Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Cameron11598 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk)

Case opened on 18:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Case closed on 07:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by Maxim

I've desysoped Fred Bauder per WP:IAR in light of two self-unblocks today. As it's a Sunday and frankly we (or most of us) have lives, it is not clear when Arbcom would formally motion to desysop, and it is not unreasonable to assume that Fred Bauder may unblock himself again. Committee members, how you want to proceed here is your call, whether it is to do a level I/II desysop after-the-fact and dismiss this case, or whether you prefer to do a separate motion altogether. Or whether you want to trout me for my application of IAR. Point being, I'm not here seeking specific relief but more putting my actions on the record. Maxim_(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

BU Rob13, I wonder if a proposed scope regarding Level I and what are de-facto bureaucrat reserve powers (in the Commonwealth sense), would be better suited to a well-advertised RfC. There's a whole lot that can be hashed out regarding how bureaucrats and Arbcom handle matters on resysops and desysops. What comes to mind, other than today, are recent contentious requests for resysop at WP:BN. Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, certainly, I'll try to clarify my reasoning. Self-unblocking (unless it's an obvious accident, i.e. admin blocks himself instead of intended target) is a really clear line in the sand. Doing it twice is over-the-top over the line. I don't think it's unreasonable to think a third self-unblock would occur. So if were a third self-unblock to happen we'd be back at re-blocking again. And so on and so forth. Such a situation is most undesirable given community expectations for admin conduct. The current situation is now effectively stable - that is more desirable than continuing or possibly continuing the unblock-reblock cycle. In ordinary edit-warring cases we use blocks and protections to stabilize the situation because it forces an end to the warring. With an admin unblocking himself twice, the only way you do the same is by desysop. So, I think the desysop is in the best interest of the project. Optically it's not an emergency like a rogue admin but I'd argue it rises to a different kind of emergency, and in both cases the outcome is fairly guaranteed to be the same. Maxim_(talk) 22:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, not much happened but the possibility of it continuing did exist (and it is not an unreasonable possibility). And now the possibility does not exist. Regarding protection, I was using it as an analogy. In the situation at hand, I was responding to self-unblocking, not the election question page edit war. Maxim_(talk) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Fred Bauder is referring to, as I undertook the action on my own initiative based on the reading of the unfolding situation. There was no "emergency request from an administrator" communicated to me. Maxim_(talk) 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I take exception to a couple of parts of your statement. I never claimed it was not an emergency (I never used the terminology "true" or anything synonymous), merely that it was a different kind of emergency, compared to, for example, a rogue admin. Arbitration policy, on paper, does refer to stewards acting in emergencies, but the policy as written predates bureaucrats having the ability to desysop (this came along only when we started desysoping inactive admins). As I'm sure you are aware, changing arbitration policy entails a more laborious process compared to changing other policies. It is not a stretch to extend, in an unwritten manner, from stewards to anyone with the technical access, that is, local bureaucrats, stewards, and Wikimedia staff. Maxim_(talk) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

If Maxim had relied in good faith on an emergency request from an administrator, any such request should be honored without requiring a thorough investigation. It could have been an actual emergency. Although, a glance at my contributions history might have helped.

"Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances."

If you wish me to continue to do some administrative work, I will do so, if you reinstate me. I should have read the election instructions and had enough good faith that the election committee might have helped me with the problems I was having with the question page. As it was, I, inappropriately, felt that if anything was going to be done, I would have to do it myself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Maxim, who has corrected my initial impression that he was acting on a reported emergency, the blocking administrators, Boing! said Zebedee and Iridescent ( 00:40, November 8, 2018‎ Iridescent (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,552 bytes) (+293)‎ . . (→‎Questions from Eric Corbett: If that helps jog your memory) and [1]), were either involved in posting negative comments on the page in question, or had very strong feelings about me, Future Perfect at Sunrise. If Maxim did look at the nature of the page affected and the nature of what I was trying to do, it hard to see why he thought de-syopping was necessary. Although, indeed, I might have unblocked myself again. After all I was the subject of several discussions I might have participated in. The ban discussion was particularly nasty, as I was not even notified of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several users used the questions page not to ask questions but to make comments opposing my candidacy for one reason or another. Some who did ask questions did so in an aggressive nasty way, "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" Bottom line, the page was rendered useless other than as negative commentary. I was trying to improve the situation by editing it. I tried several templates first but they didn't work. Then hit on moving tendentious material to the talk page.

Please look at what I did to the questions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/Fred_Bauder/Questions&oldid=868337075 What is the emergency. Why couldn't Boing! said Zebedee, who repeatedly reverted this page, themselves address the elections committee rather than repeatedly reverting it and even blocking me because I resisted their actions? There was no emergency, merely a dispute, which they resolved by force rather than discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:KTC and the other members of the Electoral Commission, failed to monitor the candidate pages, thus when my question page was overwhelmed with negative spam, nothing was done. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware I could not be elected arbitrator. A candidate who even hints at addressing the problem of systemic, and generally tolerated, incivility, let alone has a history of actively opposing it, has no chance whatever of being elected using the current system. All I did was set the stage, dramatic, even eye-popping, performances followed. That said, I would serve if elected, and would do some administrative work if reinstated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Adding myself as a party pro forma in light of the fact that I'm the one who performed the reblock which Fred Bauder reversed—i.e. when the issue changed from a violation of WP:NEVERUNBLOCK to a violation of WP:WHEEL—and as the editor who proposed that Fred Bauder be formally sanctioned in addition to the desysop element. Unless anyone has any specific question, I doubt I have anything to add that hasn't been said at the ANI thread. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010, I think you're misunderstanding why we're here; this isn't a tribunal to rule on whether Fred Bauder should be blocked or unblocked (that's a matter for ANI), this is a case to decide if Maxim exceeded bureaucrat authority in desysopping without an Arbcom ruling to that effect. The committee can't decline this even if they wanted to (unless they intend to ask the WMF to intervene directly, which they won't). ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis, if you're taking the "by the letter" route then by the letter of WP:LEVEL2 (or WP:LEVEL1 for that matter) you can't desysop other than temporarily, and are obliged either to restore the bit "once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved", or open a full case. This would have ended up here whichever route you took. ‑ Iridescent 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, some people here appear to be under the impression that the court reports raised by Eric Corbett and linked by myself (now oversighted so I won't re-link them, although I consider the oversighting out-of-process and inappropriate) were the result of some kind of underhand opposition research. This is not the case; the two court cases in question have been on the record on-wiki since 2004, and the way in which they came to light in the first place was the result of Fred Bauder inviting editors interested in him to Google my name and intensively study the results (an invitation posted on WP:Arbitration/Requests itself, not some obscure page where he wouldn't expect people to see it), not some kind of cloak-and-dagger operation. (WP:Arbitration/Requests is a page frequented by numerous oversighters none of whom have removed the offending discussion for fourteen years, nor has it been removed from the questions page of his previous arbcom candidacy.) As the public face of Wikipedia's governance, along with the WMF board, Arbcom is one of the very few parts of Wikipedia where off-wiki profile is relevant, given that the first thing any journalist writing a "The Problem With Wikipedia" op-ed does is Google the usernames of high-profile figures. ‑ Iridescent 11:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Maxim's desysop action was well within the bounds of reasonable discretion, and I think it was the right thing to do at the time and it should be endorsed. The subject of my block has come up here wrt WP:Involved. I blocked as an "any reasonable admin" action and then immediately took it to ANI for review, which I think is perfectly acceptable. In the discussion there's one "Good block" comment and one "Strongly admonish" (the admonish comment suggested I had misused rollback, but I did not use rollback). Nobody else out of the many who contributed saw fit comment on my action that I can see (and I don't think I missed any), so I don't see that it comes anywhere near ArbCom business. All ArbCom has to do here, I think, is decide how to proceed with Maxim's desysop action - uphold it, reverse it, elevate it to a formal desysop, whatever, and I'm happy to leave that to ArbCom without offering any personal opinion. There is clearly no community consensus for a ban on Fred, so that's another thing that ArbCom does not need to rule on. If anyone has any questions for me, I will answer as quickly as I can. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that as the admin who imposed the original 24-hour block, and with the consent of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who upped it to indefinite, I have unblocked User:Fred Bauder as there seems to be a consensus that the block is no longer preventative. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just to respond to a comment by User:Opabinia regalis that I was "edit-warring ..., over material you yourself posted" I must point out that it was not just my questions he was moving and to which I objected, but the questions of several people - mine were largely inconsequential requests for expansion on earlier questions, but those of others were not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought. If an emergency desysop request has been sent and received and ArbCom is considering it, perhaps some acknowledgment of its receipt might at least be good manners? If nothing else, it might prevent others taking emergency action when they don't see you as doing anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@Opabinia regalis: You say "on-wiki notifications instead of just answering emails is a good idea", but I did not even receive a reply to my email. Did anyone else? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note some comments I have made on my talk page at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Feedback, as I think they at least partly address some things that have since been raised here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to clarify. I see some content has now been removed from Fred's questions page and suppressed by oversight. I obviously can't check now, but I was pretty sure that that material was not the material that Fred was removing and which triggered all this. Can someone please confirm? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Considering your motion for a shortened case, do you need even that long for evidence or for workshop? I don't think I've ever seen a case where the evidence is as clear and uncontroversial as this. I would have hoped you could tie this all up before the ArbCom voting ends, so both Fred and the voters know where things stand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Ah yes, I forgot about Thanksgiving. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

So somebody added me to this case page? But I’m in no way involved here: neither were my admin actions on 11 November "involved" in any sense, nor do I consider myself a party to the case. When I became aware of the situation with Fred Bauder around 15:30 UTC on 11 November, the edit war on the questions page was essentially over: the main culprit (Fred) had been blocked, so there was no further content dispute to be expected. However, I found the page in the state after Fred’s final revert (his 4th, which he had made after his first self-unblock at 15:22). This final revert had been essentially an act of block evasion: Fred had circumvented his first block in order to continue edit-warring. (It makes no difference what he technically did to achieve that, self-unblocking as he did here, or creating sock puppets as most others would have). Therefore, this final edit could and should be treated just as any edit by a block- or ban-evading sockpuppeter. In this situation, my reversion at 15:39 was not an act of joining the edit war but pure administrative cleanup: reinstating the legitimate WP:Stable version, just as I would have if I was going to protect the page (which I could have, but didn't in the end). Nothing in this made me “involved”, and thus neither did my next action, of re-blocking Fred after his second self-unblock. Finally, there is no contradiction at all between me taking these straightforward administrative actions, as a completely uninvolved onlooker, and me also subseequently forming my personal opinions about the situation, which I then expressed in the ANI discussion. I see that Fred, in his statement above, claims I had "very strong feelings about him". I wonder how he gained that insight into my brain? I have no "feelings" about him at all. Before these events, beyond some vague recollection that I used to consider his performance as an arbitrator somewhat erratic ten years ago, I had nothing against Fred at all; I had been giving the current nomination process very little attention and was barely aware he was running. Whatever negative opinions I have about him and his candidacy now wasn't preconceived but formed during and after that half hour of events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

Clearly you don’t need yet another user telling you this but what the hell: take the case and resolve it by motion. I think that is the obvious path, Fred crossed a bright line, twice, so there’s no need to debate his other actions. The committtee has held in the past that doing so is not ok regardless of whether or not the initial block was justified. The community can decide what other remedies may or may not be needed, but only you guys can do the desysop which is mandated both by policy and very strong consensus of the community. And Maxim obviously did the right thing here in preventing the very real risk of further wheel warring, something that must be nipped in the bud ASAP. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

@Wbm1058: it doesn’t. Fred’s RL identity is no secret so there’s nothing to out. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: Digginf up stuff about Fred's real life issues with his law license was petty and irelevant to the election process, and is not something we should encourage, but it did not technically violate the outing policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: yeah, sure, when you cherry pick different passages and string them together leaving out intervening details, sure it looks pretty bad. If anyone really thinks this is outing the very last thing you should be doing is posting about it here, send a request to oversight. I promise I'll leave it for someone else to judge. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

At the direction of a committee member I have added Boing! said Zebedee as a party to this case request. I have notified Boing! said Zebedee here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, Future Perfect at Sunrise has been listed as a party. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox has been listed as a party --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Clerks-L Callanecc is now marked as inactive on this case. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Clerks-L Callanecc and DeltaQuad are now active on this case. That brings the count to 11 active members of the Committee for this case. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (10/0/2)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Accept whether or not Fred seeks reinstatement of his administrative bit, because I think we need to examine how we respond to situations like this. I'm not interested in blaming Maxim for taking a reasonable action to remove the bit from a sysop crossing obvious bright lines, but we need to examine why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I in this situation, a clear example of what it was intended for, and what bureaucrats are meant to do in emergency situations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look at this, the more I don't like. I would also like to examine the original block to determine if it violated WP:INVOLVED. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The resysopping issues should be handled by RfC, Maxim, and I would gladly participate in such a discussion. Until the community decides otherwise, desysopping is ArbCom's wheelhouse. In the past, this means we have set up our own procedures surrounding desysopping. I also believe that we can delegate this responsibility to the bureaucrats in emergency cases without an RfC, just as we delegated other roles of the Committee to non-arbitrators in the past. The Audit Subcommittee comes to mind. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Rob. Katie^talk 19:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ~~and handle by motion~~ (see below) Well, first of all, there's no need to have six weeks of inquiry to unravel the great mystery of "why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I"; the answer is that WP:LEVEL1 was written for obvious emergencies and doesn't apply if any arbs object; I said on the mailing list I'm on board for level 2, don't see the point of level 1 (in this specific instance or in general), and that was taken as an "objection" (fair enough, though it was more of a discussion point than a formal Process; I did also say we should move quickly and would probably have been persuadable to use the faster process despite my general preference for slow-and-steady). So there you go, no need for a case about that.
As for the actual issue, the core facts here are obvious and not in dispute - Fred unblocked himself under contentious circumstances, that's clearly a misuse of admin tools, Fred should be desysopped. But what has happened is that we're all tripping over ourselves in the hurry hurry rush rush to Do Something and we've repeatedly escalated what is at root a very manageable situation. I am going to stand by the point that "emergency" procedures should be for emergencies. Yes, there's "multiple accounts actively wheel-warring", but that has to mean they are causing harm. In most genuine emergencies - compromised accounts and the like - arb procedures are basically redundant and I am totally on board with IAR desysoppings to stop active damage. In fact I would prefer that the procedure turn that into the R. The "emergency" here was "well, Fred might unblock himself again". Well, yes, he might. The original edit war was about some material on his candidate questions page that he apparently found distressing. Would the wiki have fallen if we waited for another couple of hours to settle that apparently very pressing issue? Erm, no. The key thing about emergency procedures is that they should stabilize the situation pending further review. So - thanks to Maxim for making an honest effort at doing that, but I don't think this was really a necessary escalation; the underlying problem wasn't something that couldn't wait a bit. (I'll push back a little on the "it's Sunday" thing, too - in my book that's an argument to sit on your hands and be patient, not to escalate further.)
As for the disposition of the case - IMO it's best to just handle it by the motion we were already going to do as a level 2 procedure anyway, but by the letter of level 2 the affected user can request a full case, so I'd be willing to go that route if Fred requests it. While I'm up on my soapbox here, I'll comment briefly on the original dispute - if you don't want someone to be elected, or are skeptical of their platform, fine, but everybody who puts themselves forward is volunteering for a hard job; while we obviously can't have candidates curating their own questions, this seems like it would have been solved with far less drama by stopping immediately after Fred's first revert and asking the election commissioners to review the situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iridescent: true, but if someone responds to level 2 with "you can't fire me, I quit!" then we can treat that like any other instance where an admin resigns in response to a case about their adminship - create a shell of a case page to document the result, maybe do a separate motion to dismiss if the loose ends need tidying, and otherwise move on. @Bbb23: Was it the byte count that gave it away? :)
  I agree with NYB's suggestion below - sit tight for a day or two and let Fred decide what if anything he wants to do, and if he doesn't specifically request a case, settle it by motion. (As an aside, I have to point out that - well, Boing! said Zebedee isn't the one who got us here, but blocking someone you're edit-warring with, over material some of which you yourself posted, wasn't the most brilliant idea either. That was recognized at ANI but really shouldn't get lost here - trout for that one, IMO.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Clarified, though I think the significance is mainly the size of the dinner party that can be served. As for "any reasonable admin", I like to at least pretend I'm reasonable, and I still don't understand how this got to blocks and ANI without any of the multiple usually-reasonable people involved saying "Hey, Fred, why are you doing that?". Once the fire's started, though, on-wiki notifications instead of just answering emails is a good idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  @Boing! said Zebedee: Oops. You're right, another email that arrived at the same time was acknowledged, but it looks like yours wasn't, unless someone forgot to cc the list. Fourteen-way self-trout. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting to see the change in the more recent comments compared to those from Saturday - I might hope the "ZOMG Red Alert Delta Force Activate Defcon One!!!1" instinct has settled, and that maybe the next time there's a Wikipedia Emergency, people will recognize that antipattern and interrupt it themselves. (A good start: "Does this affect anyone's real life, or is it mostly about how someone might have broken a rule on a website?") But now we're drifting into bothsidesism, so let's recognize and stop that antipattern, too. To answer a couple of practical questions: Fred Bauder, it isn't the commissioners' job to proactively look for problems; if you want their input you have to ask for it. From your post it sounds like you do want a case (right?). So it goes. For those whose main interest in these events is the whole "IAR desysop" business, you may be interested in these proposals by Callanecc from last year - my view is that we'd be better off holding a second round of that as a standalone discussion rather than mixing together opinions about the general issue and about this specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, ~~handle by motion>~~, per OR. I was asleep while the situation occurred, so I (obviously) didn't see or participate in any of the initial discussions on the mailing list or on-wiki. Speaking with the benefit of hindsight, it strikes me that the wheel warring over the block was contained to a period of about 40 minutes - blocked at 15:10, self-unblocked at 15:22, re-blocked at 15:34, self-unblocked at 15:37, indeffed at 15:47, at which point there are no further self-unblocks. The de-sysop wasn't applied until 19:08, well after the wheel warring had ended. IMO by that point the situation wouldn't have qualified for Level 1, which requires active wheel-warring. Like Rob, I don't think Maxim's action was unresaonable - Fred's actions were clearly a bright-line violation that would require de-sysopping through one measure or another - but I agree with OR in saying that doing it by IAR rather than waiting for Level 2 was unnecessary.
Unless Fred wants to push this to a full case, I think we can safely finish this by motion - perhaps with reminder that emergency de-sysopping is to be used for situations where people are actively doing harm to the encyclopedia, not just acting rashly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to a straight accept per my support of the motion below. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ~~and resolve by motion instead of six-week palaver~~ - Didnt need the emergency desysop and accompanying drama; does need initiation of a level 2 desysop process by Arbcom. Resolve this by motion per OR and PMC. Also ok to wait a few days per NYB's suggestion, to give Fred Bauder a chance to indicate their views on the desysop that's already been applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse The WP:ACE2018 election commissioners have disqualified Fred Bauder as a candidate. Even so, until this matter is resolved, the best thing for me to do as another candidate is to recuse out of an abundance of caution. Mkdw ^talk 01:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Yes, I have been following along and saw he was reinstated. I expected it was temporary and why I recused on this matter. Mkdw ^talk 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold temporarily~~. Many aspects of today's fiasco were unnecessary, beginning of course with Fred Bauder's conduct, but we're here. We should give Fred a short time (perhaps 48-72 hours?) within which to advise whether he challenges the desysopping. If he does not, we can adopt a one-sentence motion confirming it. If he does, we would then need to review Fred's statement and decide whether to open a full case or pass a motion in lieu of one. I do not perceive the need for a broader case to address wider issues about desysopping procedures in unusual circumstances; I am not convinced that our procedures for urgent matters should be complicated by even more rules. As an aside to any editors who may be unsure, Fred does not currently hold any other advanced permissions (CU or OS) and is not on the Functionaries mailing list, and he has not been for several years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Abstain~~. I suppose policy suggests that we need to take the case, and certainly there are issues we can spend time discussing and deciding—but somehow I am just 100% certain that the outcome of a case here, no matter how much we reasonably try to streamline it, will not justify the amount of the community's time the process will take. I hope the case is handled in an efficient fashion that proves me wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept per motion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ~~and hold~~. There's a lot to look at here, but at the same time, I think it's all clear what happened. I'd need to consider whether this all can be handled by motion, as there have been many individuals who have acted at odds to community norms in this matter. That said, I have no doubt each was trying to improve the encyclopedia / community, following IAR. Indeed, many of the actions, I was seriously considering taking myself - though I was doing my utmost to not break my golden rule of "do not get involved in Wikipedia drama at the weekends". Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given Fred's statement (which I read as acceptance of the circumstances and suggestion that he'd like to remain an administrator), I believe that we should not be handling this by motion. There are a number of questions that need to be settled, from why the Election Commission was not consulted, to whether someone should be blocked by the admin who was a participant in the edit war, to the IAR desysop and what should happen with Fred's admin user-right. There's enough here for a case, though given the narrow focus, an expedited timeline should be sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 14:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Recuse Whether or not he's a candidate (and he is now), I'm also recusing. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept as a full case now that I've withdrawn. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this needs to be dealt with a s a full case. I do not think the situation is cut and dried. Fred Bauer's response was excessive and unwarrented, but it was in response to interference with his comments by an involved admin. this is a very extreme form of provocation, and he is not in my opinion solely to blame. I can be perhaps convinced otherwise if we do hve a full case, but i think the arbs are entitled to weigh circumstances, and that it will take a full case to do so. I thin k the case must include the actions of Boing, the admin who apparently provoked him by blocking him while engaged in a dispute with him., (I am not at the moment a candidate for election--if I decide otherwise before the time limit for nominations , I will of course recuse if Bauder remains a candidate).

I also think Maxim should be added in the case. The crats have no such emergency jurisdiction as he chose to assume. There is a need for such an emergency route, but it is the stewards who have that authority. and in a a true emergency there remains the office. Maxim admits about it was not such a true emergency, as for example a compromised account--the disruption was limited to the specific matter. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I gather from your comment that you think it justified on the basis that its a logical part of the crat responsibility. . That's one of the reasons we need a case. If your view is supported, the policy statements need modification. and since Arb Com is in general responsible for admin conduct, such a case would seem a place to discuss it. I might well agree with you that it would be a desirable change. DGG ( talk )

Accept per Rob. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Correct, the content which was the target of the suppression was not part of the material that Fred was removing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept to examine the activities of all parties involved,. DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as I am now a candidate in the election, I have recused. but as I stated in response to a question on the elections page, "my own view is that none of the candidates here are likely to want to be an arb so intensely as to want to push out another candidate to improve their chances. " DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motion accepting case

The request for a case is accepted to consider all aspects of the matter. The following timetable shall apply: evidence phase from case opening to November 27; workshop phase (overlapping with evidence) from November 23 to 30; proposed decision due by December 4. The information contained in the statements already presented will be considered in deciding the case, and does not need to be presented again on the evidence page. The revocation of Fred Bauder's administrator rights shall continue in effect, without prejudice, until the case is decided or until otherwise directed by this Committee.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 21:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although we don't need a motion simply to open a case, I take Newyorkbrad's point that this motion is needed. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the substance and so happy to support to move things along. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

We don't need a motion to open a case, but I'm fine with everything in the motion. Moral abstain from the increased bureaucracy (but only because my abstain counts the same as a support, given the number of active arbs). Let's get this show moving. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator comments

@BU Rob13: One purpose of the motion is to confirm the current status of Fred Bauder’s adminship, given the procedural dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm not mistaken, the usual way to do that would be an injunctive motion once the case was opened, but the most important thing is just getting this thing going at this point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: The problem with a shorter timetable is that some people will be away or offline during the US Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor conduct

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrator involvement

4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Passed 9 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversing actions by other administrators

5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to harassment

6) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

7) From the earliest days of Wikipedia, one of the project's central tenets has been "Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Because "IAR" actions are, by definition, taken outside the ordinary policies and guidelines, it is impossible to state in advance when they will be appropriate. However, ignoring all rules is most likely to be warranted when dealing with an unanticipated or emergency situation. Conversely, taking an action based on IAR is less likely to be warranted when there has been a consensus that that sort of action should not be allowed.

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case focuses on the behavior of Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and others on and about the page dedicated to community questions about his candidacy for the Arbitration Committee, and subsequent related actions by editors, administrators, and bureaucrats.

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee election process

2) The community runs Arbitration Elections independently of the Arbitration Committee. The Electoral Commission, whose members are selected by the community, has the community mandate to settle any disputes that may arise.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

3) On November 11, Fred Bauder moved several questions from the candidate questions page to the candidate questions talk page, and continued to do so despite being reverted by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) and Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (Risker's evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder used rollback inappropriately

4) Fred Bauder used rollback to perform two of these reverts. (Jytdog's evidence)

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee blocked Fred Bauder

5) At 15:10 (UTC), Boing! said Zebedee blocked Fred Bauder, with whom he was actively engaged in an edit war. (block log)

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder unblocked himself twice

6) Fred Bauder unblocked himself at 15:22 (UTC) and again at 15:37 (UTC). (block log)

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent re-blocked Fred Bauder

7) After Fred Bauder unblocked himself for the first time, Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Fred Bauder for 24 hours at 15:34 (UTC). (block log)

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise re-blocked Fred Bauder

8) After Fred Bauder unblocked himself for the second time, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Fred Bauder indefinitely at 15:47 (UTC). block log

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Maxim desysopped Fred Bauder

9) Citing WP:IAR, Maxim (talk · contribs · rights · renames) desysopped Fred Bauder at 19:08 (UTC), over three hours after the latest related administrative action. The Arbitration Committee had not authorized Maxim to do so, nor did Maxim attempt to contact the Arbitration Committee prior to removing the sysop flag. (User rights log)

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Current policy on bureaucratic removal of administrator permissions

10) The 2011 RFC on bureaucratic removal of administrative permissions states that bureaucrats may remove permissions upon request of the administrator involved, at the request of the Arbitration Committee, or due to inactivity. There was no consensus to allow bureaucrats to remove administrative permissions in emergency situations.

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Electoral Commission not consulted

11) The Electoral Commission for the Arbitration Committee Election was not consulted at any point during these events. (Cyberpower678's statement, KTC's comment, SQL's comment)

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Fred Bauder admonished

1) Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.

Passed 6 to 5 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder desysopped

2) For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 11 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee cautioned (II)

3.2) Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.

Passed 6 to 5 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Editors reminded

6) Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private nature should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.

Passed 10 to 0 at 07:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
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.
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.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3