Given the sensitive nature of this case, the committee has decided to run it in camera. There will be no public evidence submissions or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events or related evidence are requested to email their evidence to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by 18 May 2015, which is when the evidence phase will end.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

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

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]

• 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]

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

1. who the relevant member of staff was,
2. what prior involvement they had with the Guardian newspaper, and
3. 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:

1. 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.)
2. Had this Wikimedia UK staff member who received this request from the Guardian previously been in contact with Guardian writers?
3. 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]

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. Monty₈₄₅ 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]

Note that the Graun reports Neither does the arbitration committee propose at present to reverse Symonds’ decision to block Contribsx [1]. That's in the context of them trying to make their source, ie Chase-Me, look as not-bad as possible. So the apparently bizarre decision not to unblock has consequences. They've also made some mistakes (“does not believe that there was a significant violation of policy through this action but that it creates an appearance of favouritism” confuses Arbcomm and AUSC, or perhaps whoever is feeding them this stuff is feeding them errors deliberately) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is feeding them this stuff, you say? The original 2012 Graun piece, the 21 April one, where Chase was interviewed, and the one just published, which quotes the bit about heart being warmed "at the upwelling of support, both private and public etc", are all by Randeep Ramesh, who has obviously been his contact all along. Note the 2012 part of the timeline. 13:45, 11 September 2012 is the checkuser, then a few hours later (18:30, 11 September 2012) , Ramesh publishes the 'byelection gaffe' article. Even by Wikipedia standards I am amazed. Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and don't forget this I stand by everything special interview by Ramesh. Note that Chase hasn't commented here in the last two days, but happy to speak about his role to national newspapers. Peter Damian (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the question to the admin community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting unblock of User:Contribsx (permanent link). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I've unblocked User:Contribsx. Rationale is at the AN thread Anthony links above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Just consider whether you would vote for him becoming an admin here today if he wasn't one already, and consider giving the community an opportunity to make their views known in a reconfirmation RfA. Andreas JN466 11:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spectacular misstep by Chase me. He used his position as a Wikipedia administrator to exert social influence at the highest level. Isn't arbcom's course here obvious? What are you saying about this place and its integrity if you allow him to retain his position as a Wikipedia admin after this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I think Brad's had enough R&R and should run in the next election. BMK (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the AUSC decision (and the others have not said ok to my wording so it's just me), the checks he couldn't explain were the ones which were months or years ago as he hadn't placed enough information in the CU log. So whilst there wasn't a sufficient explanation provided we didn't feel that the checks were completely without reason, which would be a very serious breach of policy and would need to be reported to the ombudsman commission. One of the recommendations we made was that CUs be required to put enough information for themselves and others to determine the grounds for the check at the time and in the future to avoid this problem reoccurring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Callanecc's characterization of our wording. For example, if a checkuser mis-typed an IP address or a common username (like Taxman and TAXMAN), they would violate policy by checking someone without good cause, but it would be of a different league of violation than what Chase Me did or if someone checked the IP of an opponent in a content dispute. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is in principle a very serious breach. Consider if the Chinese Wikipedia used CheckUser to out an editor for political reasons and he could face jail as a dissenter. Of course the consequences in Britain aren't that bad (he kept his seat but lost all Tory Party important positions and two papers contributed this to his online controversies). CU will never directly connect an IP to an account, let alone a real-life individual. So that alone was a mistake, and it was done for very wrong reasons too, as an assigment from a newspaper that backed LibDems in 2010 and you call yourself a LibDem activist. --Pudeo' 13:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen Chase me describe himself a "LibDem activist". Other people have characterised him as such, but he has rejected the term every time I've seen him comment on it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

what I said was nothing directly pertinent to oversight. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• There is a theory that adminship is a Super Mushroom — an admin engaging in egregiously bad conduct is likely to be desysopped whereas a normal user would be banned. Is CheckUser, then, a Fire Flower? Stifle (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle: Could you check and tell us what OTRS queues Chase has access to? As he cannot be trusted with private data, it would seem obvious that he should be removed from OTRS. --Fæ (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fæ:, as an FYI, according to m:OTRS/Personnel (which is publicly visible), he has access to "all info-en queues, permissions-en, wm-donations, legal". --B (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Considering that the secret correspondence and evidence during this long case (action ought to have been before the UK election completed, a month ago) has resulted in Arbcom members making statements such as:
  • Chase struggled to provide an accurate timeline
  • [With regard to past checks, Chase] was not forthcoming with this information.
  • Chase made statements that violated Checkuser policy and the BLP
  • Arbcom and AUSC stated that he used his trusted status to exert political or social control
  • Outside of Arbcom's remit, it is also clear that Chase used his Wikimedia UK charity email account. In the absence of Wikimedia UK publishing the records to provide a full and proper account, it is hard not to interpret this as Chase using the charity to give his misuse of checkuser data more weight when he was pushing the story with journalists.

Chase has stated that he is unapologetic for his actions and stands by them (per his talk page and interview with The Guardian during the case (honestly, he was not blocked for manipulating the community and Arbcom by using the press?)). Chase is unapologetic and still appears to be fat-headedly confident that he is in the right and has done nothing wrong ("I stand by the decision I made..." "I don’t know if [Arbcom will] reverse the decision I made, but I would be surprised if Contribsx was allowed to edit again."). People who are unable to recognize they have a problem when they misuse deleted or confidential data to pump up a story with journalists in the national press, to damage political figures, let alone apologise for their actions and make amends, should not have access to deleted or confidential material.

Arbcom has readily indefinitely blocked other accounts for violations of BLP. This case significantly damaged public confidence in Wikipedia, especially how trusted users can misuse tools to damage and distress notable people with Wikipedia biographies. The disruption is compounded by what has been courteously called Chase being "not forthcoming". Chase should have resigned his tools including the sysop mop. If Chase believes he is trustworthy with deleted information, he should run a reconfirmation RFA after Arbcom finds him to be under a cloud.

This kind and generous treatment for a previous fellow Arbcom member, Checkuser, Oversighter, OTRS member and Administrator appears unjustified and inequitable compared to past cases. Experience shows that apart from an admin choosing to resign, it is almost impossible to remove sysop powers by any other process than Arbcom's. --Fæ (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Admins are supposed to model appropriate behaviour. What we're looking at in the findings, as quoted by Fæ above, is the exact opposite of that. Would the community elect any non-admin to admin status who had been found to engage in the behaviours described? I don't think so. By the same token, I don't think Chase me would have any chance whatsoever of passing a reconfirmation RfA after these findings. Why should someone who has lost the community's trust remain an admin? Andreas JN466 10:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand the basis on which GorillaWarfare, Yunshui, DGG and Roger Davies believe that he would not misuse the admin tools; this case is about misuse of admin tools as well as checkuser tools and he has publicly stated to journalists that he believes his actions were entirely correct. There have been multiple other cases of poor judgment in which administrative tools have been used. I've got at least 4 examples in my own emails, including the two mentioned or related to this case, and that's without even trying to review his administrative actions onwiki. Risker (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: In my opinion, all your evidence about Chase me's conduct should have been submitted confidentially to the committee during the evidence-gathering phase. (I trust it was.) It is unfair to all parties to allude to in a public talk page. When evidence is under seal, it is particularly unfair to Arbcom to hint that there is relevant evidence that arbitrators haven't heard. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hroðulf, at least one of them is very well known to Arbcom because it directly related to his work as an arbitrator; several current arbitrators should be well aware of it. The other related to a block taken over by another arbitrator. These events were in 2011, which demonstrates that this is not new behaviour. To be honest, I am still rather surprised that this went on to a case at all, and at least half expected that the arbitrators could have addressed this by motion within a week of the request. Risker (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I support removal of the admin tools and am curious as well why arbcom is not overwhelmingly passing this. --B (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Mr Symonds said that it would be "premature" to comment on the outcome of the investigation, but said a "flurry of experienced Wikipedians" had expressed support for him". BBC Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He added: “That said, my heart is warmed at the upwelling of support, both private and public, that I have had from the flurry of experienced Wikipedians who believe that I did the right thing.” Guardian Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is clear that CMLIC does not possess a safe or steady pair of hands; he has brought the project into disrepute. Therefore, I am perplexed as to why the Arbcom is considering permitting him to retain any of his tools. I don't believe he acted alone, clearly, he is protecting others; but that's his choice and it's no reason to spare him. In order to honourably fall on one's sword and spare others, one has to actually fall, and I don't see evidence of any falling at all. Giano (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am astounded that given the findings of fact and the real-life harm that he did, GorillaWarfare, Yunshui, DGG and Roger Davies still believe that CMLIC would not misuse the admin tools. Do you honestly think that he should still have access to all deleted edits and revisions which have not been oversighted? An enormous amount of sensitive and/or private information is simply revision-deleted and is never even brought to the attention of Oversighters. He shouln't be allowed anywhere near it. Really. Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If administrators are not passing oversightable material on to the oversight team, that sounds like a rather separate issue. The requirements for obtaining the oversight tools are considerably stricter than those for adminship (the need to identify, age, etc.), and so if the material they're trusted to suppress is visible to a considerably larger group, this should be addressed (though not here). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GorillaWarfare: There is no doubt material in the deleted archives from before oversight existed that, had it existed at the time, would have been oversighted. But this is all missing the point. If you catch the bank manager stealing from the vault, you don't let him or her go back to his or her old job as a teller. Chase me has demonstrated, in a very public way, that he cannot be trusted with the advanced permissions. Letting him keep the other advanced permissions he holds doesn't make sense. --B (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking as an oversighter on Wikidata, while oversighters make their best efforts to hide sensitive information, it is not perfect: stuff gets missed, people don't know about oversight or what can be oversighted, oversighters make mistakes, etc. There is the general expectation that should an admin run into something sensitive in deleted content, that they won't leak it. --Rschen7754 01:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, and there's an expectation that they will pass it along to the oversight team. My point is that administrators are not bound by the Access to nonpublic data policy as functionaries are, and that there is a considerable issue if administrators are regularly stumbling across unsuppressed content. That said, this conversation should perhaps go elsewhere; I've supported the desysop motion, and so it's largely academic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for reconsidering your position, GorillaWarfare. Risker (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I swallow whole camels for breakfast, lunch and dinner (I´ve been adding content to the Israel/Palestine area for nearly 10 years)...but this is too much, even for me. Utterly disgusted, won't listen to another word from GorillaWarfare, Yunshui, DGG or Roger Davies after this. Now: back to my gnoming. Huldra (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank to you both, GorillaWarfare and Roger Davies, for reconsidering. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk User:L235 has hatted the above comment. I unhatted before I realised L235 was a clerk. I think it would be a help to ArbCom to be kept abreast of any new press reports on this situation. The optics here are important, and if the press or public are misreading ArbCom's comments and conclusions, ArbCom should know so they can make their language clearer before this closes. L235's action here appears to be outside the clerks' remit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: Regarding the "out of clerks' remit" part, the remit of the clerks extend to maintaining order on arbitration case pages, and we were also specifically authorized by a drafting arbitrator to actively hat material on this PD talk. However, there was a bit of a judgement call here, so I will defer to the decisions of any clerk or arbitrator; Liz and Callanecc, could you in particular review this and comment here? Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work here, L235, and thanks for bringing up the question Anthonyhcole. We are aware of news reports on this case. It's a somewhat tricky question: the news reports do not really assist us in coming to a decision, but I'm not sure where else they'd be raised if editors felt them pertinent but via email, which seems unnecessarily private. I'm inclined to leave them, but I invite other opinions from other arbitrators and clerks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal view only: Echoing thanks for good-faith posting of media list. No reason why a list of press coverage can't be maintained somewhere, perhaps for Signpost use. But the list won't particularly advance consideration of the PD, which will rest on the evidence and not on news reports. So it doesn't need to be on this page.

People have also emailed the Committee with media highlights, so we're all broadly across what's being said. Some of the coverage is wrong (eg Arbcom has 10 members, it is the same as AUSC, it has already finalized the case), some of it is entertaining (we are a "geek court" made up of "alpha neckbeards") and some of it (a little of it) is accurate. But wherever it falls, I'm not aware of any proposal that the Committee issue a statement correcting the errors, or that it would help anyone if we did. Reasons: it's unlikely a correction would be printed anywhere, it would be an endless game of "whack-a-mole" and in a small number of cases it would feed a troll. Personally I also think media statements should be written and handled by media professionals. If the WMF media people want to respond to any reports on this case, they will surely do so directly.

Of course the above is a personal view; other Committee members might see it differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think L235's actions were reasonable; having said that, for those who read this case months or years down the road (and that day will come, when some academic or other writes the next study of decision-making or dispute resolution on Wikipedia), having links to the contemporaneous mainstream media articles pertaining to the decision being made here will be genuinely valuable. The majority of Arbcom cases attract no interest outside of a very small circle within Wikipedia, let alone the world outside of Wikipedia; for these rare cases that do bring such attention, I encourage the committee to permit a section on the talk page where links may be added. I'm less certain about blogs, because they tend to be less permanent, but certainly MSM articles will be considered in the historical view of a case. Risker (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember seeing ((Press)) being used on main case talk pages as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that as far as I can tell, the first to report on this was the influential Guido Fawkes UK political blog [2]; the BBC and most of the others seem to have picked it up from there. As Callanecc says, ((Press)) is perhaps the best solution. A current list of press articles is in the Signpost "In the media" draft. Andreas JN466 09:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/08/17/has-guido-fawkes-been-puffing-up-his-wikipedia-entry/ William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbComs' last venture into PR "optics" during a case was such a smashing success lets see if they can outdo themselves this time! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision#Prior AUSC decision currently starts with "On 15 October 2011, the AUSC decided that" which seems likely to be an incorrect date since it predates either all, or almost all, of the facts and events? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that the date is correct. I do not speak for Arbcom here, but I believe its inclusion would be illustrative of past issues. Risker (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps my mind is too fixated on analyzing matters in chronological order, I seem not to have understood the flow of events very well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps prefacing that finding with "In a separate matter," (if that is true) would clarify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is understandably confusing. I've tweaked the wording of the finding to try to clear things up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just become aware of this case. I would urge the Committee to bear in mind the following points:

1. That Chase Me voluntarily relinquished his Arb bit to avoid conflict of interest claims, thus showing good intent.
2. That it was morally incumbent on Chase Me to do something with the information he was aware of, relating to possible abuse. With hindsight, maybe, it is clear that he could have more profitably passed the matter to someone else, and that he drew inferences in public that he should not have done.
3. The situation is certainly not clear-cut, to the extent that the AUSC made findings contrary to the Committee
4. The assertion that Chase Me spoke with "Wikipedia's voice" is (from what I can see) at the very least ill-defined.
5. Chase Me will undoubtedly learn from this experience, and punitive sanctions do not play a role in Wikipedia.

Given this I would think it worthwhile to at least reconsider the de-sysop proposal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Liz & User:L235 & User:Callanecc : It would be nice if, before anyone else makes the mistake I made above:

1. The closure vote on the proposed decision is marked as passed/closed.
2. The ((Casenav/data)) is updated

Note that a better template system than the current Casenav "Huge Switch" is really needed, I would be happy to craft it for you.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich Farmbrough, in general, the closure vote isn't marked specifically as enacted, though that's probably a good idea for the future - you may want to bring that up at WP:ACCN. We generally remove cases from Template:Casenav/data only after they're removed from the "Recently Closed Cases" section of T:AC. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the information. The current Casenav on this case says " Proposed decision to be posted 7 June 2015" - which is a little misleading. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]