn't one. Let's get that on the record: no trial ever took place, only an appeal.

I think this should be handled like a Star Chamber court case, where a friend or acquiantance of the accusor, which I shall assume is User:DeltaQuad, decides the case. I think it should be someone with supervisory functions over the accusor, as well. In this case, that's you, ArbCom. CHECK! That way there can be no illusion of impartiality in this matter.

I think the burden of proof should be on the defendant, to prove the accusors evidence is false, but the defendent should NOT actually be given any evidence. That way, there is so illusion of a fair trial--er, fair appeal. CHECK. No problems there, that's already happening. There's no need to have any pesky Western notions of fairness here. Just accuse him, refuse to provide evidence, demand he refute the evidence, and that's a wrap! Time for lunch!

User:Hersfold has also admitted to being involved and having seen the secret evidence along with User:DeltaQuad, so he can provide additional, secret information if the ArbCom board wishes. Because User:Hersfold is already of the opinion that "... you were ... sharing ... with these accounts ... the same computer ..." he should be the only party to decide the appeal, other than the actual accusor. We don't want any hint of fairness here.

I think any appeal should be decided by the appellate authority in discussion with the prosecutor alone, without involvement of the defendant, with the secret evidence. CHECK! (Talk to User:Hersfold, he apparently has already begun.) Let's keep this quiet, no one needs to see what a modern Star Chamber looks like anyways.

Hell, just don't even acknowledge what the appeal procedures are. That way, when the defendant finds out what the appeal procedures are, his appeal is denied and he is banned forever! CHECK! I am pretty sure that's what going to happen here. Call it a hunch, based on the incompetence and outrageous behavior I have seen thus far.

Now that I have established appeal procedures I will be assuming... If this board by chance uses some other procedures, please tell me before denying my appeal for incorrect procedure. (Because then you would be assholes.)

IN SUM Here is my appeal: I cannot disprove a NULL set of facts. That is literally impossible. *I*, personally, have been linked by secret evidence to "abuse", so my User has been banned forever even though my User has not been accused of anything bad. That is outrageous, and this board should be ashamed this was even allowed to happen, regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Anything else I could possibly say is just conjecture. That is my appeal; that is all my appeal can be.

I can promise the board this: If my User is allowed to continue editing, as this User has for the better part of a decade, there will be no additional problems for Wikimedia or its projects (as has been for the better part of a decade). And the first thing I will do, of course, is to have this board disbanded, and its incompetent members exposed and prevented from obtaining such privledges again. (If you didn't get the picture yet.) All assumptions of good faith have been dispelled, IMO. I am being explicit for a reason. I hope your fear of loosing your unjust and disruptive power overrides your desire for fairness and justice. The decision for Wikipedia must be forced as soon as possible: either incompetent management goes, or competent editors. If I must leave for this board to be exposed, then so be it.

I will encourage all of my edits to be reverted, so that Wikipedia and Wikisource know what damage incompetent management does; how threatening ArbCom is. Let my User page stand as a warning to all who bother staying: you are next. Your execution will be swift, and the appeal that comes after almost as so (no trial though).

Respectfully,

User:Int21h

I consider this not only an appeal, but a complaint. I don't think there is anything else I could have said to qualify it as a complaint, except maybe more expletives. So where is my audit?

I should also note that I have been unable to retrieve emails sent to my email account that I had registered sometime around the time of my ban in an attempt to communicate with User:DeltaQuad. (All such attempts at communication failed.) I am receiving emails to my registered email address as of a moment ago. Int21h (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a member of AUSC, I just have this page on my watchlist. I'm confused. You don't appear to be blocked right now, since you were able to use your account to post this. In fact, looking at your talk page, it looks like this issue was resolved more than a month ago with a rather abject apology from DeltaQuad. What is it that you're asking for here, today? (If it's just a reply from AUSC, so you know they didn't trash your email, they're often just very slow - when I've had dealings with them the wait has sometimes been on the order of months before a reply) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved? No, it is far from resolved. Abject? I think empty is a better adjective. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss what DeltaQuad's state of mind is regarding this whole affair. (But have no doubt, that discussion will come.) As to the question put forward as to what I want, I think the word "audit" in the subject of my post, and the entire purpose of this президиум, makes it quite clear that an audit is what I want. Int21h (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked the AUSC mailing list and no emails relating to Int21h or DeltaQuad have been received in January of February. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that email was from December 2012. Int21h (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Audit Subcommittee has not received any emails from you. I suspect you are referring to the Arbcom-en-unblock list, where you did indeed send emails. Risker (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. The application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 18:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

All the talk of community members, community terms, community representatives is nice, but the WMF have now declared that's all wrong. AUSC members must be sysops and so the notion that there is even the appearance of community representation has been falsified. Please re-write the AUSC page to reflect the reality, perhaps citing WP:WMF declares adminship a big deal. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, your comment seems to me to contain a deep fallacy, because administrators are part of the community in every sense. However, you are correct that the recent WMF announcement needs to be reflected on the AUSC description page, so I've added a couple of sentences. Suggestions for further edits are welcome. AGK [•] 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi AGK... I understand how you might draw that inference, but I assure you that you are mistaken. Admins are a part of the community, as are arbitrators, and in case you hadn't noticed I am a signatory to WP:ARBPEOPLE. The problem is that admins as a group are not a representative subset of the community. In the "real world", I would object to community representatives that were restricted to barristers only, or people earning more than $200k per annum, or people who attend a church (or mosque or synagogue or ...) because all of these groups are from the community but are a biased sample. Suppose the Catholic church wanted a panel to monitor bishops, and it was to made up half of cardinals and half of representatives of the Catholic community - and then the Vatican restricted that half to priests only... it would still be a Catholic panel, still capable of monitoring bishops, but it would exclude many community perspectives and only include membership from those who are already bishops or those eligible for "promotion". It would not be community representation. So, from my perspective, AUSC ceased to have true community representation when its membership was restricted to only a small part of the community, and worse, to the part of the community eligible for being granted OS and CU access. True community representation and protection comes from AUSC being able to include non-admins. Without that, which the WMF has forbidden, AUSC has ceased to be a community-check on CU and OS and has become an internal check within the sysop group. I already felt that AUSC was too influenced by ArbCom, I would prefer ArbCom members be a minority, and now WMF-fiat means that all non-ArbCom members are vulnerable to losing their admin permission. In the recent MF / GP mess, I was wondering if an AUSC investigation of the justification for a CU (based on what was known at the time) might be needed, and this change to me makes such an investigation pointless. A truly independent investigation would need to exclude all current Arbs except as witnesses, and be based on genuinely community-wide perspectives - impossible now. AUSC should include non-functionary admins, but also non-admins, and the WMF has destroyed that. In doing so, the WMF have made eliminated non-admin checks on admins / functionaries / arbitrators, they have made admin-status a prerequisite for any advanced permissions, and they have effectively disempowered those content editors who will never engage at the RfA gauntlet. As I said, the WMF have added a new 'policy:' WP:WMF declares adminship a big deal. EdChem (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If auditors need deleted revision access, and WMF doesn't want to give that without someone having passed RFA "or an RFA-like process", then the conclusion is inevitable. And that theoretically a non-admin could have been appointed (one was once) doesn't help accountability much. Perhaps it would be better to consider whether some additional panel composed entirely of elected non-admins could handle some reviews where access to deleted revisions isn't essential. Rd232 ^talk 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC), less than 36 hours from now.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Avraham, MBisanz, and Ponyo, whose terms were to expire on February 28 but were extended with their agreement until April 30 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access but are expected to not make regular use of them unless needed. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 30 June 2014. Once again, the application period will close at 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 28 April 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Full report

(Moved from WP:ACN Courcelles 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)) So we can can summarise that by saying that AUSC is basically toothless. Regular editors who misuse rollback routinely have that "right" removed on the flimsiest of pretexts, but it appears that admins judging other admins have a different view. Corruption doesn't even get close. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

With any user right, the expectation is that isolated mistakes are ok, but repeated ones, especially if they involve failure to learn from previous mistakes, aren't. I would agree with you that it's possible to read this as a list of cases where the job wasn't done, and it could be that it is, but without access to the circumstances of each case, it's hard to tell whether this is a matter of "toothless committee can't or won't do anything about repeated misuse of tools" or of "committee warns multiple people who each once made a mistake with their tools." To be able to judge that, we'd have to know which functionary was associated with each case, and what the context of the case was - and for privacy reasons, we're not allowed to know that. Given that limitation, I'm not sure how we're expected to make a judgment about whether AUSC is working as intended. The best approach if you want to pursue this may be to see if some capable body - either Arbcom, to start locally, or perhaps the Ombudsman Commissions if Arbcom doesn't feel it can address the question neutrally because it shares manpower with AUSC - is willing to review the effectiveness of AUSC's processes and whether the community is getting the accountability-for-functionaries it requires from AUSC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Having level-upon-level of bureaucracy is certainly subject to that law of diminishing returns, and using reductio ad absurdum, if we do not trust AUSC, why would we trust the Ombudsmen; who will check them? Perhaps we should empanel a group of people who know nothing about wikipedia, functionaries, suppression, or checkusering, and certainly they cannot have any preconceived notions. Of course, they could not opine with anything resembling reason either. Bottom line, at a certain point, one has to trust people, wheresoever that point may be. While of course I am biased, one of the criteria for selecting the people on AUSC was the belief that they would be fair and impartial reviewers of functionary activity, and speaking personally, I like to think that we were. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ironic that in mainspace Wikipedia is all about reliable sources but in Wikispace it's "trust us." NE Ent 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of editors who are checked by the CU team. This concept which CU did what, and which CU was warned must be private is specious. NE Ent 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I won't respond to the accusation that we are corrupt (such nonsense deserves no attention), but this would be as good a time as any to say that AUSC can and has removed a functionary's permissions for abuse or misuse of their access rights. However, we do so as a result of deliberately malicious use or serially negligent misuse of the permissions, not as a consequence of an isolated mistake. During the period with which this summary of activity is concerned, no functionary has abused or misused their permissions. In a couple of cases, a functionary has not followed best practice or made an isolated mistake; I find it completely appropriate that those functionaries were simply warned not to repeat their error, and I would have found any more serious response by AUSC to have been an overreaction. The absence of scores of rights-removals is not an indication that the process is not working; it is adequately serving its purpose. Anybody who thinks otherwise is looking for a conspiracy theory, and ought to stop wasting their and our time. AGK [•] 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  And where did the Int21h (talk · contribs) debacle fall in all this? NE Ent 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Further down the page, under "full reports". Incidentaly, about that report... it's worth noting that MaxSem's decline was as much for the incivility as for anything else. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  The full text of the Int21h complaint is available in my userspace here: User:Surturz/DQAUSC. I would be genuinely interested in feedback on whether the community supports AUSC's verdict. I lodged the complaint as a completely disinterested observer - I only got involved after seeing Int21h's rant on the arbcom page. --Surturz (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 22 July 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.

For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.

For the Ombudsman Commission,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Could someone close that RfC? It's been open for almost six months. --Surturz (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that there appears to be too much oversighting going on if the WP:OFFICE interprets its mandate to guard against "libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, and copyright infringement" narrowly enough to see the need for just one "Office action" every few months while oversighters interpret their mandate so broadly that a single oversighter should feel the need to oversight 298 times in a single month. But perhaps the bulk of the suppressions are related to the oversighters' additional mandate to protect the interests of Wikipedians as opposed to article subjects. Maybe the "typical" oversight concerns one Wikipedian libelling another on a Talk page or User page. I can't draw meaningful conclusions about the oversighting statistics if the bulk of them are being applied to pages that aren't in the Mainspace, like Talk pages and User pages. Can we get some sort of breakdown of these statistics? How about a breakdown by rationale (e.g. "libel of article subject," "libel of another editor" "copyright," etc.)? How much oversighting is being done on the non-public (OTRS) request of article subjects? How much oversighting is being done to protect to interests of article subjects without any request from an article subject?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Bdell555: Historically, I have produced most of the statistics for the Oversight permission. For my part, I do not have enough time to produce detailed data of the nature you request, and unless somebody else has enough time to produce them I am afraid I don't think the data will be forthcoming. However, I am fairly sure it is not worthwhile to read too far into the low number of office actions; this will be because the Foundation traditionally defers as much of this sort of work as possible – and only actions complaints itself if instructed to do so by their legal counsel.

In terms of quantifying the distribution of suppressions between namespaces, here is the best I can do for now. In the last two hundred suppressions (up to today):

• 54 were on user pages
• 11 were on Wikipedia: pages
• 6 were on Wikipedia talk: pages
• 22 were on talk pages
• 11 were on other non-article pages
• ∴ 96 were on article pages

In my experience, the majority of suppressions (half or more, that is) arise out of OTRS requests, though it's impossible to tell exactly where they all originate from – especially because AUSC usually regulates only whether suppressions are legitimate, not where they came from. Regards, AGK [•] 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Concur with AGK. I cannot recall the last time there was a request for oversight of copyrighted material, so it is very rare. OFFICE actions only occur in an infinitesmally small number of cases. A fair bit of suppression in various namespaces is as a result of non-public personal information - whether true or not - about identifiable non-editors/non-subjects. There are also "edited accidentally while logged out, revealing IP" which can apply to any namespace, and suppression of personally identifiable information about minors (most commonly about editors in userspace, but sometimes also about other people). Risker (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, do the statistics include unsuppressions? --Rschen7754 04:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I wasn't entirely sure what the suppression log entries looked like and whether or not unsuppression would be obvious, so I did a little test on a sandbox I created explicitly for the purpose. I did two suppressions and one unsuppression. This is what the log entries look like:

• 13:50, 25 October 2013 Risker (talk | contribs | block) secretly changed visibility of a revision on page User:Risker/Sandbox 99: content unhidden and removed restrictions for administrators (unsuppressing for testing purposes) (diff | more...)
• 13:50, 25 October 2013 Risker (talk | contribs | block) secretly changed visibility of a revision on page User:Risker/Sandbox 99: content hidden and applied restrictions to administrators (testing) (diff | more...)
• 13:48, 25 October 2013 Risker (talk | contribs | block) secretly changed visibility of a revision on page User:Risker/Sandbox 99: content hidden and applied restrictions to administrators (for testing purposes only) (diff | more...)

It seems to me that, absent a close reading of the action summary (the sentence fragment in brackets, "for testing purposes only", "testing" and "unsuppressing for testing purposes"), there is no way to determine directly from the log whether an action is a suppression or an unsuppression. Incidentally, I have no idea why the action phrase is "secretly changed visibility" - that "secretly" sort of annoys me - but I assume it is to differentiate from a revision deletion summary that just says "changed visibility". It appears that one cannot differentiate between revision deletions and reversals of revision deletions either. Risker (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, the top log entry has "content unhidden and removed restrictions for administrators", which is pretty clearly unsuppression. It does mean that it's necessary to parse each log entry rather than just counting them per-oversighter, but it's not beyond the wit of man (or woman for that matter :D). Happy‑melon 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I need new glasses.  :-D Thanks for pointing it out, Happy-melon. So yes, it can be derived. I'll be honest though, I don't think anyone does much unsuppression. Risker (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Worm^TT(talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Effective 27 August 2014, Callanecc (talk · contribs), Joe Decker (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, subject to their compliance with the provisions of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The period of appointment will be 27 August 2014 to 31 August 2015.

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Richwales (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs) for agreeing to stay in office past the original length of their term; and to the outgoing auditors, Richwales and Guerillero, for their service to date.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this