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

Case clerks: Liz (Talk) & L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner (Talk) & LFaraone (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (Talk) & Courcelles (Talk)

Case opened on 06:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.)

Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

Discussion on the Functionaries-en-L mailing list
Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh

Preliminary statements

Statement by Risker

Members of the Arbitration Committee are aware of the core issues here. On 21 April 2015 at 1513 hours UTC, Chase me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry (ChaseMe for short) blocked Contribsx (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts.[1] Immediately before that, he had initiated a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh in which he alleged that Contribsx was a sock of Hackneymarsh; in that SPI, he states that he was contacted by reporters from the UK newspaper The Guardian. His original statement also implied that the account was managed by or managed at the direction of a specific living person who is the subject of one of the articles edited by Contribsx and also edited several years previously by Hackneymarsh; however, as it was pointed out to him off-wiki that such a statement was a BLP violation (absent direct proof that the living person was directing or responsible for the edits of Contribsx) ChaseMe modified his statement. After he had completed the SPI and the block, he noted that, because the subject of the key article in question is a British politician involved in the current election, there would likely be some media attention. He then added a link to the news report in The Guardian at 1524 hours UTC.[2] The Guardian news story was published at 15.55 hours BST, or 1455 hours UTC[3], and includes nearly direct quotes from ChaseMe's unmodified SPI statement, and also states that the Contribsx account was blocked by Wikipedia "administrators" - despite the fact that the account was not blocked until 18 minutes after the Guardian article was published. The allegation that the living person was abusively editing Wikipedia using the Contribsx account has now been widely reported through most major news outlets throughout the United Kingdom.

Because the range of sanctions involved includes the removal of both checkuser and administrator permissions, the only body that can appropriately hear this matter is the Arbitration Committee. As well, because this case involves checkuser data, a living person who is a candidate in an ongoing and very contentious national election, and likely some off-wiki information including social media and emails, at least some of the evidence will need to be reviewed privately by the Arbitration Committee; however, there is a fair amount of publicly available and on-wiki information to manage this case publicly with acknowledgement that certain evidence may remain non-public. Risker (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I am not alleging that data covered by the privacy policy was released to any unauthorized person, so it is not in scope for the Ombudsman Commission. As well, because this involves not just checkuser tools but also administrator tools (the block is a straight admin block, not a CU block), and because the AUSC does not have the power to remove either CU or Admin tools, there is hardly a point in taking the intermediate steps. In my mind, there is already sufficient evidence just in my statement plus some additional information provided on the Functionaries mailing list for Arbcom to take action. Risker (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add here Rschen7754, that there is an element of procedural fairness that should be considered. It is unfair to expect someone to defend their actions in multiple venues at the same time. While certainly the AUSC can assist Arbcom by reviewing checkuser actions in this case, ultimately the most serious sanction they can impose is recommending to Arbcom that the checkuser permission be removed. And it may be quite challenging (especially given the fact that half of AUSC is arbitrators) for ChaseMe to keep up with the pace of an investigation that involves two separate reviewers of private evidence, as well as the public case. I think he made a serious error in judgment here that has abnormally wide-ranging effects (how many volunteers in the world can say that their action resulted in headlines around the country?). But even people who make mistakes should be treated fairly. Risker (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754 There are several aspects: the fact that the news article was directly quoting an SPI that had not yet been posted on-wiki, the fact that the block was made 18 minutes after the Guardian article reported that it had been made, BLP violation, the extent of the investigation, who was consulted during the process (and whether they had any COI)...and those are just the matters that are public; there are non-public issues as well, which is why I pointed out that Arbcom is already in possession of a lot of facts about this case. I'll note that I found out about this because I happened to look at the Guardian website about 1515 hours today, and their article was complete and included the quotes and the fact of blocking; not even Wikipedia can update an article that fast. Risker (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, there are significant discrepancies between public statements and those made on non-public mailing lists (Checkuser-L and Functionaries-en-L at minimum, and I suspect more will come to light) as well as other non-public information, and this matter is not only in the on-wiki public sphere but also broadly discussed in the news media. Thus, it is important that the matter (a) be investigated and (b) be publicly acknowledged to be under investigation; there is no such public acknowledgement with AUSC investigations. There is also the rather serious matter of a person holding checkuser and oversight permissions including a rather obvious BLP violation in a public statement (see the history of the SPI), one that has been widely quoted in the press. There's a more general question of whether or not the conclusions reached in the SPI are reasonable or have gone beyond what the evidence shows, at least in part because of the BLP violation that linked inappropriate editing behaviour to a specific person. Risker (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

This is a sensible precaution and I understand why it has to be done. It should be done in private. In short, I - and several other editors - were contacted by the Guardian in early April about the suspicion they had that Contribsx was deceiving editors on Wikipedia. I treated this email as I would treat any email from a member of the public about foul play: I investigated it in my own time as a volunteer administrator/checkuser. I did so independently of the Guardian but they were able to point out a few edits that were particularly suspicious. I came to the conclusion listed on the SPI, and ran this conclusion past other administrators, who concurred. I then responded to the Guardian journalist that I would be blocking the account, and my reasons - not sharing any personally identifiable data with them - and went to immediately block the account. I already had the reasons and evidence written out. I then struggled with the SPI template for over half an hour, which was not displaying properly. You can see in the history of the SPI that even after I hit 'save' rather than 'preview', I still had to manually build the page up - this explains the delay between the Guardian's article and the SPI case page. I then emailed the checkuser email list explaining the potentially contentious block I had made, and I sent a separate message to Jimmy Wales explaining what I'd done.

I made the SPI case public in the interests of transparency, as I knew there would be questions asked, but I admit that ideally I should have run this past more people for checking. I have not provided any statements to the press, everything I have shared with non-functionaries is shared publicly in the SPI.

Once again, I think it's sensible to review things like this and am more than happy to support it, as long as it's done privately, for obvious reasons. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a further comment, mostly for the benefit of the journalists who showed up at my door, and the other ones who published an article about me without actually talking to me, here: User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry#Further comment on Contribsx. I am off to another location for a few days to avoid the press but will stay in touch. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Sockpuppet investigation block: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Accept with CU aspects initially referred to AUSC. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: In case necessary to clarify why I support AUSC referral - yes this is an intermediate step, but I'd argue it's necessary to ensure allegations of functionary tool misuse are not reviewed solely by functionaries. The AUSC outcome, whatever it may be, would inform the wider case. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur goes shopping: clarifying that while you may be right re contentiousness in the current UK elections, the case request focuses on whether admin and functionary tools were used in accordance with WP policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. We definitely need to take a look at what happened here. I also agree with Euryalus that we should recommend that the AUSC look at the possibility of CU issues and give their opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Just to clarify—do you feel that the Arbitration Committee should be reviewing this without asking for input from the AUSC? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept and support AUSC referral. L Faraone 04:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept with AUSC referral. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I know Chase me in real life, and as a Brit with known political views I want to avoid any accusations of bias tainting the outcome of the case. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and support referral to AUSC. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept but this case needs to be adjudicated in camera. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept but with AUSC involvement and, per Salvio, largely in private, Roger Davies ^talk 09:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept but per Roger and Salvio, largely in private. AUSC referral if this won't cause any significant delay. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Per Doug, Roger, Salvio in terms of the privacy aspect. I'm not sure about AUSC, it certainly doesn't seem patently necessary, but nor does it seem like a bad idea. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept but this is going to take me a bit to get up to speed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as (per my colleagues) an in camera AUSC-led case. AGK [•] 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status.