Talk:Ombuds commission/Archives/2022
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
They do nothing
@Kbrown (WMF): When will there be a new commission? This one does nothing --Dropdragon (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The new Ombuds Commission will be appointed on or around 1 February 2022, as it is every year. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Announcing the 2022 Ombuds Commission
Hello, everyone.
I'm writing with information about the Ombuds Commission (OC), the small group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, and in particular concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. I apologize for the length of the announcement. :)
The application period for new commissioners for 2022 recently closed. The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to the many experienced and insightful volunteers who offered to assist with this work.
This year’s OC will consist of eight members, with a two-member advisory team who will guide the new commission and also, if necessary, fill in in the event that the OC is unable to act due to incapacity or recusal.
I am pleased to announce the composition of the 2022 OC:
Regular members
Érico has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2010. He edits primarily on Portuguese Wikipedia, where he is a bureaucrat, checkuser, and administrator, and Commons, where he is an administrator. He has, in the past, also served as an oversighter and a global sysop. He has created about 1,700 new articles and has made over 270,000 edits in several projects. Érico can communicate in Portuguese and English. 2022 is Érico's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Scott Thomson, user:Faendalimas, has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2006. Based in Brazil, he is a taxonomist and evolutionary biologist and his main editing interest is reptiles and amphibians. He is most active on WikiSpecies, where he is a bureaucrat, Checkuser, and administrator. Faendalimas speaks Portuguese and English. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
Carlos, currently editing as user:Galahad, has been contributing to Wikimedia Projects since 2009. He is a member of Wikimedia Venezuela and a founding member of Wikimedia Small Projects User Group. He primarily contributes to Spanish-language projects including Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikivoyage. He has been an administrator and bureaucrat of Spanish Wikivoyage since 2013. He speaks Spanish and English. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.
Infinite0694 has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2011. She edits primarily on Japanese Wikipedia, where she is a bureaucrat, administrator, Oversighter, and Checkuser, as well as on Meta, where she is an administrator. Infinite0694 speaks Japanese, English, and German. This is Infinite0694's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Mykola7 has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2018. He is primarily active on Ukranian Wikipedia, where he is an administrator and Checkuser. He speaks Ukranian, Russian, and English. This is Mykola7's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Olugold has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2020. She is a librarian and a member of the Igbo Wikimedia User Group. She edits primarily on English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Igbo Wikipedia. She speaks English, Hausa, Igbo, and Nigerian Pidgin English. This is Olugold's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Udehb has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2018. He edits primarily on Wikidata and is also active in the movement, including organizing Wikidata Justice Nigeria. He is a member of the Igbo Wikimedians User Group and serves as the IG-WIKIDATA-HUB coordinator, of which he is the founder. Udehb speaks Igbo and English. 2022 is Udehb's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Zabe has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2018. They primarily edit Wikidata and Mediawiki, where they are an administrator. In addition, Zabe works on the Mediawiki software. Zabe speaks German and English. 2022 is Zabe's first year on the Ombuds Commission.
Advisory members
Ameisenigel has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2015. He is primarily active on German Wikipedia, where he serves as an Arbitrator, and on Wikidata, where he is an administrator. He is also active as a translation admin in several projects. Ameisenigel speaks German and English. He has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
JJMC89 has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2015. He is primarily active on the English Wikipedia, where he has more than 300,000 edits and is an administrator and bot operator, and Commons. He also serves as a tool administrator on UTRS. He speaks English. He has been on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
Their willingness to remain, to bring their familiarity with processes and their experience to the new arrivals, is greatly appreciated!
Please join me in thanking the following volunteers who are leaving OC, who have given substantially of their time to serve the commission:
Departing members
Acagastya has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2014, and is primarily active on English Wikinews serving as an administrator and has been accredited reporter since 2017. Agastya is also active on Commons, and speaks English, Hindi and Gujarati. Acagastya has been a member of the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
AGK has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2008. He is primarily active on English Wikipedia, where he is an administrator, Checkuser, and Oversighter and has served as an Arbitrator. AGK has been a member of the Ombuds Commission since 2020.
Ajraddatz has been an active user on Wikimedia since 2010, and has served in various roles of community trust in that time, including as a Wikidata Oversighter since 2013, a steward between 2014 and 2020, and a Meta CheckUser since 2015.
Emufarmers has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2005. He is a Metapedian who primarily edits the English Wikipedia; he is also a bureaucrat and sysop on MediaWiki.org, and has provided software support to many third-party, non-Wikimedia wikis over the years. He has served as an VRTS administrator since 2015. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2019.
Moheen Reeyad, user:Moheen, has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2010. He is active on Commons, Bengali Wikipedia, Wikidata, and English Wikipedia and is an administrator on Commons and Bengali Wikipedia. He is currently a Board member of Wikimedia Bangladesh and lives in Chattogram. Moheen speaks Bengali and English. He has served as an OC member since 2021.
MrJaroslavik has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2017. He is primarily active on Czech Wikipedia and Meta. MrJaroslavik speaks Czech and English. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
Ivan has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2006. He is primarily active on Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikinews and as an administrator on both of those projects. He helped found Wikimedia Mexico in 2011 and was the Wikimania 2015 Chief Coordinator. He has participated in a number of movement committees, including Grant Advisory Committee. He speaks English, Portuguese, and Spanish. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2021.
Superpes15 has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2010. He is primarily active on Italian Wikipedia and are a member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. He is an administrator on Italian Wikipedia and serves as a global renamer. He speaks Italian and English. He has been an OC member since 2021.
Awareness of the accused
Hi all,
This is not specifically related to the most recent case, it's just one that made me think about asking:
What's the status of notification and evidence sharing with the accused? In ArbCom cases, evidence must be shared with the accused, in WMF bans, the evidence is not shared at all. As a body of community editors, not acting on the legal necessity side, I assume the Ombuds are closer to the former, but wanted to confirm and get the detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging every English-speaking member: @Ameisenigel, Infinite0694, Faendalimas, JJMC89, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb, and Zabe: Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Kbrown (WMF): (apologies if you are also watchlisting this, for the double-notification), since you said you were open to other questions I'd also ask you.
- 1) First is just the question for this section - if the CU/OS/Steward (etc) is accused of something, do they receive the information needed to make a full defence? In the nature of the accusation, they would already have the relevant information and thus should have all detail shared to them to make their defence.
- 2) You note that the OC can't give specifics because of the PII, but that only means you can't publicly share evidence (which is of course going to be the case for functionally anything with the Ombuds' remit) - it doesn't mean you, or more accurately, they, can't give far more details as to the accusations.
- For example, let's say that a CU has been looking up my and others' IP data without cause. PII would be giving out my IP address while explaining the case, clearly bad. But they could be de-CUed with the explanation "unwarranted CU checks without cause".
- This will inherently require nuance, and a case by case determination, but that's always the case - transparency is usually inefficient, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Thanks for the questions. I'll take a crack at them.
- Do they receive the information needed to make a full defence? This is part of OC's workflow, not the WMF's, but to the best of my understanding, they would get something along the lines of "We have received a report that [this checkuser/oversight/whatever action] was improper, would you please explain your justification for the action?" and then could engage in dialogue with OC about it.
- Can OC or the WMF give more details about these actions than they currently give? This is not something I can answer myself; I'd need to discuss it with the Legal team because that type of additional information disclosure would need to get their okay. I can surface it to Legal, if people think it's important to make the change, and see what they say, though my non-lawyer suspicion is that Legal's preference will always be "publicly share as little negative information about people as possible". Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kbrown (WMF) thanks for your quick response! Re point 1, that seems reasonable - given that I'm not aware of the actual functionaries complaining about having evidence withheld from them, it seems a sufficient response for now.
- Re point 2, you're no doubt correct that Legal would always have that preference - as with any compliance activity, their job is to reduce risk in their field. It needs other teams to point out that the reduction of legal risk comes with an increase in other risks. Here, that is a confidence that the conduct authorities of Wikimedia function properly and that the users of the most advanced permissions we have are using them correctly, and when not, that they are being handled correctly.
- In both cases, transparency (as much of it as we can get) is fundamental.
- Between your volunteering and T&S activity, I'm confident that you've read more en-wiki ARBCOM outcomes than I have, and they fairly frequently give fairly negative information about users. Afaik, the WMF isn't needing to spend large amounts of time or money resisting libel cases, and the same would seem to apply here. It's a volunteer body acting - it isn't the Foundation announcing the judgements (even if it may be doing the technical right removal). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just a quick update that I've sent a question to the Legal team about the possibility of releasing more detailed information about rights removals. They may get back to me quickly if it turns out to be a simple answer, or it may take a while if it requires them to do research or debate internally. I'll let y'all know what I hear back. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Ok, I got sign-off from Legal to share a bit more information. What I can say is that both cases actioned last week involved situations where a Checkuser publicly connected one or more IP addresses to one or more accounts. Feel free to share that statement with anyone who's asked about the reasons behind the removals, if I don't get there first. I'm also looking into whether and how we can make it part of our workflow to release that level of detail (basically a general "what the problem was" without giving any specifics that might reveal private or confidential info) in all Ombuds-related WMF actions in the future. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just a quick update that I've sent a question to the Legal team about the possibility of releasing more detailed information about rights removals. They may get back to me quickly if it turns out to be a simple answer, or it may take a while if it requires them to do research or debate internally. I'll let y'all know what I hear back. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Thanks for the questions. I'll take a crack at them.
- Last time I was accused, If I Recall Correctly I only got 'we have complaints about XYZ' sort and had to defend from there, and not the full accusation like enwiki ArbCom evidences. — regards, Revi 04:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes when we contact the defendant, which we do, we can only discuss the issue that the complaint was about we cannot reveal the Plaintiff. It is not always obvious. Although many of our requests come from people who feel they have been victims of some action they disagree with, such as being blocked for sockpuppetry, those are often dismissed. That is usually because its out of our mandate. The Ombuds do not adjudicate if a particular block, for example, was fair that is usually a local issue, if not local its the Stewards job. The ones we end up investigating are often sent to us by a third party, not directly involved in what happened. Possibly another CheckUser, or a Steward. Please note I am generalising here. The defendant will certainly have the opportunity to explain themselves. But in general theplaintiffs role was to point at an issue, the logs and edit histories are the evidence. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting, althought this is an international project, this wording seems to me contradicting the Sixth Amendment of the US-Constitution. Perhaps you should not treat the as "Plaintiffs". Habitator terrae (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you could frame this as an argument about rights of the accused in general, but the constitution has zero bearing on the internal processes of a privately-owned website. Bringing it up harms rather than helps your point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a private foundation. Furthermore how could I prove my point about existing rights of accused, without showing that it exists in e.g. the US constitution. Habitator terrae (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia:Free speech might be a worthwhile reading for you. — regards, Revi 19:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- "editorial discrection" in my view is still limited and can only decide whether this is the appropriate place, e.g. a lot of free speech in dewiki is happening in the, in my view useless, place de:Wikipedia:Café. So in fact free speech is possible on sites by Wikimedia.
- So lets look whats the ombuds comission about: It is about "fairness and impartiality". Therefore we must take a look about how "fairness and impartiality" is defined and therefore I thought a look in e.g. the US-Constitution would be helpfull.
- Habitator terrae (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- en:Wikipedia:Free speech might be a worthwhile reading for you. — regards, Revi 19:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a private foundation. Furthermore how could I prove my point about existing rights of accused, without showing that it exists in e.g. the US constitution. Habitator terrae (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you could frame this as an argument about rights of the accused in general, but the constitution has zero bearing on the internal processes of a privately-owned website. Bringing it up harms rather than helps your point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting, althought this is an international project, this wording seems to me contradicting the Sixth Amendment of the US-Constitution. Perhaps you should not treat the as "Plaintiffs". Habitator terrae (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes when we contact the defendant, which we do, we can only discuss the issue that the complaint was about we cannot reveal the Plaintiff. It is not always obvious. Although many of our requests come from people who feel they have been victims of some action they disagree with, such as being blocked for sockpuppetry, those are often dismissed. That is usually because its out of our mandate. The Ombuds do not adjudicate if a particular block, for example, was fair that is usually a local issue, if not local its the Stewards job. The ones we end up investigating are often sent to us by a third party, not directly involved in what happened. Possibly another CheckUser, or a Steward. Please note I am generalising here. The defendant will certainly have the opportunity to explain themselves. But in general theplaintiffs role was to point at an issue, the logs and edit histories are the evidence. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you want to look at the US constitution as a source of inspiration that's one thing, but it does not actually apply to the governance of a website not administered by the US government. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since the O-commission describes its actions with legal terms like "plaintiff" and "defendant", we (the community) will recognize it as sort-of legal institution, which inevitably ends up at the constitution since there is no due process. - We should stop using legalese, and start with normal volunteer-to-volunteer communication. The point is: Volunteer communites considerably dislike being disregarded and held in the dark, and exactly this seems to happen right now. --MBq (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- And also that CU in particular relies on extremely nuanced detail both in the outcome but also, on whether a check should be run at all. Because of that nuance, it is also functionally impossible to defend yourself against a charge of misuse without referral to a specific incident - otherwise it's functionally general principles.
- Notwithstanding any ombuds case (likely none, but possibly not) where there is a credible risk of significant off-wiki retaliation, I don't believe the accused should have any details hidden from them (even if required to keep it to themselves - obviously ombuds cases can't be heard fully publicly) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
See the above discussion for context, but in particular I have to ask the OC: why did you recommend that the WMF unilaterally make changes to the CU and OS policies, which are owned by the community? Rschen7754 06:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754 in this case, I think they proposed changes to the limiting rules on CUOS rights that were already WMF-emplaced (while I usually quibble about such, in this case I accept the rules as reasonable).
- In effect, the rules won't place any additional obligations on communities that weren't already there - it slightly broadens their local CUOS capacity. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: The OC just made a recommendation to WMF for Global Vote and has not decided to implement changes without community consensus. --Ameisenigel (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Opportunities open for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee
Hi everyone! The Ombuds commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for members. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to do so. There is more information below about the opportunity and the skills that are needed.
About the Ombuds commission
The Ombuds commission (OC) works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight (also known as Suppression) tools. The Commission mediates between the parties of the investigation and, when violations of the policies are identified, advises the Wikimedia Foundation on best handling. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Board of Trustees of the Foundation in these investigations when legally necessary. For more on the OC's duties and roles, see Ombuds commission on Meta-Wiki.
Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They must be able to communicate in English, the common language of the commission. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict. Commissioners will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).
About the Case Review Committee
The Case Review Committee (CRC) reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety office actions. The CRC is a critical layer of oversight to ensure that Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or boundaries. For more about the role, see Case Review Committee on Meta-Wiki.
We are looking for current or former functionaries and experienced volunteers with an interest in joining this group. Applicants must be fluent in English (additional languages are a strong plus) and willing to abide by the terms of the Committee charter. If the work resonates and you qualify, please apply. Committee members will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).
Applying to join either of these groups
Members are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public information policy and the Foundation privacy policy). These positions requires a high degree of discretion and trust. Members must also be over 18 years of age.
If you are interested in serving in either capacity listed above, please write in English to the Trust and Safety team at ca
wikimedia.org (to apply to the OC) or to the Legal Team at legal wikimedia.org (to apply to the CRC) with information about:
- Your primary projects
- Languages you speak/write
- Any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement
- Your thoughts on what you could bring to the OC or CRC if appointed
- Any experience you have with the Checkuser or Oversight tools (OC only)
- Any other information you think is relevant
There will be two conversation hours to answer any questions that potential applicants may have:
- 17 October 2022, 03:00 UTC (other timezones) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar)
- 16 November 2022, 18:00 UTC (other timezones) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar)
The deadline for applications is 31 December 2022 in any timezone.
Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you!
On behalf of the Committee Support team,
Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- What is the raw workload for this role?
- I wonder what "any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement" could mean.
- Leaderboard (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Leaderboard, and thanks for your questions. The most recent time-commitment estimates I've gotten from OC members is that most spend about 2-5 hours per week on OC work, though the amount of work each member takes on is to some extent customizable based on their availability (for instance, if you're short on time, you could choose to not take a lead role in investigating a new case). The request for information about applicants' committee experience is because we've found that users who are used to working on committees sometimes have an easier time adapting to working with, or even taking a leadership role on, OC. So while not having committee experience is not a disqualification, committee experience is something that it's nice for at least some OC members to have. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding "Languages you speak/write", is there any occasion where the committee members make spoken communication (=by voice) to each other or to people outside of the committee? If so, how frequent is it? An applicant might be confident in written communication but not in spoken communication (this can be true especially for second language), so clarification on this point would be great to have. whym (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Whym. Spoken communication, both within and outside the committee, doesn't happen terribly often. The biggest examples I can think of where this has happened in the past were a) a voice-only meeting among OC members around the time of their appointments to introduce themselves to each other (hasn't happened via voice in a couple of years; we tend to use text chat nowawdays instead) and b) a video meeting between OC members and other functionaries like the Stewards (these don't happen regularly, it's more like "if there's something really important that needs to be talked out" and I can think of it happening once in the past few years). The vast majority of what OC does, both within the committee and outside of it, is conducted in writing. We can and have appointed OC members who told us that they're confident with written English but not so much with spoken English, so not being a fluent out-loud speaker isn't necessarily a disqualifier. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I forgot to mention but I believe this would be useful to people with hearing loss, too. whym (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Whym. Spoken communication, both within and outside the committee, doesn't happen terribly often. The biggest examples I can think of where this has happened in the past were a) a voice-only meeting among OC members around the time of their appointments to introduce themselves to each other (hasn't happened via voice in a couple of years; we tend to use text chat nowawdays instead) and b) a video meeting between OC members and other functionaries like the Stewards (these don't happen regularly, it's more like "if there's something really important that needs to be talked out" and I can think of it happening once in the past few years). The vast majority of what OC does, both within the committee and outside of it, is conducted in writing. We can and have appointed OC members who told us that they're confident with written English but not so much with spoken English, so not being a fluent out-loud speaker isn't necessarily a disqualifier. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
BDR - but now for policy pages!
Well, close enough - I thought rather than than have a slow well-meaning edit war between us, we should perhaps apply some article-space working practices and take it to the talk page :) @Jdx and Tacsipacsi:.
Wikipedia titles use sentence case, which is why I'd gone Privacy policy, but I concede that is somewhat odd. Making it Privacy Policy here makes it clearer, but kind of weird when compared with the actual page it links to. So privacy policy might make more sense, but I don't know how that plays ball with general grammar for specific things.
I do believe it would remain CheckUser policy (or CheckUser Policy if the others all end up capitalised) because for whatever reason, that's what the actual CU policy page on meta is doing. En-wiki, and quite possibly other local projects has standardised so checkuser and oversighter are treated the same, but for whatever reason, no-one thought to do that back on meta when the docs were made. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Actually, the only two places on wmf:Privacy policy that use sentence case are the page title and the navigation links at the bottom – the actual policy (including the repetition of the title below the language links) consistently uses title case when referring to itself. I think if the goal is stressing that that these refer to specific documents, title case stresses it more; while if we assume that the reader knows that we don’t refer to the privacy policy of Facebook, we can use the common noun, i.e. lower case – the Privacy Policy is indeed a privacy policy. (Also, it wasn’t even sentence case: in case of wmf:Privacy policy, it happened to be sentence case, because it’s only two words, but “Access to Nonpublic Information policy” is neither sentence case nor title case, rather something in between.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Second Allie Awards ceremony
|
Allie Sapphire (Impressive group work) Dedicated to teams of members who are sometimes criticized, sometimes admired, but whose work is indispensable. For that reason, the Allie Sapphire is for you! |
|
On behalf of the Allie Awards Academy, Galahad (WMSP) (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)