Statement by Rschen7754[edit]

@Risker: I guess I'm not following what's being alleged here or what policies were violated (though I can speculate), or if this overlaps with the remit of the m:OC or WP:AUSC, if it does. --Rschen7754 04:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Well, what I am asking is, so if it's not privacy violations, then is the scope of the request just to review the actions and determine if they were appropriate? Or are there specific concerns? (I believe it was said elsewhere that some thought Chase me should not have conducted the entire investigation on his own). --Rschen7754 05:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur goes shopping[edit]

It is not correct to say that the impending election is "very contentious" as compared with other United Kingdom general elections. For example the United Kingdom general election, 1992 is described by Wikipedia as "one of the most dramatic elections in the UK since the end of the Second World War", while another general election that century was called "in the midst of a constitutional crisis". By comparison, commenting on this year's general election, the BBC said three days ago, "We're still awaiting take-off ... How many different and interesting ways are there to describe a walrus moving barely one inch?"

The politician about whom the allegations were made is quoted by the BBC this morning as saying "A simple look in my diary shows I was elsewhere". Elsewhere than whom? If the politician and his advisers had no knowledge of the person operating the Contribsx account, how would they know that person was in a different location to the politician? The only unregistered edits mentioned by the Guardian are described as IP addresses of "a web hosting service regularly employed by internet spammers" ... it does not seem there is any suggestion that the politician and the web hosting service were in the same physical location. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ[edit]

I have struck my statement entirely. I shall consider if it is worth the volunteer effort, and the risk of being blocked, for trying to make a statement in this case about what I know to be true, from my time as a charity trustee that are relevant to this case. I was told things as a trustee and the Chairman of Wikimedia UK about activities of the employees for which there will be no hard on-wiki evidence, so verification may boil down to whether the people who have been involved are prepared to make an open and straight-forward statement out of good conscience. --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations:

1. There are 14 employees at Wikimedia UK.[4] and a few are active administrators on the English Wikipedia. An employee protected the biography, another ran the SPI case and checkuser, while yet another prepared an official statement to The Guardian. It is possible but would be surprising if these people did not communicate with each other before the official statement from the charity to the press was finalized. If they did, then actions taken as an unpaid volunteer and actions as a full time employee must be considered blurred.
2. It is stated that "I - and several other editors - were contacted by the Guardian". I have no idea how the Guardian contacts editors off-wiki, or how the Guardian would select their Wikipedia representatives. Presumably via a Wikimedia email account on OTRS or through an existing network or list of Wikimedians with an interest for working with journalists. It would be reassuringly transparent if the actions of The Guardian as to what, who, when and how this contact happened, were publicly stated. --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strike part of observation 1, based on KTC's statement of the order of events, not having discussed the article with anyone, and deducing that they were not one of the editors contacted by the Guardian. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation 1 with regard to blurring the lines, seems superseded by direct quotes from correspondence between The Guardian and Chase in the press, now being of more interest to the press than the official statement from the UK chapter (avoiding direct link to press articles as these use Chase's real name). I hope these statements will be verified or disproved by passing original correspondence to Arbcom. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification with regard to Wikimedia UK aspects:

• I have never been bound by a non-disclosure agreement. Trustees agree to a code of conduct (it was first created when I was the Chairman), but trustees have no legal nor expected restraint to free speech when they resign. I had access to some sensitive information when recruiting and managing employees for the charity, as well as some secure administrative details, but we followed good practice for managing it and retained none at a personal level.
• My two observations above are independent of my original struck statement, they are not intended to replace it.
• With regard WTT's question of only now raising the issues of anonymous accounts and private investigations run by charity employees (even when declaring themselves as volunteers at that moment), I have raised this in years past as a risk with the board of Wikimedia UK when I was a trustee, and after I resigned. It was not a matter of special public interest at that time I raised it internally. It can come as no surprise, I even raised a similar issue with the WMF, who have now changed to using appropriately named staff accounts to improve transparency, along with my maintenance of m:WMF Advanced Permissions better to ensure transparency of staff rights.
• I would like to recognize that I know of several current and past professional connections between employees, trustees and UK political parties. As a trustee I pushed for public declarations, but these are optional for employees, apart from the CEO. I do not believe that any of these relationships that may be declared or discussed are of any relevance to this case, nor do I believe that these personal networks are abnormal for a UK charity. I continue to believe it is in the best interests of the charity for employees and trustees to make fulsome public declarations of these loyalties and past connections, especially considering how they may be perceived in the context of Wikimedia funds and the importance of being seen to retain a Wikipedia neutral point of view.

--Fæ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)[edit]

As far as I can tell, the sock-block is entirely spurious. The grounds for block, if there were any, would be COI; but since the account has had no warnings an immeadiate COI block would appear to be rather severe. So, why hasn't the block been overturned while the case is considered? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

Risker, what are you alleging? That Chase leaked CU info to the Guardian? To me the timeline suggests that a reporter figured this all out and emailed Chase the evidence, and Chase then posted it publicly. That would explain the exact quotes. The worst you've alleged is that Chase told the reporter he would block the account before doing it. So what? Please post the crux of the complaint if there is one. Jehochman ^Talk 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker, this is the same old story where WP:COI and WP:OUTING don't play nicely together. You all can debate whether Chase Me should be sanctioned for getting crossed up in our poorly integrated policies and guidelines. In the meanwhile, out of an abundance of caution, I would delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh and its archive until it is clear that publishing the connection is appropriate. Looking at that page, Chase Me disclosed that a reporter did the research and then fed the data to him. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Worm That Turned[edit]

It looks like the Arbs are doing the right thing (investigation by both Arbcom and AUSC, in camera) so there's not much for me to add there. I must say that I'm astounded by Fæ's comment though. The idea that WMUK staff are using private information (CU and OTRS) for their own gain is an extraordinary accusation - I hope you have something to back it up, which should be passed to Arbcom immediately. If accurate, why in the hell did you not do something about it at the time. I note however that you have fallen far from grace with WMUK and wonder how accurate these accusations are. If not accurate, I do hope they are stricken. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, I do hope you know how distant I am from WMUK. I know a few people associated with it, but given my location, I've never been to the office, nor am I involved in general discussions. You can count my contributions to the WMUK on your fingers. What I know is that you were a trustee of that charity, and you are now not a member - and not by your choice, that's what I refer to by "fall from grace". I don't know which lies you're referring to and I'm really not interested.

Focussing on your accusation that Chase Me used CU data for "black ops" investigations - which you now clarify is for "ensuring the press has factual information" (a completely different thing) - that is still against CU policy. Checks should checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. You are suggesting that checks have been made for other reasons. There's definitely stuff that needs to be investigated in this case - but what you are accusing Chase Me of is a pattern of misusing the tool. Similarly with your accusation of misuse of OTRS which prohibits release of that information without explicit permission from the original provider of that information. Are you saying that non-vague information has been passed around the WMUK office?

The idea that CU or OTRS information is used in this manner is not a "statement of fact" but an accusation and alluding to it in this manner, in this forum, is reprehensible. If you have evidence, it should be provided - I'd hope WMUK has a whistleblower policy? If not, you need to refactor your comments to remove the slur. Worm^TT(talk) 12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fae. Worm^TT(talk) 12:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

• I can't quite understand why people above are saying the block itself is spurious or even dubious. There's no problem here with the actual block itself. Contribsx is a very loudly quacking duck of a sock of Hackneymarsh, with everything including its creation time, articles edited, and material added or deleted pointing precisely to it being operated, or under the direction of, the same person or organisation. To be honest, I wouldn't even have bothered going to SPI, I'd have just blocked it on behaviour. So there's no misuse of the blocking tool here.
• However, if it had gone to SPI, it would almost certainly have been approved for CU on behaviour. So no violation of CU policy on that basis (i.e. it wasn't fishing, for example).

• @DoRD: - fair point. It certainly wouldn't be unusual to run a CU in such situations to look for sleepers, though. And it wouldn't be unusual to run a CU to see what IP the new logged-in user was coming from, to compare it with the IP edits from the previous issue (although that info wouldn't be made public). Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any issue, I think, will have to be limited to whether there was any disclosure of CU or other privileged information to the Guardian. This has to be done in private, I'm pretty sure.
• Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DoRD[edit]

I would like to respond to Black Kite from my perspective as an active CheckUser and former SPI clerk. Except for Contribsx, the CU data for every account and IP in the SPI archive is long stale, so it is actually rather unlikely that any checks would have been endorsed in the recent case, and personally, I wouldn't have run any checks on my own. In addition, if Contribsx was such an obvious sockpuppet, checks would not normally have been warranted unless there was some evidence that other unused "sleeper" accounts were waiting in the wings. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KTC[edit]

*Sigh*

Timeline:

1. There's a leading article on one of national newspaper website concerning yet another politician allegedly directly or indirectly editing their and/or other articles.
2. I look at the article on him.
3. It gets vandalised by an IP.[5]
4. It was temporarily semi'd only last month on BLP ground.[6]
5. Though the one instance of vandalism so far was minor, with the news cycle/social media, it was only likely to continue/get worse.[7][8]
6. I semi-protected the page for one month to reduce further vandalism or potential BLP violation.

I never even heard of the subject of the article before yesterday (after the newspaper article was published), much less discussed anything about this in advance with anyone since I didn't know anything about it, and no I didn't discuss whether I should apply semi-protection to the article with anyone before I applied it. -- KTC (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole[edit]

Please look at the evidence Chase Me had at the time of the block and determine whether he accurately characterised to The Guardian and others the strength of that evidence.

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft[edit]

The cases of employees of the Foundation and/or its chapters overlapping their official capacity and volunteer edits continue to grow. The Foundation supposedly created a policy^{(see note below)} to address this, but the policy has failed. This case is another possible case where employees are overlapping their duties with their volunteer edits. As is often the case, there are real world implications to these failures. I remind ArbCom of a motion it passed which in part addressed this issue. Should ArbCom accept this case, part of its investigation should be looking into whether this policy was violated. Though ArbCom has no jurisdiction over the actions of the WMF and its employees, it does have jurisdiction over their local privileges and actions here on this project.

Note: As an addendum, I note with disgust that the Foundation has failed to post the policy, referenced by Philippe here, on its policies page, nor does there appear to be any traffic regarding such in its resolutions. If the Foundation is unwilling to enact/enforce (if it exists, which appears doubtful) this policy, it may come to pass in the future that ArbCom will be forced to remove all but the basic user access levels from Foundation/chapter employees to prevent such serious issues from arising again. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks to @Fæ:, clarifying) I would like to note that I'm well aware of the relationship and dividing line between the Foundation and its chapters as outlined at Foundation:Local chapters. Regardless, the impact of employees, whether they be Foundation or chapter employees, can and has been dramatically felt here. This issue is once again apparently raising its ugly head, and I think needs to be firmly addressed. Any action by an employee needs to be unequivocally demarcated as to whether they are acting as an employee or as a volunteer. Further, any advanced user access level action by an employee where the employer is involved (broadly construed) should not be taken. A request at an appropriate noticeboard should be made in lieu of direct action. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

The earlier September 2012 SPI case (which was declined) was opened only after the Guardian alleged Hackneymarsh is the politician and alleged that two IP addresses are connected to him.

This was never confirmed by any Wikipedia process and as such evidence related to the politician's real-life activities is inappropriate and undue outing. Yet the Guardian article in 2012 [9] claimed that Hackneymarsh, Historyset and two IP addresses belong to the politician. Did someone leak CheckUser information already back then? How could the newspaper link an anonymous Wikipedia editor to an IP address? It brings forth a very serious question. Both the 2012 and 2015 the Guardian articles were written by the same journalist by the way, and the journalist knew who to contact to get a solo SPI on-going. AUSC should examine CheckUser use all the way back to 2010. --Pudeo' 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re Dweller: ChaseMe's initial wording in the SPI directly tied the politician to the sockmaster. He did change the wording a bit later (diff). But it's clear the whole SPI was based on the mere allegation that Hackneymarsh is the politician, only supported by the Guardian's "investigations" which were taken at face value. --Pudeo' 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dweller[edit]

Did the investigation reveal for *absolute certainty* that this sock was "clearly controlled by Shapps"?

It's my understanding that that is the quote that was given to the Guardian and if it's not true, we should immediately contact the paper, apologise to them and to Shapps and correct the assertion. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

While I don't object to ArbCom hearing evidence and making a decision in secret, I do hope that it will publish a timeline of its findings. The questions are: who contacted whom, when, and with what intent? Carrite (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andreas[edit]

The Daily Telegraph, April 22, "Wikipedia administrator who accused Grant Shapps of editing pages of Tory rivals is Liberal Democrat activist".

"The Wikipedia administrator who accused the Tory co-chairman, Grant Shapps, of creating a fake identity on the online encyclopedia to boost his reputation is a leading activist in the Liberal Democrats, the Telegraph can reveal. In his Twitter profile, Mr Symonds describes himself as a “Liberal Democrat to the last.” He has written letters to newspapers, including The Telegraph, in his capacity as a Liberal Democrat activist."

Among those political letters are: [10] [11]. These are also signed by "Chris Keating, Streatham".

Wikimedia UK board member Chris Keating declared his membership in the LibDems only in November 2012, a few weeks after the previous, 2012 Shapps Wikipedia story in the Guardian [12][13]. At that time, Chris Keating was the chairman of the Wikimedia UK board. He has since then run for office for the LibDems, according to his interest declaration. Given Fæ's comments above, we are now left to wonder whether the timing of that interest declaration, a few weeks after the previous Shapps imbroglio, was significant, whether Wikimedia UK was involved in that previous story as well, and whether some form of non-standard checkuser access was used at the time.

If the Committee could establish the facts of the matter and report to the community about it, I would welcome that. All of this strikes me as highly damaging to the image of Wikipedia and Wikimedia UK. Andreas JN466 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Murphy of The Christian Science Monitor weighs in: Did leading UK politician edit his Wikipedia page? Possibly, but the problem goes deeper. Andreas JN466 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Damian[edit]

Chase has said that and several other editors were contacted by the Guardian in early April. Who were the other editors? He said he "came to the conclusion listed on the SPI, and ran this conclusion past other administrators". Who were the other administrators? And who made the statements to the Guardian? The article says that "Wikipedia’s administrators" said that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed, and that the contribsx account was "clearly controlled by Shapps". Did these administrators use the name Shapps and who were they?

PS Neat of user:Risker to spot the BST/UTC thing, which I missed completely. Peter Damian (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevin Gorman[edit]

Due to the high profile nature of the case, I don't oppose it being accepted, but I would strongly encourage careful review of the evidence as it stands with regards to Wikipedia policies, and not the public view. Unless there is private information that I am unaware of (which is always a possibility,) there's nothing extremely unusual about this block - and indeed, I expect this type of block to become more common, not less. It's not uncommon for journalists to contact Wikipedians to discuss potential sock scenarios - there are several accounts that I intend to block when I get home that fit that bill precisely, actually. It doesn't look like Chase shared any private information with the Guardian. I can see how it could be viewed as questionable that Chase publicly used a past Guardian article to link to the accounts to the person in question, but when such information has been published in a major newspaper, I don't think linking the original account to the person in question constitutes outing. The further accounts quack rather loudly to me - but even if they didn't, Chase would just be guilty of a flawed block, which is something that hardly warrants arbcom attention. I don't think a prominent British politician deserves any more protection than an average citizen (and indeed, if we look to traditional defamation laws, deserves less,) and situations that 'out' ordinary citizens occur very frequently with no notice paid to them (e.g., a new account creating an article about a non-notable musician and everyone assuming the account is operated by the musician or someone affiliated with the musician.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dirtlawyer1[edit]

I am a completely uninvolved, but deeply concerned editor. I generally avoid Wiki-politics like the plague, whether it's a dispute at ANI, AE or ArbCom; that said, I feel compelled to comment here even though I have no direct interest, either in this case or in any of the parties. I am an American, so the involvement of British political machinations in this matter is of very little importance to me. I am, however, genuinely concerned for Wikipedia, its good governance, and its public credibility. Here's what I see in a nutshell:

• A London-based broadsheet newspaper using personal contacts with a Wikipedia administrator (and checkuser) -- and possibly others, based on published accounts -- to further the newspaper's own investigation of a prominent British politician from the other end of the spectrum in the run-up to a nation-wide general election.

• A long-time Wikipedia administrator who also holds the "checkuser" bit, a tool only assigned to administrators in good standing and in whom the community has the utmost trust and confidence in their integrity, judgment and discretion.

• An administrator-checkuser who made public comments on the results of a sock-puppet investigation to the newspaper, on the record, for attribution, regarding an identified publicly-known person.

As someone who has served as the designated spokesman and media contact for several organizations in my past career, as well as having served as the chief legal officer for several corporate entities, I see multiple problems with how this matter has been handled to date. First, I see unauthorized comments to the media, ostensibly made by an administrator-checkuser, which, if accurately quoted, served as confirmation of the newspaper's own investigatory activities. As far as I know, no one -- no editor, no administrator, no checkuser, no oversighter -- is authorized to speak to the media on Wikipedia/WMF's behalf regarding the outcome of SPI/checkuser activities, nor on any other matter, nor in any other manner that might seem as if they are speaking on behalf of Wikipedia/WMF. If this is not presently against the explicit policies that govern the conduct of administrators, checkusers and other volunteer Wikipedia, it should be. Second, I see a trusted holder of the administrator and checkuser bits who has allowed himself to be used to further a media organization's own (potentially partisan) investigatory activities. I don't pretend to understand the motives, partisan or otherwise, of the involved administrator-checkuser, but I do see abundant evidence of extremely poor judgment as well as a possible breach of the confidentiality rules governing the conduct of SPI/checkuser activities.

Frankly, I could not give a rodent's hairy little backside about the individual Wikipedia/WMF/WMUK personnel, nor the media and politicians, involved in this case. The conduct of these individuals, however, have demonstrated that very real problems exist in the organization and governance of Wikipedia, and they need to be addressed in a manner that ensures that they will not recur. If existing policies need to be clarified, or new ones adopted, so be it. No public organization of the size and scope of Wikipedia can long exist successfully if unauthorized volunteer personnel have the ability to involve it in potentially defamatory statements and breaches of confidence that can be attributed to the organization itself. ArbCom must accept this case, and it needs to be prepared to make recommendations about the organization and governance of Wikipedia, the conduct of its volunteer personnel, and its relations with the media, which go beyond the instant conduct of the personnel directly involved in this matter. Admonishing the involved personnel and/or removing their bits is not enough. While the surrounding media controversy in this matter may yet prove to be a teapot tempest, it points to Wikipedia organizational and governance weaknesses that can only contribute to worse controversies in the future if such weaknesses remain unaddressed. I don't envy ArbCom's task in this case, but you have my support. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]