User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2015/April

You've got mail!
 Go  Phightins  !  02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, I have seen it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 11:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015
Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz OTRS
His Chase. You added an OTRS tag to the talk page of Maajid Nawaz with the text Subject is no longer married. I assume this means the obvious, rather than something like orphan document? In which case, is there something I need to do now that he's married again, or do I just delete the tag? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, five years ago! I'd remove the tag as it's clearly been dealt with. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Risker (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Risker, this is a sensible precaution. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Contribsx
Hi, I wanted to know if you thought it would be a good idea to tag the userpage of User:Contribsx (who you blocked for sockpuppetry) as a sockpuppet of User:Hackneymarsh. Everymorning  talk  00:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that might be rubbing it in a bit at the moment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hi Mate! Just a quick question. Isn't it like that the check user data only go back to about 3 months? How then is it possible to connect a user being active in 2010 and before to a user starting in 2013? (I'm writing a story on this recent thing for a newspaper and this information can be very helpful). Adler (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it wouldn't be sensible for me to comment, except to say that the checkuser data was only part of the investigation: the bulk of the evidence was behavioural. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, yes, I understand the behavioral part, but as a former check user, I could not see the technical grounds for the ban. If you wish to see my story before publication (I think it's fair to offer you this because I'm sure your actions were based on the good faith) please email me. Adler (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2015

Hi. here is what I wrote. I tried to be fair; as an academic and a former checkuser. Please let me know if you see major problems with it. and thanks again for your help. Adler (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at 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 opinions to by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, this is a sensible decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant Shapps
Hello, can you point me to the evidence that says Contribsx is a sock? 84.13.73.46 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Further - a quote from today's Guardian "Wikipedia tracked a range of IP addresses used by Contribsx to a web hosting service regularly employed by internet spammers. The same service had been used by an anonymous user in 2013 to remove material from Wikipedia to do with How To Corp, Michael Green and Shapps’ previous sockpuppetry." How does this square with Wikimedia's privacy policy |policy, I wonder? 84.13.73.46 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure - see and, and dozens of similar edits. Any user can see by the behaviour that this is the same person as Contribsx, especially given the timing of the account creation. These sorts of edits kept going on and on until the page was semi-protected - at which point Contribsx was created. The Contribsx account uses the same web hosting service (which given the suspicious "moment of account creation" link is pretty obvious) but it's a big international webhost and I don't think I'm breaking the privacy policy by making it clear that they use the same one - especially as the fact that it's being used a proxy by spammers, and thus hiding the actual place the editing has come from. Just in case it's not clear: I've not shared any actual data with anyone - all the data that I have shared is what is specifically laid out in the SPI. I have already reported myself (and all of this) to the functionaries and they have chastised me (and continue to do so) and suggested that I would have done better by running this investigation past the functionaries list, rather than past the few administrators I did. They are right. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Em... seems like this guy, whoever he is, was editing without an account and when that avenue was closed off he created an account. Perhaps the IPs kept editing alongside the registered user as if they were separate accounts - is that the contention? In any event, I can't find the SPI (I tried this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contribsx). However, the user Contribsx has now been linked to an IP address, or at least a range. Maybe the Privacy Policy has some exclusions as to when it's permitted to link a user ID to IP addresses; I don't know, I've not studied it in detail. Whatever, I still see nothing other than circumstantial stuff - and questionable at that - linking the user to Mr Shapps. This sort of stuff could leave WP open to legal action, so I'd be careful about how the situation develops. Anyway, thanks for the above explanation, and BTW, I'm most definitely not Mr Shapps and I have nothing whatsoever to do with either him or the Conservative Party. My interest is in civil liberties, and I do have an active WP account (and I'm not a sock). 84.13.73.46 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The SPI is here Hackneymarsh SPI... JMHamo (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All very dubious and opaque, if you ask me. The Guardian! LOL. BTW, would you mind changing Shapps' article to refer to him as the co-CHAIRMAN of the Conservative Party, his actual title, instead of that ridiculous PC term co-chair? 84.13.73.46 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that it's impossible to definitively link a Wikipedia account to a person short of that user admitting it themselves. I can't, therefore, say whether this was Grant Shapps or not, but there is lots of evidence for people to look at. That said, I am happy with the SPI link between Contribsx and Hackneymarsh. I think that's pretty conclusive. As for your invitation for me to edit the article... I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am not massively interested in political biographies anyway, but if you want to get involved in editing it, I won't stop you! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. I'll leave the article 'till I'm editing using my account, at some point in the future. 84.13.73.46 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A note to those watching
I'm currently off work with the flu - and I didn't expect the sort of reaction that's happening - so please bear with me if I don't reply as quickly as you would like. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are neither Michael Green nor Sebastian Fox so I cannot claim my £5. (Good shout imo.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and get well soon OK? Narky Blert (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. It is just a cold so I am sitting at home with Lemsip and watching Jim Sterling. Currently the Arbitration Committee are investigating my actions so if you have comments or evidence about the case (listed at Arbitration/Requests you should email them to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). I may be in for a rough ride. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add; but as an editor who sticks to non-controversial topics, am following the ArbCom proceedings with interest. I have experience in troll-hunting on another well-known site - so the kinds of inference you drew were in no way new to me ... Narky Blert (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, I'm notifying you that I opened an ANI thread about this: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. This was on BBC frontpage as well so there is high-profile coverage and I think the details behind this are obscure (you may have made a misjudgement), so I think it warrants additional eyes. --Pudeo' 01:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensible, thankyou. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations
Shapps alleges that you are "working for the Labour Party" in this interview! (2:30) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not a Labour anything and I do SPI checks all the time, sometimes two or three a day. This one was more in depth than most, but no different really. I am not sure who Mr Shapps is referring to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know how easy (or possible) it would be to definitively identify the person responsible for contribsx and related activities? The reason is that there is probably sufficient public interest to crowd fund a group to take on the job. Anyone have any opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectronn (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is almost impossible to definitively identify a specific person - because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. As for a crowdfunding thing, that is not really a discussion for my talk page, and I wouldn't support it, because funding isn't needed. We just need more volunteer editors! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Further comment on Contribsx
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.
 * 1) "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.


 * 1) 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)

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. Martin 4 5 1  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)
 * When you – along with two other Wikimedia UK people, if I am not very much mistaken – appear as a letter signatory in places like these, does that not make you a good little more involved than the average voter? "Liberal Democrat (to the last)" were your own words. Martin451 above got it right, for my money. Andreas JN 466 22:04, 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)
 * 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)


 * Maybe I'm just cynical and cryptical, but I can't help wondering just who is using who here, and who ultimately is pulling the puppet strings. Wikipedia can be a funny old place and can be abused from inside as well as outside. In my experience, when politicians begin to be publicly discredited, it's seldom the man at the bottom of the heap who ultimately deserves the discreditation. I suspect that in this case, the term puppet master has absolutely nothing to do with sock puppets. Giano    (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Moral support
Hello Chase me, I've been following all the Contribsx goings on with interest and I just wanted to lend some moral support as I believe you've done the right thing based on all I've read so far. JMHamo (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It means a lot. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too Chase! I believe you conducted your investigation in good faith and it was a brave thing to do, especially given the obvious risk involved Huddsblue (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, me, three, Chase!. According to tonight's Channel4 News "Wikipedia barred Contribsx" so you have now become Wikipedia! I don't think they know quite how we do things here. Must have been spooky having the Daily Mail at your door. How they got your name I have no idea but once they had the Electoral Roll could have given them your home address. Clearly the Daily Mail have, or at least employ someone who is, a bit of a techie wiz. Scarey. I would award you a barnstar but I am bit thick at the techie stuff here but keep up the good work!  Smokey TheCat  18:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding in my moral support. Subjects do not have the right to control what is written about them. I've come across this before with certain BBC employees. Even less than that do they have the right to disrespect their opponents. Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, warts and all. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, here! Keep it up Chase! Cardifform (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw on Twitter a link to your sockpuppet investigation: thanks for this impressive piece of work and for exposing and taking action against someone who was clearly using Wikipedia for the wrong ends. I think the editors questioning your intentions above should be giving you a big thanks, and should consider exactly how much free reign we should be giving scammers and socks. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang in there, Chase. Please be careful who you talk to, because a reporter will have absolutely no hesitation to pose or masquerade as a supporter to get you to say something they can use. Email me if you want to know about my own bitter experience with this crap.  K rakatoa    K atie   11:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your kind words. If you have evidence relating to this, or if you want to share your thoughts when the arbitration committee, they have asked that you email arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by 7 May 2015 with your views. Thankyou! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I have done a little interview thing here:. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who got tired of dodging the muck flung by sockpuppets and their enablers, I hope that you look after yourself and remember that your own sense of propriety is worth far more than the accusations of outed single interest editors and their various aliases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good on you Chase Me. That could easily have been me you know. I had a funny feeling about that account. --John (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most interesting. I have a question: Who in the Wikipedia Foundation knew that you were going to block this account and more-or-less out its owner before you issued the block? Giano    (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no-one in the WMF knew I was going to do this before I did it. I did not discuss the block with anyone in the WMF before making it and the WMF have not been in contact with me (except for a short email from the Comms team today). I should say that I do not know if Shapps is the owner but I suspect he is connected somehow. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is interesting. Particularly the Guardian mentioned that Mr Shapps had admitted doing this sort of thing before, under a different username – “Hackneymarsh” - that doesn't sound particularly true. Do you believe it, and if so with what evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do believe it because it has already been published in a national (and reliable) newspaper as such. You see, The Observer ran a series of articles about this in 2012, here and here. They name Shapps specifically and the claim was repeated all over the press. The edits were tracked directly to the Conservative Party offices: "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 Observer were more than happy to directly link him to those accounts in 2012 and print it nationally, and at no point did he deny it or threaten to sue them, so I'm willing to believe them on that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was interested in your evidence for Mr Shapps had admitted doing this sort of thing before. From your reply, it looks like he hasn't - you're actually inferring it from his lack of denial, and his not threatening to sue. That's rather different; you have nothing to support your "Mr Shapps had admitted doing this sort of thing before". And the quote you give doesn't mean what you're thinking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I just hope you know what you have been dragged into Chase Me because somehow I doubt you do; sometimes it's best to leave things well alone and let those it bothers fight their own battles. If you're wise, you will now shut up about this whole business, cease giving interviews and hope it goes away quickly. Giano    (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * William, thank you for your opinion. I do not agree with you as you do not have access to all of the evidence but I appreciate you offering your opinion all the same. Thank you too for your advice Giano, but I will be fine. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For your sake, I hope your 15 minutes of fame is only that. Giano    (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sitting here watching various rolling news channels and they appear to have lost all interest in Mr Green, so yes I think you can be assured the fame effect will now be rather rapidly fading. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to show my support, good work.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 20:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Errm, this isn't a matter of opinion, or access to secret information. Your claim "Mr Shapps had admitted doing this sort of thing before" is what we're talking about, and that cannot possibly depend on secret information, so why are you now ducking into the rabbit hole of "you do not have access to all of the evidence"? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with you over this, William, but thanks for your views. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the "not even wrong" sense, you're correct about that William M. Connolley (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)