Grant Shapps again...

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:19 pm

The Twitter account @ImTheCavalry has suddenly ceased to exist.

Looks to me like Wikimedia UK just kind of blew themselves up. And we didn't even do anything.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:26 pm

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:26 pm

WP:AN wrote: BBC Technology journalist, Rory Cellan-Jones, would like to talk CU with someone. This is follow up from the Grant Shapps sockpuppet investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive. Anyone interested can contact Rory on Twitter @ruskin147 Nthep (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I passed him on to Jimbo. As usual with Wikipedia dramas of this sort, the details can't be discussed publicly but people still want to talk about it so they fill in the gaps with speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Who else would a true believer pass them on to?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:27 pm

Profile with his picture still in the cache. Definitely him unless a cunning and ultimately pointless joe job years in the making.

The latest Tweets and replies from Richard Symonds (@ImTheCavalry). Liberal Democrat (to the last). Also a cyclist, a Wikipedian, and an atheist. Views my own

Archive link

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 5:47 pm

From The Telegraph:

Wikipedia administrator who accused Grant Shapps of editing pages of Tory rivals is Liberal Democrat activist

Richard Symonds, who had accused Tory co-chairman of creating a fake identity on the online encyclopedia to boost his reputation, is a Lib Dem activist, Telegraph reveals

By Andrew Gilligan

3:12PM BST 22 Apr 2015

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.

Richard Symonds admitted today that he had been “chastised” by other administrators at Wikipedia for not checking with more people before banning a user who he claims is Mr Shapps, or someone working for him.

Mr Symonds also admitted that he had briefed The Guardian newspaper, which broke the alleged story yesterday.

Mr Shapps has furiously denied the allegations, saying they are a political smear by his opponents. On Wednesday afternoon Mr Shapps said: "This has been the most bonkers story of the election campaign which has left the Lib Dems with a lot of explaining to do."

More at the link.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:18 pm

HRIP7 wrote:I had something at the back of my mind that Chase me had LibDem connections as well ... (along with others at WMUK?)

Do you remember WMUK employing Midas Training? We discussed that here a while back. That had a LibDem connection as well.

Chris Keating:

fundraising manager at Liberal Democrats, trainer (volunteer) at Liberal Democrats, and constituency Organiser at Liberal Democrats. For 8 years he was a member of staff at the Liberal Democrats, first running local election campaigns and then responsible for a large part of national fundraising. He has held a number of voluntary positions, first on the Executive (Board) of the youth wing of the Lib Dems, and from 2008-2010 as Chair of the Liberal Democrat Agents & Organisers Association, which provided training to campaign managers.

James Forrester:

I am, in fact, a card-carrying member of the Liberal Democrats.
http://web.archive.org/web/200602020838 ... aphy.shtml

Jonathan Cardy:

A liberal democrat councillor for the Richmond upon Thames borough, Fulwell and Hampton Hill ward, reelected four times since 1998.
http://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/mgUserInf ... px&UID=404

I know that Oliver Keyes was also, but I can’t find a link yet.
[edit]Oh easy:

Outside of Wikipedia; I completed my law degree in 2011, with middling grades at best since I spent a big chunk of the course campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, helping manage both the 2010 general election and the 2011 local ones in my constituency. I've also done some work with the Open Rights Group and the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA). Well, I've never worked for them per se, but I am solely responsible for their members' profit margins. That ought to count for something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okeyes_(WMF)

I remember when I attended a WMUK meeting, probably 2011 when I first met Jimmy and Kate. There were lots of others all talking libdem politics.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:25 pm

HRIP7 wrote:I have to say, as far as "black ops" go, having an innocuously-named account on WO is not exactly a heinous crime, especially given the backdrop of Wikipedia's pervasive pseudonymity/anonymity.

Richard told me personally he read WO regularly, as it was the only place you could get accurate information on what was really going on.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:34 pm

Thanks. At least Cardy, Forrester and Keyes were never part of WMUK staff/board, as far as I can recall.

I've got nothing against LibDems per se, on the contrary. But this sort of thing is just daft in this typically Wikipedian way. You don't mix party politics and something like Wikimedia UK.

You avoid even the appearance of it. (The same goes for Central Asian politics and WMF, for that matter.)

You screwed up, Richard.

There's only one consolation I can offer: This too shall pass (T-H-L).

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:43 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Definitely him unless a cunning and ultimately pointless joe job years in the making.

Not even a remote chance of it being a Joe Job. Look at all the WMUK interactions over the years.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:55 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Thanks. At least Cardy, Forrester and Keyes were never part of WMUK staff/board, as far as I can recall.

Cardy has been a member of staff for a long time.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:03 pm

In the Evening Standard today, Grant Shapps is quoted as saying “It seems to be based on the word of a single anonymous Wikipedia editor who, for all I know, is a Labour Party apparatchik.” Is the Standard out of date, or is Grant Shapps?

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:08 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Thanks. At least Cardy, Forrester and Keyes were never part of WMUK staff/board, as far as I can recall.
Cardy has been a member of staff for a long time.

I'm daft. Of course he has.

Well, it seems there is one more. Katherine Bavage is Wikimedia UK's Fundraising Manager. A "Katherine Bavage, Leeds North West, Member of Lib Dem Women" is also a signatory to letters like these, signed by both Keating and Symonds:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... gy-no-whip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... Syria.html

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:10 pm

The early contributions of this IP are amusing. E.g. this

.

HRIP7 wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:Thanks. At least Cardy, Forrester and Keyes were never part of WMUK staff/board, as far as I can recall.
Cardy has been a member of staff for a long time.
I'm daft. Of course he has.

Well, it seems there is one more. Katherine Bavage is Wikimedia UK's Fundraising Manager. A "Katherine Bavage, Leeds North West, Member of Lib Dem Women" is also a signatory to letters like these, signed by both Keating and Symonds:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... gy-no-whip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/lett ... Syria.html

Fortunately, as Jimbo has just thoughtfully noted the term ‘activist’ has no easy or firm definition.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:39 pm

Dan Murphy of The Christian Science Monitor (who started this thread here) weighs in: Did leading UK politician edit his Wikipedia page? Possibly, but the problem goes deeper.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:49 pm

Wikipedia’s administrators quoted in the Guardian wrote:“Further, the website’s terms of use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation. As the account has misrepresented its affiliation, and the account is clearly controlled by Shapps, this is a violation of the terms of use.”

Richard Symonds wrote:To clarify, I can't say either way that is Shapps' account, or run by him. All I can say is that I believe that it's a sockpuppet of the Hackneymarsh account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 7:54 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Dan Murphy of The Christian Science Monitor (who started this thread here) weighs in: Did leading UK politician edit his Wikipedia page? Possibly, but the problem goes deeper.

The article makes the point that the problem is not this or that person editing their biography or an enemy's biography with a slant (as the press usually reports it). The problem is Wikipedia.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 8:52 pm

Dear Lila,

The WMUK has been a near constant font of scandal since its inception.
* Unable to get charity status
* Lying to parliment
* David Gerard and his kooky shit
* Ashley van Haeftan and his pictures, coverup, suborning perjury, ARBCOM case and eventual defrocking
* Gibraltarpedia
* QR codes
* Equipment purchases for members
* Now this

At some point, you have to wonder how deep the rot goes.
How many more stupid, distracting scandals must issue forth from Satan's Anus the WMUK before the WMF recognizes it for the danger it is?

My honest advice:
* Disband the WMUK entirely
* Dismiss each and every employee and member and bar them from rejoining any chapter for 5 years
* Take a year to find at least 20 non-insane, non-grifter people in the UK to form a new core
* Write their charter for them. Have a good attorney do it with a mind to past misbehavior
* Appoint the first chairman of the WMUK yourself.

Anything less is just kicking the can down the road.

Cheers,
V

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:21 pm

Did anyone else notice these two additions to Grant Shapps (T-H-L) from way back in December 2005, close to when it was created? Followed by some edits by Cp6ap (T-C-L), whose edits were exclusively to articles about the Conservative Party....

Then, in 2007, we have some edits by Cookingapples (T-C-L), who was blocked for sockpuppeting to edit Melanie Johnson (T-H-L). As someone noted on the sockpuppet investigation, "the only other contributions cookingapples has made are to Grant Shapps (Johnson's opponent in the previous election)."

90.192.31.245 (T-C-L) made a series of puffy edits to the Shapps article in May 2007. This "brief update" in August 2007 replaces a paragraph of critical material with self-promotional political gumbo. In October 2007 90.196.154.20 (T-C-L) did an almost identical thing, and then tried to remove a link to Shapps' "Michael Green" company. In March 2008 90.192.31.243 (T-C-L) added lots of links to Shapps' projects. In May 2008, 78.129.175.187 (T-C-L) made another "update" that replaced criticism with puffery. Interestingly, that IP was also used by the same vandal that PD spotted earlier in this thread, 69.10.33.199 (T-C-L), used in the same timeframe to make edits to the Shapps article - at a guess, both the vandal and the person editing the Shapps article (who I would be willing to bet was actually Grant Shapps) were using the same list of open proxies.

I imagine it goes on and on like this, I can't be bothered to go any further.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:35 pm

Vigilant wrote:* Dismiss each and every employee and member and bar them from rejoining any chapter for 5 years
* Take a year to find at least 20 non-insane, non-grifter people in the UK to form a new core

Best of luck with that!

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:48 pm

Chase me is explaining things on his user talk page:

Hello everyone. I have just had a journalist from the Daily Mail come to my home address and start asking questions. The Telegraph has also published an article about me without even giving me the courtesy of letting me know. I have no idea how they found my home address. I am being bombarded with questions left and right by email, and I am prioritising answering the ones from Wikipedians. I have read your questions and comments above and I believe I have done the right thing in blocking the account. The Daily Mail have repeated some of the questions so I should set the record straight:

1. The Guardian article does not make it clear that in the first instance their reporter contacted you directly and suggested you should investigate their suspicions that ‘Contribsx’ was a sockpuppet for Grant Shapps. Did you have any concerns about that? Do you know why the Guardian reporter contacted you specifically?

The reporter contacted myself and several other UK Wikipedians who, historically, have answered questions for the press, and have done for many years. This is an example. Some journalists know to drop me or the others a line if they need help with how to edit, or help with understanding Wikipedia policies. The reporter from the Guardian did not suggest that I do anything: least of all investigate Grant Shapps. They were concerned that the account "Contribsx" might be involved in foul play. I looked at the edits and was also concerned, particularly with the similar behaviour to the Hackneymarsh account.

2. "You appear to have changed your conclusions about ‘Contribsx’... Why did you change the wording of your conclusions? Did the quotes in the Guardian article attributed to Wikipedia ‘administrators’ come from you, and if so were you quoted accurately?

I did not change my conclusions about Contribsx, but it was pointed out to me by another volunteer that my wording was not as clear as it could have been. I therefore corrected it as quickly as I could. While a link has clearly been drawn between Hackneymarsh and Contribsx, it is impossible to know who was sitting behind the keyboard of Contribsx - but given the nature of edits, I suspect that it was Mr Shapps or someone close to him. If there is a good explanation for why someone with detailed knowledge of Mr Shapps was editing in a fashion identical to the previous account he was linked to, I am sure that the owner of the Contribsx account can appeal.

3. You say on your Twitter profile that you are a Liberal Democrat [The Telegraph subsequently called me an "activist"]

It is not at all accurate to call me a Lib Dem activist. It is accurate to call me a "small l liberal". The Telegraph have picked up this information from, I think, my Twitter profile which had not been updated since 2012. I have never considered myself "active" in any party, although I have been a lapsed member of the Lib Dems on and off, for probably a year in total since 2010. I certainly have never been a "leading activist" for any party - indeed I have never actually met anyone from my local party that I know of. I am not sure who I will be voting for this time round. I will admit that I once saw Vince Cable at an unrelated charity event - he gave a little speech, but didn't talk to me, and that's the closest I've been to an MP that I know of. I would never let my political views get in the way of my work for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is too important for politics to be involved.

Puedo's comments have attracted some queries - he's made some good points and it is right that my decision is checked over by the Arbitration Committee, as would always happen in a high profile case like this. Someone asked: "Is it OK to block this account during a general election campaign?". My response to them would be that it would be more wrong to let it continue. Whatever happens, the fact is that Contribsx was whitewashing articles in exactly the same way as Hackneymarsh was. Someone was doing this for their own ends, and it was right to put a stop to it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Responses are mixed, I think it's fair to say:

Further comments

The Telegraph has also published an article about me without even giving me the courtesy of letting me know - that seems a bit rich. You blocked Contribsx with giving them any warning, why do you expect better yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't give warning for clear blocks like that one, William, you know that. A warning would not have solved anything. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph article claims you (Chase me ladies) are a Lib Dem activist. If that is correct, then you have a conflict of interest in blocking accounts of politically motivated editors. You should have handed it on to another admin, or better still an admin in another country. You should definitely not be briefing the press about things like this in a run up to a general election. If the telegraph (and other articles) is correct, then you have brought wikipedia into disrepute. Martin451 15:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a Lib Dem activist and have never been. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A warning would not have solved anything - err, well, I'm pointing out the symmetry. That's what the Torygraph would tell you William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and also you say It is not at all accurate to call me a Lib Dem activist. But your twitter profile described you as "Liberal Democrat (to the last)" which sounds a little bit more solid than It is accurate to call me a "small l liberal" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You should easily be sued by Shapps for this as there is no way for you to prove your nonsense. This affair just proves that wikinonsense is junk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.247.90 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: the above editor has been blocked for vandalism. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done for letting your politics cloud your judgment. I'm sorry but you've made this site look like a joke. Anyone who reads that article has perfect reason not to trust Wikipedia anymore. Seems our administrator's have a lot more political baggage than they care to admit... Tomh903 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tomh903: Looking at the social media reaction, it looks the opposite of "making this site look like a joke". Blocking a sockpuppet account which exists to introduce bias to biographies of living people is a way to give the public confidence in Wikipedia. If Chase_me_ladies has let politics cloud his judgment, as you claim, then you should be able to point out where in his thorough sockpuppet investigation he misrepresented or misinterpreted evidence. Otherwise, you're just making an empty ad hominem. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is followed by four or five message of moral support from others.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:55 pm

Alistair Charlton, International Business Times, April 22: Wikipedia committee investigates banning Grant Shapps' alleged 'Contribsx' account

The Wikipedia administrator who deleted an account claimed to be used illegitimately by Conservative co-chairman Grant Shapps is being investigated by the website's Arbitration Committee. [...] Issues with the timing of the account block and a Guardian story about it have been raised by a Wikipedia administrator called Risker, who says in a statement: "The Guardian news story was published at 15.55 and includes nearly direct quotes from ChaseMe's unmodified SPI [sockpuppet investigation] 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." [...]

This preceded the Telegraph report by a couple of hours.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:01 pm

Changes " the account is either run by Shapps/Hackneymarsh" to " I believe that the account is either run by Hackneymarsh"

I think the timing story is less interesting than what Symonds actually said to the Guardian writer. The clear implication is that he stated it was Shapps.

Wikipedia’s administrators told the Guardian they believed that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed in order to “split his editing history, so that other editors were not able to easily detect patterns in his contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances, it was not in this case: it is clear that the account was created in order to confuse or deceive editors. “Further, the website’s terms of use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation. As the account has misrepresented its affiliation, and the account is clearly controlled by Shapps, this is a violation of the terms of use.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ory-rivals

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:11 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Captain Renault makes an appearance.

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. Mr Symonds is a staff member at Wikimedia UK, the charity which promotes Wikipedia in the UK. He is listed as one of about 50 “functionaries,” senior administrators described as having “privileged technical access” on the site.
I had something at the back of my mind that Chase me had LibDem connections as well ... (along with others at WMUK?)

Do you remember WMUK employing Midas Training? We discussed that here a while back. That had a LibDem connection as well.

Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Ironholds (T-C-L) was a Liberal Democratic officer when he was in college, according to his user page as a WMF employee:

Oliver Keyes (Ironholds), WMF employee wrote:I completed my law degree in 2011, with middling grades at best since I spent a big chunk of the course campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, helping manage both the 2010 general election and the 2011 local ones in my constituency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okeyes_%28WMF%29
(permanent link)

Despite having had his administrator privileges removed by the Arbitration Committee for his sexual and violent ramblings and his dirty tricks against his opponents on Wikipedia, Keyes has access to sensitive data as a WMF hacker.

TungstenCarbide wrote:to do the job he describes he needs the server logs. Now, just for an example, let's say every time a Wikipedia article is criticized on WO, you look at the server logs for who accesses that article directly before the WO posting, and then who accessed it afterwards. With a few iterations he can effectively run a checkuser and match WO members. In fact, if he does the work that he says he does, meaning he has scripts and programs analyzing the server logs, do you really think he wouldn't add a few lines of code here and there to do just what I described? I would. It's trivial and easily automated.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6320#p136424

On Wikipedia's IRC, Keyes recently reported on an idea to hack the computers of Wikipedia readers, a hack he attributed to arbitrator GorillaWarfare (T-C-L)/Molly White (T-H-L). These kinds of hacks would allow Liberal Democrats at the WMF to spy on Shapps.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:18 pm

@Peter_Damain and Moral_Hazard: People have the right to have political views and to affiliate themselves with parties. I don't believe that it's appropriate to expose every Liberal Democrat on Wikipedia.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:20 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: On Wikipedia's IRC, Keyes recently reported on an idea to hack the computers of Wikipedia readers...

OMG, a secret forum.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:22 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Chase me is explaining things on his user talk page:
3. You say on your Twitter profile that you are a Liberal Democrat [The Telegraph subsequently called me an "activist"]

It is not at all accurate to call me a Lib Dem activist. It is accurate to call me a "small l liberal". The Telegraph have picked up this information from, I think, my Twitter profile which had not been updated since 2012. I have never considered myself "active" in any party, although I have been a lapsed member of the Lib Dems on and off, for probably a year in total since 2010. I certainly have never been a "leading activist" for any party - indeed I have never actually met anyone from my local party that I know of. I am not sure who I will be voting for this time round. I will admit that I once saw Vince Cable at an unrelated charity event - he gave a little speech, but didn't talk to me, and that's the closest I've been to an MP that I know of. I would never let my political views get in the way of my work for Wikipedia - Wikipedia is too important for politics to be involved.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", or in this case, active or activist.

Only 4 days ago, Symonds "liked" an endorsement on the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats FB page.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:35 pm

@Tomh903: Looking at the social media reaction, it looks the opposite of "making this site look like a joke". Blocking a sockpuppet account which exists to introduce bias to biographies of living people is a way to give the public confidence in Wikipedia. If Chase_me_ladies has let politics cloud his judgment, as you claim, then you should be able to point out where in his thorough sockpuppet investigation he misrepresented or misinterpreted evidence. Otherwise, you're just making an empty ad hominem. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Still an "idiot genius". The damage is already done, Mr. Poulter, you little snot. Bad publicity all around.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:49 am

HRIP7 wrote:
Jim wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:I have to say, as far as "black ops" go, having an innocuously-named account on WO is not exactly a heinous crime, especially given the backdrop of Wikipedia's pervasive pseudonymity/anonymity.
Of course it's not. I think we assume there are lots, quite possibly including Ash himself...
The point, for me, regardless of actual wrongdoing in the other points he raises, is that he supposedly has sat on this nugget until it seemed handy to lob it into this action.
If there's something to it, better late than never.

By the way, I wonder if any Wikimedia trustee breaking a NDA to disclose serious and unequivocal wrongdoing could ever be got at, because, if the wrongdoing is real, the adverse publicity for Wikimedia itself would surely outweigh any benefit of taking the former member to court.

You're right, it's hard enough to enforce an NDA in a real company, let alone something like Wikimedia UK. The real stopper is integrity: if word gets out someone doesn't keep NDA's no one else will work with them, and they are most used as a point of negotiation in a settlement rather than as a specific Cause in a Action.

My reason for asking was more along the lines of "well, he's broken his word, has he also reneged on something he's put his signature to".

Of course real whistle-blowing when someone actually has something to lose and is still a part of the machine is a different matter.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:53 am

Headshot!

Statement by Dirtlawyer1

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)

Common failing on en.wp among it's wikirati

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:06 am

Randy from Boise wrote:A couple snarky statements:

1. After seeing how easily content in The Guardian was gamed by activists during the WP GamerGate case, I have zero problem accepting that they were played again. There is a symbiosis between activists and the press, not just the liberal press, but all the press.

2. If our brave cavalryman is indeed a "Liberal Democrat to the end," are the Tories being disingenuous or just lying with their claim that this is a Labour Party hit on Dear Leader? Or is a new political fusion in the works between the tepid LibDems and the flaccid New Labour peeps and are the Tories being (for the first time ever) prescient?

RfB

1) There are very few good journalists left in the world: the likes of Dan are a dying breed. Lefties blaming Murdoch or Righties blaming everyone else is just a smokescreen for the fact that the biased click-bait is the current reality in almost all cases.

2) Why not both? There's no doubt in my mind that they are all doing it. Conservatives have generally been one step (several steps?) behind in social media, so it's not surprising that they've been caught out here.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:33 am

Vigilant wrote: * Take a year to find at least 20 non-insane, non-grifter people in the UK to form a new core

:"Do you edit Wikipedia?"
:'No'
:"You're hired"

Michaeldsuarez wrote:@Peter_Damain and Moral_Hazard: People have the right to have political views and to affiliate themselves with parties. I don't believe that it's appropriate to expose every Liberal Democrat on Wikipedia.

Tell that to Commons.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:43 am

HRIP7 wrote:
@Tomh903: Looking at the social media reaction, it looks the opposite of "making this site look like a joke". Blocking a sockpuppet account which exists to introduce bias to biographies of living people is a way to give the public confidence in Wikipedia. If Chase_me_ladies has let politics cloud his judgment, as you claim, then you should be able to point out where in his thorough sockpuppet investigation he misrepresented or misinterpreted evidence. Otherwise, you're just making an empty ad hominem. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh gawd. Is there anything more pathetic than someone who supports the left of politics trumpeting social media support as conclusive proof that they are right... I mean, other than someone who supports the right of politics trumpeting a statement from a Business Council as conclusive proof that they are right, of course.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:50 am

HRIP7 wrote:Alistair Charlton, International Business Times, April 22: Wikipedia committee investigates banning Grant Shapps' alleged 'Contribsx' account
The Wikipedia administrator who deleted an account claimed to be used illegitimately by Conservative co-chairman Grant Shapps is being investigated by the website's Arbitration Committee. [...] Issues with the timing of the account block and a Guardian story about it have been raised by a Wikipedia administrator called Risker, who says in a statement: "The Guardian news story was published at 15.55 and includes nearly direct quotes from ChaseMe's unmodified SPI [sockpuppet investigation] 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." [...]
This preceded the Telegraph report by a couple of hours.

Dan - are you able to let us know when (I assume it did) this appeared as an AP (or similar) release? It would be interesting to see where this fits in the time line, particularly since I can't see why IBT would have picked it up so early... earlier than the Telegraph could get out a piece supporting Shapps.

Left-field: was a press release from Lib-Dems prepared in anticipation of the Guardian publication.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:01 am

Daily Mail article, link:

Wikipedia official who accused Shapps is a Lib Dem: Online administrator once described himself as 'Liberal Democrat to the last'
*Official who accused Mr Shapps of doctoring his profile a former Lib Dem
*Richard Symonds, 29, is one of the UK's top administrators for Wikipedia
*However, he once described himself as a 'Liberal Democrat to the last'
*He decided to block a user called 'Contribsx' on Tuesday after concluding it was probably operated by Mr Shapps or under his 'clear direction'

Mr Symonds, from Bow, East London, described himself on Twitter as 'Liberal Democrat (to the last)' before deleting his profile yesterday.

He is also a paid employee of Wikimedia UK, a charity which promotes the volunteer-written encyclopedia.
Among his Facebook friends is Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, who married Tony Blair's former diary secretary Kate Garvey in 2012
He was once featured in a BBC profile that called him 'one of the UK's top Wikipedians' and reported that he spent up to eight hours a day working on the site.

.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:17 am

Vigilant wrote:Headshot!
Statement by Dirtlawyer1

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)

This is absolutely spot on.

[edit]Note he calls Wikipedia an 'organisation', which of course it is. See Buscetta theorem

Buscetta revealed the existence and workings of the Sicilian Mafia Commission. It enabled Falcone to argue that Cosa Nostra was a unified hierarchical structure ruled by a Commission and that its leaders-–who normally would not dirty their hands with criminal acts–-could be held responsible for criminal activities that were committed to benefit the organization. This premise became known as the Buscetta theorem...

Generally the Cosa Nostra is better at PR matters, though.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:30 am

Notvelty wrote:Dan - are you able to let us know when (I assume it did) this appeared as an AP (or similar) release? It would be interesting to see where this fits in the time line, particularly since I can't see why IBT would have picked it up so early... earlier than the Telegraph could get out a piece supporting Shapps.

Left-field: was a press release from Lib-Dems prepared in anticipation of the Guardian publication.

I would also be interested to know.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:52 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:@Peter_Damain and Moral_Hazard: People have the right to have political views and to affiliate themselves with parties. I don't believe that it's appropriate to expose every Liberal Democrat on Wikipedia.

Perhaps not, but if there are a coven of activists at WPUK that may explain why they personally kept earlier CU data. This lot are not that bright, they spend most of their time dealing with people even less bright, working with a book of rules that could of been written by Terry Pratchett. Is it any wonder that when they attempt to play outside of their padded room they end up with bloodied noses?

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:07 am

Vigilant wrote:Headshot!
Statement by Dirtlawyer1
Common failing on en.wp among it's wikirati

Fecking idiot! There is no governance, there is no spokesperson, there are no officials. There are a bunch of clowns that piss about on the site allowing the WMF to avoid any responsibility, and who can be dumped at the moment any one of them becomes a media story.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:12 am

James Dean, The Times, April 23, Lib Dem behind Wikipedia meddling claims

A Wikipedia editor at the centre of a row over claims that the Conservative party chairman edited his own online biography once described himself as a “Liberal Democrat to the last”. [...]

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:19 am

Received from ArbCom clerk (my emphasis):

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

7 May is the date of the UK general election.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:21 am

Moral Hazard wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Captain Renault makes an appearance.

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. Mr Symonds is a staff member at Wikimedia UK, the charity which promotes Wikipedia in the UK. He is listed as one of about 50 “functionaries,” senior administrators described as having “privileged technical access” on the site.
I had something at the back of my mind that Chase me had LibDem connections as well ... (along with others at WMUK?)

Do you remember WMUK employing Midas Training? We discussed that here a while back. That had a LibDem connection as well.

Oliver Keyes (T-H-L) / Okeyes (WMF) (T-C-L) / Ironholds (T-C-L) was a Liberal Democratic officer when he was in college, according to his user page as a WMF employee:

Oliver Keyes (Ironholds), WMF employee wrote:I completed my law degree in 2011, with middling grades at best since I spent a big chunk of the course campaigning for the Liberal Democrats, helping manage both the 2010 general election and the 2011 local ones in my constituency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Okeyes_%28WMF%29
(permanent link)
Despite having had his administrator privileges removed by the Arbitration Committee for his sexual and violent ramblings and his dirty tricks against his opponents on Wikipedia, Keyes has access to sensitive data as a WMF hacker.
TungstenCarbide wrote:to do the job he describes he needs the server logs. Now, just for an example, let's say every time a Wikipedia article is criticized on WO, you look at the server logs for who accesses that article directly before the WO posting, and then who accessed it afterwards. With a few iterations he can effectively run a checkuser and match WO members. In fact, if he does the work that he says he does, meaning he has scripts and programs analyzing the server logs, do you really think he wouldn't add a few lines of code here and there to do just what I described? I would. It's trivial and easily automated.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6320#p136424

On Wikipedia's IRC, Keyes recently reported on an idea to hack the computers of Wikipedia readers, a hack he attributed to arbitrator GorillaWarfare (T-C-L)/Molly White (T-H-L):
Eric Barbour (Moderator at Wikipediocracy) wrote:
Ironholds (Oliver Keyes) wrote:
[16:20:35] <Ironholds> I only know how to do two things: get shit done and be mean to people.

[20:38:25] <Ironholds> DarTar, my friend Molly just found a solution to the comscore-tracks-unique-people,we-track-unique-clients problem
[20:38:34] <Ironholds> every time someone requests a page, have the front-facing camera send us a photo of them
[20:38:40] <Ironholds> use mechanical turkers to decide if they're all the same person
[20:38:42] <DarTar> Ironholds: I hear you, and thatâ€™s why I keep reminding people that we need infrastructure not research for this
[20:38:54] <DarTar> Ironholds: love it
https://archive.is/lF4N5

That second one, it seems to us, might possibly violate the US Computer Fraud And Abuse Act if it were actually attempted. It would probably violate EU privacy laws for certain.

These kinds of hacks would allow Liberal Democrats at the WMF to spy on Shapps.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:45 am

That was quick, case opened:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block (T-H-L)

My guess:Chase will no longer be a CU for sure, he will be damn lucky if he remains an admin.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:15 am

Dr Taha Yasseri, The Conversation, April 23: Wikipedia sockpuppetry is a problem, but baseless accusations are no better.

[...]

As a former check user, I can say for the record it’s difficult to establish with complete accuracy whether two or more accounts are used by the same person. But on occasion there is enough to be drawn from the accounts' behaviour to warrant accusations of sockpuppetry and so enforce a ban. But this only occurs if the sockpuppet accounts have violated any other rule – sockpuppetry itself is not prohibited, only when used for nefarious ends.

Claims don’t stand up

In this case, the check user has speculated that Contribsx is related to the other users Hackneymarsh and Historyset – but these users have been inactive for five years, and so by definition cannot have violated any other Wikipedia rule to warrant a ban. More importantly, the technical information available to check users only goes back a couple of months in most cases, so I can’t see the basis for technical evidence that would support the claim these accounts are connected.

In fact the banning admin admits that their decision is mainly based on behavioural similarity and not technical evidence available to them as a check user. And this has raised criticisms and requests for further investigation from their fellow editors.

Altogether, it seems the whole story is a bit misleading – to top it all, the Guardian article was published 18 minutes before the Wikipedia admin in question blocked Contribsx, and then silently edited to reflect the ban after first publication – something that even surprised the banning admin themselves.

Yasseri identifies himself as a former admin and checkuser on Chase me's talk page. Is anyone aware what his admin account was called?

Edit: I suspect he may have been an admin and checkuser on the Persian Wikipedia.

Edit: Archive of original article version (the last paragraph was later cut).

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:26 am

The Adversary wrote:That was quick, case opened:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block (T-H-L)

My guess:Chase will no longer be a CU for sure, he will be damn lucky if he remains an admin.

Agreed. The key question is to what extent they will probe who else was involved.

Incidentally, Fæ added a few more items to his statement, copied below for completeness' sake. He comments on NDAs and also addresses the criticism voiced both here and on-wiki that he should have spoken out at the time. He says he did.

Two observations:

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:40 am

Lauren Fedor, City AM, April 23: Lib Dems deny involvement in Grant Shapps Wikipedia case

The Liberal Democrats moved last night to distance themselves from an increasingly complicated story involving Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps and the editable online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. [...]

But it was the Liberal Democrats who ended up in hot water over the case yesterday, when it was revealed that the Wikipedia volunteer administrator who made the accusations identified with the Lib Dems. [...]

The Lib Dems’ central office denied any involvement with Symonds.

“He has no connection with HQ whatsoever,” a party spokesperson told City A.M.

“We had no idea about the Guardian story,” he added. “I mean, I have no idea who this bloke is.”

[...]

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:42 pm

From a Channel 4 piece published yesterday:

A username by the name of HackneyMarsh was confirmed as being a Wikipedia editor operating out of Shapp's constituency office following a similar story in 2012. At the time the Guardian found: "Sources close to Shapps emphasised that the four usernames – 217.155.38.72, 90.196.154.2, Historyset and Hackneymarsh – could only be linked to "computers in the constituency office of the Tory chairman".

The allegation wasn't that it was Mr Shapps but perhaps someone close to him in his offices who had made the changes.

On Wednesday Wikipedia published its internal investigation, by an independent administrator who banned Contribsx, called "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry". "Chaseme" is one of the UK's most senior Wikipedia administrators, though Channel 4 News has also learnt that the administrator is also a "Liberal Democrat (to the last)".

The internal investigation found, using an internal tool to compare the network/IP address of the accounts, that Contribsx and Hackneymarsh were "likely" the same IP addresses.

Therefore, the new Contribsx edits were made by what is "likely" to be the same computer or computer network as the previous edits that we found to have come from.

"Likely" may not sound very strong, but in Wikipedia-language "likely" means the IP addresses are sufficiently similar (ie in the same small range of addresses, on the same server, using the same operating system version, or being in the same building or small geographic office) to probably be the same computer network.

It should be pointed out that it is feasible that someone could mimic the Hackneymarsh IP addresses to pretend make it appear that Contribsx was operating from the same IP addresses.

The question is, I see no evidence that the 2012 Guardian story was based on checkuser data. The accounts concerned – Hackneymarsh (T-C-L), Historyset (T-C-L), 217.155.38.72 (T-C-L), 90.196.154.2 (T-C-L) – had not edited since 2010.

So, given that checkuser data decays after three months, how did anyone establish that Hackneymarsh and Historyset belonged to Shapps' constituency office, or that Hackneymarsh and Contribsx had the same IP? In fact, did anyone establish that?

The 2012 Guardian article said,

Sources close to Shapps emphasised that the four usernames – 217.155.38.72, 90.196.154.2, Historyset and Hackneymarsh – could only be linked to "computers in the constituency office of the Tory chairman".

At the time, Shapps freely conceded that he had made some edits to correct inaccuracies (and there were indeed genuine inaccuracies). Unless someone checkusered Hackneymarsh and Historyset long before September 2012, or unless there are some deleted edits I cannot see, the assertion in the 2012 Guardian story could only be based on Shapps' own admission (if it is correct at all).

Moreover, the 2010 IP addresses and the more recent ones Chase me mentions are all over the place geographically (even allowing for the difficulty of geolocating in the UK). Maybe I'm missing something. Yasseri seems to have been in touch with Chase me and knows the technical aspects better. His account is probably more reliable than the Guardian's and Channel 4's.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:12 pm

Hex wrote:
Moral Hazard wrote: On Wikipedia's IRC, Keyes recently reported on an idea to hack the computers of Wikipedia readers...
OMG, a secret forum.

The secret dumpster, to be morely preciser.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:47 pm

There's a follow up interview with Symonds in the Guardian today, that's been retweeted dozens of times.

Richard Symonds says entries on the Tory chairman were manipulated, his action will be reviewed by Wikipedia and he has been forced to leave home

You have left your home in east London. Why?

My wife has been in and out of hospital recently, and the stress of being in the press was really getting to both of us and was affecting her. After the press and freelance journalists started showing up at the door, we thought it wasn’t a good idea to stay any longer, and that the best thing to do would be to go and stay with friends elsewhere.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:01 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Received from ArbCom clerk (my emphasis):

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
7 May is the date of the UK general election.

A day late and a dollar short due to their ridiculously overblown process, once again... They give two weeks for testimony. It takes two days.

RfB

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:02 pm

tarantino wrote:There's a follow up interview with Symonds in the Guardian today, that's been retweeted dozens of times.

Richard Symonds says entries on the Tory chairman were manipulated, his action will be reviewed by Wikipedia and he has been forced to leave home

You have left your home in east London. Why?

My wife has been in and out of hospital recently, and the stress of being in the press was really getting to both of us and was affecting her. After the press and freelance journalists started showing up at the door, we thought it wasn’t a good idea to stay any longer, and that the best thing to do would be to go and stay with friends elsewhere.

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)