Open main menu

Stewards/Elections 2019/Votes/Alex Shih

Alex ShihEdit

ContentsYesNoNeutral
  • Languages: zh, en-5, ja-5
  • Personal info: (English)
    Hello all, my name is Alex. I am an administrator of the English Wikipedia, and briefly held checkuser and oversight access as a member of the English Arbitration Committee last year. I am not your average steward candidate; I am putting myself forward mostly because there are currently no Chinese-speaking stewards, and there are some useful work I can see myself doing at SRCU. I will be more than happy to answer any questions about my experience and knowledge over different aspects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • Questions: See Stewards/Elections 2019/Questions#Alex Shih


  YesEdit

WQL (Verification pending)   Intentions are good, well-trusted in both Chinese and English Wikipedia. 云间守望 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. Fenikals (Eligible, checked by Ajraddatz)2019   Fenikals (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Novak Watchmen (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  NoEdit

  1. Rschen7754 (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   - My gut feeling, after seeing some of the recent events on enwiki, is that he would be too combative and not work well with the rest of the steward team. The pattern I see, rather than being receptive to criticism, is doubling down instead (a pattern that is reflected in the answers to the questions). This sort of behavior is highly disruptive to the ability of stewards to work together.
    Edit: I wrote that before the concerns that the candidate misused CU and private data access on English Wikipedia were made public: [1]. No way I would trust them with private data now. Moreover, his explanation of "It comes down down (sic) to personal reasons and incompatibility with the bureaucratic structure" is an outright lie and completely dishonest. It would be dangerous to elect Alex Shih as a steward. --Rschen7754 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Leaderboard (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019     Oppose Not uncontroversal in the Wikimedia world. Some of your answers were tending towards being evasive. While a Chinese-speaking steward is always nice, your answer to my question was not convincing enough. Leaderboard (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. TonyBallioni (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019  When we are asked to give most users advanced permissions, we are taking a guess as to whether they will abuse it. This is not something we have to guess on with Alex Shih: we already know without a shadow of a doubt that he is willing to violate your privacy when he deems it appropriate even if the CheckUser policy says it isn't. Making him a steward is simply not an option. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. -revi (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   I was one of the few who encouraged Alex to run (due to the zhwiki stuff) but the circumstances over the resignation of English Wikipedia AC is completely unacceptable. — regards, Revi 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. Érico (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Cross-wiki experience is too limited. Also, per concerns listed in this page. Érico (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. stwalkerster (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Following the recently revealed revelations that Alex's exit from enwiki's ArbCom was under a cloud following possible breaches of CheckUser policies and the Privacy Policy, Alex's refusal to state the cloudiness even when asked the reasons for leaving on this nomination reveals he's either purposefully hidden it or has suffered a stunning lack of judgement. The simple fact that there were no less than five instances of this reported to OmbCom tells me that Alex simply should not have access to any private data or the ability to grant himself access to private data. He has explicitly stated he's seeking stewardship for the purposes of using CheckUser on zhwiki - CheckUser being the very thing he's under investigation by OmbCom for. Simply put, I do not trust Alex not to abuse tools that has access to, let alone granting him more stwalkerster (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Dlohcierekim (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   I've overall had good interactions with Alex and have enjoyed working with him as an admin. I look forward to doing so in the future. However, the apparent misuse of a tool he would receive as a steward is concerning. Most of the details are hidden behind the m:TOU privacy barrier and the matter is being looked into by the Ombudsmen. Until these concerns have been resolved, they remain a barrier to stewardship. (Apparently, there are other reasons that were raised as I pecked this out on my keyboard. Those reasons also apply.}Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Ghilt (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019  . Ghilt (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Stïnger (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Concerns about local issues in his homewiki and no cross-wiki experience. --Stïnger (会話) 14:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Tks4Fish (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Absolutely not, publishing private data is a no-no, and having access to it globally would be a huge risk to everyone. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. GeneralizationsAreBad (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Strong   Oppose, given the very severe issues raised on en.wiki. GABgab 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  12. Nick (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   It is not possible to endorse the election of Alex Shih. There remain serious, unanswered questions concerning his conduct whilst a holder of CU and OS permissions during his period as an Arbitrator on the English Wikipedia. These issues alone are sufficient to believe Alex Shih cannot be trusted as a Steward (I don't believe he is sufficiently trustworthy to remain an Administrator on English Wikipedia) but when combined with the ongoing misuse of CU tools on the Chinese Wikipedia, and the inappropriate handling of non public information, it's not sufficient to say Alex cannot be trusted as a Steward, the combination of Alex's past violations of core WMF policies and the problems previously inherent to the Chinese Wikipedia mean it's positively reckless to even consider him being granted access to CU and OS tools on any project, but particularly the Chinese Wikipedia.
    These issues surrounding his conduct with advanced permissions and the reason for his resignation from the Arbitration Committee also bring into doubt his honesty and transparency, with his answers to questions regarding his resignation from the Arbitration Committee being wholly incompatible with the explanations given by BU Rob 13 and the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. If elected, it raises massive doubts that Alex would be accountable for any and all actions taken.
    There were, prior to this, significant concerns regarding the behaviour and competency of Alex Shih, such as those I've previously highlighted. His behaviour on the Jytdog arbitration case was worrying, his first action in discussing the case was to attack There'sNoTime, questioning his motives for placing a block, rather than tackling the problematic issue of Jytdog's off-wiki contact first and then raising any concerns he had regarding There'sNoTime block. That worries me, a tendency to attack rather than work productively with colleagues is something essential in any advanced permission role - Arbitrator, Functionary, Steward etc, and I don't believe, if elected, Alex would be capable of being a productive and co-operative Steward capable of making the correct choices and decisions in most cases.
    -- Nick (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  13. Nihlus (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Under no circumstances would I support this. Others will summarize it better than I can, but users should value each other's privacy over this backdoor approach to getting rights that were removed from him. Nihlus 14:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  14. Cohaf (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019  Chinese Wikipedia Concerns onlyFor Alex, I thank them for their service over at Chinese Wikipedias. They are helpful in CU requests and helping to evaluate requests. From their answers to my question, I sense that they do get what is happening at Chinese Wikipedia. However, the understanding seems a little lacking and they didn't read the situation that well. This may be due to their limited exposure to the Chinese Community (which hitherto, has been very little). I will note they are very responsive to my pings and messages at Chinese Wikipedia. For zhwiki concerns, he can be a suitable candidate but NOTNOW. I will hope to see more commitments in interacting with the community, participating in Village Pump Discussions, understand the modus operandi of various LTA. This is the most I'm willing to say about Alex understanding about zhwiki. I will not be answering any more queries online, offline I might to those I am close to. CU misue issueFor the rest of the issues regarding English Wikipedia ARBCOM, I feel I'm not in position to judge as OC / WMF has yet to send out their statement. I'm not sure how enwiki ARBCOM works. However, with such a baggage, it's no for me. Sorry Alex. It's quite saddening but I have no choice to place an oppose here. These matters have to be sorted out before I'm comfortable to give a support. I'm really sorry. =(--Cohaf (talk) more details of my vote here 14:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  15. AlvaroMolina (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   All the previous comments express my concerns. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 14:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  16. Diannaa (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019     Oppose because of the checkuser issues recently revealed at en.wiki. Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  17. Hampcky (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hampcky (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019
  18. WQL (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   云间守望 14:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  19. Bluerasberry (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  20. AntiCompositeNumber (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Mostly based on their "tenure" as an enwiki arbitrator. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  21. Miniapolis (Eligible, checked by Defender)2019   Privacy concerns. Miniapolis 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  22. Ammarpad (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Serious erosion of trust per all the issues raised above and elsewhere.–Ammarpad (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  23. Bellezzasolo (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Sorry, but the enwiki fiasco, then running for Stewardship without full disclosure (worse, seemingly deceptive explanations) is a big red flag for me. Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  24. Simplexity22 (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Due to the apparent breaches of privacy during his time on the enwiki ArbCom. Simplexity22 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  25. Jasper Deng (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Pretty close to a “hell no” and I rarely say “hell no”. After seeing him evade the questions about his resignation and seemingly attempt to hide the real reason for the resignation, the only description I can think of for Alex is “dishonest”. CheckUser abuse also is an automatic disqualification. No substantial cross-wiki experience either. —Jasper Deng (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  26. Bradv (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Bradv🍁 15:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  27. Jni (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Only about 300 edits to non-English projects. Lack of cross-wiki work. jni (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  28. Stryn (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   sorry but I can't support you after what has happened. Stryn (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  29. Xaosflux (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Absent a clearing from OmbCom on the recent TOS issues related to CU usage on enwiki, I must oppose. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  30. Vermont (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Per my concerns raised here. Vermont (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  31. Ankry (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Ankry (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  32. BU Rob13 (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Per the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee's statement. ~ Rob13Talk 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  33. Kaviraf (Eligible, checked by xaosflux)2019   Kaviraf (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  34. FR30799386 (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   FR30799386 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  35. MZaplotnik (Eligible, checked by Ajraddatz)2019   Almost no cross-wiki experience MZaplotnik(talk) 17:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  36. Steinsplitter (Eligible, checked by Ajraddatz)2019   Steinsplitter (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  37. Mkdw (Eligible, checked by Ajraddatz)2019   en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee Mkdw (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  38. Esteban16 (Eligible, checked by Ajraddatz)2019   The misuse of his permissions on enwiki is problematic, besides the lack of cross-wiki experience. Esteban16 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  39. Dreamy Jazz (Verification pending)   en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee. Dreamy Jazz (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  40. Cyfraw (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   cyrfaw (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  41. MrX (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   MrX (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  42. SQL (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   SQLQuery me! 19:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  43. Berean Hunter (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019  
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  44. Mz7 (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   I'm afraid the situation regarding Alex Shih's use of the checkuser permission on the English Wikipedia is too great to ignore, particularly for a role which would again allow Alex Shih access to checkuser permissions. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  45. Swarm (Verification pending)   I was already planning to oppose this based on his conduct at CU/OS 2018, in which he opposed a perfectly good Checkuser candidate (who was ultimately successful) based on unsubstantiated allegations (what we know at enwiki as "casting aspersions," a form of personal attacks). This conduct, coming from a recent arbitrator himself, was nothing short of shocking, and resulted in many other users piling on with personal attacks against the candidate. See my comment there for an assessment of the situation. A highly respected Steward, There'sNoTime, expressed a high level of disgust at his behavior, going so far as to say it "makes me wonder why I bother here". Rather than showing any degree of self-awareness, Alex passive-aggressively demanded that they "reconsider their personal attack". TNT refused.[2] Alex then went to TNT's talk page, and threatened to report them if they didn't back down. TNT responded with a scathing condemnation of Alex's conduct, and attributed their incendiary tone directly to Alex's unreasonable behaviors. Again, rather than showing any capacity for self-reflection, Alex replied with a link to the AN/I report he filed.(discussion) He posted large complaint, but was overwhelmingly met with criticism against himself.(discussion) Again, see my comment at AN/I for my assessment of the situation. These are not the qualities/temperament I want in a Steward! However, all of that pales in comparison to the recent revelation that Alex repeatedly abused his Checkuser permission, and mishandled private information in breach of the confidentiality agreement, and that was why he resigned from Arbcom.(announcement) The fact that he was allowed to quietly resign, citing false reasons, without any community notification, and was allowed to keep his administrative privileges is in itself scandalous and hard to believe. But the fact that he actually had the utter audacity to run for Steward (meaning re-appointment as a CU), and blatantly lie to the community about his reasons for resigning, is truly, truly, astonishing. I can not even believe that this user was ever allowed to put himself into this position. Swarm (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  46. MattLongCT (Verification pending)   The things you are accused of doing very much concern me. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  47. Tryptofish (Verification pending)   I've been watching what has been happening at en-wiki, and the problems there are simply too grave to ignore. There has been a very serious loss of community trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  48. K6ka (Verification pending)   —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  49. Shoy (Verification pending)   Per above. Shoy (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  50. Rax (Eligible, checked by Ankry)2019   insufficient answers to serious questions. -- Rax (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  51. Wetterwolke (Verification pending)   Wetterwolke (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  52. Majora (Verification pending)   The issues surrounding the use of private data make it impossible to support someone for a position that grants them access to those things again. Majora (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  NeutralEdit

  1. GZWDer (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   The intention is good, but it's not going to pass without excessive supports due to privacy data concerns. It's encouraged to try less-sensitive rights (e.g. global rollback) first to gain future xwiki experience and community trust. GZWDer (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Vogone (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Vogone (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. 無聊龍 (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Intention appreciated, however owing to the issues suggested by enwiki ArbCom, it is doubtful that the candidate is trusted enough to handle steward work. 無聊龍 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. JOAN (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   JOAN ~ (Questions?) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. AlexLeeCN (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Thank Alex's contributions at zhwiki and your intention is good. However,clearly,the privacy concern from enwiki ArbCom is exist and I don't think zhwiki necessarily need a Stewards who can read chinese. --AlexLeeCN (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    @AlexLeeCN: We need a steward who can read Chinese, but that person must be trusted. Having SRCU experience to back me up, the ability to read Chinese Characters is very crucial and to do the behavioural analysis with the techinical data together is very useful. I hope candidates who can run and are proficient in Mandrain do run for SE. Thanks a lot. --Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    Clearly there're some other (enwiki) admins who can speak Chinese (even natively) - one of which is also bureaucrat in two other wikis.--GZWDer (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Jianhui67 (Eligible, checked by Stïnger)2019   Jianhui67 talkcontribs 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. VictorBrice (Verification pending)   VictorBrice (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)