Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Lourdes

The community is discussing this issue at ANI and there's no need for the ArbCom to step in here as of this moment. With due thanks to Maxim for the absolutely on the dot action, Maxim could well have emailed the ArbCom than opened up this thread. Lourdes 19:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Iridescent's explanation; I realize I'd misunderstood the basis of this filing. Lourdes 15:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by SN54129

...that this is put to bed as easily and as quietly as possible for all concerned: endorse the L2 desysop, in consideration of the consensus formed/forming at ANI (as yet unclosed, but which presumably will be closed as "Desysop, no site ban"). The committee is not, after all, being asked to consider the length of the block in place or to be based. No fish supper for Maxim, it was a good call. Others have, after all, also emailed the committee tonight. Although: did anyone email a steward? ——SerialNumber54129 19:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

  • As the editor who triggered the chain of events, I pretty much believe Fred's attitude is incompatible with our current values.
  • And a desysop is the basic minimum, which ought be executed with minimal fuss by the commitee and this case request be dealt with.Maxim's actions were very rational and it was a good call.
  • Per Cas's comment (which frames my thoughts well-enough), the indef shall be stayed unless he can demonstrate his competency.
  • I note that my usage of rollback has been questioned and I agree that it was non-optimal.∯WBGconverse 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Funplussmart

There seems to be overwhelming consensus for a desysop for wheel-warring, but a site ban is probably unnessesary in my opinion (I changed my vote in the ANI post). Of course, we are only here for procedure only. funplussmart (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I do support Maxim's desysoping. (of Fred Bauder) funplussmart (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Alanscottwalker

What was the imminent harm? I get that there was wheel-warring/self-dealing but why could not the de-sysop wait for emergency process? What was going to happen? Nothing? In other words, so he is unblocked, what did you think he would do, move questions from a page to its talk page? So, those can be moved back, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, what? Is it true the desysop was two hours after the last unblock, and what happened in that time? Nothing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]his seems like it would have been solved with far less drama by stopping immediately after Fred's first revert and asking the election commissioners to review the situation." Indeed, so what if those questions were moved for a few hours or even a day or so, as there was a pointer to them? What was it that could not have been talked through? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim: can you respond to any of the above questions? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has already been pointed out that desysop requires a case, even after an emergency desysop, is that right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: Why do you say the situation was unstable? What specifically had happened in the last hour before your action? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: Also, you say you consider protection in an edit war? This is claimed to have started as an edit war, so, did you consider protection to stabilize the situation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: So nothing had happened, and yet you still could not wait for the Committee? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: Did someone request that you do this? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The committee, as much as individuals may not want, is required to open a case and examine all the circumstances raised, here, per policy.

First, once again, it is very poor idea as suggested by eg. WBScribe, that unless the committee is going to de-buercrat/desysop/ban/block Maxim or do something terrible to some other alleged malefactor, they should not take a case. A case serves to create a record and clarify issues -- one of the things that is not acknowledged enough, is that because the committee takes and decides cases over the years, over-time the community has arrived at a better meeting of minds on policies, their application, and the issues surrounding them, when it takes up matters (this is only reasonable, because the community really does not have deliberative processes, besides the Arbcom process, (we have, it rather seems, 'OMG, something has to happen', fests)).

And really, come on, when else will the committee be able to explicate, clarify, examine in light of FACTS its emergency process? Never?

Apart, from what would have been a Level 2, given the number of people involved, and the number issues: of provocation (outing? goading? personalization?), of edit-warring (rollback?) (on a deep internal page far from content and even policy?); then blocks (involved?); a claimed "emergency" (to borrow a fire analogy, since they seem a popular analogy in these matters, 'if you come upon the remains of an arson, there are a whole host of reasons not to stir the debris'), when there is already an emergency process? There is a crying need for more clarity per WP:RETURN process ("if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to remember why it is almost never an "emergency", and why we don't rely on an individual to declare an "emergency" -- it is one of the most basic and foundational tenants of Wikipedia that almost nothing can't be undone, nothing can be broken (except, perhaps, people). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggestion

The committee should stipulate that the whole of the election page(and talk page) the whole of the AN/I, the whole of FB's talk page since Sunday (and every administrative act connected to all those) is in evidence and give a very short window (3 days?) for other evidence diffs. Tell the clerks when they open the evidence page to put the stipulated links to pages there. (Also, no need to repeat any diffs offered during this request). [Further note, you largely have the principles written, many times over (they need to be modified and policy already gives you the rest) that just leaves findings (the hardest part arguing over what exactly is relevant) and remedies (but you know, you basically only have like 5 remedies).Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: That's not new evidence, it is already covered by my proposal ("no need to repeat any diffs offered during this request" and "the whole of the AN/I"). And policies are not evidence, diffs are. The Workshop is where the process applies diffs to policies/guidelines (and really, if there is something not covered in what I described and it's important the committee can always decide to reopen evidence on specific matters.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Said it at ANI and I'll say it here - He should've been desysopped but I believe any sort of ban/sanction is OTT, He didn't go on a rampage blocking everyone and causing mayhem - He simply unblocked himself twice (which is still a dickish thing to do but point is it could've been much worse), I would suggest the committee decline this. –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent I've completely misunderstood why we're here!, This is what 6 hours sleep does to you lol,
Well I support Maxim's actions anyway. –Davey2010Talk 20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

I'm curious what the committee members mean by "accept". we need to examine why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I in this situation, a clear example of what it was intended for would need to be discussed among the committee since only the committee would have access to the mailing list/know why three arbitrators were unable to ratify Level I desysop. what bureaucrats are meant to do in emergency situations. could easily be handled by motion/community RfC on whether bureaucrats can remove permissions in an emergency. I don't see how a case is supposed to help with either of those two questions. If the only purpose is to decide those questions, a case seems an excessively bureaucratic and prolonged way of doing so; the structure of case would not seem to aide in any manner in deciding these questions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the initial block might be worthwhile though; per my comments at WP:ANI ([1][2]), that is really the more significant issue since the matter of desysoping for wheel warring/unblocking yourself is well settled. Considering this relatively recent motion in a similarish case of edit warring and then using the admin tools in the same dispute, a look at involvement in relation to edit warring would be beneficial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Why couldn't the committee use level I?

If I had seen this earlier, I would have requested an emergency desysop from a steward, but when I saw this the self-unblocks were already 2 hours old. Speaking as a former steward, this could have been acted on by them if the wheel warring was still active. --Rschen7754 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with what Ajraddatz said. If this was a smaller wiki, stewards might do an emergency desysop two hours after the fact, but not on enwiki. --Rschen7754 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector (re: Fred Bauder)

I would like to see the Committee formally endorse Maxim's action per WP:LEVEL1, due to the sensitivity of the bureaucrat bit and the clear consensus at the community ban discussion.

I also strongly recommend the Committee open a case to review the community's trust in Fred Bauder's administrator privileges, given multiple instances of wheel warring today including at least once after having been warned to stop (see Iridescent's entry from 11 November in Fred Bauder's block log). Perhaps it was not advisable for Boing! said Zebedee to block Fred in the edit warring situation they were in and perhaps that conduct also needs to be examined, but WP:NEVERUNBLOCK is clear that administrators are not permitted to unblock themselves.

I don't know why these experienced editors felt the need to edit war over the placement of Arbcom candidate questions, and I think it might be wise for those editors involved in this to make a statement as to just what the hell they were thinking.

  • And to this last point I recommend that, since he has been desysopped by a bureaucrat ignoring the rules in the clear best interest of the project and so the immediate threat should be considered mitigated, Fred Bauder should be unblocked to participate in this case request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Softlavender: the Malik Shabazz/ARBPIA 3 case was hardly a non-event: when the entire scope of the events leading to the case were evaluated, it led somewhat directly to the creation of the extended-confirmed protection level (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30). If a case resulting from this request leads to clarification/refinement of the emergency desysop procedures, even if the result is simply reaffirming the current procedures, it will be worthwhile as there's clearly confusion even among the current arbitrators. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be noted in evidence if this goes to a full case that the day these events occurred was not just "a Sunday" but the centennial of the armistice of the first World War, an event marked in numerous countries around the world (though Wikipedia for some probably insulting reason chose to highlight only the American observance on the main page). As such it could be reasonably expected that the availability of editors/bureaucrats/arbitrators would have been somewhat less than "a Sunday". I can't make any comment as to whether or not this factored into Maxim's decision to desysop, but so far nobody seems to have noted it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his statement, Fred Bauder says he was not notified of the ANI discussion, which is incorrect. Here is a summary timeline from 11 November (all times UTC):
    • 15:09: Fred Bauder is notified by Winged Blades of Godric of a discussion at WP:AN3 about the revert war on the elections page
    • 15:10: Fred is initially blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for 24 hours for edit warring
    • 15:16: Boing! makes the initial comment starting the ANI discussion, using a userlink which I believe would have generated a notification to Fred but I'm not entirely sure about that
    • 15:18: Boing! notifies Fred of the discussion at ANI
    • 15:22: Fred unblocks himself
    • 15:28: Fred comments at the ANI thread. He subsequently opines that he has a "right to respond"
    • 15:34: Iridescent notionally restores Boing!'s 24-hour block, noting in the log "unblocking yourself is clear admin abuse per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK"
    • 15:37: Fred unblocks himself for the second time, noting in the log "need to participate in discussion"
    • 15:38: Fred comments a third time at the ANI thread, noting his desire to participate in the discussion.
    • 15:47: Future Perfect at Sunrise blocks Fred indefinitely
Fred may have missed the required notifications as they came during a barrage of comments on his talk page, but they were made. Regardless, he was obviously aware of the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23 and Nsk92 have both has picked on Fred's statement that "[he] might have unblocked [him]self again ... [he] was the subject of several discussions [he] might have participated in." For what it's worth I didn't read Fred's words as stating his intention to do so, only an introspective look at how a neutral observer may have viewed the situation (i.e. Fred is offering a justification for Maxim's action). I don't know which it really is, but that's how I read it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: my apologies, I seem to have read something in your statement that wasn't there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

A link to the edit war that led to this seems conspicuous by its absence. [3] —Cryptic 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I just want to make the (probably obvious) point that even if the initial block was INVOLVED, the self-unblock was not justified and worthy of an immediate desysop. Bauder could have asked any admin he trusted to look at the block and undo it instead of undoing it himself, if the block was a bad one. (I don't think it was, since even in Boing was involved, it would fall under the "any reasonable admin would take the action" considering the edit warring that was going on.)
As for Op.reg's comments about going fast fast - to a large extent that was conditioned by Bauder's wheel warring, which got us to the state we are in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm here, I may as well say (for what it's worth) that I support Maxim's desysop of Bauder, which appears to me to be a spot-on application of what IAR was meant for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Bbb23's suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

@Opabinia regalis: You're in real trouble when I don't have to scroll down to the signature to know that it's your opinion. I agree with Opabinia's comments. There's a fair amount of blame to go around here, but I see no need to take anyone to task for it. Just confirm the desysop by motion, and we're done. You can't clean up the mess at ANI, but you don't have to extend it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm profoundly disappointed in Fred's statement. He still apparently believes that unblocking himself was acceptable. Regardless of the propriety of the original block, an administrator cannot unblock himself unless it was a self-block. I'm also unhappy with the fact that it looks like the consequences of Fred's statement is the Committee will not handle this by motion, meaning additional drama for the holidays (sort of an inverse celebration) even if it's handled in a more controlled manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: With all due respect, that is not what I said above at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajraddatz: I would add one more item to your analysis of what occurred: Fred unblocked himself twice. The first time, based on the block log, was because he was blocked by a "participant" in the edit war. The second time was because he wanted to participate in the discussion. Neither self-unblock was appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Bauder: Boing! said Zebedee initiated the ANI thread here. Boing! notified you of the thread a couple of minutes later here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Your timing is not quite right although things happened in quick succession. It's actually not important the precise timing of the block, the block notice, and the notice of the ANI discussion because the central issue is Fred says he wasn't notified of the discussion. It was not a cool-down block; it was a block for edit-warring. What you would have done if this had happened (walk away from the computer) is nothing more than that. For example, I would not and I imagine many other admins/editors having been blocked would not, either, but I haven't taken a survey. I have no idea what was in Fred's mind. As for notice of the community ban proposal, there did not need to be a separate notification for that. It was a subsection of the thread, which often happens at ANI, and I don't recall seeing other targets re-notified in such circumstances. Back to the timing. The block occurred at 15:10. The block notice occurred at 15:10 (I can't see seconds). The ANI notification occurred at 15:18. All the notices were by the book.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I have no strong opinion whether recusal is required of any arbitrator who is also a candidate for 2019+, but you stated that if you became a candidate you would recuse yourself and yet you just accepted.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

I would like a ruling from the Committee on whether THIS EDIT which linked to a Colorado Supreme Court case was a violation of the WP:OUTING policy. wbm1058 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be relevant that his real identity is known to Wikipedians. The question is whether the link reveals personal information of a harmful nature about Fred that he himself had not previously disclosed. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Littleolive oil's concerns (below), but am assuming that this edit wasn't oversightable, or it would have been oversighted by now. I'm asking if "this type of opposition research and the linking of off-wiki" information is prohibited under the OUTING policy, although it apparently falls short of being oversightable. Or, is this not a clear-cut infraction because, "context matters", and the question is appropriate in this context? wbm1058 (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dax Bane and Serial Number 54129: I see one clear principle that applies here: Admins should not unblock themselves. Can you elaborate on what other applicable principle you see there? Thanks for pointing out this precedent to the Committee; I trust that they'll find it helpful. wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable (that's almost, not always) to unblock one's own account, except in the case of self-imposed blocks. Each of these may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first-time incidents. That's may and possibly. The community is wrong to view this as a "bright line" meriting "felony sanctions". Why isn't this a case where "context matters", given the blatant harassment and outing on his Q&A page? wbm1058 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring usually results in an immediate request for arbitration. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first-time incidents. Again, I see no "bright line" mandating severe sanctions. In this case, wheel warring did not immediately result in a RFAR, but rather in a proposal to community ban.

I'd be cautious about expediting the evidence phase while significant new evidence is still coming in. wbm1058 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Yes, Fred Bauder was notified of the discussion titled "User:Fred Bauder moving questions". One minute after that notice he was notified that he had been blocked for 24 hours (preventing his participation in the discussion he was notified about). He reverted that block, perhaps so that he could participate, and was blocked a second time – the second 24-hour block notice came 24 minutes after the first. That was one revert of the block, not three. At this point, he perhaps gave up and walked away from his computer (as I would have done), respecting his 24-hour "cool-down" block. He was never notified of the discussion titled Proposal: Community ban. I believe it was during this frenetically-paced discussion (it was hard to comment without getting an edit-conflict notice) that the "emergency" desysop happened. Fred could have easily returned from his 24-hour cool-down to discover that the community had indefinitely banned him, learning of that entire discussion after the fact, and thinking until then that the discussion was only about whether he could curate his Q&A page. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the precise timing isn't important, but essentially he was simultaneously notified of an ANI discussion at the same time he was blocked from directly participating in it. I would personally view it as a 24-hour cool down for whatever, edit warring. I'd find it extremely stressful to watch that discussion and humiliating to attempt to respond to it from my talk page. I'd take time off to catch up on household chores, and brace myself, upon returning to see what was posted there. I would be shocked to find that it had escalated to discussion of a ban. Who would expect a 3RR violation to escalate to a ban that quickly, when desysops via ArbCom generally take weeks, if not months. Realizing I can't speak for Fred here. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

I think WP:LEVEL1 failed in this case because the procedure is too long and protracted for something that is supposed to be fast and clear-cut. It still requires at least three arbitrators to respond in a timely manner, which is not always the case on Sunday morning, and then we need to post a statement somewhere, and then a bureaucrat has to be awake to action the request. Honestly, it's no surprise to me that bureaucrats usually end up applying WP:IAR and desysopping unilaterally.

So with that in mind, I think the committee should think about replacing LEVEL1. My opinion on the best solution would be a change to the administrator policy that explicitly allows bureaucrats and possibly also stewards to make emergency desysops in certain bright-line cases, like unblocking one's own account, or an admin account that's obviously compromised, or "is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion". Honestly, we could just copy-paste the language from WP:LEVEL1 into such a policy.

Such a change would probably be in the purview of a community RfC, but doing away with LEVEL1 is for ArbCom to decide. Currently, the only entity that is technically allowed to perform involuntary desysops at its own discretion is the Arbitration Committee (and also the stewards, in "emergencies", but what is and is not an emergency is not well-defined). My thought is that this would just be a codification of existing practice, as most good policy proposals are. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

Fred's behavior aside; it is unconscionable to bring up an editor's personal life in an arbitration election whether before or after the inappropriate behaviour. I had hoped that here at least with admins and arbs we could be better than that. There is to excuse for this. None. Its just shabby!(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)); edited (05:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Softlavender: Please see your user talkpage.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

An admin running for ArbCom with fewer than 300 mainspace edits in the last six months, and fewer than 30 logged admin actions, who thinks they can unblock themselves because they've been here a long time and are more important than others? F*** that. Desysop them, throw them out of the ArbCom list, and let them go back to being anonymous. Seriously, I have no idea what Fred thought was going to happen when he popped up and ran for ArbCom. Many people here are aware of his past, so someone was going to raise it, weren't they? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Seriously? Fred was last blocked in... oh, wait, he has zero previous blocks other than his own tests. Since 2002. This is Fred. fucking. Bauder. He was being trolled. Children born since Fred registered can legally marry now. Everyone just needs to walk away. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Govindaharihari

Statement by Softlavender

As per my opinion regarding the events surrounding the previous longterm admin who virtually never uses admin tools yet still holds the mop despite disruption spanning numerous pages/noticeboards/reports, I'm of the opinion that inactive admins who virtually no longer use their tools yet are creating disruption and violating numerous policies and/or guidelines should be and remain de-sysopped (until they re-run at RFA). Nostalgia for early adminship or for longterm associations is not a reason or adequate rationale for anyone to retain the mop who does not either use or merit it.

Question for Littleolive oil: You wrote "it is unconscionable to bring up an editor's personal life in an arbitration", but I can find no evidence of that occurring on this page, and nothing has been deleted. Could you clarify what you are referring to? Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those who thought this matter was being handled at ANI (Lourdes, Serial Number 54129): It is not; the entire thread has been closed because the issue is now at ArbCom: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of order in response to Opabinia regalis: Boing! said Zebedee was not the only person's questions Fred Bauder removed at the Q&A: He also removed questions from Winged Blades of Godric and myself. And Fred Bauer was edit warring originally and mainly with Winged Blades of Godric [5]. All in all Fred Bauer made these reverts: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], which repeatedly removed over 13,000 bytes of questions from three different people. So I think stating or implying that Boing! said Zebedee was edit-warring with Fred Bauer over material he himself posted is very incomplete at best, misleading at worst. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The way I see it, there are three possibilities here: (A) If Fred Bauder contests his desysop, then ArbCom needs to decide by (1) motion or by (2) case whether to officially desysyop him or not. (3) If Fred Bauer does not contest his desysop or call for restoration of his sysop right, then I don't believe there is anything the Committee needs to do. I do not believe that the actions of any other party to the entire matter, no matter how direct or remote, rise to the level of an ArbCom case, either collectively or singly. Therefore the over-arching question is, does Fred Bauder contest his desysop and does he want his tools re-instated?

For the record, we had an emergency (LEVEL 1) de-sysop in 2015 of Malik Shabazz, who had repeatedly used vulgarities against someone he was edit-warring with, and then also revdelled some of those (his own) edits and unrevdelled some of his oppenent's comments. Here is the announcement of the LEVEL 1 desysop: [14]. Here is the discussion of the LEVEL 1 desysop: [15]. Here is the full case request: [16]. Malik Shabazz did not request reinstatement of his mop ... so the accepted case ended up not being about him but rather about ARBPIA, and the results were a non-event: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Final decision. I really don't think we need to go through the motions of analyzing everything to bits to end up with another non-event of a final decision, unless Fred Bauer contests his desysop. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Dax Bane

There's a couple of similarities between this request, and a past case the Committee may want to take note of. While AC doesn't normally follow precedent, perhaps any proposed motion can borrow a couple of principles from the case?
Just my 2c, Dax Bane 05:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 and Wbm1058: The similiarities I saw in the earlier case and this request was that an Admin had unblocked themselves and was demopped by a 'crat or steward (from what I can tell, this was also an IAR demopping) which was later confirmed by ArbCom. Dax Bane 17:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7: Such a change would probably be in the purview of a community RfC, but doing away with LEVEL1 is for ArbCom to decide.
Instead of removing LEVEL1, why not modify LEVEL1 or LEVEL2 (or perhaps create a LEVEL0) delegating emergency authority to crats allowing them to act unilaterally in the clear-cut cases which you describe. This would not only remove the necessity of IAR-demops, but also create a clear procedure in what chain of tasks are necessary should such an invocation happen. ::In a nutshell: crat does a Ln removal, crat is then to inform the committee of such along with their reasoning on one of the ArbCom pages, which then reviews the circumstances and reasoning, then makes a motion along one of the following lines:
* Confirmation of removal, requiring the former admin to go through RfA or appeal to committee (whichever the committee decides, depending on circumstances)
* Declaring the removal as temporary, allowing the former admin to request the tools back on BN after X period of time
* Declare the removal as unnecessary
* Any other outcome the committee sees fit
hopefully, such would rarely (I want to say never, but this is the second time in wikihistory so far as I know) need to be invoked, but at least it'd be a useful fire escape Dax Bane 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

How does an RfC into use of WP:IAR work? I'm not sure that we can curtail people taking actions based on WP:IAR, because they could just ignore the rule that says not to ignore the rule. I suppose the RfC could note the community's disapproval of particular actions being done on the basis of WP:IAR but that seems to be about it. The options here are really just that either ArbCom removes Maxim's bureaucrat access or it doesn't. Rightly, I get the feeling it won't. If the community were worried about how Maxim would apply WP:IAR in future, it really doesn't have any option but to seek his resignation or removal as a bureaucrat. Adding a further rule that could also be ignored in a perceived emergency wouldn't change things. WJBscribe (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by There'sNoTime

It's disheartening that something rather clear-cut is now being clouded by faffing around - when this incident began, it would have been reasonable to desysop via WP:LEVEL1 ("(a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring."), however this had stopped relatively quickly and an "emergency desysop" was no longer required. Let's not labour that point though - it's done and dusted, and hasn't caused any harm to the project.

We're now at the point where WP:LEVEL2 is the only option available for dealing with this - it's fairly clear these actions are "inconsistent with the level of trust required for [sysop]", and I don't think we've seen a "satisfactory explanation".

Is a "motion for removal of advanced permissions" currently being discussed on the list, and are we any nearer to it being "endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators"?

Once a WP:LEVEL2 has been completed, or AC decide it is not appropriate, we can then continue the faffing a la "normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.".

ArbCom, you do a thankless task whilst continuously being bombarded with criticism - I'm not sure how or why you do it, but thank you. - TNT 💖 12:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wumbolo

Boing is right; I wrongly stated in the ANI thread that he misused the rollback right. Boing didn't use rollback, and I no longer stand by my comment at ANI. I apologize for causing any confusion.

However, I uphold my criticism of Winged Blades of Godric, and believe that he misused his rollback right. Furthermore, I am worried by his comment at ANI (diff):

I understand that using rollback was not optimal but I am very willing to use it liberally, in dealing with extreme stupidity; which this was. (emphasis mine)

This strikes me as WP:IDHT behavior and unwillingness to completely adhere to Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

Whether the questions Fred thought were inappropriate should stay on the questions page or be moved to the talk page should have been left to the electoral commission to sort out; that's what they're there for. There was absolutely no need to edit war over it.

Fred was duly sanctioned for his part in the edit war, but the folks who edit-warred against him seem to be doubling down on their actions, which concerns me. Neither of the people who repeatedly reverted Fred using rollback and Twinkle explained in an edit summary why they were doing so. Future Perfect at Sunrise, to his credit, offered a brief explanation for his action in the edit summary when he reverted Fred manually.

I'm not interested in more sanctions getting meted out - I accept that everyone was acting in good faith - but a general reminder from the committee about the expectations of automated tool use in edit wars would be welcome. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Carrite

Admin Rob has identified the essence of this problem in his acceptance rationale: this is really a failure of the system, in that only Arbcom has authority to remove permissions and it is a cumbersome body that would seem to be incapable of making a quick decision on a fast shutdown of administrative rights in a situation like this. There needs to be a discussion about what to do in this sort of situation; software should also be adapted so that self-unblocking is eliminated or curtailed. That Fred Bauder should be losing tools in this fiasco seems too obvious for comment. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsk92

The detailed timeline of events given by PMC below is quite informative. I have not yet seen a convincing explanation, here or at ANI, as to why LEVEL1 procedures needed to be circumvented here and in what way there was some sort of emergency situation that made a WP:IAR action by Maxim necessary or advisable. The last re-block was at 15:47, and then Maxim applied Desysop at 19:08, that is 3 hours and 21 minutes later. There were no other self unblocks by Fred Bauder during this 3hr 21 minutes period, and no active wheel-warring occurring during that time. The rationale given by Maxim above that he assumed that "Fred Bauder may unblock himself again" seems rather weak and not really convincing to me. Desysopping is Arbcom's prerogative, and we should not create precedents that, even tacitly, gives this authority to the bureaucrats as well, at least not without either reaching a clear community consensus to do so first or the Arbcom explicitly granting this authority to the bureaucrats in some specific situations. If Arbcom handles this case by motion, as seems likely to happen, I think they need to admonish against any future unilateral desysopping actions by the bureaucrats. If the ArbCom wishes to allow bureaucrats to perform unilateral desysopping actions in some emergency circumstances, then the ArbCom needs to explicitly say so and explain what those emergency circumstances would be. Creating problematic WP:IAR precedents here that other crats might be tempted to follow is not a good idea. Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder's comments on this page make it clear that a permanent desysop is absolutely necessary: "Although, indeed, I might have unblocked myself again. After all I was the subject of several discussions I might have participated in." This kind of cluelessness regarding self-unblocking, coming from a long-term administrator and a former arb, is shocking. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the more recent stuff posted in this RFAR request, it seems clear that resolving it by motion is not appropriate and that a full case is needed to examine things more carefully. E.g. Beeblebrox may be correct that bringing up Fred's off-wiki issues from ages ago in the context of an Arbcom election discussion might not have been outing, but it certainly looks like harassment to me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deryck

I urge the committee to open a full case on this incident, not just to review the wheel-warring regarding Fred Bauder's block and desysopping, but rather to examine the aggressive conduct in the candidates' Q&A pages which led to this incident. The accusations of harassment and outing in comments above are well-founded and deserves careful examination. ArbCom is best-placed on this Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't acceptable conduct. Deryck C. 22:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Bad block, bad desysop, misuse of roll back by multiple parties. More than meets the eye initially here.--MONGO (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I've been silently observing and reading on this rather than reacting to it; as a former and nearly successful ArbCom candidate last year (not running this time since I'm fresh off a months-long wikibreak for real-life busyness reasons), I've been interested in the overall Arb rede on it and how their views were arrived at (when that much is clear). I'm comfortable supporting the gist of Opabinia Regalis's analysis, though I think that Iridescent's response to it is also correct.

But that's a technicalities analysis. Every page we have about policy and procedure, from WP:POLICY to WP:CONSENSUS to WP:WIKILAWYER to WP:GAMING and many others, tells us under no uncertain terms to interpret our rules in the spirt in which they are intended not as to their exact wording; we are not to apply fine-tuned but subjective interpretation of it to get a result we individually like, but rather go with the interpretation that results in how the community reads it.

Looking at the community take on this entire situation, I can't find genuine, unambiguous fault with Maxim's action; WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY are real policies for real reasons. (And none of our rules are immune to them except those imposed by WP:OFFICE as legal requirements – there's no IAR rationale to blatantly violate copyright, for example.)

If we want to draw a brighter line that more precisely circumscribes what "emergency" means in this context, within exactly what time-frame, and with a clearer distinction between Level 1 and Level 2, then we should do so. But no one should be "prosecuted" for an alleged failure to abide by letter-of-the-law stuff that respondents (here and at ANI, admin and non-admin, Arb and non-Arb) clearly can't actually agree to interpret consistently in their current state.

I won't comment on whether Bauder should remain desysopped, since there isn't any open question about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ajraddatz

The practice for stewards conducting emergency desysops is to perform the action then notify the appropriate arbcom/community noticeboard so the action can be reviewed. Bureaucrats should have the same discretionary power, so they don't need to invoke IAR to perform a desysop. None of this level 1 or 2 stuff required, and they shouldn't be required to open a public case like this to inform arbcom. As for the actual case itself, some pretty disappointing behaviour from all sides. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to look at the details of the case more specifically now. I agree with some comments made that there is more going on here, and I think that a full case would probably be the best way for the committee to address the various parts. Specifically:

  • The block and subsequent block of Fred Bauder were both done by the wrong people - one who was involved in the edit war, and one who had previously posted this information on Fred's question page, which to me suggests some level of bias against him. This situation could have been dealt with by stepping back and discussing the content removal with Fred, the elections people, or both. If a block was necessary, it would not have been hard to find an uninvolved admin to place it.
  • Fred Bauder's edit warring and self-unblocks were improper. Once his first question move was reverted, he should have stepped back and discussed the situation rather than engaging in edit warring. When he was blocked, he should have requested unblock on his talk page like anyone else would need to do in that situation. I expect that the two self-unblocks alone are enough for a desysop of some level by ArbCom. (Clarified the second self-unblock per suggestion of Bbb23)
  • Bureaucrats do not have the authority to perform emergency desysops. The 2011 RFC that granted bureaucrats the ability to remove the sysop bit explicitly did not grant them the authority to remove permissions in an emergency (see here). I don't think that IAR is a good justification when a discussion on the topic was closed to the contrary, and when stewards could have been easily contacted to perform the action.
  • I'm not sure how I would have responded if someone asked me to perform this emergency desysop. Emergency desysopping should only be done to prevent further disruption to the project, and I do not think that was the case here. Yes, Fred Bauder misused the tools by unblocking himself, but the most recent at the time of desysop was to participate in a discussion, not engage in disruptive behaviour like deleting good pages or doing other sysop-level vandalism. That said, Maxim acted in good faith and did what he thought would be best for the situation, and I don't think he should be penalized for his actions. Edit: I had assumed that the emergency desysop followed immediately after the second unblock. It did not; the second unblock happened at 15:37, the third block happened at 15:47, and the desysop happened over three hours later at 19:08. No steward would have actioned this so far after the fact, and the IAR justification for an emergency desysop is clearly inappropriate here. There was no indication that Fred was going to unblock himself again, and no indication that he would disrupt the project if he did. Any desysop so far after the event should have been done at the request of ArbCom.
  • I previously said above that I think bureaucrats should have the discretionary authority to desysop in these situations. In cases like this that authority would be fine, but maybe not in all situations. Most situations that require an emergency desysop arise when accounts are compromised, but bureaucrats do not have the full toolkit to investigate those situations when they happen. Potentially compromised accounts are usually locked rather than desysopped immediately, and stewards are in a better position to work with the WMF technical people to determine whether the account was actually compromised. I'll need to think more about this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kurtis: I am your test case of a steward who likely would not have desysopped in that situation. Three hours after the fact, with no indication of further abuse of the sysop permission, does not constitute an emergency. In a non-emergency situation, it should be ArbCom calling the shots on whether someone should keep their sysop tools, not stewards and definitely not a bureaucrat in contravention of existing policy under a flaky rationale. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SQL

I am not aware of either party at any time prior to these events attempting to contact the Electoral Commission with regards to any issues at the Questions page. @Mkdw: - At this time, Fred is not disqualified. SQLQuery me! 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

In light of Fred's desire to retain his administrative role (as per Worm That Turned's reading of the situation), I urge ArbCom to accept this as a full case rather than by ruling through motion. The issue at hand here is one that will most certainly come up again in the future, and there seems to be some ongoing dispute as to whether or not the IAR de-sysop was warranted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

My opinion is that a more precise wording is required. Bureaucrat Maxim has not desysoped Fred Bauder. He has taken a technical measure, i.e. he has frozen the ability of Fred Bauder to use his sysop bit. Such a technical measure has been taken under the umbrella of an emergency situation. And now, under the umbrella of the existing policies, the ArbCom has to decide how to exit from this frozen state. Being granted by the en:wp community, adminship can only be removed by the said community, through due process. A motion stating "Maxim, pass ; Fred Bauer, fail" seems to be in order. Pldx1 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KTC

Adding onto SQL's comment, and writing as a member of the Electoral Commission but not on behalf of it, I am also not aware of any editors at any time prior to these events having made any attempt at contacting the Electoral Commission or any of its members with regards to any issues at the Questions page. -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By mandate of the community, "the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion."
@Fred Bauder: As decided by the community, it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to proactively intervene, but only when discussion is not working. Just as a request for arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, the Electoral Commission should only be intervening when there is no alternative. Where was the discussion? -- KTC (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyberpower678

As the last member of the electoral commission, I can say for certain on behalf of the commission, it has not received any complaints or requests to thoroughly review questions being posed to Fred. As a result we have not intervened in the situation that has arisen. I have only been observing for obvious attacks and privacy attacks at candidates. I have not seen such a thing. Most questions are asking for clarification to Fred's rather short answers to already posed questions. If the commission were contacted, we would have investigated and acted accordingly. At this time Fred is still qualified to appear on the ballot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

@Beeblebrox: I disagree. WP:OUTING: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information ... The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". ... Unless unintentional and non-malicious ... attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

I read the activity on the questions page and was shocked by the behavior of several Admins and other editors. The damage done to a real person in unnecessary harassment and outing over real world career ending events many years ago far exceeds any damage Fred has done by moving content and unblocking himself. Anyone with experience in legal and quasijudicial matters knows that what is written up in such cases is often not the whole story. The behavior of the other involved editors needs to be examined more than Fred's understandable reaction to harassment. I endorse Hawkeye's statement as well.

Statement by Donald Albury

If the committee accepts this case, I hope it will look at the disruption caused by posting details of a candidate's off-wiki life in Wikipedia. What an editor and/or admin does in Wikipedia is always relevant. What someone does outside of Wikipedia, if it is not publicly identified with Wikipedia, is not relevant to discussions in Wikipedia. Every time I get sucked back into activity in here, something like this happens to remind me why I've gone inactive in the past. - Donald Albury 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

because everyone else feels it necessary to comment ...

The consensus of the community is clear that an admin who wheel-wars to unblock themselves should be de-sysoped until ARBCOM has ruled on the situation. I hesitate to suggest that a bureaucrat should be commended for engaging in WP:IAR, but the explicitly written rules are several years behind the community consensus. I agree with the comments that an RFC may be the correct way to remedy this situation.

The rest of the situation is entirely unclear, and must be addressed by the committee. Did other editors edit-war, and-or bait Fred Bauder here? Were the blocks of Fred WP:INVOLVED? Was private off-wiki information mentioned on the nomination-questions page? Those are questions to be decided by a case. I don't expect that an outstanding case will negatively impact Fred's chances of election to this body at this point, so there is no need to resolve by motion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to NYB's "abstain", perhaps the committee can do this on an expedited timeframe? With a short evidence phase (and clear Stipulation of facts, which don't appear to be in dispute) this could reach the point of preparing a decision within a week. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

You need to have a case, as indicated by the quantity of comments here. If there was an improper block, that needs to be resolved too. I am really sad Fred lost hit bit. It seems like ArbCom election stress causes this type of incident. We ought to look at how elections are organized and try to make them less stressful on the candidates. Being hammered with a vast number of questions and criticisms can take a toll on even the most stable person. This is not healthy for our community. We’ve lost too many productive members because of it. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I do not envy those who are tasked with adjudicating this debacle. It's easy to see the merit behind the actions and words of nearly everyone in this case, even if you disagree with them. It could set a new precedent for the parameters of IAR, with ramifications going beyond a single case of administrative abuse. The final decision will be an important one.

First of all, there is no question that Fred unblocking himself twice constitutes a serious abuse of the administrative tools on two different levels: self-unblocking, and wheel-warring. This lapse in judgement was egregious enough in and of itself to warrant desysopping, even taking his long tenure as a Wikipedian into consideration. That said, I do not think a site ban is necessary at this time, and I will make a point of arguing against one if it gets proposed at the case workshop.

Maxim's decision to bypass the proper channels and perform an emergency desysop using his bureaucrat tools raises a much more interesting question – one that lacks an easy answer. On one hand, his decision was clearly out of process and not explicitly permitted in policy (as outlined here). Worst-case scenario, it could be a slippery slope wherein editors are emboldened to further test the boundaries of IAR. After all, if a bureaucrat could get away with an ad hoc emergency desysop, why can't I get away with XYZ? But on the other hand, does anybody here actually think that there was a chance of Fred Bauder not being desysopped after unblocking himself twice? I don't know of a single steward who would look at that and go, "Nope, I don't think a desysop is warranted here." Maxim merely hastened the inevitable.

I am glad to see that this case is currently on track to being accepted. A motion would be insufficient for an issue of this complexity. Kurtis (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: I stand corrected. That portion has been stricken. Kurtis (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred_Bauder"