Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 8
1–2 7
3–4 6

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.


Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Administrators[edit]

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

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CheckUser permissions[edit]

2) CheckUser permissions are assigned by the Arbitration Committee. If the Committee feels that an editor has abused CheckUser, such as by inappropriately performing checks, or has, without good cause, disclosed nonpublic information from a CheckUser inquiry, they will request a Steward to remove the permission from the editor.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct unbecoming a functionary and administrator[edit]

3) The Administrator policy states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. [...] administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." By extension, this is applicable to members of the CheckUser and Oversight groups.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Principle of least harm[edit]

4) CheckUsers often need to, in pursuit of their regular duties, report that one account is related to another. They are generally prohibited from publicly releasing connections that are found between accounts and IP addresses or other non-public information, as such is covered under the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy. Although accounts can be connected with accounts, it is generally prohibited to attempt to connect an account in public with a real name that it is not an account name. When in doubt whether to give out information, a CheckUser should refrain from doing so.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CU and OS are intentionally designed to be somewhat non-transparent due to the amount of private information involved. Unless you're sure you need to say something, keep your mouth shut. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Limitations of CheckUser[edit]

5) CheckUser is a technical tool that displays details about the edits or other logged actions made recently by an account, IP address, or IP address range. Although the tool can reveal information about the accounts and computers a person is using to edit, it is beyond the capability of CheckUser to determine what person is operating an account.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is a reason the "magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: " template exists. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
It is, similarly, unable to provide definitive information that a person is not operating an account. The most it can demonstrate is "very likely" or "very unlikely". Statements that it has exonerated any individual are therefore not correct either. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of CheckUser[edit]

6) The CheckUser tool must be used in ways which are, and appear to be, neutral and responsible. Use of the CheckUser tool in situations where there is an apparent conflict of interest, where information is provided to third parties before being made public, or where the CheckUser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out do not meet these requirements.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Audit Subcommittee[edit]

7) The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee established by the Arbitration Committee under the Arbitration Policy to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, to scrutinise the use on the English Wikipedia of CheckUser and Oversight (suppression) functions, and to ensure the tools are used in accordance with the applicable policies. The Audit Subcommittee is composed of three arbitrators selected by the Arbitration Committee and three administrators appointed by the Committee following advisory processes.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Limitations of arbitration[edit]

8) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration final decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any person in connection with any off-project controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Timeline of events[edit]

1) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is referred to as "Chase me" in the following for brevity.

Date (UTC) Event
13:45, 11 September 2012 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Historyset (talk · contribs) and Hackneymarsh (talk · contribs)
18:30, 11 September 2012 Guardian article "Grant Shapps's Wikipedia page was edited to remove byelection gaffe" published. The article links the 217.155.38.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 90.196.154.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Historyset and Hackneymarsh IP addresses and accounts
08:16, 12 September 2012 Scott (talk · contribs) opens an SPI on Hackneymarsh based on the Guardian article
15:22, 12 September 2012 Scott requests the case be archived when informed that CheckUser evidence from two years ago would be unavailable
16:07, 12 September 2012 Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh saying "Closing as stale and per filer's request."
15:34, 20 March 2014 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx (talk · contribs)
12:46–12:47, 24 March 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, another user, and IP addresses, all relating to the account
time unknown, 2 April 2015 A reporter from the Guardian emails a Wikipedia administrator and a Wikimedia UK staff member regarding Contribsx
19:26–19:43, 2 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, IP addresses, and ranges, all relating to the account
time unknown, 3 April, 2015 Chase me sends an email indicating that he responded to the request sent to the WMUK staffer in their absence, and that the matter would be handled by a trusted administrator
16:13–18:22, 8 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, IP addresses, and ranges, all relating to the account
18:14, 9 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx and IP addresses relating to the account
11:05–13:56, 10 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx and ranges relating to the account
19:24, 14 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, and an IP address relating to the account
10:50–10:52, 15 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx, IP addresses, and ranges relating to the account, as well as other accounts
19:55, 16 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on Contribsx
23:19, 18 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on an account, citing the investigation of Contribsx
13:08, 21 April 2015 CheckUser performed by Chase me on an account, citing the investigation of Contribsx
14:55, 21 April 2015 Guardian article "Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals" published
15:12, 21 April 2015 Chase me opens a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh
15:13, 21 April 2015 Chase me blocks Contribsx
16:14, 21 April 2015 After a request from fellow functionaries, Chase me rewords his SPI comment to remove statements connecting the Contribsx to an individual
Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Noting that I've adjusted the ordering of one of the rows that was misplaced, per Thryduulf's comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Discrepancy in timeline[edit]

2) When asked about the timeline of events surrounding the block of the Contribsx account and the publication of the article in the Guardian, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry struggled to provide an accurate timeline.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Prior checks related to the individual[edit]

3) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry performed checks on accounts purported to be operated by the same individual he connected to the Contribsx account as early as 11 September 2012. He was not forthcoming with this information.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Contribsx account operator[edit]

4) No evidence has been presented, during the initial sockpuppet investigation or during arbitration, that definitively connects the Contribsx account with any specific individual.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though I'd do without the word "definitively" here. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Statements about the operator of the Contribsx account[edit]

5) The original statements that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry made about the identity of the operator of the Contribsx account were in violation of the policy on release of CheckUser data and the Biographies of living persons policy.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Audit Subcommittee findings and recommendations[edit]

6) The use of CheckUser by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was referred to the Audit Subcommittee. Members of the Arbitration Committee who were also members of the Audit Subcommittee did not contribute to the subcommittee's deliberations on this matter. The Audit Subcommittee's findings and recommendations are included in part below:

After investigating the circumstances around the use of CheckUser we have made the following findings:

  • There does not appear to be a major breach of policy. However, it could be argued that that tool was used to "exert political or social control" which would be a violation of the CU policy.
  • The CheckUser team, and the CheckUser tool, must be seen and used in ways which are, and appear to be, neutral and responsible. Use of the tool in situations where there is an apparent conflict of interest, where information is provided to third parties before being made public, or where the Checkuser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out do not meet these requirements.
  • In the opinion of AUSC the email Chase Me sent to The Guardian was not appropriate as it provided not yet public information in Wikipedia's voice to a third party. The AUSC does not believe that there was a significant violation of policy through this action but that it creates an appearance of favouritism and an appearance that the CU tool was being used to "exert political or social control" (from enwiki CU policy).
  • In response to AUSC questions, Chase Me was unable to provide sufficient justification for his use of the CheckUser tool.

Chase Me had an apparent conflict of interest (which was identified on the Funtionaries-en mailing list after Chase Me's disclosure) and had been contacted personally offwiki. Chase Me not take adequate steps before taking public action (revealing the information to The Guardian, publishing the SPI and blocking the account) to ensure that the check and following actions were seen as neutral and unbiased. An adequate action could have been discussing the matter with another CheckUser (or mailing list) who had access to the same information.

We recommend that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry be warned for using the tool in a situation where he had a conflict of interest, supplying information to a third party which gave the appearance of exert political or social control, and for not maintaining adequate records to be able to explain the use of the CheckUser tool.

The Audit Subcommittee provides advice and recommendations to the Arbitration Committee, and the inclusion here is solely an acknowledgement that their report was made.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though I think this statement contains several errors of judgment; such as the first bullet point; this is what the AUSC reported. Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Added an additional sentence to clarify the intent behind including this report here. If others feel it is out of place I'm happy to remove it. LFaraone 22:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement of Audit Subcommittee's findings[edit]

7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the Audit Subcommittee's findings that:

  • The email that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry sent to the Guardian was not appropriate as it provided not yet public information in Wikipedia's voice to a third party, and created an appearance of favouritism and an appearance that the CU tool was being used to "exert political or social control".
  • Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was unable to provide sufficient justification for his use of the CheckUser tool.
  • Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did not take adequate steps before taking public action (revealing the information to the Guardian, publishing the SPI and blocking the account) to ensure that the check and following actions were seen as neutral and unbiased.
Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are the only parts of the report I think the AUSC got right. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would not go as far as courcelles here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse the 1st and 3rd points only; I am not fully convinced there was no justification for running checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. but with the same caveat as DGG. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. But not sure about 2. Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Prior AUSC decision[edit]

8) In a separate matter, the AUSC decided on 15 October 2011 that while Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did not violate the CheckUser policy, it was "the unanimous view of this subcommittee that your actions [did not] accord with the 'Access to non-public data' policy"

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Full disclosure, I was part of the AUSC at the time, and endorsed this statement. Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tweaked the AUSC quote (silent correction is fine)  Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. With the clarification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Added a clarification that this AUSC finding was unrelated to the incident at hand, per a discussion on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: CheckUser removed[edit]

1) The CheckUser permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.

Support:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Especially given the continued insistence that nothing inappropriate was done. This was a clear misuse of nonpublic information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Oversight removed[edit]

2) The oversight permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.

Support:
  1. Noting also that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is not currently meeting the minimum activity level for the oversight permission (suppression statistics). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I do not have any confidence in his judgment after this incident; and the severe conduct unbecoming; this is necessary. Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per the stats --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm somewhat persuaded by DGG's argument below, but ultimately oversight is also a function that gives access to non-public data, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has demonstrated poor judgement in regard to such data. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Doug Weller (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I understand DGG, this is still a question of trustworthiness to access nonpublic information, and I no longer trust Chase Me to have that access. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Nothing about the case is directly pertinent to oversight; if a removal for inactivity is justified, it should be done separately. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: There's an argument about lack of trust, which is a component that is relevant to all advanced permissions. LFaraone 21:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Desysopped[edit]

3) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Per lack of any confidence in his judgment, but mostly for the severe level of conduct unbecoming in this whole affair. Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If an admin did this we would desysop them. Why is a CU any different. (The super-super mario effect) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Adminship is a position of community trust. It provides one the trappings of authority when dealing with those in the project and outside. Administrators are accordingly held to a high standard, and the actions discussed in this case fall far below it. LFaraone 22:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Switching to support. My colleagues make good points above: a non-functionary who made a comparable action would likely be desysopped, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's functionary status should not change this. There has been a considerable loss of trust with Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry here, and I think that the severity of this incident does warrant a desysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm not as bothered about the CU usage as I am about how it was used to give The Guardian a leading story. NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Various comments persuade me that Chase me's position is untenable and that he no longer has the support of the community. If there were a single aspect, it would be this diff, which is a BLP vio.  Roger Davies talk 04:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per GorillaWarfare. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Adminship is also a position of trust and admins have access to information the general public does not. Chase Me is still free to run a new RfA to gauge that trust, but given the egregiously poor judgment here, I think that question needs to be asked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I'm opposing this, albeit somewhat weakly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry acted inappropriately in his handling of this case and with regards to non-public information, but I am not convinced that his actions demonstrate that he cannot be trusted with the administrator tools. That said, principle 3 does apply here: "However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status," and I hope Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is cognizant of this in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. with the same reasoning as GorrilaWarfare. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No reason to believe he can't still be trusted with the basic admin tools. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Molly and Yunshui,  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
unsure --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite surprised to see so many of my colleagues opposing this remedy. A desysop, in my opinion, is unavoidable here, as this is one of the most clear-cut cases of conduct unbecoming/bringing the project into disrepute I have ever seen during my time as an arbitrator. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their position and support this proposal. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry warned[edit]

4) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is warned to closely follow the access to nonpublic data requirements, and to avoid using the CheckUser tool in circumstances where he may appear to have a conflict of interest.

Support:
  1. Only if remedy 1 does not pass. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if remedy 1 does not pass. (otherwise, this warning would no longer be applicable) LFaraone 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only if remedy 1 does not pass. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. too weak --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not necessary. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not needed,  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Given R1 and R2 are passing, not needed. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Courcelles. LFaraone 22:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. At this point in time... NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doug Weller (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Unnecessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
this seems totally unnecessary in view of the voting so far. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by LFaraone 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 11:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot.[reply]

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
None
None
None
Default to passing
Proposals which have passed
All- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
All- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 3
Default to passing
Proposals which cannot pass
None
None
4
Default to passing

Notes[edit]

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. Everything is passing. Courcelles (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yup, close.  Roger Davies talk 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yunshui 雲水 08:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. LFaraone 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision&oldid=1087262936"