Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop

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

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

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Beeblebrox

Proposed principles

Wheel warring is not acceptable

1) Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles. This principle is clearly expressed at Wikipedia:Administrators in the section on wheel warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Self-unblocking is not acceptable

2) The blocking policy has long held that unblocking one's own account is never acceptable except in the case of self-blocks. reworded per previous arbcom principle written by one Mr. Fred Bauder: 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Almost never" is bad grammar, but it is indeed the policy wording and we shouldn't stray that far from it. Sympathetic to the point Beeblebrox is making but prefer the Husnock alternative. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't like dealing in absolutes, but I've been looking back at the blocking policy for 15 years and it's always had information about not unblocking ones self. Simply put, if you disagree with a block on yourself, you appeal like anyone else. If you want to be unblocked, you appeal like anyone else. If the unblock is obvious (say, you blocked yourself accidentally), then fine, go ahead. Worm^TT(talk) 10:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's not true. almost never be acceptable. I think you need an RfC to remove that word from the policy. wbm1058 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a proposed principle for this case, not a proposal to modify the blocking policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason not to simply go with the same text used in the Husnock case:

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.

Arbitration Committee principles should never conflict with policy. Never and must would conflict with policy. Should does not conflict with policy. wbm1058 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair and eminently appropriate point. I'll change it to that now. Beeblebrox (talk)

Ignore all rules

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Some version of this has been on Wikipedia since 2002. Users of advanced permisssions routinely bend the rules in the interest of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mildly, which of the several IAR actions leading to this case is this principle pointing at? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks. Certainly agree we don't need any new rules. As a a personal view this particular application of IAR was a bit unnecessary, but it's not exactly Watergate. The outcome (an at least temporary desysop) seems to be what would have happened anyway had normal processes been given a bit more time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: the principle is to support my proposed finding that Maxim's actions in particular were within the discretion provided by IAR, even for a 'crat. It ended the possibility of further blocking and self-unblocking, and the immediate, public reporting to arbcom shows it was done with the interest of the project at heart and that they would reverse it if the committee asked them to do so. So, what I'm really getting at is I do not belive the scope of this case should include whether or not Maxim acted inside the rules as they exist or if new rules or needed for this sort of extremely rare situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Fred Bauder unblocked himself

1) On 11 November 2018, Fred Bauder was blocked by another admin. He reversed this block. That block was re-instated by a second admin and Fred again unblocked himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well yes. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's literally no doubt here, this really can't be disputed as the evidence is so clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, Ironically, the principle from Husnock case which upheld the-then version of written policy and earmarked self-unblocking as a bright-line violation (vide Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper.) was supported by Arb Fred Bauder. ∯WBG^converse 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Good finding, but I would recommend including the times of the blocks and unblocks, as it's relevant to show how quickly he reacted, without allowing any opportunity for discussion. --Elonka 03:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I presented all that on the evidence page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder himself has in the past strongly supported the very principle he violated here

Per this edit when he was an arbitrator. "Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper."

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but more of a rhetorical point than an actual Finding. It would rebut any suggestion tha Fred Bauder was unaware of WP:wheel, but that's not really suggested (or if it is, is not really a defence). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Whilst digging a bit, I note this comment by Husnock amidst his saga, where he alleged the block to be a violation of INVOLVED (??) but at-least accepted that he erred in self-unblocking.(The superficial similarities are a bit spooky:-))

So far, I have not noted Fred saying anything of the sort about his self-unblock in uncertain terms and has instead said that I might have unblocked myself again.∯WBG^converse 10:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It is this comment by FB which retroactively justifies Maxim's action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder wheel-warred

2) The act of unblocking himself a second time was clearly a violation of the wheel warring policy,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wbm1058 makes a good point here, Fred may have been violating WHEEL, but he certainly wasn't the only one. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To clarify, I don't belive anyone else's conduct rises to the level of needing desysopping and I also don't believe arbcom "admonishments" actually do anything so I've deliberately ot touched on any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Good finding, recommend linking WP:WHEEL. --Elonka 03:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Resolve administrative disputes by discussion.

The administrator who blocked Fred Bauder for a second time did this while knowing that Fred opposed the block (Fred was still an administrator prior to the "emergency" desysop, which was done while he was blocked). wbm1058 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• That Iridescent was wheel-warring does seem like an extremely valid observation. The capacity of this site to provide a constant food for humor, is always undervalued.∯WBG^converse 12:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Of course Fred was the only one who "wheel-warred". Per WP:WHEEL, reversing an administrative action is not wheel-warring if it is backed by consensus. In the case of a clearly abusive administrative action, especially a bright-line violation like a self-unblock, this consensus is a given. It is already enshrined in the policy and doesn't require a lengthy discussion process to re-establish it. When Iridescent re-blocked for the first time, and even more so when I did it the second time, the fact that Fred's self-unblock was unacceptable was already clearly manifest in the ANI discussion; that was more than enough to justify action. The suggestion that a re-block constituted wheel-warring just because the offender himself objected to it is patently absurd ~ we don't ask vandals and sockpuppeters for their consent before we block them, so why should we ask a rogue admin who abuses his tools for his? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• How can two minutes of discussion by two editors constitute a discussion, much less a consensus? I was desysopped for re-blocking someone who had stated they would continue acting disruptively until blocked, and followed up with a bright-line personal attack. What's your excuse? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Take the case of a regular editor. The 4th revert in a 24 hour period of an article will get you a 24 hour block (is 24 hours still the standard, I don't even know anymore?): even if your revert is to the stable version that the blocking administrator would have set the page to before temporary protecting it, anyhow... So I as a regular editor can violate 3RR in favor of keeping the Stable Version up? Put it another way. The last blocks by Iridescent, or by you didn't functionally do anything: until Maxim or another 'crat stepped up or a Level 1 went through it's just like any three regular editors reverting each other to eternity on some backwater page. So the last two blocks were not only out of process they were pointless (except, perhaps to prove a point).

Anyhow, why didn't anyone just protect the page in question? My understanding was the blocks were a last resort, and since all of this happened because of diff's on one page, why wasn't that applied first? It seems that attacking the problem not the person is a way to keep things from spiraling out of control. (and I realize that FP does not put any technical limits on the sysops, but it does send a message that the edit-warring needs to stop, and not in a personal way). Crazynas ^t 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Replying here rather than in the correct section for ease of reading) Protecting the page would not only have had a purely negative impact—it would have made no difference to Boing! or Fred's ability to edit the question page, but would have prevented third parties from asking questions—but would have been against Wikipedia practice, which is that protection is a last resort only to be used "when blocking individual users is not a feasible option" (that line from the blocking policy is about semi-protection, but applies equally well here). ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Blocking was though? (A feasible option that is?) From an encyclopedic standpoint I agree, blocking is preferable to protecting [any given article in the main space]. But since you were the second blocking sysop, I think you knew that blocking was not feasible? If your block was not preventive what was it for? Of course the page protection toolkit, in its neutrality and objectivity does not allow you to implicitly arbitrate on the moral rectitude of an edit war. But given that A) It was an internal WP policy page. and B) (more importantly) it was an edit war involving the person whose page it was about/for: I reject your premise. If FB had been editing another arbcom questions page (or really any other page on WP) your rationale makes sense, but nothing about this case is 'normal' in that regard. From a de-escalation standpoint protection sends the message everybody stop, and given the page history I don't think it would have significantly impacted others ability to edit (at least based on the traffic). Also, it seems one of the positive implications of WP:WHEEL is if something doesn't work... try something else? (And just to be clear, I think both you and Fut.Perf violated both the letter and the spirit of WP:WHEEL; IAR or not, the implications of why you shouldn't have are more complicated than just the other guy was so clearly and obviously wrong) Regards Crazynas ^t 17:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's IAR desysop

While unorthodox, Maxim's summary desysop of Fred Bauder was within the normal discretion accorded to users of advanced permissions, and he promptly and transparently reported it to the Arbitration Committee, meaning it could easily be undone if found to be in error.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mildly, there is not a normal discretion allowed for users with advanced permissions; indeed these users have a pretty tight set of rules surrounding the use of their tools. The issue here is simply the validity or otherwise of an application of IAR. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Euryalus, this isn't something that is covered in policy - indeed I think it's historically been specifically not covered in policy. However, we should be more concerned with whether this meets IAR. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

to reply to some of the comments both above and below: no, this isn't covered by any policy, except IAR. As a vanishingly rare set of circumstances I belive that is sufficient and that the committee should not attempt to alter or ammend policy in reaction to this once-or-twice-a-decade situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I kind of commented on this in the case request, I think: are bureaucrats accorded discretion in this manner? I'm on record supporting Maxim's desysop, but a lot of users have commented otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally, we do expect 'crats to act only when there is a very clear rule indicating what they should do. But they are not robots and I belive some occaisional exceptions can and should be made. I don't care for the idea of actually ammending policy to reflect this as IAR is already policy and does not have a footnote that says *except for crats. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

IAR is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's desysop was sensible and well considered in the circumstances. We have the situation where a former Arbitrator and long standing administrator self-unblocked twice and failed to give assurances to the community and the blocking administrators (all three administrators, including Iridescent, also a former Arbitrator) that they wouldn't continue to self-unblock. Fred had voted during the Husnock arbitration case to confirm that administrators should not self-unblock [1] so cannot reasonably claim to be unaware of the requirement not to self-unblock (or the outcome from doing so). I would additionally argue, given the history of Fred (former Arb, long standing admin) behaving in this manner, it increases the severity of the situation and thus the urgency to respond, as this cannot be considered as anything other than a deliberate refusal to follow well established policy. I would also add, I don't consider this to be a any more than a removal of a user right, in line with any other removal undertaken by a bureaucrat, such as self-requested removals or the inactivity consideration, where such a removal "is not to be considered permanent, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools". The formal revocation of a user's rights to the admin tool can only come from the Arbitration Committee (which is partially why we're here). Nick (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no excuse for a ignore all rules action in a non emergency situation from a crat. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There does not need to be an "excuse" - "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule" (paraphrase from memory) is sufficient justification for Maxim's action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has not presented any actual defense

Despite making several bizzre proposals for findings of fact in this case, Fred presented no evidence whatsoever during the evidence phase and has presented no defense or explanation of his own actions whatsoever as of the close of the evidence phase. This is indicative of his poor communication and attitude throughought both the ACE process and the progress of this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think Fred ever expected to get elected to arbcom, and I don't think he expects to be an admin when this case is over. In fact I don't think he went into any of this in good faith and is basically trolling. This is all behavior indicative of someone who should not be an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Beeblebrox's speculation about Bauder's motivations would appear to me to be quite possibly true. Taken in total his behavior certainly appears quite trollish in nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2018 (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.

Fred Bauder desysopped

1) For violating both the blocking policy and the administrator policy in violation of provisions usually considered "bright line rules" Fred Bauder's administrative access is removed. He may re-apply via WP:RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Govindaharihari: i would've thought this was obvious, but since you have made a few comments of this nature I'll elaborate: One involved block is not the equal of edit warring, self-unblocking, and wheel warring. It is also worth noting that Boing! immediately asked for review of their actions by the community and has since admitted they were involved and should not have issued the block, while Fred seems steadfastly determined to not discuss his own actions at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, being little defensive is understandable given the circumstances. Violating four different policies and using your admin tools as weapons is not. Ignoring questions about your admin actions is not. That is what this case is about. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox , as I understand it there is broad scope to be raised in any case. You and all the others named in this case have all violated policy imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the way such things are established is by presenting evidence on the evidence page, normally only then do we move on to findings of fact and proposed remedies. It seems Fred has elected to skip presenting evidence, so all we've got from him is accusations. Arbcom is not an investigative body, they make findings based on evidence that is brought to them, and as far as I am aware not one scrap of that evidence as of now is related to anything I did. I'd also direct you to look at the evidence presented by Risker, which clearly outlines the critical sequence of events here (which I had no involvement in whatsoever) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Ok thanks. It is a while since I looked at the case, I see as you say that you were not named in the case, let me apologise for that, sorry. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No-brainer.∯WBG^converse 21:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur. --Elonka 03:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the points, what does desysoping Fred for this debacle that multiple users were involved in benefit the project? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It benefits the project by helping to insure that admins behave in a manner that is consistent with their responsibilities and their position in the project. We rely on them to help keep things functioning smoothly, and when they misbehave, there are -- and should be -- consequences. To allow Bauder's behavior to stand without taking any action would help to create in the community a mistrust of admins who would no longer be answerable for their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Fred has been attacked so he is defensive. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

He's getting off extremely lightly in the circumstances, but it's a no brainer. Nick (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this remedy. There are no innocent parties here and urge committee to issue admonishments case wide and return to status quo prior to this relatively brief collection of brain farts.--MONGO (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be my preferred outcome too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Essentially an official confirmation of his desysop, but it is necessary. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Excessive, given that this is a first-time violation. Administrators should only be desysopped for specific reasons, not some vague rationale like violation of provisions usually considered "bright line rules". Policy does not mandate any "bright-line" interpretation; the question of how ArbCom elections pages should be moderated is one that has not been adequately explored, and given both the established practice of moderating "over-the-top" edits to the talk page at WP:RFA and the way Q&A in Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections is tightly controlled, with the Elections Committee collating the questions for the candidates, it seems reasonable for Fred to have concerns about his ArbCom elections page – admonishment for suboptimal expression of those concerns is appropriate and sufficient. wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If it is clear that an administrator no longer holds the trust of the community to serve in that permission, or if there is significant doubt about whether they do or do not, it is appropriate that they do not regain the tools unless and until the community have had a chance to say they do have their support. In this case there clearly is significant doubt about whether Fred has the community's trust or not so not returning the tools until after he has passed an RFA (or, ideally, an alternative process that is at the very least less broken) is imo the correct course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Fred Bauder

Proposed principles

Confidential mailing lists

1) Demands to disclose or discuss the content of confidential mailing lists are improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was no demand, I asked a question, which you were free to say no to. And you did say no, but then days later answered it anyway.... And this is also outside the scope of the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior.Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note here in the comments to the first of Bauder's "findings" -- most of them irrelevant to the case at hand -- that it is less than 24 hours before the evidence section closes, and Bauder still has not offered any evidence whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on failure to disclose confidential material

1) Negative comments regarding or drawing conclusions from the failure of another user to disclose or comment on the content of confidential mailing lists is improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

outside the scope of this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior.Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template:Arbitration Committee candidate

1) Template:Arbitration Committee candidate includes 3 links, statement of the candidate, questions to the candidate, and comments about the candidate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If there's a point to this finding I'm at a loss as to what it could be. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is. If you wished to make comments rather than ask questions there was a comment page for you to spew on. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Gee, when you first characterize my comments as "excreting" and now "spewing" it kind of makes it hard to engage with you civily, which is strange since your whole platform was that you're so very civil. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant, and inexplicable as stated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Improper use of the candidate's question page

1) Beeblebrox and others used the page, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions, not to ask questions in good faith, but to cast aspersions on the candidate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Leaving aside everything else, for obvious reasons an arbcom case is a bad place to try to decide what kinds of questions one can ask arbcom candidates :) This is exactly why we have an independent election commission. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As Opabinia points out, for good reasons, the ArbCom stays far away from running the elections to itself. It is unfortunate that we had to take a case stemming from a dispute on an election page, but we're unlikely to hand down rules on what questions may be asked of ourselves and our would-be successors. Frankly, the ArbCom elections are one of the most over-regulated processes on the project, but if anyone thinks they need more rules in light of this year's experience, the appropriate venue will be next year's election-rules RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What ended up happening on your question page was admittedly unfortunate. Things got way, way off topic. But that is not what this case is about. It is about what happened when you decided to start moving things and how yourself and others behaved after that. You can blame me for what happened if you want, it's not like it's going to keep me awake at night, but this just isn't what we're here to discuss. Take it up with the election commission for next year, Iimagine they will be looking to make some changes after this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not original with me (came from Euryalus), but a candidate's ability to deal gracefully (more or less) with attacks, awkward questions, and plain crap during their candidacy is at issue as those issues come with the position. I think I may have fallen short, even lost my sense of humor about it, temporarily. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"May have fallen short" is a vast understatement but since it's the first time you've acknowledged even the possibility that you acted improperly I suppose we should take what we can get. But again, this isn't what the case is about and it will not make any decision on election questions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the opinion of FB, who never bother to go to the Electoral Committee and complain, merely took matters into his own hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not this is irrelevant to the case at hand I have to object to Opabinia regalis logic here. You create a bit of a paradox. Either there is a space that is free from ArbCom, suppressed as it were, from binding sanctions because of harassment, civility, personal attacks etc and the administrative responses to them: in this case this is an inappropriate venue as ya'll cannot show neutrality about a candidates conduct as a candidate. An extreme cynic could argue that your original motion to accept the case without the out of process removal of permissions being reversed: itself showed a bias against the candidate, a specifically negative one 'during the election. Of course, you could just accept your role as final arbitrators of intractable disputes (COI be dammed) and do your job. Crazynas ^t 06:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You've loaded the shotgun with birdshot now, for the widest possible spread. Would you like Op. reg. and all of ArbCom desysopped for their "bias"? That would be in line with the remedies you proposed below. Perhaps every admin who expressed an opinion opposed to Bauder in the ANI thread who ever had any interaction with him, or dared to express an opinion about him should be sanctioned as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Improper use of the candidate's question page by Beeblebrox

1) Beeblebrox, in particular, used the candidate's question page, not to ask a question about the candidate's history and proposed policies, but to imply there was harmful "hidden" information which the candidate refused to disclose. A good faith request to publish the cited material could have been made via email user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Fred Bauder Yes it could have, but is the asking of a pointed or even an unfair question really a justification for wheel warring? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Pointed or even unfair questions are inevitable in my experience as a candidate. This isn't relevant to the case. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I continue to decline release of or discussion of the content of or interactions on the functionaries list. I have no access to it myself and it is impossible to discuss it in this context. It is indeed "an old quarrel," and discussion of it is unproductive. I have not given permission to disclose any part of it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no unfair questions by Beeblebrox, just an enquiry that Fred was welcome to decline to answer, and I think it is perfectly fair to ask about issues that relate directly to a candidate's chosen platform (in this case civility). But Fred did answer it, and did himself point to the content in question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is ridiculous. Here is the exact question asked by Beeblebrox: "The ball is pretty much in your court here as I can’t reproduce the remarks leading up to it without your permission, but in light of your stated position on civility, I’m wondering if you could comment on what led to you unsubscribing from the functionaries mailing list." — That is a valid question about wikipedia-related activity of an Arbcom candidate, it casts no aspersions, it draws no conclusions, and implies only that there is a matter worthy of discussion here that can not be opened up without the candidate's permission. He was free to either answer or ignore the question, as with all questions. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that several days later Fred actually did answer the question. So there's that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the case, although it is apparently pertinent to FB's thinking which drove him to edit war, and un-selfblock teice, wheel-warring in the process. Again, FB never approached the EC to complain, the proper course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Once Beeblebrox initiated harassment it opened the door to additional harassment on the same theme.

1) Beeblebrox's "question" and subsequent negative comment opened the door to additional negative comments by others, including an entirely inappropriate link to a BBC article with negative implications.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So now everything anyone did after I asked that question is entirely my fault. Every bad decision made after my question was caused by that question. Seems legit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no harassment, just increasingly probing questions when Fred's initial answers appeared inadequate. Any ArbCom candidate (especially one with a legal background) should understand and expect that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone running for public office is going to be exposed to negative comments -- if that's what these were, most of them seemed liked very pointed but pertinent questions -- and must either cope with them, ignore them, or, if recourse is available, complain to the proper authorities. While it seems to have become popular in American politics to body slam or publicly berate anyone whose questions one disapproves of, there's absolutely no reason why we should allow the equivalent of this behavior on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Beeblebrox's "question" and subsequent negative comment opened the door to additional negative comments by others" this is totally relevent to the case at hand, what we want here is to understand how this cluster happened and how we can stop it happening again. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Free discussion one purpose of confidentiality

1) One purpose of confidential mailing lists is to encourage free discussion without fear of disclosure of comments which might be misunderstood out of context. (Such as inappropriate humor)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I must disagree that the purpose of confidential mailing lists is to encourage or protect inappropriate humor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Per PMC and Rschen7754. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit beside the point - we aren't here because of a years-old bad joke. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cannot stress how strongly I disagree with the point in brackets - up to that point, I agreed with this statement. I also agree with Rschen7754 below, whilst free discussion should be encouraged, it should not be used as a get out clause for inappropriate behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To a point. Confidential mailing lists are not a blank check for bad behavior, and if they are being used inappropriately to intimidate or harass others, appropriate actions should be taken. --Rschen7754 21:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Functionaries list

1) There was no good reason given for kicking me off the functionaries list, the reason given, if I remember correctly, I can not view it, was specious and without foundation in fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This can't be commented on without revealing the actual detail of the confidential mailing list itself. Suffice to say Arbcom has access to that list and to the thread in question - some of us were even Arbs away back then too and remember it in real time. Ah, the olden days. Anyway, the contents of that thread will be taken into account to the extent they're relevant to the scope of the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding WBG's question below, there really doesn't seem to be any evidence it was involuntary. However, this is really outside the scope of the case; even if Fred had been kicked off, and even if the kicking-off had been for specious and unfounded reasons, that still doesn't address the issue of reacting to pointed questions about it years after the fact with behavior long established to be inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that. Happy to let the conversation run further, but am not yet seeing how the Beeblebrox functionary thread question is especially relevant either. People often ask difficult or unpleasant questions during Arbcom elections. Sometimes these questions have no basis, or are motivated by animus. There's an established procedure for the removal of completely inappropriate ones, but otherwise its the answer that really matters and how it reflects on the candidate's ability to answer similar challenges in the course of their two-year Arbcom responsibilities. As above, am happy to hear more but there does need to be a more substance provided if this particular theme is to make it through to a PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fred Bauder: I was on the Functionaries list myself at the time. To the best of my recollection, and corroborated by several others, you unsubscribed yourself from the list. There is no indication that any of the list-admins unsubscribed you involuntarily. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I guess I'm a party now since Fred seems to be attempting to hang this entire affair around my neck. So, my comment on this finding is that it is way, way outside the scope of the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, Was Fred's access to the mailing-list an involuntary termination or was it a voluntary decision even if mitigated by unfavorable circumstances (under the cloud; might be:-))? The records (and your question over the Q-page) make it seem like some form of the latter but the above-statement vouches for the former.

If that can't be disclosed, a simple reply on that lines will be equally welcome:-) ∯WBG^converse 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding then and now was that he quit. Fred is claiming here he was kicked off, and I'd be very interested to see what evidence he has that that is indeed the case, but so far he's only offered findings without filing any eveidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Since, the Arbitration Committee controls access to the functionaries-list (Though, from a technical perspective, some ex-arbs and an ex-ombudsman cum bureaucrat do retain access to the administrative interface of functionaries-en and many currents arbs don't have access to the interface), I will take a guess that any kick-off (i.e. a non-voluntary removal) ought be vetted by the-then ArbCom.

In that case, one of our seating Arb(s) can easily scan the archives and check the validity of Fred's claim.Pinging @BU Rob13, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller:. ∯WBG^converse 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever this statement is supposed to be, it is obviously not a "finding of fact" that the committee could possibly pass, so what's the point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason behind my interest is that WP:FUNCTIONARIES state Users who demonstrate a lack of judgment in an area related to their special access may have their status as functionaries revoked.

So, if Fred is true, this will not be the first time that Fred has demonstrated a lack of judgement and it is the broader theme of his lack of judgement which is being questioned over the proceedings of the entire case.

Not to mention that the voting populace of ACE2018 ought to know about whether they are !voting for a kicked-off functionary........

If Fred's assertion is incorrect, that pretty much proves how seriously he can be taken, for anything he says over this page. ∯WBG^converse 21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The cat is out of the bag not his one, so here's my understanding of it:

• We we're having a discussion about off-wiki harassment, some of the harassment was of a sexual nature.
• For some reason Fred decided to post some song lyrics about not taking a "woman who is short and thick" along with a comment on the matter
• Several functionaries commented n how distasteful and unhelpful this was.
• Fred was suddenly no longer subscribed, and as far as anyone on the list knew had done so himself.

This was in May of 2015, Fred had already had his functionary permissions revoked for inactivity in March 2014 and was just hanging on on the list. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I continue to decline release of or discussion of the content of or interactions on the functionaries list. I have no access to it myself and it is impossible to discuss it in this context. It is indeed "an old quarrel," and discussion of it is unproductive. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really not fair since you said what song the lyrics were from on the question page. Nobody made you do that, you could've let it lie and right now there would still be nobody who wasn't on the list in 2015 who had the slightest idea what we are talking about. But you did so here we are. As far as discussion it, it seems like your entire presentation so far int his workshop is entirely focused on it, and on trying to make this about me, which it isn't, so again, you opened that door. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:It is possible I did unsubscribe from the functionaries list; I remember being angry over a particularly nasty comment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to the case at hand, which is about FB's abuse of his admin tools and overall behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Once agin, irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the functionaries mailing list does, or why anyone would care. But if he wants this and other private matters taken into consideration, he needs to give all parties permission to discuss them and waive any right to privacy or confidentiality. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure of confidential material by Beeblebrox

1) Beeblebrox has disclosed material from the confidential Fuctionaries mailing list and continues to discuss it. He began by pointing at it, and then used my guesses as to what he is discussing to milk it by continuing to discuss it. Now he is quoting it, but out of context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You said, on the question page, that it was those lyrics. As far as I'm concerned that constitutes an acknowledgement of what I was very careful not to say directly on wiki prior to that. You provided the song tile yourself. I simply provided a quote of the two specific lines you included in your email. And I provided as much context as I could without actually breaching any confidential information, I obviously can't reproduce the entire email thread here.

This grasping at straws and trying to make them into a boomerang so this case is now about me is just silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not accurate, and not relevant. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Untrue. BB very carefully allowed FB to comment without reminding him of the context. ——SerialNumber54129 13:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Involvement by Iridescent

1) Iridescent displayed extreme animus in this edit to my candidate question page (It is suppressed): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/Fred_Bauder/Questions&diff=next&oldid=867749065

Comment by Arbitrators:

Iridescent linked on Fred Bauder's questions page to off-wiki but readily available material that had previously been linked to by others, without challenge, in prior elections. One could discuss whether he should have done that, and what policies might or might not be implicated (although as stated above, ArbCom has historically stayed away from deciding what can be said or done during the elections, and as Iridescent states he wasn't the first editor to raise the subject this year). However, based on Iridescent's extensive history of both contributing to and sometimes criticizing the project and its participants, I am confident that he was motivated by what he perceived as legitimate concerns, rather than by personal "animus" against another editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No evidence of "animus" here, and questionably relevant considering that this material wasn't part of what got moved to the talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I can't remember any signifiant interactions in the past with Iridescent which would explain this. As to the matter linked to, since when is the victim of a lynching responsible for paying for the rope? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not display anything of the sort and have to the best of my knowledge never previously interacted with you; my sole (now oversighted, but the arbs can all still see it) edit to your questions page was to add links to the two court reports mentioned by Eric Corbett (whose mention of the case has not been removed let alone oversighted, and which has been on-the-record on Wikipedia for over a decade and has been previously discussed by yourself on-wiki). This was primarily as an indication to readers that Eric Corbett was raising a legitimate concern and wasn't merely making things up, with a secondary purpose of acting as a reminder to you as you claimed that I don't remember the details that well. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only time (other than in the context of this case) in which I have ever interacted with you in any way. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another ridiculous and unfounded "finding." Despite being subsequently oversighted in good faith by partie unaware of the history, the exact same material is still publicly viewable elsewhere on WP, with Fred quite voluntarily discussing it openly. Was this "opposition research"? yes. undeniably. Was it mailicious outing? absolutely not. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Workshop#Asking_for_attention_of_clerks/arbs.∯WBG^converse 17:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This does not support any claim of outing (but then it doesn't claim it) but it does support the claim that Iridescent was involved: the edit seems rather pointed. How long has it been since this problem was last brought up on Wiki? I'm curious because anything beyond 5 years, well still public, seems pretty well buried (If not forgotten). Crazynas ^t 05:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In no way does Bauder's bald statement that Iridescent "displayed extreme animus" support the falsehood that Iridescent was "involved". It's merely Bauder's opinion, in support of which he has presented exactly zero evidence. No evidence, no proof, no validity to the opinion, no finding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocking by involved adminstrators

1) Both Boing! said Zebedee, "15:10, November 11, 2018 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) blocked Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)" and Iridescent, "15:34, November 11, 2018 Iridescent (talk | contribs) blocked Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Reblocking; unblocking yourself is clear admin abuse per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK)," blocked me after I modified my candidate's question page despited being intensely involved with making comments on it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I believe it's clear that Boing! should have contacted the Electoral Commission rather than blocking. Beyond a single revert of Fred, I would have suggested that even reversions should have gone through the Electoral Commission. Indeed, going back a step further, if Fred was unhappy with certain types of questions, he could have gone to the Electoral Commission.
Due to the reverts, I would agree that Boing! could be seen as involved here. I don't see how Iridescent was involved, having made 1 single edit to the questions page, and no reverts. @Beyond My Ken: it is not clear that any admin would have blocked, as there were steps that could/should have been taken before blocking, i.e. contacting Electoral Commission. I believe the escalation (and escalation it was), was due to the now rare defiance of community norms. Worm^TT(talk) 17:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I do. I believe I've said as much elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 19:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Yes, I probably should have said there's more to the involvement than just reverting. And to his credit, Boing! said Zebedee acknowledges that he was getting a "bit wound up, and [he] reacted badly to it". I don't think there's any need to go further into whether he was involved. The problem with what Fred did was unblocking himself, something that has been a bright line amongst sysops since at least 2004. I accept that he, too, would likely have been wound up and reacting badly - but I don't see either covering themselves in glory in this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 09:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Both also engaged in edit warring over it. Boing! said Zebedee, reverting it repeatedly without discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations must not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking. Fred Bauder 9:50 am, 6 January 2007, Saturday." Perhaps you could explain what changed between then and now that allows you to simply ignore this principle, which you supported at the time? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd really thought I'd only reverted once, but I've re-exaimed it and yes it was twice, so I should not have made the block. I was trying to invoke the common "any reasonable admin" thing and immediately took it to ANI for review - but as I said at my talk page, I should have simply taken it to ANI in the first place and left someone else to consider a block. However, "I modified my candidate's question page" glosses over what Fred was actually doing, which was moving questions that he did not like elsewhere. And "intensely involved with making comments on it" is false as I was asking actual questions rather than making comments - the questions became more detailed and more specific as Fred was only providing terse and evasive responses which failed to address the crux of the questions (as he was doing with everyone's questions). Overall, Fred's approach, which I saw as dismissively arrogant, was getting me a bit wound up, and I reacted badly to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as Iridescent is concerned, Fred Bauder's claims are utterly false. Neither had Iridescent been reverting, nor had he previously been "intensely involved" in the discussions on that page (he had made only one single edit, and that section was not even part of what was being edit-warred over.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Though I can't see all the edits involved, there does appear to be something to this. Based on the timelines I'm seeing on the evidence page, Boing (BSZ) had been involved in the edit war, having already reverted twice, so should not have been the admin to issue the block. --Elonka 05:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This was pure involved escalation from Boing and was one of the main causes of the raise in disruption. If Fred is to remain deysopped for this debacle then Boing should be desyopped for his involved part in it as well. This whole issue has involved written all over it, not just from Boing but from all the other involved users, I am not old enough to know the historic that caused this but this looks like a pack hunt to me. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

While Boing was not the best admin to levy the block, it was still justified on the principle that even an involved admin can take action if it was one that would clearly have been taken by an uninvolved admin. Edit-warring on an ACE question page to sanitize it of questions the candidate didn't like is something almost any admin who was aware of it would have blocked for, so Boing's action is fully justified. It was not, therefore, an "escalation", but exactly the opposite, it was an attempt to stop disruption. No reasonable admin would have expected Bauder to respond by breaking a bright line rule by unblocking himself when the reasonable alternative --i.e. approaching another admin to have the block lifted -- was available to him. Again, Govinaharihari's attempt to blame everyone in sight for "escalation" except Bauder flies in the face of both the facts and common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Given that opinion, I assume that you also hold that Bauder was at fault for beginning the edit warring in the first place in his attempt to control the content of the question page instead of contacting the Electoral Commission? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Thanks. I went looking for it and couldn't find it, probably just because of the volume of commentary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: You state that "Due to the reverts, I would agree that Boing! could be seen as involved here", but is it not more than that? Boing states above that "Fred's approach [on the questions page], which I saw as dismissively arrogant, was getting me a bit wound up, and I reacted badly to it", and Boing's last comment on FB's questions page is "Thank you for the sarcasm/condescension, it is noted". Does this not indicate prior antipathy before the warring and block? I pose this question not because I am 'supporting' FB - I cannot recall having any notable interactions with either party involved here - but because I have been watching this case and it puzzles me that an admin unblocking themselves should be viewed with so much more disapproval than an admin using their tools against someone they have negative feelings towards. To my rather naïve eyes, FB's self-unblocking looks like a defensive act, whereas Boing's initial block seems more aggressive. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There are circumstances in which an INVOLVED admin may use the tools despite their involvement, as explained in WP:INVOLVED, but the only circumstance under which an admin may unblock themselves is the one in which they blocked themselves, either accidentally or as a test of some sort- see WP:NEVERUNBLOCK. Because of this Bauder's actions in unblocking himself twice, no matter what the motivation, is much more serious than the possible involved action of Boing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NEVERUNBLOCK, like WP:WHEEL, is a bright line for an ArbCom case and a possible de-sysop, but it is not grounds for a block, as it it not disruptive in itself; it is really just a variation on WP:INVOLVED, and therefore a misuse of the admin toolkit. Fred was blocked for WP:3RR, not WP:NEVERUNBLOCK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved and "reasonable" admin, I might not have blocked Fred Bauder at that moment, even though he had violated 3RR. I would have instead followed the guidelines at WP:AN/3RR: Warn at user talkpages, attempt discussion at Questions talkpage. My comment might have been in the style of (with better wording), "That's it, knock it off, this is way over the line, you are administrators (and a former arbitrator!) and should know better than to behave like this, you're supposed to be the ones setting a good example!" And then after one more revert by either of them (Boing or Fred), even though they're administrators, yes, I would have blocked. Another option Boing could have taken would have been to report the 3RR at WP:AN/3RR. The page is patrolled regularly, and a block by a truly uninvolved admin would probably have been made within minutes. I do understand that other reasonable administrators might disagree with my thoughts, and there is indeed a case that Boing acted in a way that other uninvolved administrators might have. But there was no serious need for a block at that moment. Fred wasn't out there defacing articles in mainspace, it was just a dispute at a (relatively) low-traffic ArbCom questions page. Things could have been handled with more care and patience. An immediate block was overkill, increased the heat, and then the sparks were fanned into a flame when Fred did his incredibly unwise self-unblock, which eventually led to this ArbCom case. If Boing had not been so quick to block, we might not even be having this "Fred Bauder" case right now. --Elonka 17:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Fully support this comment. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Elonka: WBG did open a report at WP:AN/3RR (archived here), but it was after the multiple reverts, so by the time an uninvolved admin commented, the block/unblock/reblock had already taken place. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that is relevant. So the timeline is:

• Fred reverted at 15:04
• Fred reverted at 15:07
• Fred reverted again at 15:07
• The 3RR thread started at 15:09, along with a warning on Fred's talk page at 15:09
• Fred was blocked by Boing at 15:10

This reinforces to me that it was a bad block. The whole purpose of warning someone is to give them an opportunity to moderate their own behavior. But instead it was a one-two punch, warning and block, even though Fred hadn't done anything (that I can see) after the warning? --Elonka 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to justify my block (which I accept was a mistake), but I was unaware of the 3RR report and the warning given to Fred - you can see how the timing was effectively simultaneous. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jytdog

Proposed principles (Jytdog)

1) The WP:CIVIL policy exists to enable and promote policy-and-guideline driven discussion to reach consensus when disagreements occur. This dispute resolution process is the foundation on which the entire project rests. Editors' actions (e.g. edit warring, wheel warring, self-unblocking) and inactions (lack of discussion) can violate WP:CIVIL as much as any words they write can.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Edit warring, especially without discussion, is generally unacceptable and uncivil behavior, in any space within WP. If a bold edit is reverted, the appropriate action to take is discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) WP:WHEEL, especially without discussion, is a generally unacceptable use of the administrator tools. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Self-unblocking, especially without discussion, is an egregious form of WP:WHEEL and is almost never acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fred has communicated so poorly throughout that even now I have no idea what his defense of his actions is (other than blaming me for the entire affair despite my very minor involvement in it) but one thing he certainly cannot reasonably claim is that he didn't know exactly how in the wrong he was when unblocking himself, let alone twice. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is worthy of note that Fred Bauder himself wrote just such a finding of fact as a Arb in the Jan. 2007 Husnock case. This is a long-established redline principle of which he was well aware. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of being pedantic the (first) self-unblock is not in-itself a wheel-war. It is violating policy, just not that policy yet. Crazynas ^t 07:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

5) The editing community expects administrators to use their tools with good judgement, to be able to hear and respond to feedback, and to model behavior that reflects the policies and guidelines. Egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact (Jytdog)

1) Fred Bauder edit warred at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Moderate importance only (though ironic on an Arbcom election page). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Very clearly established by the evidence presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Fred Bauder was blocked, unblocked himself, was blocked again, and unblocked himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well yes. Of more importance than the edit war it was based on, and the reason why we're all here.. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

indisputable per his block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

3) At no point during the edit warring nor in the process of unblocking himself, did Fred Bauder stop to discuss the content over which he was edit-warring, or attempt to actually discuss why he should unblocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not disputed in practice, though maybe it would have followed (Fred Bauder did unblock themselves the second time "to take part in discussion," though events were moving a bit fast by then). Mildly, "stop to" and "actually" are probably unnecessary. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - thanks for the reply. I suppose I'd question why it was interpreted as an emergency requiring an instant response, and therefore unable to wait more than a couple of hours for Arbcom (which was in fact discussing the same issue at the same time) to resolve. Fred Bauder wasn't deleting the main page, or trolling new users - he was disputing the asking of a question on an obscure electoral page, and then (mis)using his admin tools to further his opportunity to make the case. Action was required, but would the world have ended if the usual Arbcom process had been allowed to proceed a couple of hours longer? By the way I notice elsewhere people complaining that Arbcom was taking too much time (ie a couple of hours) to debate the issue. For those how feel that way, please bear in mind that a) not all Arbs live in the same timezone, and b) given no one has ever regained the tools after Arbcom removes them, it's surely appropriate that the Committee give the issue a little consideration before acting. A few hours is not a failure of process; a snap decision without fair opportunity for comment surely is. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - I don't think anyone is offended by it. I suppose the point is more that as a community we're heading more and more down the route of snap judgements over consideration. Look at ANI, or the recent kerfuffle over hasty blocks for legal threats. Regardless of the outcome of this case, we might as a community consider whether less speed and more discussion might de-escalate some disputes. By the way Arbcom issues are almost always obscure, as are Arbcom members. Or at least they should be, compared to the massive day to day process of writing and editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: yes, I said hours. But you're right that a note could have been dropped at AN. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a very important point. In addition to violating the edit warring, administrator, and blocking policies Fred was uncommunicative or extremely terse throughout this entire affair from start to finish. Since at the end his admin tools were in play that adds WP:ADMINACCT to the list as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

4) In none of the few comments Fred Bauder made during the edit warring and wheel-warring, did he acknowledge the concerns that were expressed with his behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Question: why does this particular point justify an IAR desysop outside the usual Arbcom process? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again, an important point, and I belive more than enough to justify Maxim's IAR actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Euryalus, it does so because Fred gave no indication he would not continue to use his admin tools to unblock himself or to take other inapropriate actions with them. Was it an "emergency"? No, I don't think so, (hence the IAR aspect) but it did put a dead stop to even the possibility of further misuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

5) An emergency desysop was requested of Arbcom by Boing said Zebedee. In the face of Fred Bauder's twice unblocking himself, and lack of any expression that Fred Bauder understood how egregious his behavior was, and in the absence of action from Arbcom, Maxim desysopped Fred Bauder with an IAR rationale. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

How long was there between notification to Arbcom per WP:WHEEL, and the IAR desysop? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

well put. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Undisputed, I believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Euryalus please see the timeline in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jytdog. I don't know when the email was sent (you could check the email to find out), but:

15:32 at ANI Boing reported sending an email to Arbcom after the first self-unblock;

15:34 Iridescent reblocked FB

15:37 FB unblocked himself the 2nd time.

15:47 FB blocked the 3rd time by Future Perfect at Sunrise

19:08, 11 Nov -- Maxim desyopped FB (user rights log)

19:20, 11 Nov -- Maxim opens Arbcom case diff

23:38 11 Nov -- comment from FB at his talk page diff Maxim relied in good faith on an emergency request from an administrator. Any such request should be honored without requiring a through investigation.

08:07, 12 Nov -- 2018 Boing! said Zebedee unblocks FB (block log)

About your question above why FB's lack of communication matters, the timeline may help with that too as may this segment from FB's contribs. In my view nobody had any reason to expect FB would stop unblocking himself, given their lack of communication throughout this whole thing; and their lack of acknowledgement about how outlandish their behavior was, in the little they did say. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Euryalus thanks for your reply. I hope that the IAR desysop (and support for it) is not taken by Arbcom as a criticism. In my view Maxim's action was appropriate, and is what IAR is for. This proceeding is where Arbcom can take the time it needs to debate the outcome; that too is appropriate.

And while pages in the arbcom electoral process are not prominent for the public like the mainpage, at least to this minion they are not "obscure" for the editing community, but are rather a prominent and important part of our governance process, as is the behavior of a candidate. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Euryalus, hours.

And, AFAIS, none from the committee either responded to the mails (by any acknowledgement of looking into the stuff)(Per Boing, though it is still far from satisfying) nor chose to chime in at the AN (which was drawing heavy-traffic) to leave a note that the Committee were actively looking into the matter.

Obviously, we had no way of knowing your activities behind the curtains (or even whether you were doing anything at all) and given that you all are volunteers, this block-unblock cycle might well have continued for a theoretically infinite span of time.(Though, the stewards would have probably stepped, by then.......)

A much better effort from your end will be to address your failure to aware the community about the fact that the Committee were discussing the happenstances, in any minimal terms, which would have also near-certainly saved you (and your colleagues') efforts of measuring the validity of Maxim's IAR rationale........

Feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong. ∯WBG^converse 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than trying to respond in my own section of this complex dialogue, I hope it's OK to point out here that apparently one of the people who sent emergency emails did get a reply (though I didn't myself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Struck out. Though, I cannot understand why a mere acknowledgement can't be written. Takes 30 seconds, at most. ∯WBG^converse 13:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably because other arbs are as fallible as this one is, and misread what was in which of multiple email threads. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Euralyus, you are replying to me at an altogether different FOF. And, I bolded s to emphasise on the long span of time, as a direct answer, to the question that was posed by you, over this very FOF:--How long........ Which part do you miss? And, a weird reply, to say the least.∯WBG^converse 13:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed remedies (Jytdog)

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.

1) Fred Bauder's desysop remains in place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To Beyond My Ken's point, I reckon that has effectively happened via NYB's motion at the case opening. The desysop has been taken over by Arbcom on a without prejudice basis; the PD will cover what happens with it after the case closes. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Euryalus. That was the purpose of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Obviously. Whatever was going on on that mess of a questions page, whether Fred had the right to start removing stuff or not, edit warring is not something we expect from an admin, ever. Whether the initial block was wrong, self-unblocking is not something we expect from an admin, ever. Whether the second block was wrong or not, wheel warring is something we don't expect from an admin, ever. And the seriously poor communication throughout this entire affair and right up to this very moment is also nor acceptable. Put it all together and you've got someone who clearly should not retain admin tools, regardless of quaility of others' actions and decisions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Whatever the controversy about how it came about -- i.e. by emergency action by a bureaucrat -- there have been no arguments presented here for why the desysop should not be taken over by ArbCom. The multiple bright-line violations by FB are sufficient in and of themselves to justify this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Fred Bauder is site banned. Fred Bauder is indefinitely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not presently seeing the evidence to support this. Other than the admin actions referred to in the point immediately above, what is it about Fred Bauder's editing that would support an indefinite block? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

In that same mailing-list post where I objected to level 1 desysopping, I called the then-ongoing community ban discussion "a huge overreaction". I agree with myself-from-last-week on that one too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Though in the heat of the moment at ANI I !voted for a ban, I do not currently believe there are grounds for a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC). Or an indefinite block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To expand on the indefinite block thing... Fred was not disrupting the encyclopedia (ie main space), just a WP-space backwater during the ACE silly season. I don't see that as cause for an indef block, particularly not now that there would be no preventative aspect to it. Fred does seem to have been making some rather dubious contributions to main space which, in my view, suggest he doesn't properly understand WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - but that's not part of this case and can (and should) be dealt with by the community if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Although I was the original proposer of a ban, I don't feel either an indefinite block or a formal ban would serve any useful purpose at this stage. Owing to this case, FB is presumably no longer in any doubt that his idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:CIVILITY to mean "I can say and do whatever I like and anyone who challenges me is being rude in doing so and consequently has made themselves fair game" isn't one that's shared by the community. Given that any further disruption will be reported pretty much instantly, it seems fair to give him a chance to demonstrate that he can edit within Wikipedia's rules. In light of his recent history in article space I'm not hopeful—[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are all from his most recent 100 edits—but this case may serve as a wake-up call that Wikipedia's standards are non-optional. ‑ Iridescent 18:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The editing examples posted by Iridescent are taken out of context and represent a misunderstanding of the editing process. For example [7] led to [8] and the entire matter of our information on territorial judges [9]. Totally irrelevant to this case, but I couldn't resist. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering the enormous amount of top quality content work he's actually done, I think Iridescent is considerably more familiar with the editing process than are you, Fred. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I also feel such a measure is inappropriate at this moment. Admin or non-admin, I do not believe that Fred Bauder's actions over the past few weeks rise to a level of an indefinite block or site ban. Maxim_(talk) 20:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Site banned for what infraction? The wheel warring and self-unblocking cost Fred his tools, that should be sanction enough Dax Bane 05:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I also do not believe Fred should be banned. Banning is for prolonged and/or persistent disruption of the project and I'm just not seeing that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. This is sad, self-destructive stuff. I actually started out liking his arbcom candidacy statement and now I'm shaking my head. Just desysop him and be done with it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This was a bad idea during the overwrought AN/I discussion of Fred Bauder's actions and remains a bad idea now. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Just read the ANI discussion for the first time and perused the supports for a CBAN. What they overlook is that there were no acts against a third party, no victimization of any editor. There was an abuse of power performed in a manner calculated to result in instant reversal, but we don't execute people for slashing their own wrists. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I commented on ANI in favor of a site ban at the time, but in the face of strong community resistance to that course of action, I don't believe this would be a good idea. I would suggest that the committee consider something more focused, such as a ban from running for ArbCom -- including in the current election. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm withdrawing the site ban proposal. I am very disturbed by FB's behavior throughout their arbcom run - not just the edit/wheel warring that prompted this case but their responses to people throughout it --not to mention the terrible irony of someone campaigning on "civility" for Arbcom -- wanting to judge everyone else with CIVIL as a central focus -- refusing to engage in dialogue a) in the questions, b) about their concern about what was posted in the questions and c) about their block, but instead falling back on brute force edit warring then abusing his unblock privileges in order to keep on edit warring. Discussion to reach consensus is the foundation of this whole place and CIVIL is the main policy about how those discussions should happen, and everything FB has done around their Arbcom campaign expresses no understanding of the spirit or letter of CIVIL. This is why just a desysop is insufficient; further action is needed to prevent further disruption. I've struck the ban and replaced with indef, which they can appeal when they can demonstrate that understand what civility is actually about. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  Just want to acknowledge the objections to an indef. I hear all that. However, given their sparse contributions in recent years and the extended duration (they have been at this for a solid two weeks now) of this run of terrible behavior and judgement, in my view an indef is appropriate. If/when they appeal, if they are able to show some understanding of how deeply screwed up this all has been, they should be unblocked. Especially given the lack of any acknowledgement by FB of the problems, we have no reason to assume there will not be further disruption. This has already been a big time suck, and it doesn't seem reasonable to risk yet more community time on FB after all this. But I understand that others may judge things differently. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• In principle I agree that administrators who do wrong should get more than just a scolding and their privileges taken away. In most instances where that happens I would favor a block. But this is unique for the reasons stated previously and my same feelings pertain to an indef block. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• I've thought it over, and my feeling now is that Arbcom should be guided by precedent on whether there should be a block. Yes his actions were self-destructive but they also have been disruptive. Look at this mess! Totally predictable. On balance I don't feel strongly about a block of some length but an indefinite block still seems like overkill. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'll echo Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). In the heat of the moment, I voted for a CBAN. A noticeable trend on that discussion is that everybody voting at first supported it. As the disruption stopped, and things cooled down, consensus decidedly swung the other way. Seeing as self-unblocks are so rare, and such blatant admin abuse, I think that reaction is understandable. But now, what purpose would any block serve? Preventative, not punitive. I think losing the bit is enough of a deterrent that any argument that such a ban prevents misbehavior from others is moot. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: sorry for the ping, copied the wrong username!

3) Arbcom should review procedures for emergency desysops.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would disagree with Alex Shih's mischaracterization that ArbCom was "completely incapable to act" in this situation. Level 1 was correctly initiated, and a discussion began on the mailing list between the arbs who were available. Since level 1 stops if someone objects, it stopped when Opabinia regalis quite correctly pointed out that the situation was not the emergency it was being made out to be. Maxim de-sysopped Fred before we had the chance to initiate level 2. I would suggest a better phrasing might be that ArbCom was "interrupted prior to acting". (For the record, as I stated on the original case request, I don't think Maxim should be sanctioned, but I do think he jumped the gun). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I don't know what you mean by There is evidence that current committee has history of "acting" to this kind of situation promptly, but if it's relevant to the case at hand, by all means feel free to add the details behind your insinuation to the Evidence page so we can discuss it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a need to review emergency desysops. Simply put, this wasn't an emergency. Fred had stopped unblocking himself, for hours prior to Maxim's IAR desysop. What's more, his actions were not harmful to content or to others, he was simply unblocking himself - and whilst that is against policy, and needed to be dealt with, there was no extreme urgency. This fit into level 2, far more than level 1, and we were in those procedures. Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dax Bane: Not that I know of, no. The committee regularly fails in communication - especially in time critical situations. I am aware of this fact, and cannot fault anyone for being unaware of what was happening behind the scenes. Worm^TT(talk) 09:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The procedures are fine as they are and such cases are exceedingly rare. There will very likely always be some interpretation and judgment needed in individual cases, which is then subject to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

One other comment, as was mentioned in the case page - a public note from ArbCom that they had received email notifications and were discussing the level 1/2 desysop would, I'm sure, have been helpful. In such cases, ArbCom needs to be seen to be doing something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If anything, ArbCom should authorize Bureaucrats to act in emergency situations (perhaps craft it such a crat must seek affirmation from another before acting - rule of two) Dax Bane 05:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. this was an exceedingly rare circumstance, we do not need a a rule just for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Maxim's action was a very good interpretation of what IAR is meant for, and that the Committee should merely accept his action, which would set a precedent. Further adjustment of the rules would therefore be unnecessary. WP:BURO comes into play here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposal is simply to review, not change. I also think this was a very rare one-off event and should not drive any significant changes, but it is an occasion to review the process. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the review will result in change. I mean, prior to the ARBPIA messes, 30/500 (aka ECP) didn't exist - it was created specifically to address that particular subject area and has since grown to the point where we don't really need an ArbCom decision to apply it elsewhere (I welcome being corrected on this, trout optional). The crux of my suggestion re: authorizing crats to emergency desysop and additionally requiring them to report it to ArbCom ASAP (in my request statement, now on the talk page) was to do away with the necessity of a full case in future instances where an admin has gone off the rails and a crat has stepped in to contain the mess. Dax Bane 08:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless. The "review" will consist of the same disagreement whatever the current committee has been talking about with their different interpretation of "rules". Maxim's IAR already set a good precedent on what to do when ArbCom is completely incapable to act in emergency desysop situations when they are the only entity procedurally allowed to do so. Alex Shih (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Two things. You can comment on my "characterisation", but to conclude it as "mischaracterisation" in a workshop phase is highly inappropriate from a arbitrator. To support the accusation that Maxim has "jumped the gun", you would need supporting evidence that 1) community had consensus that Maxim's action was acted in haste 2) There is evidence that current committee has history of "acting" to this kind of situation promptly. So please provide evidence if you are going to prejudge a case. Alex Shih (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, that was an example on what kind of evidence you need to have to make accusations not based on evidence of community consensus nor evidence provided in this workshop. Instead you have chosen to dodge the question and made another accusation that I am trying to "insinuate" something. Please justify these out of line behaviours on a page where the community is trying to assist the committee on making informed decisions. If you are unable to comment on the merit of comments/proposals neutrally without making them personal, I'll be making recusal request on your talk page later today. Alex Shih (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(+1) to the 2 points. The community has stated by a very strong consensus (summed across multiple venues) that Maxim's action was valid enough. As much as the Arbs may wish to harvest their own thoughts on the validity (which might be and can be different), it's pretty clear that the usage of IAR was quite good-enough and it's a shame if Maxim gets any admonishment or novel stuff like that.∯WBG^converse 13:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I am on mobile and unable to double check with the revision history, but P2 procedures is quite clear on that the procedure is only initiated when a arbitrator ask the admin in question to contact the committee, publicly , if I am not mistaken. Did that happen? If not, the procedure was never initiated and the assertion that the committee was in P2 procedure would be misleading. Alex Shih (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I believe this diff is what you're looking for, posted by BU Rob approx one minute after Maxim's "I have desysopped you" posting Dax Bane 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dax Bane. This means that the committee during the entire time was aware of what was going on, but like the disagreements with level 1, it was likely that somebody disagreed with level 2 as well, therefore stonewalling/stalling the process. Which would explain that one minute after Maxim's IAR desysop, one of the folks finally came to the conclusion "we must initiate level 2 now". So if Maxim's action did not take place, is it not reasonable assumption that desysopping would unlikely take place anytime soon, since members like WTT have already expressed that there was "no extreme urgency" and these self-unblocking were "not harmful"? When we contrast that with the enthusiasm of the thread initiated by Iridescent about WP:NEVERUNBLOCK, there is obviously a terrible disconnect here that will need to be addressed. Alex Shih (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This fit into level 2, far more than level 1, and we were in those procedures Did any arb, at any point, throw a note on WP:BN and/or at the functionaries mailing list letting the crats know that ArbCom was looking into it and will be making a decision in due time? Dax Bane 18:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Dax Bane

Proposed remedies (Dax Bane)

1) Fred Bauder is topic-banned from ACE for 18 months
As I have no principles or findings of fact to offer, I'm going to piggy back on Jytdog's proposal above if there's no objection as their submissions thus already lay the groundwork for this

In a nutshell

This would, in effect, bar Fred from running in or coordinating next year's ACE (and potentially this year's if the coordinators so deem it) but will not disallow their ability to vote in eitherDax Bane 11:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee does not decide who may seek election as an arbitrator. I imagine we would have the ability to do so in extraordinary cases involving non-public information, but it hasn't happened in 15 years, and this isn't where we are likely to start. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A very firm no from me. Anyone who satisfies the minimum requirements to run for ArbCom should be allowed to, and the community should be the ones to decide if they're suitable for the role, not ArbCom itself. The idea of an elected body getting to decide who is allowed to run for membership of that body would be getting too close to cabal territory. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed alternative to site ban/block. Dax Bane 11:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred gets to stand, there is no site ban or block. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission has indeed ruled that Bauder be allowed to stand in the election, however there is a very strong argument to make that that decision was incorrect, that Bauder's actions -- edit-warring, twice unblocking himself -- as well as the emergency de-sysop by Maxim are a clear indication that Bauder is not in "good standing", which is required of all candidates. Be that as may, that's water under the bridge and not, as I understand it, in any way a part of this case. The Electoral Commission has been tasked with making those kinds of determinations, and they are not (and should not be) parties to this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission are tasked with upholding the rules agreed by the community and interpreting them if they are unclear. They reviewed the relevant community RFCs and applied the rules as per the clear intent found there. If anyone disagrees with this then they need to get consensus for a replacement rule in the 2019 RFC - it is already on the list to be discussed. You can sign up to be notified when this begins at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019#Users who would like to be notified when the 2019 RFC begins. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:UninvitedCompany

Proposed principles (UninvitedCompany)

Bureaucrats

1) Bureaucrats are bound by policy and consensus when granting and revoking permissions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That is what crats do. Absolutely, yes.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is important. Crazynas ^t 00:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is true, but I'd add that policy allows them to act without gaining consensus in an emergency. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Procedure for revocation of adminship

2) The established procedure for revocation of adminship is contained in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions. By design, these procedures require the involvement of multiple Wikipedians, and incorporate time for deliberation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but again "time for deliberation" does not apply in an emergency. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Role of "Ignore All Rules"

3) Wikipedians are empowered to ignore all rules when policy and procedure are an impediment to the project's goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No, as in this case, crats have a different duty, for a crat to ignore all rules and use his advanced permissions is an abuse of the priviliges granted to them by the community. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred was blocked once, he unblocked himself. He was blocked again, and again he unblocked himself. The first time was a violation of the blocking policy, the second was another violation of blocking policy with the addition of wheel warring on top of that. What cause would Maxim have to believe that Fred wouldn't unblock himself a third time? On the record, I support Maxim making the call when and how he did. Equally, I applaud him for reporting to ArbCom (in the request of this case) ASAP as transparently as they did too. Dax Bane 01:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition, Bauder also wrote that he "might" unblock himself again. Given this set of circumstances, Maxim had little choice but to believe that the only way to prevent further disruption of the project was to de-sysop Bauder. I've seen very little in the way of objections to Maxim's action, compared to the large part of the community which has supported it - this is something I feel that the Committee should taken on board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Dax, you don't get blocked for wheel warring, only for 3RR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No community-based de-adminship

There have been perennial proposals for community-based removal of a user's admin privileges. Over twenty of these proposals are cataloged at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, the most recent in 2015. Except for removal of adminship for lengthy inactivity, none of these proposals has achieved a consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a principle, and not relevant to this case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a finding of fact not a principle. It is not for Arbcom to say whether there should or should not be any community de-adminship policy (and an actual principle would have to espouse a view one way or the other). Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it belongs in the "findings of fact" section. Usually restatements of existing policy (or the lack of it) are included in cases as principles.  ::shrug:: The point here is not that there couldn't be a community-based de-adminship policy, it's that there quite clearly isn't one. I believe it is within scope for the committee to make it clear that there isn't such a policy. I agree that whether such a policy should be adopted is not for the committee to decide -- it is for the community to decide. The relevance to the case is that many Wikipedians were calling for Fred's de-adminship on AN/I. While Maxim's stated reasoning is independent of that, he was aware of it, and it could have influenced his decision. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Would I be reading it correctly if I said the principle – and policy – you were getting at is that on the English Wikipedia all processes and routes to desysopping run through ArbCom (for the purposes of this comment, I'm treating actions by stewards, developers, or Jimbo as external processes outside enwiki's authority), or words to that effect?

In this context, mention of "community-based de-adminship" is a bit opaque and something of a red herring, since it's not clear exactly what it refers to and is also confusingly similar to the failed Wikipedia:Community de-adminship proposal. (The invocation of "community" is a clever bit of marketing spin in most such proposals, where it actually just means "without ArbCom". After all, in current practice it's members of the community who run for ArbCom, members of the community who elect ArbCom every year, members of the community who bring cases or request motions, generally after members of the community have reached an impasse in a dispute or identified a clear misuse of tools. The ArbCom is very much an instrument of – and is designed to be fairly representative of – the community. In contrast, many of these proposals rely on voting by whoever can be most effectively recruited on short notice, and ask for the final call to be made by an appointed-for-life bureaucrat....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The presence of and cataloging of proposals for "community-based de-adminship" predate the Arbitration Committee, therefore, any spin is an accident of history. I agree with your assessment that the problems with these proposals rest in the scope of conflict and involvement of bureaucrats in a quasi-judicial role. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact (UninvitedCompany)

Maxim's removal of adminship

1) Maxim's removal of adminship took place while deliberations, pursuant to established procedure, were under way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Under way, but unknown to Maxim because of lack of communication by ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Maxim certainly knew the procedures existed. I'm unsure that lack of communication is sufficient justification in this situation. Crazynas ^t 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain the painfully obvious to you: if Maxim was aware that ArbCom was in the midst of discussing what action to take, and desysoppped Bauder knowing that, he would have been usurping ArbCom's authority. However, since ArbCom had not replied to any of a number of public requests for an emergency desysop, Maxim's conclusion that no action was being considered justified his taking action to quell the potential ongoing disruption ("potential" because Bauder commented that he "might" unblock himself again).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That might. I've been around before. Is your assertion that their was serious worry that the main page was going to be deleted? Or perhaps the entire US Congressional IP range would be blocked? The facts show that FB had not unblocked himself for... three and a half times the length of the altercation (in the sense of on-wiki damage by the subject in question). Was there any current indication that he was going to resume it? Crazynas ^t 01:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, to you, the possibility of an admin continuously unblocking himself when a series of admins block them is no big deal. I disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think I've ever said or implied that. What I have said and implied is I think there was insufficient justification for an out of process precedent setting IAR action from a member of what is considered to be one of the most conservative and policy-bound advanced permission groups on this wiki. In hindsight, the process had worked, Level 1 had been declined and they were pursing the less reactive level 2. I have no objection that in these sorts of situations there should be better interface between arbs and 'crats regarding communication. But lack of communication (without current threats) is not an excuse. As The Uninvited Co says in their second principle: "By design, these procedures require the involvement of multiple Wikipedians, and incorporate time for deliberation." Again, the lack of communication is unfortunate. If Fred had unblocked himself again I agree IAR would have been appropriate as a preventative measure. If there is consensus that 'crats need to do it now, I suppose an RfC is in order. But I don't think that consensus exists. An, as I've said repeatedly (and I don't think I'm alone) the obviousness and universality of consensus necessary for IAR is borderline at best in this case. Crazynas ^t 04:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. There are three very different possible scenarios here: (1) Maxim knew Arbcom were deliberating; (2) Maxim could and should have known Arbcom were deliberating but did not; (3) Maxim did not and could not know Arbcom were deliberating. If (1) applied then this would be a very serious overstepping of authority by Maxim (given it was not an emergency) and decratting would be very likely. If (2) applied then this would have been at best a foolhardy action by Maxim (given the lack of emergency) and he should be seriously chastised for the gung-ho attitude, decratting should be on the table but I probably wouldn't support it unless he had a history of similar rash actions as a crat. However it was scenario (3) that actually applied - Maxim could not know that deliberations were happening so he was not overstepping his authority at all and whether to emergency desysop was a genuine judgement call on his part - yes, with hindsight, he got the call wrong, but the only sanction required I think is a formal note that he did get it wrong and (if he hasn't yet done so, I haven't checked) a requirement for him to formally acknowledge that he got it wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe we should recognize this as an edge case and clarify what the policy actually is. I don't think it's helpful to try to get inside Maxim's head. I think he believed he was doing the right thing and genuinely saw the situation as an emergency. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"I think he believed he was doing the right thing and genuinely saw the situation as an emergency." Yes, I agree with that. Which is why decratting shouldn't even be on the table. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf that the evidence does not in any way support de-cratting Maxim, especially in the face of widespread community support for his action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's actions were in good faith

2) Maxim's actions were in good faith, and were accompanied by an explanation of the reasoning for them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To be clear here, I do not disagree with Maxim's actions as a good faith IAR action. When I was first made aware of the situation, I considered doing so myself, but decided that I would not because I try to keep away from Wikipedia on the weekends. With hindsight and the additional knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes - I do not believe that Maxim needed to make IAR call, but I do not question his good faith in this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 16:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dax Bane: I considered it as an IAR action - so no authority more than the technical ability to do it. No hat, and I would have taken the consequences, just as Maxim did. My timeline was "get an email about 18:30 UTC, confirm my agreement to a level 2 if email is accurate. I then looked into the matter on my phone, considered taking out my laptop to desysop IAR, remembered my promise to myself that Wikipedia drama is not worth it on the weekends, turned off my phone and ignored the matter. If this happened on a different day, I might have tried to rally the arbs to a desysop, or made an IAR desysop myself. I would probably have tried to get involved on talk pages. Call it sitting on my laurels if you like, I call it setting my priorities. Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my first awareness was that email. Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

He was wrong, that has become apparent. In such a situation it matters not if his actions were in good faith, crats have a duty to be right, that is the hightened level of trust we place in them. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's desysopping of Bauder has been upheld by the Committee for the time being, so it's not in any way obvious or apparent that he was "wrong" -- if anything, quite the opposite. If the Committee had thought that Maxim's action was completely inappropriate, I would guess that, at a minimum, they would have restored the bit to Bauder while the case proceeded, but instead they allowed the desysop to stand. The actions of the Committee tell an entirely different story than the one Govindahari is peddling here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:: With all due respect, with regards to I considered doing so myself, what hat would you have had on had you decided to do something? and regarding but decided that I would not did you just sit on your laurels as all this was unfolding in near-realtime? Dax Bane 09:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

get an email about 18:30 UTC, confirm my agreement to a level 2 if email is accurate from this you confirm your attention was brought to the matter via the ArbCom mailing list? Guess I mis-read your first posting in this particular section, my apologies Dax Bane 10:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's actions did not constitute an emergency

3) Fred Bauder's actions, addressed in detail in other findings, were not taking place at a rate, on a scale, or with such public visibility as to create a time-sensitive emergency.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well put. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd like to see this or something similar in the decision. It's worth noting that admins are much better behaved than they were 10 years ago, WHEEL just doesn't get invoked as often as it used to. As such, it seemed like a much bigger deal than in fact it was - it's important to realise that this was something can be handled without rushing. Worm^TT(talk) 16:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is important. His actions were rash, but not malicious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am a supporter of Wikipedia; if I have complained, it is because I want it to be even better then it is. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And the above comment from Fred matters to this why? --Tarage (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no emergency of course.--MONGO (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "of course" about it. There was every possibility that Bauder would continue wheel-warring and unblocking himself, as he refused to give any assurances that he wouldn't -- in fact, said that he "might" do so. This created the emergency condition in which the only possible way to stop the disruption of the ACE2018 question page was to de-sysop him. In the absence of any indication from ArbCom that they were considering the situation and would act, Maxim's action was reasonable, and a textbook application of the purpose of IAR.

Bauder's non sequitur response here is on a par with the very poor level of communication he has exhibited throughout this event, and on his ACE2018 question page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on... I'm no policy wonk, but I agree entirely that an edit war on an non-public facing ACE2018 question page that didn't involve any particularly inflammatory material wouldn't meet any common sense definition of emergency. (FWIW I also believe that using the same common sense criteria that the blocks & Maxim's subsequent actions were also the right thing to do). Scribolt (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Then we have a problem: if there was no emergency, then what justifies Maxim's (fully justified, in my opinion) desysop of Bauder? Without an emergency to justify the IAR use of a 'crats de-sysop power, there's a contradiction, and we're opening the door to 'crats de-sysopping in non-emergency situations, which I'm not sure anyone wants, including the bureaucrats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not. Crats de-sysopping inappropriately = a problem. Was de-sysopping someone who was clearly and knowingly abusing their admin rights and then swiftly putting their actions up for review inappropriate? In our opinion no. And if the 'emergency' condition needs to be met to stop someone re-crossing the bright line they obviously did here then I'd suggest the issue is with the process, not with Maxim. Scribolt (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible to leave this discussion of these events with the conclusion that that taken in their entirety only non-important corners were cut and no dangerous precedent was set. And isn't that how Wikipedia should work? I'd be fully comfortable with this happening again in he same situation, but your mileage may vary.Scribolt (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no emergency, it was a sunday and just involved opinionated users doing their thing, Fred deserved protection from that not indefin blocking. The clerks failed to attend quickly and this allowed the escalation, candidates deserve better protection for their offer to stand . Govindaharihari (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, this was not an emergency that required action. There was no indication that Fred would unblock himself again, given there had been three hours since the last unblock. And if he did, what would he have done after? Comment on the ANI thread again? This was not a big threat to the project, and desysopping only served to further escalate a situation that could have been avoided by all sides being nice and reasonable with each-other in the first place. As to what justifies Maxim's action if there was no emergency: nothing does. But he acted in good faith, and we don't need to punish every admin+ who makes a decision in good faith that turns out to be the wrong one. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no 'emergency'. No content was being effected, no policy or guideline was being effected, no functioning of the project was being effected, and all process could be worked through in time. (So what if he is unblocked, posting at ANI or on the election pages or his user page, it is all nothing that in time could be undone entirely, within established process.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2018 (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.

Maxim

1) Maxim continues to hold the trust of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't want to see crats using ignore all rules. Crats are supposed to follow the rules, they are chosen for that quality.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

IAR is available to every editor on Wikipedia to be used when all the rules get in the way of improving the project overall. An admin (and a former Arb, no less) who should know better was engaged in an edit war (not the only one, mind) and a wheel war besides - that's not improving the project in any way. Pre-emptive pulling of the tools put a stop to the wheel war, and equally a stop to any potential future escalations involving those tools - one could argue that improved the overall environment on project, and indeed I will argue that.

What would you have done instead, Govindaharihari? Dax Bane 01:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not tasked with that community approved advanced authority as WP:bureaucrat are. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A conservative approach would be to wait and watch. Time has a way of making these situations clearer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So on the one hand, you're telling Maxim that he should have waited longer before taking action, and on the other hand people are pointing at the gap in time between the events and Maxim's desysop of Bauder and saying "See, there was no emergency, this amount of time past and nothing happened." Whipsawing Maxim in this manner is both unfair and illogical. He waited a certain amount of time with no indication that ArbCom was acting on the public appeals for emergency desysop, and seeing nothing forthcoming from them, he acted. That's a judgment call, and my impression is that the majority of the community has seen it as a good one. If there's any fault here, it's with ArbCom not communicating publicly that they were considering the problem, or, at least, working towards considering the problem. That can;t be blamed on Maxim, and to punish him -- even with the requirement that he acknowledge an error in behavior as suggested by Thryduulf above -- is unfair and undermines IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to criticize Maxim or tell him what to do. There's a range of appropriate responses. The way I would respond to a situation like that would be to wait and watch, and see how it develops. If nothing happens -- no response from Arbcom, and no further escalation of the block war, there's nothing to do. If there's a response from Arbcom then that would provide guidance and a basis for acting. If the block war were to deteriorate further, well, depending on the totality of the circumstances, I could find it necessary to intervene. I don't see there as being any deadline or time limit for this sort of thing unless there is meaningful, ongoing damage that has to be stopped. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'm not saying that Maxim should acknowledge an error in behaviour, because I don't think there was any such error. I'm asking that Maxim (if he hasn't already) acknowledge that with hindsight his decision was wrong, even though making the decision was correct and at the time he could not the choice would be wrong. The intention is to make sure that if a similar situation happens again he will take into account the result on this occasion when making the decision - and this does not presuppose that either desysopping or not desysopping will be the better choice then. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see any purpose in that. If the decision was correct at the time, with the information available to Maxim at the time, why should he acknowledge that the decision was "wrong"? It was not wrong at the time, and unless anyone's invented time travel recently, that's all any of us can do, make decisions with the information available to us at the time of the decision-making. Further, if the decision was correct at the time, why should Maxim (or any bureaucrat) make a different decision in the future if the circumstances are exactly the same? (Which they won't be, as ArbCom will undoubtedly change the playing field with whatever final decision comes out of this.)

In short, forcing Maxim to admit to an error which he could not know was an error seems to me to be completely unnecessary. Now, if Maxim, on his own initiative, were to sum up his experience in these events by saying that he would have done things diferently had he been in possession of more information, that would be different, and also in line with the available evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No, per WP:CONEXCEPT it is not Arbcom's place to pretend to speak for all of us, they bind others when the community and its process fails. We are not to be bound by the opinions of Arbcom members in this regard. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is ArbCom's place to make decisions about whether editors should continue to hold higher privileges -- it is precisiely in their remit, and, there being no community-based desysopping or de-cratting procedure, specifically not in the community's purview. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not Arbcom's job to tell us what our opinion is. Whatever your point, it is not directed at the wording of this specific proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and Alanscottwalker: Arbcom can (and where relevant, should) report what community consensus is when there is such a consensus. However, to my knowledge there has been no opportunity for the community to express whether Maxim continues to have their trust or not. It's true that the various discussions have not indicated that he does not, and very few people seem to feel there is a need for a discussion to evaluate whether Maxim does or doesn't hold the community's trust. It is also correct that it is ArbCom's place to make decisions about whether editors should continue to hold higher privileges, but this cannot be framed in terms of the community having or not having trust in a given person unless this has actually been determined by the community since whatever event caused ArbCom to be looking at that person's status. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the committee can bind users such as by removing all their permissions, including editing the site entirely, but no they cannot tell us what our opinion is, which is why this specific proposal should not be adopted. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the point you're missing is that there was a community based system in place, and it was working. No one (I think) denies that Maxim acted in good faith. The question is should there be any repercussions for explicitly going against the community consensus (qua the RfC that gave 'crats the ability to remove the sysop flag and specifically prohibited the out of process usage of the right even in the cases of emergency.) The worry is that ArbCom accepting this as legitimate is a de-facto change to policy without consensus. This ultimately is where my proposed remedies come in: precisely because there is no community based process, and because what Maxim did directly contravened established policies; I think we need the community as a whole to reconfirm that this was, in fact, legitimate IAR. The only feasible way for that to occur is for ArbCom to remove the bits and send them back to the community the be reconfirmed. Crazynas ^t 22:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

2) Existing policy and procedures for removal of adminship are reaffirmed. Bureaucrats are encouraged to allow sufficient time for deliberations, should similar events arise in future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A discussion would be good to have and falls in line with past cases --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Barkeep49

Proposed principles

Arbitration Election Process

1) The community runs Arbitration Elections independently of the Arbitration Committee in order to give democratic legitimacy to those arbitrators elected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

All of these proposals appear to be sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with NYB. Worm^TT(talk) 16:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Arbitration Election Commission (ACE)

1) The Arbitration Election Commission (ACE), "has the full mandate and authority to decisively settle any issues that arise."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is the position that I would hope was correct. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

2) The ACE's mandate is to only intervene in limited circumstances, normally in response to a solicitation by an editor or candidate. [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this was the current reality then clearly this situation asserts that change is needed. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the only things that can be asserted with such confidence is that (a) the commissioners did not overstep their authority; and (b) Candidates (or others) should contact the commissioners if there is a dispute relating to questions to a candidate - no party to this dispute did. If you do feel that change is needed then this can be proposed in the 2019 RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That the ACE moved follow-up questions to talk pages in 2012 seems to support Fred's belief that it is acceptable to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not impossible that that was the case, but 2012 was quite some time ago now and the commissioners doing something on arbitration candidate question pages does not imply that it is acceptable for others to do so, let alone edit war over it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

3) No attempt was made by Fred Bauder to solicit ACE's opinion about or assistance in moving questions he deemed inappropriate to the talk page prior to doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

as far as I can understand Fred's comments he felt unsupported by any of the official representatives. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission is not charged with being pro-active and policing the questions pages, they deal with problems when they are brought to them, which Bauder never did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, He never even once attempted to ask for support from any of the official representatives, FWIW. SQL^{Query me!} 02:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

4) No attempt was made by Winged Blades of Godric or Boing! said Zebedee to solicit ACE's opinion or assistance before reverting Fred Bauder's removal of questions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Common sense exceeds process-wonkery, despite however optimal the latter might have been. This was an uncharted territory but pretty certainly, we don't allow any user to transfer stuff (esp. that is critical of him), from public venues into the dark alleys anywhere. This's not a justification of my behaviour, which ought have been better but overall, it was applying of basic common sense.∯WBG^converse 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred's page there was intense, he felt under attack and tried to resolve the situation, his actions were not agressive or rude or really concerning in a good faith interpretation, the escalation by others is what gives me concern. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The comment above is not responsive to the actual finding presented, and comes from an editor who has been a stalwart supporter of Bauder throughout, several times telling other involved editors that they should "ashamed". The comment is also demonstrable false: any "escalation" came from Bauder, who began the edit-warring and un-blocked himself multiple times. The removal of the questions from the talk page -- without ever complaining to the Electoral Commission -- was an aggressive act of the first order, and also indicates that Bauder was claiming WP:OWNership of that question page. There is absolutely no "good faith" interpretation of Bauder's actions which can excuse them, and Govindhari's attempt to do so is a blatant attempt to whitewash the actual events, which are clearly laid out in the timelines presented in evidence and not disputed by Bauder. His remarks should be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

the respose by me of "the escalation by others is what gives me concern" to the details claim that "No attempt was made by Winged Blades of Godric or Boing! said Zebedee to solicit ACE's opinion or assistance before reverting Fred Bauder's removal of questions" - is indeed relevent totally to the point. They did not attempt to solicit ACE's opinion or assistance before reverting Fred Bauder's removal of questions at all in any manner. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Funnily enough, neither did Fred Dax Bane 20:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

None of this is funny. Your comment is not correct for this section, it belongs in a section above. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No attempt was made by Winged Blades of Godric or Boing! said Zebedee to solicit ACE's opinion or assistance before reverting Fred Bauder's removal of questions direct quote, two lines up... You claim that neither WBG or Boing went to the ACE coords regarding the revert/rollback war (and you're right, they didn't) - but neither did Fred Bauder. He could have brought it to their attention at any time during this debacle then walked away while they deliberated. It would have spared him the blocks, and the subsequent wheel war that triggered this very case. I agree though, perhaps a trout, a reminder, or even a formal admonishment is in order for the others who were involved in this feud (to one degree or another) but your positiion, Govindaharihari, that Fred is entirely blameless in all this is demonstrably false. Dax Bane 23:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ken, are you saying that the best way to handle the situation was with an edit war? I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Questions that says that the candidate cannot move material to the talk page. What it says is that "Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely", which seems to support Fred's interpretation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The candidate does not WP:OWN the questions page, it is not in their Userspace, therefore they have no special authority to control the content of it. Any objections Bauder may have had should have gone to the Electoral Commission. His failure to do so, and his choice to personally police the page as he saw fit to do so is what started the entire situation. There may be some amount of blame to place in several quarters, but there would be no blame whatsoever if Bauder had acted in a responsible way, as administators are expected to do. Boing's revert was in line with WP:BRD, it was Bauder's second and following reverts which created the edit war against multiple editors. Weighing all the factors, it's very clearly Bauder who instigated and then (at least initially) escalated the disagreement, and then took it to another place altogether by unblocking himself. While trouts may be in order for some other participants, there is absolutely no doubt who the primary instigator of the disruption was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The reverts by WBoG and Boing were not in line with WP:BRD, because they used the rollback tool, which does not provide for discussion, rather than undo, as mandated by WP:BRD, which says that you must be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. You can't blame Fred for not going to the Electoral Commission beforehand when he believed in good faith that it was permissible to move lengthy digressions to the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that point, which I had overlooked. But, yes, I can indeed blame Bauder for his failure to approach the Electoral Commission, and I do, since he had absolutely no reason to believe that the page was his to do with as he wished. Such an assumption was completely unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: "The reverts by WBoG and Boing were not in line with WP:BRD, because they used the rollback tool" is false, as I did not use the rollback tool. WBoG and Fred did use Rollback. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. You used the Twinkle undo. The evidence page is incorrect on this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I've asked for the Evidence page to be clarified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Undoing and rollback should be distinguished. WBG used rollback, while Boing! used undo. wumbolo ^^^ 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

WBG is not a party to this action, so your comment is not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Boing! is a party, and the use of rollback by WBG may have influenced/strengthened Fred's decision to use rollback. wumbolo ^^^ 10:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that supposition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2018 (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.

Mandate of the Arbitration Election Commission

1) Except when there isn't time for lengthy discussion, such as in cases of obvious vandalism, editors are reminded to ask for the the Arbitration Election Commission's assistance or opinion in matters like clerking candidate question pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Thryduulf: even if they do take a more active role curating in future, there would be no harm in reminding editors that the Election Commission is there to help with this sort of thing, but they can't help if they don't know about it. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is correct at the moment, but might change in future - one of the proposed questions for next year's RFC is "Does the community want the Commission to take a more active role in curating the Questions page?". Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: A good point. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Crazynas

Proposed principles

Removal of Administrators

1) Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, Stewards, or the Arbitration Committee. Bureaucrats have the technical ability to remove the sysop flag and have community consensus to do so in four narrowly defined situations: death or inactivity of the user, self-requested, or by official request of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jimmy Wales has not asserted authority to desysop for a decade, and we should not assume or declare that it still exists. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Newyorkbrad:: This is just what is said on WP:ADMIN under the section Review and removal of adminship. If the policy page is anachronistic, that is fine, but misleading. Crazynas ^t 01:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wheel Wars

2) Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. Unless there is an administrative emergency involving: actual, imminent, serious harm to the project or a person if not acted upon, administrators should not preform the third (reversing the reversal) administrative action in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally correct, with the caveat that once a consensus has emerged, action implementing the consensus is proper. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Three Reverts

3) There is strong consensus that making more than three reverts on a page within 24 hours will lead to a 24 hour block for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A 3RR violation subjects the editor to a block, but often a more tailored response can be more suitable, depending on the circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rollback in edit-wars

4) Rollback is a tool for maintenance, not content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved

5) Administrators are expected not to use their tools in disputes they are involved in, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Actually WP:INVOLVED specifically says that "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." This instance is a straight-forward case: Bauder was attempting to take control of the content of a community ACE election page, which he was in no position to do. He was not acting as an administrator, he was acting as a partisan candidate trying to remove what he perceived as negative material about himself, and hide it away on the page's talk page, where it would be seen by fewer people. There was no justification for this, and no reason whatsoever that Bauder couldn't approach the Electoral Commission and ask for action -- except that the EC might not agree with his estimation about the suitability of the material and allow it to stand. Since his goal was not (obviously, considering his subsequent actions) to follow the usual norms of behavior, the "any reasonable admin" standard was met, so Boing's block, while not the ideal solution, was a valid policy-based one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

High standard of conduct

6) Administrators are expected to be familiar with policies and guidelines, lead by example, and behave in a respectful manner with others. They must use their tools fairly and never as a way to gain advantage in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's probably worth stating this or something close to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies

7) Although Wikipedia does not employ hard and fast rules, polices are standards that all users should normally follow while retaining independent judgment and common sense. By policy it is impossible for the rules to prevent anyone from improving the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of Fact

Rates of Conflict

1) The editing war lasted for 21 minutes before a block, from 14:49-15:10. The blocking war was from 15:11-15:47, 36 minutes, 3 blocks and 2 unblocks. The wheel war was in the last half starting at 15:34, 13 minutes, 2 blocks and 1 unblock. There was a 3 hour, 21 minute break while Fred was blocked before Maxim's IAR desyop at 19:08.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fred Bauder's actions were unbecoming, but not an emergency

2) Although they violated policies of edit warring, self-unblocking, wheel wars: Fred Bauder's actions did not constitute an emergency. They were not directly threatening other users, having any effect on the articlespace, or giving any indication that they had any dispute outside the specific project page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The conduct was problematic but was not a major emergency, and there were some elements of overreaction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with NYB. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Boing! said Zebedee!'s blocked while involved

3) Boing! said Zebedee! inappropriately blocked Fred Bauder during an edit war they were involved in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iridescent and Fut.Perf. wheel warred

4) Iridescent and Fut.Perf. wheel warred. The rationale for each block was legitimate but the actions taken had no binding effect and only caused further escalation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is there a particular reason you did not include Fred in this finding? Worm^TT(talk) 10:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unblocking oneself is a bright-line violation, so Iridescent and FPAS did not, and could not have, "wheel warred", because the actiosn they were undoing were not valid administrative actions, but in fact serious violations of policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the blocks were proper (insofar as NEVEUNBLOCK is 'bright-line'), however the scope of WHEEL is greater, and insofar as it relates to the general principle of administrative good conduct and collegiality cannot be ignored. Crazynas ^t 06:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to be clear that the main point of this finding is that the second and third blocks are pointless in the case of escalation wherein the blocking tool is found to be ineffective there is nothing to be gained from continuing to wheel. In fact, it looks downright pointed. Crazynas ^t 17:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's WP:POINTy to block an admin who's violating a cardinal rule of admin behavior by unblocking himself. That's pretty creative Wikilawyering, but to be true you have to be inside Iridescent's and FPAS's heads and know what their intentions were.

Alternately, you can turn it around and say that Bauder's actions were WP:POINTy, and that his intention was to say "Hey, I'm an ex-Arbitrator and current candidate for arbitrator, you can't block me and get away with it."

In actuality, neither of these scenarios have a lick of evidence (you remember evidence, right?, the stuff that these findings are supposed to be based on) to support them, and it's much more likely that the intentions of the parties are exactly as they stated them to be, Iridescent and FPAS to block a misbehaving admin, and Bauder because he (wrongly) thought he had a right to participate in the discussion about his edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that anything in this finding has to do with intention. I do not believe that anyone has seriously questioned the good faith of any of the blocking administrators, and to insinuate that I am is quite frankly uncollegial. The prima face evidence is there in the block log (you do know what a block log is right?). Now, do you want to discuss the merits of this finding? That a block by an an administrator, of another administrator that has already unblocked himself can have no pragmatic effect on the stability of the social or technical security of the wiki. If they did Maxim would never have had to be a party to this case. (That, at least, seems obvious). The burden of proof for the use of advanced permissions lay with the users of the permissions so the question remains what positive and effective result came from these actions except further drama? Crazynas ^t 03:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Worm That Turned: I suppose because there was nothing else I could find that could be called into question from either of the re-blocking admins. Fred violated Wheel, but not only Wheel when he unblocked himself (and elsewhere within the scope of the case). I thought it was important to note that the blocks qua blocks were based in policy, just ineffective. I started by making separate findings for each of the five users involved, but since Fut.Perf.'s And Iridescent's ended up identical I combined them. Crazynas ^t 00:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim's actions did not benefit the project

5) Maxim's actions did not meet the maintenance or improvement exemption of IAR. The final block had remained in place for some time and there had been no further disruption to the project. They acted in good faith; however, bureaucrats have a strict standard for tool usage. Since there was no clear and present danger, the IAR is unsound.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Fred gave no indication they understood how out of line his actions had been or that they would not do so again. Arbcom moves slowly, Maxim did wht they did in the interest of the project and issued a full report on it to arbcom within ten minutes. It could have been easily ndone had the committee asked them to. It was unorthodox but fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:IAR says, in toto, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." There is no "maintenance or improvement exemption". The quelling of disruption is obviously an improvement to Wikipedia, and Maxim's action put an end to Bauder's power to disrupt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The text of IAR is structured as an exemption. Quelling of disruption is most certainly an improvement but the manner and total effect of such actions are a matter open to question. For normal cases of disruption we have multiple boards and venues to preserve neutrality and objectivity in enforcement (the noticeboards and such). I want to be clear in saying I don't object to FB being desyopped. It seems reasonable to believe that had Maxim not taken this action a level 2 motion would have proceeded without the fuss and... dare I say... disruption... to the project (insofar as every sort of user conduct review is a necessary evil), that a full ArbCom case presents. Crazynas ^t 06:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

IAR is not "structured" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a simple, straight-forward precept which gives permission to override the rules if doing so will make Wikipedia better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but since by definition there can be no consensus (it being one of the five pillars and all) in an IAR situation; it puts the burden on the person invoking IAR in a very meaningful way to justify why and how not only were they justified in taking the action they took (which I think Maxim has done here) but why the consensus routines (policies) that normally would cover the situation were inadequate or insufficient for this particular case. Crazynas ^t 03:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The community has already laid out the process and restricted Maxim as a bureaucrat, so no there was no improvement or maintenance. It was abject failure of maintenance for Maxim to act in contravention of the community's brief to them. They were not given the tools for that. Fred was also not given the tools for his acts and while he will likely be dyssyopped for it under community sanctioned process, Maxim's single action just calls for telling him, he was wrong, follow your brief. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

Fred Bauder is no longer an Administrator

1) For wheel warring, edit warring, and self-unblocking Fred Bauder is dsyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See #Fred Bauder desysopped. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was aware. I debated not putting this in as redundant. But I have a slightly different wording, and I was worried about the social backlash if it seemed I was ignoring what Fred did. Crazynas ^t 17:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee! is no longer an Administrator

2) For blocking while involved in a dispute, Boing! said Zebedee! is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive and unwarranted, even assuming there was any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Unwarranted. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure that we need 4 desysops and a decrat over a relatively small issue. We had one person getting blocked and unblocked - yes there was some substandard conduct, but I believe desysops all round is excessive. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Excessive. An admonishment might be appropriate though, since his block was inappropriate on multiple levels. --Elonka 22:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad, Euryalus, and Beeblebrox -- another unnecessary shotgun blast. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The shotgun blasts happen with the fly-by-night IAR advanced permission usage, this, if anything is a well ordered firing squad. Crazynas ^t 03:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not in any way, shape, or form "well-ordered". You're simply shooting wildly at everyone involved, without consideration of context or circumstance. That's why I said your proposals are lacking in nuance and subtlety. In the real world, you'd be called a "Hanging judge". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not - Boing! is one of our best administrators. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent is no longer an Administrator

3) For wheel warring Iridescent is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive and unwarranted, even assuming there was any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, per the other comments. Mildly, none of these proposals seems likely to resolve the dispute, to the extent there actually is one. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

BANG! goes the shotgun again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent is one of our best administrators and was acting upon consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fut.Perf is no longer an Administrator

4) For wheel warring Fut.Perf is desyopped. They may re-apply via a normal RFA at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive and unwarranted, even assuming there was any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, per my and NYB's other comments. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Newyorkbrad:: Curious, what part of this, or my above findings do you not find convincing? Or is the remedy just out of proportion for the offence? My understanding was that Wheel was a rather bright line. Crazynas ^t 06:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

FPAS never "wheel warred". Patently ridiculous "finding". (Really more of an "imagining".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maxim is no longer a Bureaucrat

5) For use of tools without any clear and present danger existing to the project and outside policy, Maxim is no longer a bureaucrat. They may re-apply via a normal RFB at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive and unwarranted, even assuming there was any misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crazynas: Your argument below doesn’t work well because in any case we could similarly justify a desyopping or decratting with “if the community thinks this person deserves the tools back, he/she will re-pass RfA/RfB.” That doesn’t reduce our obligation to determine whether the person’s misconduct, if any, was worthy of sanction to begin with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Per NYB, can't see this flying. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Gross overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not a big fan of your "Kill them all and let God sort them out" theory of arbitration, but, fortunately, I doubt that your "findings" will have much influence on the Committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're not a fan of community consensus? Crazynas ^t 01:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What gave you that idea? Where did I say that, or, indeed, anything at all about community consensus? And what does community consensus have to do with anything in any case? This workshop is not a place where the community !votes, it's a place where the community can present to the Arbitration Committee their ideas for what would make suitable findings and remedies to be considered for the final decision, and comment on the proposals of others. Your proposals are, in my opinion, almost uniformly awful: unthoughtful and bereft of any hint of subtlety or nuance, an example of using a shotgun to kill a mosquito. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose... unpacking 'Kill them all and let God sort it out' in this context (replying as you did to my motions for summary permission removal of several involved parties with no objection to reinstatement) implies to me that you don't believe in the community in the guise of RFA or RFB. Those venues are the best things we have for community consensus with regard to community trust of individuals with these powers. So the 'God' of whom you are not a fan is the community, the consensus. To be clear, we have advanced permission users on all sides acting in a heated manner on an issue that ultimately stems from a dispute related to the appointment of this body. Nothing about this case is simple. I do welcome any constructive criticism you have to my proposals. (If you think, for example, that High standard of conduct can be remedied, I welcome it). Crazynas ^t 04:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your inferences from my statement are incorrect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you break the metaphor down for me then? I'm particularly interested in who God is. Crazynas ^t 04:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The meaning is entirely obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crazynas: There is a Wikipedia article on this very subject, Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, that is helpful. Although after reading it I still can't help but think that God (the judge in this instance) is not again the community at large in relation to killing them via removal of permissions. If the metaphor is meant to portray me as indiscriminately condemning them all (my second thought): I believe that is rebutted in my findings and the specifics of the case. But, Alas, like Yorick, I will never know, since the meaning is so entirely obvious and a dunce like me should scant be ordained into the mysteries. Crazynas ^t 07:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Crazynas: Your assertion that BMK is "not a fan of community consensus" constitutes a straw man argument, as it attempts to refute a stance which was neither expressed nor implied in his original comment. Saying that he does not support desysopping (and in Maxim's case, decratting) every single administrator involved in this debacle does not in any way imply that he rejects community consensus, or the accepted mechanisms involved in determining it. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kurtis: (see above) Since I am still no clearer to knowing what the stance was expressed through allegory and metaphor, I don't know that I argued anything (except, unsuccessfully, to gain a clearer understanding of what they meant). But just in case it isn't clear, since that is not what BMK meant I retract the rhetorical question.Crazynas ^t 07:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: You can disagree as to whether my rationale was sufficient in each case, but I did give specific reasons for the removals of all the permissions. My argument above is a specific rebuttal to (what I interpreted to be) an argument against community consensus being foundational to the project. It was not meant to be a broad justification for the actions of this committee. It is possible that I am more liberal with what I regard to be justifications for tool removal and community conformation but that is beside the point. I can break my argument down at any principles or findings that you find unclear above. Crazynas ^t 05:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Crazynas, have you chosen to take a stroll through the AN threads and/or the comments of several others over here? The consensus of the community does seem to be something else, than your projection. ∯WBG^converse 07:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"We have the Maxim gun, and they have not", said Hillaire Belloc sardonically. I assumed that Crazynas was employing the same technique. Or perhaps a piece of performance art? ——SerialNumber54129 08:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Sort of, I'm misrepresenting myself but I might be pushing my beliefs to an extreme in order to benefit the greater good. I do honestly think that IAR was borderline excessive given the situation at the time the block was made. does that mean de-cratting? Maybe not, but my understanding of what this committee has at its disposal as far as remedies are Bazookas and pellet guns (since BMK got us in the mode of using murder as the metaphor), what will an 'admonishment' do? What is the alternative for a self-admitting flagrant violation of one of the brightest line policies? (the line on who has the authority to desyop has stood for as long as Maxim has been a Bureaucrat [11]; it's been so long that NYB above questioned the anachronistic granting of Jimbo Wales the power.) Crazynas ^t 17:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your understanding about ArbCom's range is incorrect. They can, in fact, do everything from nothing right up to site banning someone, and every gradation in between. I have no idea what gave you the notion they were limited in some fashion to a small set of outcomes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric. I'm aware of the discussions, but if all it takes it three people at ANI to desyop someone I'll go slap a historical tag on the level one and level two arbcom procedures right now.... (side note: are you aware that consensus can change?) Crazynas ^t 17:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Crazynas, nope, that's a new read. How did you manage to find that? ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric You know, I think what I meant to link to was this as it relates to an AN/I discussion vs. a policy page (and I don't think the support on the case page is a clear cut as you make it seem). Crazynas ^t 20:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think telling Maxim (and for the benefit of other bureaucrats) they were wrong is enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:TParis

Proposed principles

Behavior Expected of Administrators

1) Administrators who find themselves the subject of administrative actions that they feel are poor or controversial are expected to take those concerns to a community discussion without utilizing their tools to circumvent the action. This includes blocks, where a blocked administrator can utilize their user talk page or the unblock ticket request system just like any other blocked user who feels the block is unjustified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regards self-unblocking, this is already policy (albeit policy now rendered moot by the WMF's recent decision to hardwire it into the code). With regards other admin actions, there are occasional situations where it's appropriate to use the admin bit to overrule another admin's decision (editing a protected page to remove an unambiguous piece of vandalism, for instance); although they're few and far between I wouldn't want to see an absolute no-exceptions blanket ban. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Iridescent: I'm gearing this toward someone being the subject of admin actions; not just getting around an action they are otherwise uninvolved in. But, sure, blanket bans are bad.--v/r - TP 20:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Tamwin

Proposed findings of fact

Technical Measures Taken

1) Since this case was opened, technical measures have been taken to prevent self-unblocking by administrators, excluding cases in which they blocked themselves. [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I spotted this in Alanscottwalker's evidence. I'm totally uninvolved here, but it seems worthwhile to have a have a formal on the record statement that the behavior that started this case is unlikely to reoccur. Tamwin (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: