The Evidence phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked or sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

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.

Fred Bauder violated WP:NEVERUNBLOCK and WP:WHEEL

Special:Block/Fred Bauder is all you need to establish this. On November 11 Fred was blocked. Twelve minutes later he unblocked himself. Another twelve minutes passed before the block was re-instated by a second admin with the block summary "Reblocking; unblocking yourself is clear admin abuse per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK" thus clearly informing Fred of the policy in the extremely unlikely case that he somehow was not aware of it. EDIT: Fred clearly ws very aware of this, per [1] Three minutes later he unblocked himself a second time, and ten minutes after that a third administrator blocked him.

Arbcom has in the past maintained that the correctness of the initial block is irelevant and the blocking policy upholds this position:"Unblocking will almost never be acceptable:When it would constitute wheel warring. 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.". The second unblock is particularly egregious as it is clearly wheel warring, which is always to be avoided. Fred, as a highly experienced Wikipedian and former arbitrator himself, should have been fully aware of the relevant policies. His frustration with the barrage of questions and other activities on his questions page is understandable, but his response when his actions were challenged was not.

(I personally do not belive the scope of the case should go beyond this and would have preferred a simple motion for desysop. The possibility that one or more of the other admins involved here violated WP:INVOLVED does not change the easily established facts presented above and does not in and of itself merit a full case unless there is evidence of an ongoing pattern of violating the involved admin policy.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maxim's desysop

Within ten minutes of posting at ANI [2] that he had removed Fred's admin privileges, Maxim duly reported his action to the committee [3] for their review.

Replies/rebuttals

"I'm not aware that Fred Bauder has been previously admonished. wbm1058 (talk) 3:09 pm, Today (UTC−9)"

I'm not aware of him being the subject of such an admonishment from arbcom, but as a former arb he did used to be one of the people doing the admonishing, including for self-unblocking. When you put self-unblocking and wheel warring together as he did that' a double whammy of offenses, either of which can lead to a desysop on its own. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JytDog's timeline below is more thorough and informative than what I've presented here. I personally think this is enough for a desysop but what he's compiled there is even more compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronald Duncan's evidence contains a number of glaring errors. See related thread on talk page. Being submitted just under the wire as it was I suggest it be ignored as poorly presented and in parts provably false. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical role of bureaucrats

I have provided links to past policy discussions regarding emergency de-sysopping by bureaucrats, and my findings regarding the history of such actions, at WP:BN. Since the page is periodically archived, I also offer this permalink.

Best regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tenure, good faith, quantity, and quality of contributions by participants

The committee is no doubt aware that Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) and Maxim (talk · contribs) each have made extensive contributions to Wikipedia, are passionate in their good-faith efforts to further the goals of the project, and have extensive contribution histories spanning over ten years, that show their lengthy and ongoing commitment to Wikipedia.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A brief (recent) history of self-unblocks

• Administrators not self-unblocking (broadly with the exception of reversion their own blocks, usually accidental) has a very bright line in the sand for at least a dozen years---see 2006 ANI thread and related 2007 Husnock case principle
• It is downright bizarre and unusual to have a situation where Admin A blocks Admin B for cause and Admin B self-unblocks. It's not common for admins to be blocked but it is not unknown to happen. Yet it is next to unheard of for the admin to self-unblocks. The expectation is so profoundly clear that I can think of one similar case since 2006 (outside of vandal sprees), namely Tanthalas39 which resulted in emergency desysop

Emergency desysops, bureaucrats, and stewards

• A relevant discussion is presented at WP:BN by User:UninvitedCompany [4] and in part of User:Ajraddatz comments in this case: talkpage link.
• One way of summarizing the existing situation is that there isn't quite clear consensus on any part of the matter, especially as it comes to where to draw a line in the sand
• What I would note with regards to UninvitedCommpany's comments is that bureaucrats are best described as conservative. Maybe to a fault. There is a tendency to not act outside very clearly defined norms.
• For compromised/rogue accounts, Ajraddatz notes that the course of action is to lock the SUL account (bureaucrats do not have the technical means to do this)

Gaps in established procedure and practice: a synthesis

• There's no established response to admins self-unblocking... because it happens once or twice a decade. It's a bizarre edge case.
• If Fred Bauder had unblocked himself a third time, another admin would reblocked. And so on and so forth. Note that his arbitration statement clearly indicates that he "might have unblocked [him]self again". One would usually call this a wheel war from all sides but I believe no one has yet said that reblocking admins were wheel-warring. The reason for that is that the community norm regarding self-unblocks utterly and completely trumps that.
• In an edit war, you can block the parties (or protect the page, as appropriate). In such a situation, blocking one or multiple parties doesn't work because the block doesn't stick.
• It's unhealthy for the community as a whole to have such warring persist or lay in stasis.

Uncharted territory

Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause shows only three former incidents of Arbitration Committee-confirmed desysopping due to "war". Two of these were by Jimmy Wales, who historically has used "founder" privileges

1. Wheel warring (ArbCom confirmed) by Jimbo Wales 6 February 2006
2. Wheel warring (ArbCom confirmed) by Jimbo Wales 23 February 2007

and the third was

• On 4 May 2010, under Level I procedures for expedited temporary desysopping, the required three arbitrators supported temporary desysopping, as detailed in the procedures; desysop done by Thogo per [5] and request of arbcom member on IRC. (user log)
  • The block which triggered the "wheel war" unblock was by Prodego with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) for Personal attacks or harassment: on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and User talk:Tanthalas39.
  • Unless the Prodego block was a WP:INVOLVED action, I think we're in unprecedented territory, and whatever decision the Committee makes will set a new precedent.
  • I'd argue that personal attacks or harassment are a more severe violation than attempting to moderate an election Q&A page, but then, "context matters" there, I suppose. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

! Per Prodego's block log, he was blocked for 31 hours (violation of WP:POINT)

• Fred Bauder did not issue any retaliatory blocks! So, clearly this case does not present any sort of precedent that might be followed here. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As pointed out below, User:INeverCry was charged with wheel-warring, and voluntarily resigned their adminship rather than fight the charges. As INeverCry has since been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites, I'm assuming that their crime(s) were significantly more serious than self-moderating an election page, though I suppose we'll never know for sure since the WMF didn't provide specific reasons.
• Hawkeye7 was desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. I'm not aware that Fred Bauder has been previously admonished. wbm1058 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precedent does not support desysopping Fred Bauder

Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples provides some citations of ArbCom findings for historical reference. Among these is a case where an administrator was cited for Inappropriate blocking: Freestylefrappe blocked Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) for three hours over "modify[ing] the comments of other users" — the "other users" in this case being namely Freestylefrappe himself. When Jeffrey O. Gustafson unblocked himself, Freestylefrappe reblocked for six hours. This constitutes behaviour inappropriate of an administrator, who should not block in a dispute where he himself is a party, nor wheel war. Indeed, the editor who unblocked himself in this case was not sanctioned, while the editor who blocked him was desysopped, for multiple transgressions including this inappropriate block. While the editor who unblocked himself was later apparently sanctioned for another incident, that desysopping was only temporary as he eventually only lost his bit for inactivity. Here's the relevant block log. This is one of the relevant wheel-warring cases cited at WP:Administrators. wbm1058 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional desysops for wheel warring

Wbm1058 is incorrect:

• This case request from 2013.
• A desysop for wheel warring from 2012: [6] --Rschen7754 18:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stewards do desysop for wheel warring in certain cases

• enwikiversity, 2014

However, as enwiki does have emergency removal procedures from ArbCom (unlike most other wikis where it would take a 7 day procedure to remove an administrator by community vote), I do not think a steward would have taken action if the request was presented to them 2-3 hours after the fact. Stewards are advised to act cautiously on enwiki and (especially) dewiki, because they are the largest wikis and a mistake there could offend enough editors to cause their annual confirmation to fail. --Rschen7754 18:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wbm1058: Although ArbCom did say "in the face of previous admonishments", in fact there was only one previous admonishment, and that was for taking action while WP:INVOLVED. This was noted by ArbCom at the time, but it decided not to change the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• note - diffs added below, and redaction to fix errors, now that history of questions page has been de-oversighted. I apologize to all for my errors about Boing using rollback; they wasted people's time. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After several years of little activity, per his edit count, Fred decided to run for Arbcom per his statement.

As often happens in elections, Fred received some rather pointed questions pretty much from the getgo/

FB'a answers have been... terse and cryptic (e.g their first round of answers and 2nd round, 3rd round, which prompted several people to ask him to elaborate, eg Boing here and here from Winged Blades of Godric.

Fred found some of them (from Boing!, Winged Blades of Godric, and Softlavender) to be Extended comments as he noted - continuing with the terse crypticness - on 11 November in the 1st diff at the talk page when he started moving questions there (the other diffs from Talk are here -- no edit notes. There was no edit note on the Questions page when he removed this content from there (!). I cannot provide any diffs on the questions page from the relevant time period, due to the oversighting of the history.

Based on Fred's recent post on the Workshop page, the question from Beeblebrox in particular seems to have been the proximal cause for FB's upsetness... the question from Beeblebrox on 8 November here), was asking Fred: "I’m wondering if you could comment on what led to you unsubscribing from the functionaries mailing list." (which is a very careful, neutral way to ask the question). The fact that FB was removed from the list, is information available on WP.

This is somewhat hard to understand since Beeblebrox posted on 8 November and the talk page removals didn't begin until 11 November. I cannot work out the motivation, but the behavior (edit warring on his question page, and unblocking himself twice, are very clear.

There appears to be some question about Maxim's judgement in de-sysopping. I think it would be useful to have the whole timeline as it unfolded at the question page, the block log, the user rights log, and the filing of the Arbcom case, all in one place. (again, I cannot show diffs at the questions page due to the oversighting; the page history is here)

1. 14:49, 11 November 2018 FB first tried to hat/collapse some comments from Boing, Winged Blades of Godric, and Softlavender,(diff) and then apparently got frustrated trying to get that right, and...
2. 14:50, 11 Nov -- FB removed the hatting/collapsing removed 229b from questions page (diff)

   14:52, 11 Nov -- FB pastes content from questions page onto Talk page diff

   14:53, 11 Nov -- FB removed 6,080b from questions page (diff)

   14:54, 11 Nov -- FB removed 4,395b from questions page (diff)

   14:56, 11 Nov -- FP pastes more onto Talk page 2 diffs

   14:56, 11 Nov -- FP pastes more onto Talk page diff

   • 14:59, 11 Nov -- Winged Blades of Godric restores 10,475, reverting all FB's removals on the questions page (diff)
3. 15:00, 11 Nov -- FB again removed 3,307 from questions page (diff)

   15:02, 11 Nov -- FB removed 7,168 from questions page ({https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/Fred_Bauder/Questions&diff=next&oldid=868336875 diff])

   • 15:03, 11 Nov -- Winged Blades of Godric uses rollback, restores 10,475 on questions page (diff)
4. 15:04, 11 Nov -- FB rollsback on questions page (diff)
   • 15:05, 11 Nov -- Boing! said Zebedee rollsback reverts on questions page (diff)  Fixed
5. 15:07, 11 Nov -- FB rollsback questions page (diff)
   • 15:07, 11 Nov -- Winged Blades of Godric rollsback on questions page (diff)
6. 15:07, 11 Nov -- FB rollsback on questions page (diff)
   • 15:09, 11 Nov -- Boing! said Zebedee rollsback reverts on questions page (diff)  Fixed
     • 15:10, 11 Nove -- Boing! said Zebedee blocks FB (block log)
       • 15:16, 11 Nov -- Boing! said Zebedee opens ANI thread (thread is now archived here
     • 15:22, 11 Nov -- 2018 FB unblocks self (block log)
7. 15:22, 11 Nov -- FB rollsback on questions page (diff)

   15:26, 11 Nov -- Boing! said Zebedee removes content FB had pasted onto questions Talk page diff

15:26, 11 Nov -- Bishonen at ANI diffNote': Fred Bauder has unblocked himself. Another obvious competence issue. WP:RFAR next?

15:27, 11 Nov -- Boing at ANI diff That's an emergency desysop situation, isn't it?

15:28, 11 Nov -- FB comment at ANI diff No material has been removed. Lengthy repetitive comments and campaigning by users opposed my candidacy have been moved to the talk page where further comments can be made, and anyone can view them. (NOTE, per FB's contribs from that time, this was the first of only three comments FB made anywhere, discussing his actions before the Arbcom case opened)

15:30, 11 Nov -- FB comment at ANI diff The block was made by a participant in an edit war. I have the right to have a page to respond to questions that is not cluttered up by campaigning against me.

15:31, 11 Nov -- Iridescent responds, diff Yes; per WP:NEVERUNBLOCK this is straightforward admin abuse. Desysop at minimum and probably a lengthy block (or even siteban) for intentional disruption.

15:32, 11 Nov -- Boing comment at ANI diff I have emailed Arbcom to request temp desysop.

• 15:34, 11 Nov -- Iridescent blocks FB (block log), notes at ANI that if FB unblocks himself, again, he will request a community ban.
• 15:37, 11 Nov -- FB unblocks self (block log)

  15:37, 11 Nov -- FB comment at ANI diff I need to be able to participate in this discussion, at least.

15:39, 11 Nov‎ -- Future Perfect at Sunrise restores (nonrollack) content on questions page (diff)

• 15:41, 11 Nov -- Iridescent opens community ban proposal at ANI
• 15:47, 11 Nov -- Future Perfect at Sunrise blocks FB (block log)

• 19:08, 11 Nov -- Maxim desyopped FB (user rights log)
• 19:20, 11 Nov -- Maxim opens Arbcom case diff
• 23:38 12 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)

• 17 November 2018‎ -- Only today, at the Workshop page of all places, has Fred Bauder begun to try to articulate their objections to the content they were edit warring to remove, and even unblocked themselves in their effort to continue edit warring to remove. See Workshop proposals. No evidence presented on this page. This is mind-boggling.

In my view, given a) FB's a) lack of any effort to discuss his concerns with the questions he was removing; b) lack of CLUE and his IDHT with respect to people's reactions to his removals, edit warring, and self-unblocking, and in addition his c) reckless use of his tools, and given that d) Boing had emailed asking for an emergency desysop -- given all that, Maxim's IAR action was not unreasonable, and should be allowed to stand. There was no reason to assume that FB would not continue wheel-warring to unblock himself. This was a very strange situation of someone who clearly should not have had the tools abusing them blatantly, twice, and even defending that abuse, in a very public forum. It would have been better had someone responded more swiftly to the desysop request, but that is done. This is what IAR is for. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*NOTE: The edits discussed in the evidence below have now been unsuppressed, and parties and community members may assess them directly. Risker (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Timeline that may be obscured due to currently suppressed edits

This timeline is provided as fact evidence to address the timeline of edits that occurred on the pages specified below, which are not currently available to the community due to edit suppressions that are unrelated to these edits. Please note that this information is provided without prejudice or intention to influence this matter in any way. There is no suppressed material in the edits described below, and all of the content of those edits is currently visible on the candidate question page, as well as the history of the candidate question talk page.

This is a timeline of actions for the period 14:39 hours on 11 November 2018 to 15:47 hours on 11 November 2018, that pertain to this case. They are specific to

• edits on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions (abbreviated as "Questions")
• edits on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions (abbreviated as "Q-Talk")
• Entries on the block log of Fred Bauder

Other pages that were edited during the relevant period include:

• edits on User talk:Fred Bauder
• Edits to the Administrator's noticeboard (archived threads 1 and 2)

Users whose actions are identified in this chart are as follows:

• Boing! said Zebedee (abbreviated BSZ)
• Fred Bauder (abbreviated FB)
• Winged Blades of Godric (abbreviated WBG)
• Iridescent (abbreviated Iri)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (abbreviated FPAS)
• Bus stop

On the role of B'crats

• Providing Crats with the powers to desysop an admin is a relatively recent development (~2011). Historically all desysops had to be done by Stewards.
• When technical powers to desysop was made available, a RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bureaucrat_removal_of_adminship_policy#Emergencies_(v2) discussed the topic of emergency desysop by Crats at length. While it gained 75% support from the community (which is close to a consensus in 2011), the closer decided there was no consensus, but could be put to a future straw vote or proposal. As far as I know this has not happened since.
• It should be noted that Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions states that "The use of these procedures is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, or removal following a request from the Arbitration Committee, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions." - noting that it only refers to Stewards. However generally, Stewards these days only intervene if there is cross-project vandalism. My observation is that Steward prefer to let users of the local wiki/project to decide, with their powers, what to do in the local wiki because they have better knowledge of the local circumstances and specific policies that operate there. Indeed, the Steward page states that "When a particular project has a permissions group with no member (such as the administrators permissions group or bureaucrats permissions group), a steward may exercise the powers of a member of the empty permissions group. However, except in an emergency or when action across multiple projects is needed, stewards generally do not exercise their powers in a project that has local users with the required rights.".
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar is an another old case where blocking and self unblocking took place, with a resulting high level of visible damage to the wiki, illustrates a "time of an essence" argument where B'crats (if something similar were to happen today) should be able to perform an emergency de-sysop. Flagging a global steward (who is likely to ask ArbCom) or asking ArbCom may prolong the time before an emergency desysop. This case is also noted for the admin performing self-unblocking in three instances.
• ArbCom will have to decide in this case whether they will allow a "emergency desysop first, then report to ArbCom immediately" (which happened here) or ArbCom insisting on Level I procedures. Even if no sanctions were to be decided here, doing something or nothing sets a precedent. This decision has the potential for unintended consequences in future.

User talk page was not disabled

• Despite Fred being blocked, his block log indicates that the "cannot edit own talk page" option was not enabled. He may have an option to continue any discussion he needs at that page, and it would not be unusual for other editors to check his user talk page for further edits. An immediate option to request an unblock should also have been available to him in the same manner.

- Mailer Diablo 19:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precedents of re-blocking after self-unblocks

• When User:Tanthalas39 unblocked himself on 4 May 2010, he was re-blocked by User:Coren, then a sitting arbitrator, 5 minutes later. Tanthalas39 was subsequently emergency-desysopped. Coren was not charged with wheel-warring for his re-block, and nobody that I can find seems to have ever suggested that he should.
• When User:Husnock unblocked himself on 18 December 2006, he was re-blocked by User:Phil Boswell 7 hours later, though for a different block reason than the original block.
• When User:Robdurbar went on a vandal spree and unblocked himself several times in a row on 19 April 2007, he was quickly re-blocked by several other admins within a matter of minutes. As it was clearly a case of Robdurbar having gone rogue and vandalizing, no further actions against the other admins were considered.
• When User:172 unblocked himself on 28 February 2005, he was re-blocked by User:Phil Sandifer a minute later. He subsequently wheel-warred against him and multiple other admins, unblocking himself 5 times in a row. All admins involved were then emergency-desysopped by bureaucrat User:Ed Poor, but had their admin status restored a short time later. No further sanctions for wheel-warring were imposed.
• When User:Stevertigo unblocked himself on 6 August 2005, he was re-blocked after 20 minutes by User:Thryduulf. He went on to unblock himself four times in a row and was re-blocked each time, by two further admins. None of the other admins involved was charged with wheel-warring, as far as I can tell.
• User:Herostratus and User:Marudubshinki seem to have unblocked themselves without having their blocks re-instated.

FYI: Self-Unblocking by functionaries administrators disabled per [7]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats ganged up on a candidate who responded inappropriately

I think it all kicks off back on November the 5th when User:WJBscribe asks a question implying that User:Fred Bauder did not follow policy in his contributions to articles on Donald Trump a controversial topic if every there was one. User:WJBscribe then 20 minutes later slapped a User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Donald_Trump_(post-1932_politics_of_the_United_States)_(discretionary_sanctions_notice) onto User talk:Fred Bauder.

There are then a series of questions that are negative statements about the candidate, some of which refer back to the discretionary sanctions notice and to each other from

• Boing! said Zebedee who also comments on the discretionary sanctions notice in User talk:Fred Bauder
• Winged Blades of Godric
• Beeblebrox

They then get into edit warring, blocking and an embarrassing mess, and Beeblebrox reports Fred Bauder for unblocking.RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then whilst he is blocked they try to Community ban him. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Proposal:_Community_ban Which was rejected.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric seems to still have it in for Fred Bauder

He nominated 3 articles that Fred Bauder started for deletion on 25 November.

• User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nomination_of_Jewbook_for_deletion
• User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nomination of Ceepeecee, British Columbia for deletion
• User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Nomination_of_False_reality_bubble_for_deletion

As an outsider this looks like an ongoing vendetta.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You missed another one (scroll a few threads up) and if you disagree with my nominations, you can always have your say in the AfDs.∯WBG^converse 15:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks it is too late it has already been deleted. I can not see what was there to comment on it. Destruction is always quicker than creation.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It just feels a bit Wikipedia:POINTY RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.