This article should probably refer to last week's media report, which addressed some of the real world aspects of this case: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-10/In_the_media. --TS 15:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, Tony. It looks like there will be a column to write for next week's issue, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've added one. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think that The Guardian has been doing a poor job with articles involving Wikipedia and ArbCom lately. The fact that this isn't the first time they've in the midst of things this year has me worried about The Guardian's coverage in the future. GamerPro64 20:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The popular press is not very accurate which is why we do not allow it to source medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is one of the most highly respected newspapers in the English speaking world. There is nothing in this story or in the Arbitration Committee's investigation to suggest that The Guardian's reporting is at fault or that its practices are in any way questionable. --TS 08:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is. The Guardian contacted WMUK staffers in private to make a mudsling story during peak election campaign that turned out to be completely bogus. The same journalist had run a similar story already in 2012: [1], although there was no actual sock-puppet investigation on it that time either (this declined SPI was opened after the story). Apparently Chase me had cooperated with the journalist already back then. No SPI or CheckUser would confirm that GS was in control of those accounts, yet they decided to run the stories. Incidentally, The Guardian backed LibDems in the 2010 election campaign and Chase me described himself as a "LibDem activist" on Twitter. That's some butched up "investigative journalism". --Pudeo' 04:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe that any of the several Guardian stories about this affair over the years have been bogus. My report is very carefully limited to the conduct of a Wikipedia functionary and Wikimedia UK employee. Do not draw inappropriate inferences from this. Journalism necessarily involves contacting sources, and the same path is open to any other member of the public who suspects there is something wrong with Wikipedia. There is no reason to impute anything but the most ethical conduct to the journalists involved. --TS 22:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Sidaway: Just as a minor correction, we noted but specifically did not endorse the portion of the AUSC report which stated no major breach had taken place. The article makes it sound like we endorsed that portion of it as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to see that fixed. I invite others to edit the section in place. It's a wiki, after all. --TS 23:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --Andreas JN466 07:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Contribsx (talk · contribs) was unblocked shortly before the case closed. To me it seemed that the main purpose of that non-standard block, made two weeks after the account had last edited, was to provide a hook for the Guardian story – which was already written and published at the time the block was made. Hence the case and its result. Andreas JN466 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report is deliberately restricted to relevant details of arbitration. Last week's media report covered external matters. The Signpost doesn't normally carry bulletins about who is blocked and who is unblocked. If it ever started doing that I'd probably suggest that we stop permitting its publication on the wiki.

I could not possibly comment on particular interpretations of this case. I don't have the luxury of making up stories. --TS 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a Wikimedia UK response? Doesn't blatant political activity during the course of employment by a non-profit using the non-profit's equipment, time and position usually warrant some type of response? Dif they issue a statement? --DHeyward (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Report, at least under my current conception, is exclusively about English Wikipedia's Arbitation Committee rulings. Having said that, to the best of my knowledge Wikimedia UK has been silent on the topic since a brief response reported by the press in late April shortly after the original Guardian headline, at which time the focus was on the MP. A series of "everything" searches at their wiki for relevant information shows only a list of links to press stories about Wikimedia UK under the title "Contribsx story", in Stevie Benton's sandbox. Stevie Benton is head of external relations at Wikimedia UK. I also searched under the names "cavalry", "Symonds" (Chase me's real surname) and the surname of the MP mentioned by Symonds. I suggest that this shows that Wikimedia UK is acquainted with the First Rule of Holes. I am unaware of any investigation by the Charity Commission.

The Audit Subcommittee found no evidence of "political activity" in this case, though I concede that it described a situation that came close enough to raise eyebrows and make Chase me's role as a trusted volunteer on Wikipedia untenable. His staff role at Wikimedia UK is in the finance department. --TS 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]