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

Proposed motions
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
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
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
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

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


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

CheckUser permissions
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Conduct unbecoming a functionary and administrator
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Principle of least harm
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Limitations of CheckUser
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a reason the "" template exists. Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Use of CheckUser
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Audit Subcommittee
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Limitations of arbitration
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Timeline of events
1) is referred to as "Chase me" in the following for brevity.


 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Discrepancy in timeline
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Prior checks related to the individual
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Contribsx account operator
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I'd do without the word "definitively" here. Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Statements about the operator of the Contribsx account
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Audit Subcommittee findings and recommendations
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:

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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. L Faraone  22:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorsement of Audit Subcommittee's findings
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are the only parts of the report I think the AUSC got right. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not go as far as courcelles here -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * but with the same caveat as DGG. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But not sure about 2. Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Prior AUSC decision
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I was part of the AUSC at the time, and endorsed this statement. Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the AUSC quote (silent correction is fine)  Roger Davies  talk 10:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With the clarification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Proposed remedies
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
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:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Oversight removed
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:
 * 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)
 * L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * per the stats -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose:
 * 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)
 * There's an argument about lack of trust, which is a component that is relevant to all advanced permissions. L Faraone  21:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)




 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Desysopped
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:
 * 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)
 * If an admin did this we would desysop them. Why is a CU any different. (The super-super mario effect) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. L Faraone  22:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * per GorillaWarfare. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * with the same reasoning as GorrilaWarfare.  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason to believe he can't still be trusted with the basic admin tools. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Molly and Yunshui,  Roger Davies  talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * unsure -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry warned
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:
 * Only if remedy 1 does not pass. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if remedy 1 does not pass. (otherwise, this warning would no longer be applicable) L Faraone  19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only if remedy 1 does not pass. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * too weak -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not needed,  Roger Davies  talk 10:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given R1 and R2 are passing, not needed. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Courcelles. L Faraone  22:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point in time... NativeForeigner Talk 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * this seems totally unnecessary in view of the voting so far. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Implementation notes
''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 L Faraone  16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * 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

Vote
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
 * Everything is passing. Courcelles (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, close.  Roger Davies  talk 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments