An election has consequences

On Tuesday, 9 June 2015, the Arbitration Committee delivered its final decision in a case that reached the attention of the UK national press. (See last week's Signpost coverage.) The "Sockpuppet investigation block" case concerns the conduct of one of Wikipedia's most trusted volunteers during his investigation of a suspected case of sockpuppetry during the recent UK general election.

Chase me

An administrator and former arbitrator, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (referred to as Chase me in this report) is also an employee of Wikimedia UK. It's a recognised UK charity and a chapter organisation approved by, but not part of, the Wikimedia Foundation, the body which actually owns and operates Wikipedia and other projects. As a functionary, Chase me has held checkuser and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia.

Investigating suspicions of sock puppetry

On 21 April, Chase me renewed a long-dormant sockpuppet investigation into Hackneymarsh (who also edited as Historyset), which according to a 2012 report in the Guardian had used IP numbers traceable to a senior Conservative Member of Parliament to perform edits showing the politician in an unjustifiably good light. A Guardian journalist had contacted Wikimedia UK voicing suspicions that Hackneymarsh was back as Contribsx. Chase me replied to the Guardian journalist that the matter would be dealt with by a trusted administrator. Chase me's sockpuppet report alleged a direct association with the MP and Contribsx was blocked shortly afterwards. It was noted that a Guardian article appeared before the filing of the new sockpuppet investigation, linking Contribsx to the MP. This occurred during the hustings of a general election in which the national news focus was on Parliament.

Arbitration Committee intervenes

Suspecting a misuse of the checkuser tool and apparent misapplication of checkuser information in an email to the Guardian, Risker, also a former arbitrator, filed an arbitration request. This was accepted, and ArbCom's Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) was asked to investigate whether the checkuser policy had been breached. The investigations were held off-wiki because of the sensitivity of the information.

Committee conclusions

The Arbitration Committee acknowledged a statement by AUSC that although there had been no major breach, Chase me's actions could give the appearance of impropriety, that he acted with a conflict of interest (disclosed privately during the investigation), and that he inappropriately disclosed checkuser information before publicly reporting it. The Committee only endorsed parts of that statement.

The Committee found that no evidence had been presented to definitively connect the Contribsx account to a specific individual.

On Wikipedia policy, ArbCom found that during the investigation Chase me had: failed to disclose his checkuser checks as far back as 2012; not been able to provide a proper account of the timeline of his actions; breached the biographies of living persons policy by making an association between an identifiable individual and a Wikipedia account; and not taken appropriate steps to ensure that his actions were seen as neutral and unbiased before emailing the Guardian and publishing the checkuser information. ArbCom noted that Chase me had been reprimanded by AUSC in 2011 in a separate case.

As a result, ArbCom removed Chase me's checkuser, oversight and admin status.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

17 June 2015 (all comments)

In the media

Arbitration report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

==Related report==

This article should probably refer to last week's media report, which addressed some of the real world aspects of this case: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-10/In_the_media. --TS 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, Tony. It looks like there will be a column to write for next week's issue, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've added one. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

I can't help but think that The Guardian has been doing a poor job with articles involving Wikipedia and ArbCom lately. The fact that this isn't the first time they've in the midst of things this year has me worried about The Guardian's coverage in the future. GamerPro64 20:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The popular press is not very accurate which is why we do not allow it to source medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is one of the most highly respected newspapers in the English speaking world. There is nothing in this story or in the Arbitration Committee's investigation to suggest that The Guardian's reporting is at fault or that its practices are in any way questionable. --TS 08:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is. The Guardian contacted WMUK staffers in private to make a mudsling story during peak election campaign that turned out to be completely bogus. The same journalist had run a similar story already in 2012: [1], although there was no actual sock-puppet investigation on it that time either (this declined SPI was opened after the story). Apparently Chase me had cooperated with the journalist already back then. No SPI or CheckUser would confirm that GS was in control of those accounts, yet they decided to run the stories. Incidentally, The Guardian backed LibDems in the 2010 election campaign and Chase me described himself as a "LibDem activist" on Twitter. That's some butched up "investigative journalism". --Pudeo ' 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that any of the several Guardian stories about this affair over the years have been bogus. My report is very carefully limited to the conduct of a Wikipedia functionary and Wikimedia UK employee. Do not draw inappropriate inferences from this. Journalism necessarily involves contacting sources, and the same path is open to any other member of the public who suspects there is something wrong with Wikipedia. There is no reason to impute anything but the most ethical conduct to the journalists involved. --TS 22:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight nitpick

@Tony Sidaway: Just as a minor correction, we noted but specifically did not endorse the portion of the AUSC report which stated no major breach had taken place. The article makes it sound like we endorsed that portion of it as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to see that fixed. I invite others to edit the section in place. It's a wiki, after all. --TS 23:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --Andreas JN 466 07:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contribsx unblocked

Note that Contribsx (talk · contribs) was unblocked shortly before the case closed. To me it seemed that the main purpose of that non-standard block, made two weeks after the account had last edited, was to provide a hook for the Guardian story – which was already written and published at the time the block was made. Hence the case and its result. Andreas JN 466 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report is deliberately restricted to relevant details of arbitration. Last week's media report covered external matters. The Signpost doesn't normally carry bulletins about who is blocked and who is unblocked. If it ever started doing that I'd probably suggest that we stop permitting its publication on the wiki.

I could not possibly comment on particular interpretations of this case. I don't have the luxury of making up stories. --TS 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK response?

Has there been a Wikimedia UK response? Doesn't blatant political activity during the course of employment by a non-profit using the non-profit's equipment, time and position usually warrant some type of response? Dif they issue a statement? --DHeyward (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Report, at least under my current conception, is exclusively about English Wikipedia's Arbitation Committee rulings. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge Wikimedia UK has been silent on the topic since a brief response reported by the press in late April shortly after the original Guardian headline, at which time the focus was on the MP. A series of "everything" searches at their wiki for relevant information shows only a list of links to press stories about Wikimedia UK under the title "Contribsx story", in Stevie Benton's sandbox. Stevie Benton is head of external relations at Wikimedia UK. I also searched under the names "cavalry", "Symonds" (Chase me's real surname) and the surname of the MP mentioned by Symonds. I suggest that this shows that Wikimedia UK is acquainted with the First Rule of Holes. I am unaware of any investigation by the Charity Commission.

The Audit Subcommittee found no evidence of "political activity" in this case, though I concede that it described a situation that came close enough to raise eyebrows and make Chase me's role as a trusted volunteer on Wikipedia untenable. His staff role at Wikimedia UK is in the finance department. --TS 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]