Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Timeline query

The timeline set out on the PD page is almost entirely in chronological order, as one would expect, except for

time unknown, 2 April 2015	A reporter from the Guardian emails a Wikipedia administrator...
time unknown, 3 April, 2015	Chase me sends an email indicating that he responded to the request..
19:26–19:43, 2 April 2015	CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, IP addresses, and ranges, all relating to the account
16:13–18:22, 8 April 2015	CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, IP addresses, and ranges, all relating to the account

I suspect either the second or third lines in the extract above have become transposed or one of them has a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I re-checked the evidence, and the row was just in the wrong order. I've rearranged it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications by Berean Hunter

As I have received notice to comment on the current case, I would like to clarify the following facts relative to the timeline of events. The April 21 SPI case was closed by Chase Me. Sometimes checkusers do close cases especially as we may be short of clerks but we clerks do not know if they have conferred with other CUs or not. I was uncertain if this was a unilateral filing/block/close which would be out of process. Taking that into account as well as the protests of other editors commenting, I chose to re-open the case so that it wouldn't be archived and posted at ANI for review. As I suspected on my cursory read of the case that this was to become a maelstrom, I was relieved to see that Risker had filed this Arb case for transparency.

My information above may not change the outcome of the case and please feel free to use, not use or delete as the committee decides appropriate. It may be worth considering that SPI clerks are sometimes in the blind spot mentioned above and if improvements may be made to the SPI process which could remedy that, it would be worthwhile to pursue.

Being a clerk, I would want to correct what seems to be a mistake above that Courcelles is listed as inactive when he appears to be active as a drafting arbitrator. We like to keep the details straight but I realize that this correction belongs to a different set of clerks. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the correction has already been made. Although he might be added to the active list...done by NYBrad. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK involvement

This looks good (though it still needs a copyedit in places). One question:

According to the findings of fact, A reporter from the Guardian emails a Wikipedia administrator and a Wikimedia UK staff member regarding Contribsx ... Chase me sends an email indicating that he responded to the request sent to the WMUK staffer in their absence, and that the matter would be handled by a trusted administrator

Are the Wikipedia administrator and the Wikimedia UK staff member two separate people, or one and the same (in which case the "a" in front of "Wikimedia UK" should be dropped)? Andreas JN466 06:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my notes, they are two different people --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 08:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar used was intentional; the mail was sent to two individuals. LFaraone 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, could Wikimedia UK, in the spirit of transparency, please tell the community

who the relevant member of staff was,
what prior involvement they had with the Guardian newspaper, and
what non-public information (i.e. information restricted to checkusers, oversighters or administrators), if any, they have shared with Guardian writers? Andreas JN466 16:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should really ask these questions directly to Wikimedia UK, contact details are on their website at wikimedia.org.uk. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Arbitration Committee ascertain this information ? If the committee did, are they satisfied with the responses ? I'd like to know who handled the initial query from The Guardian, and I'd be interested to hear from all concerned if there was prior discussion concerning the Contribsx account. The checkuser of the account in 2014 stands out as most unusual in light of the rationale used for actually blocking the account (being as it was, behavioural evidence rather than solely technical evidence, which also existed when the account was checkusered in 2014). Nick (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We only know what was submitted as private evidence, and we cannot compel a group or individual to turn over detailed information. We do know who was involved in the email discussion, but we cannot guarantee that the evidence that we do have regarding contact with the Guardian is a complete record of events. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would @MichaelMaggs: be able to put some flesh on these bones and update the community on what WMUK will be doing about this incident, and what information they'll be releasing ? Nick (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We do know who was involved in the email discussion" So who was it, or are we expected to make inspired guesses? Giano (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The recipients of the initial mail are not relevant to this case, and thus were not mentioned. The relevant fact was that an email was sent by a reporter from The Guardian to a WMUK employee, and Chase Me sent an email from his wikimedia.org.uk address stating he had followed up on The Guardian's query. LFaraone 21:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the Wikipedia volunteer Chase Me Ladies I'm the Cavalry has an independent professional role as an employee of Wikimedia UK. Like many of our employees, Chase Me has been a Wikipedia volunteer for many years, and independent personal volunteering for the Wikimedia movement is an activity that we encourage. Wikimedia Checkuser activities are not in any way related to an employee's professional duties, and Wikimedia UK has no connection with or access to Checkuser or other confidential volunteer activities. Wikimedia UK is not a party to this or any other Checkuser act, had no prior discussions on this matter with the Guardian, and indeed knew nothing at all about it until after the event. The identity of the volunteer is not difficult to ascertain, but is not something that I or anyone else at Wikimedia UK can properly be asked to verify. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a query. On the user page for Chase Me he says he is not an employee, which is an apparent contradiction. Am I misunderstanding something? Apologies in advance for any misunderstanding as I am here to cover and want to get my facts correct. Vordrak 20:46, 7 June 2015 (GMT).

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK are distinct entities. The userpage discusses the former. LFaraone 21:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Absent your response I (and I imagine many other interested observers) would not have known the difference. Vordrak (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for any misunderstanding as I am here to cover and want to get my facts correct. Vordrak, are you writing an article about this case? I'm just curious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are a number of concerns per my discussion with DGG below. I say the politician concerned is 'exonerated' because the proposed findings of fact confirm that there was never the evidence to support the strident comments made by Chase Me. It is not necessary that the politician prove their innocence as the burden of proof, per WP, lies on the accuser. With that in mind, one issue is that the comment by DGG was unnecessary and had the potential to create the same unfairness referred to by others. The politician concerned is the subject of unproven allegations and consequently the Wikipedia project's representatives should really be apologizing unreservedly. Obviously this particular ArbCom is front page news. Vordrak (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs (as WMUK Chairman) has presented selected information, however WMUK was directly involved in this case if the statement Chase me sends an email indicating that he responded to the request sent to the WMUK staffer is true. Consequently Wikimedia UK is not a party is a direct contradiction to statements made to Arbcom as the correspondence was with WMUK. If Chase was allowed to correspond as an unpaid volunteer then this must have been with WMUK permission and to any outside observer he was acting as a representative of the charity.

P.S. I declare an interest; for those unaware, I am a past WMUK Chairman and both interviewed and employed Chase for his current job when he was on Arbcom, part of that interview was us agreeing that he would leave Arbcom before taking the job to avoid any future conflict of loyalties. --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline of events says that The Guardian contacted a Wikimedia UK member of staff and that Chase Me responded to them in their absence (this would be in a WMUK capacity) so I'm curious about the separation of roles within Wikimedia UK and the appropriateness of all that went on, as it would appear that when The Guardian made contact, Chase Me had previously checkusered the account in 2014 (for why, we still don't know). I'm also curious as the checkuser work appears to have been conducted during the daytime, during normal office hours and it appears that the checkuser work has been undertaken in connection with their role within Wikimedia UK. Would Wikimedia UK be prepared to release all of the e-mails received from The Guardian concerning this, going back as far as is necessary, and all of the responses made by Wikimedia UK staff, so we can better understand who did what and when ? Nick (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that MichaelMaggs' reply fails to answer the following questions:

Who is this Wikimedia UK staff member whom the Guardian emailed a request regarding Contribsx? (This is not Chase me: it is the staff member mentioned in this sentence in the timeline: Chase me sends an email indicating that he responded to the request sent to the WMUK staffer in their absence.)
Had this Wikimedia UK staff member who received this request from the Guardian previously been in contact with Guardian writers?
Did this or any other Wikimedia UK staff member have any pre-publication involvement with the 2012 Guardian story about Shapps?

The names and positions of all Wikimedia UK employees are openly listed on the Wikimedia UK website and were so listed at the time. So answering these questions does not "out" any anonymous volunteer editor, breach any secrecy about real-life names, and so on: it is merely transparency. On the other hand, continued refusal to answer these simple questions will only serve to fuel suspicion that some impropriety may have taken place. Andreas JN466 23:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contribsx unblock?

Meanwhile, why isn't there a proposed remedy for unblocking Contribsx? As I read the prod, pretty well everything Chase-me did was wrong; why does the block stand? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say much the same: (edit conflict) "Chase me" gave "abusing multiple accounts" as the reason for blocking Contribsx.

As Taha Yasseri pointed out at the time in his article in The Conversation, this always seemed tenuous. For one, Contribsx only started editing in August 2013, more than three years after Hackneymarsh stopped editing. There was no concurrent use of multiple accounts, which is what "abusing multiple accounts" usually means.

Moreover, according to the Committee's Finding of Fact 4, which looks likely to pass (current status is 5 votes in support, with none opposing), No evidence has been presented, during the initial sockpuppet investigation or during arbitration, that definitively connects the Contribsx account with any specific individual.

This makes it clearer than ever that there was never a sound policy basis for the block that formed the core of this UK media story, and if that is so, I see no good reason why the block should be allowed to stand.

The proposed decision does not include any remedy pertaining to this. If this remains so, the community should review the block in light of this case's findings as soon as proceedings here are officially closed. Andreas JN466 07:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much assumed the community would deal with it after this PD was finalized, but my colleagues may differ in opinion here. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees the block was crap, then that lends support to the "desysopped" PDWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful about reading too far into the term "definitively" in the context of SPI cases, particularly given the passage of time involved. Blocks are regularly made at SPI without a definitive connection, on the basis of behavioral evidence and partially matching checkuser information. The community cannot evaluate the checkuser data and thus can't evaluate the strength of any link, if any. As such the committee is really the best equipped to evaluate whether the block should remain. Barring that, you would need a checkuser to overturn the block. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People are not regularly blocked indefinitely by a single administrator after less than 100 edits – some of them perfectly constructive, others arguably politically biased, but all of them ultimately unremarkable in the grand scheme of things – without so much as a prior warning or ANI thread, without ever once having been involved in an edit war, more than two weeks after they last edited, almost five years after the supposedly related accounts and IPs (all of which also have clean block logs) last edited, and a quarter of an hour after a national newspaper has already clairvoyantly reported the block, which then becomes a major national election news story ... Andreas JN466 14:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea if Chase Me did the unblock, while he still can William M. Connolley (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that an unblock, with apology, is warranted here. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unblock request, which may in itself explain why the proposed decision does not rule on the block. That's not to say that it shouldn't be reevaluated anyway given the unusual circumstances, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Note Re Articles

Not relevant to assisting the Committee in coming to a decision. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I consider myself involved, but as a courtesy link to an article I have just published on this --> Explosive! Grant Shapps MP Vindicated by Wikipedia Investigation! Accuser Contact With Guardian “was not appropriate” – Arbcom Voting on Sanctions Now <-- . I have created this section for other similar content. I would like to observe that Chase Me's name alone, with its obviously inappropriate content, damages the reputation of the English Language Wikipedia. User:Vordrak 16:07, 7 June 2015 (GMT)

Your attempt to link this case to an oversimplified version of what was decided in the GamerGate case is not appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies has been an editor here since August 2005 and an administrator since November 2007. If his username was damaging to the project it would have been dealt with many years before now. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I do not see...

Is an explanation of Chase 'likely' checkuser result. Or a finding of fact explicitly denying it. For all the convoluted wording, none of the findings address how Chase could claim a likely match to an account that had not edited for over 3 years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If person A = IP B (duck based on contributions) and person C = IP B (based on checkuser evidence), then person A likely = person C? (I'm guessing/assuming this is where the likely came from.) --B (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Comment on Principles

I have put a request for comment on the talk page of User:DGG for clarification on the comment -

"It is, similarly, unable to provide definitive information that a person is not operating an account. The most it can demonstrate is "very likely" or "very unlikely". Statements that it has exonerated any individual are therefore not correct either. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)"

- for the reasons set out on DGG's talk page. I am concerned that incautious comments are how this arbitration began. I respectfully invite DGG to read the section I have added to their page and respond. Vordrak 22:15, 07 June 2015 (GMT)

I wrote that comment in direct response to your posting, to which you called our attention in the hatted section above. As you say, it is my personal comment to assist interpretation, not a formal finding. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, perhaps the more correct statement is that the Checkuser results provided no evidence at all to link any accounts to any other accounts, or to link any individual to any account. If you are not certain about that, one of your colleagues with extensive CU experience may be able to help you work this out. Risker (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we were told with absolute certainly by an all knowing all powerful being that the account was being operated by Mr Shapps. I think the CU evidence wouldn't contradict that. But it was not strong enough, as I read it, to make that linkage without that a priori knowledge. (or list it as a likely CU result, per SPI conventions) NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, there is no evidence to be gleaned from the checkuser data; it is useless in relation to this block and this action. It would, if a checkuser was being bold, fall into the

Inconclusive range and, absent the omniscient being, would more likely fall into the

Unrelated range. Bottom line, there was never any CU evidence about the earlier accounts (the allegations came long after there would have been any opportunity to do a check) so there was never going to be a CU link between the original accounts and the current one. There's also no CU evidence linking anything mentioned in the original SPI with the named account. Let's call a spade a spade here, there's no CU evidence, okay? Let's not pretend there was some all-knowing, all-powerful being.

Of course, the block involved is not a checkuser block; it's an ordinary, everyday administrator block. Thus the committee needs to consider a few additional facts. Is it acceptable for administrators to make BLP violations when blocking accounts? To be communicating with outside organizations and providing them with the SPI information before they even post it onwiki? To be acting in a way to "exert political or social control"? At what point does a single egregious administrator action become so severe as to require the admin bit to be removed? I am genuinely concerned that we are seeing something of a SuperMario effect here. ChaseMe is a nice guy - several arbitrators know him personally (in fact, I do too) and he is indeed a former arbitrator himself. That's not a good enough reason to treat an administrator action that falls so far below the expected standards (and arguably caused real-world harm to a person) as the equivalent of being overzealous with the delete button or making excessively large range blocks. Risker (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that it would be closer to

Possible but due to technical limitations of the tools (which you are aware of... WP:BEANS and all that), I can't be sure. And yes, the other questions are much more relevant in this particular case. Personally speaking, I think it was incredibly poor judgment, but I haven't yet decided whether this singular (albeit poor) block compels us to remove his tools, or whether on the basis of this bing a singular (albeit extensive) incident we should send him away with an extremely stern warning (and remove functionary tools) NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is not a singular exhibition of poor jugdment; even the FOFs point that out. Risker (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a definition for "major breach of policy"?

The AUSC opinion in FOF #6 says, "There does not appear to be a major breach of policy" and "In response to AUSC questions, Chase Me was unable to provide sufficient justification for his use of the CheckUser tool." Well good grief, what does it take for a breach of policy to be major? If someone is being checkusered without good cause, that sounds pretty major to me. --B (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of the decision, FOF #6 simply reports, as a historical fact, that the AUSC report contained this language. FOF #7 endorsed several other bullet reports of the AUSC report, but this one is not included as being endorsed and is expressly not adopted by the Arbitration Committee. As a practical matter, it appears that the ArbCom decision in this case is going to supersede the AUSC report for pretty much all purposes, including the finding you reference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for replying. As a general suggestion, could the arbitration committee mention to the AUSC (whether publicly or privately) that, for future reference, checkusering someone without good cause is a major breach of policy? The only check on abuse of the tool is the AUSC and so I consider it rather important that this committee shares the community's standard on what constitutes a breach of trust. --B (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Please recall that I'm not an arbitrator this year; just reading on this page like everyone else.) I have no specific information, but I strongly expect that the AUSC members will be following this decision and the discussion of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Please recall that I'm not an arbitrator this year" Really? (B looks over at the AC page.) I guess that's what I get for not keeping up with current events. --B (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

I note that DGG does not see that there are oversight-related issues in this case. From the perspective of a longtime oversighter, I am quite concerned that an oversighter made what might be one of the most notorious BLP violations of the year (widely discussed off-wiki, including headlines in several major UK newspapers). One would expect that oversighters, of all people on this project, should be intimately familiar with the BLP policy, since that knowledge is intrinsic to effective functioning as an oversighter. ChaseMe was aware even at the time of posting the SPI that it was going to attract the interest of the mainstream media. Risker (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grow a spine and desysop him

I'm at a loss for words that anyone could vote for allowing Chase to keep the admin tools. That he already shared non public information is bad enough, yet the FoF indicates this was due to a COI. Why should he have access to deleted (non oversighted) material if he's proven thus far he will abuse it if it fits his purposes? Deletion is often the precursor to overnighting. Frankly I'm surprised a site ban hasn't been proposed. Facepalm 69.143.188.200 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]