After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.
Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.
If there is no objection, I've made a minor copyedit ("be sanctioned" --> "result in sanctions") to avoid the ambiguity resulting from the irony that "sanction" can mean either "penalize" or "approve" (see auto-antonym). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
NYB, no objection to that copyedit. Katietalk 19:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editor conduct
2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking.
Note that after the events leading to this case, administrators' ability to unblock themselves has been removed by the developers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Administrator involvement
4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.
True in general. As a passing comment we can sometimes be hypersensitive on the issue of "involvement," where any past interaction is assumed to equal an inability to administrate on any future matter. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True and a reflection of the wording on the policy page. But as Euryalus alludes to, it is generally accepted by the community that involvement in the past does not mean permanent involvement. Whether there is enduring involvement is going to depend on the circumstances at the time of the dispute and the longer term relationship of the administrator and other editor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to potentially introduce delay at this stage (I was mostly offline over the weekend), but is this formulation overstated? It could be read to suggest that even a garden-variety content dispute between two editors, one of whom happens to be an admin, would bar the administrator from dealing with completely unrelated issues involving that editor years later. At a minimum we might want to lose the "very" before "broadly." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reversing actions by other administrators
5) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.
I think this case demonstrates that there is some uncertainty in the community regarding what an emergency situation is. While it is difficult to determine in advance, situations such as this and the series of recently compromised accounts are good opportunities to debrief and discuss this definition as a community. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos, Euryalus, BU Rob13, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller: Isaacl has correctly pointed out on the talk page that this isn't actually what wheel warring is. Wheel warring only occurs when a reversed admin action is redone (that is, for example, the second block of Fred, not his first self-unblock). Can we just change the title of this to "Reversing actions by other administrators"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. The wording is right, the header is wrong. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed that, good point. (I'll just, you know, trust in the good sense of the community to recognize that "expected" doesn't mean "if you see one admin revert another literally ever, even if it's just fixing an obvious mistake, and you happen to want the reverting admin to get in trouble, then here's your freebie". Nobody would do a thing like that.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.
Sensitive, yes, but it does not excuse completely excuse unacceptable behaviour. This is a situation where ArbCom, in its (our) more deliberative way, has an opportunity to review the full circumstances and to engage in more lengthy discussion with involved parties. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not disallow administrators from dealing with blatant harassment of themselves by vandals or trolls. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Ignore all rules
7) From the earliest days of Wikipedia, one of the project's central tenets has been "Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Because "IAR" actions are, by definition, taken outside the ordinary policies and guidelines, it is impossible to state in advance when they will be appropriate. However, ignoring all rules is most likely to be warranted when dealing with an unanticipated or emergency situation. Conversely, taking an action based on IAR is less likely to be warranted when there has been a consensus that that sort of action should not be allowed.
Support:
WP:IAR is at the heart of this case, so I think we ought to say something about it. Open to comments and wordsmithing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) This case focuses on the behavior of Fred Bauder(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) and others on and about the page dedicated to community questions about his candidacy for the Arbitration Committee, and subsequent related actions by editors, administrators, and bureaucrats.
2) The community runs Arbitration Elections independently of the Arbitration Committee. The Electoral Commission, whose members are selected by the community, has the community mandate to settle any disputes that may arise.
Relevant to the removal of questions from the election page. This is more a Principle than a Finding. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is probably more a principle than a finding. It is worth noting, however, that issues which involve private information should still be addressed by functionaries or the Committee as appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, until these events I always thought that the "electoral commission" represented unnecessary bureaucracy that added little to the elections process. I now see that I may have been mistaken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Completely fine with this being moved to a principle. ~ Rob13Talk 07:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Opabinia regalis, this is true, but hardly the crux of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Minor quibble: In this and the one above, why not link directly to the diffs? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the timelines were laid out so nicely, and Risker Jytdog also did the diffs herself himself. Katietalk 11:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got agree with the quibble. In the past, we've had issues where we agree with parts of the evidence and therefore link to the evidence section. When someone disagrees with a different part of the evidence or part of the evidence is found to be incorrect, the link to the entire section can lead to a feeling of unhappiness. That said, it's not a major issue. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boing! said Zebedee blocked Fred Bauder
5) At 15:10 (UTC), Boing! said Zebedee blocked Fred Bauder, with whom he was actively engaged in an edit war. (block log)
Support:
I think it is extremely important to note the active engagement in an edit war. Boing! is generally an excellent administrator, and this should be viewed within the context of his overall record, but this was an involved block, in my opinion. While not dismissing the severity of Fred's actions, I do not think this whole incident would have occurred had Boing! waited for an uninvolved administrator to take action. ~ Rob13Talk 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, this was an involved block. Boing had a conflict of interest and there was no pressing need to use administrative tools. To the extent of the reasonable person test at WP:INVOLVED, the fact that Fred had, from his perspective, a valid reason to be reverting would indicate that this was not a straightforward case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with the comments above. This was unfortunate and I think unusual for Boing, but there it is. Doug Wellertalk 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absent the subsequent events this would not have led to an arbitration case or finding, but it's hard to understand the events without noting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure about the combination of this FoF, seems like two birds, one stone, too much so. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 04:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to an extent, but I'm happy with both elements of it. Can always split it if arbs want to vote for them separately. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. If the edit war was not relevant, the block could have moved to a different finding. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fred Bauder unblocked himself twice
6) Fred Bauder unblocked himself at 15:22 (UTC) and again at 15:37 (UTC). (block log)
Worth noting that whilst both un-blocks violated the bright line, one was more unacceptable than the other. The first was made by an involved admin, and done in the heat of the moment. The second was made to participate in a discussion at a noticeboard. Admins are not more special than other users and while I sympathise with wanting to be part of the discussion, no other blocked user is afforded that luxury. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iridescent in recent conflict with Fred Bauder (I)
7.1a) On November 8, Iridescent posted a link to an off-wiki record of a court case involving Fred Bauder at a page for questions regarding Fred Bauder's candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.
I'm supporting this one for now, I'm still thinking about the implications of 7.1b. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this is realistically a "conflict" (I know, my beef is with the header, not the FoF itself) and I also don't think this is central to the narrative here, considering that it isn't part of the disputed material. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see this as a conflict, nor am I sure it should be mentioned. The court case has been linked and discussed in the past, the cat is well out of the bag on that issue. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it wasn't actually a conflict. Doug Wellertalk 11:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've come around on this one, per OR and WTT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain:
I suppressed the link (before it was unsuppressed), so I'm abstaining here. Katietalk 11:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:
While I didn't think posting the links was necessary, I also don't know that a single post, containing information already alluded to by another editor, constitutes "conflict". If this passes, it should at least note that the post in question was not part of the material Fred was removing; it's not in evidence that Iridescent's post had any effect on what followed (and indeed Fred's workshop posts indicate he was more interested in other matters that had been raised). Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting aside whether the reference to the court proceeding was proper (see 7.1b below), we can agree that Iridescent had publicly established himself as in firm opposition to Fred's candidacy. Is that a "conflict"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A not dissimilar argument is put forward with arbitrators needing to recuse on a person who has firmly opposed a candidacy. The arguments can easily be stretched. WormTT(talk) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iridescent in recent conflict with Fred Bauder (II)
7.1b) On November 8, Iridescent posted a link to an off-wiki record of a court case involving Fred Bauder at a page for questions regarding Fred Bauder's candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. Finding and publicizing this off-wiki record is "opposition research" prohibited by the policy on harassment.
Support:
First choice. While Fred may have talked generally about the incident on-wiki at some point, he had not linked to the court decision. Digging it up and posting it on-wiki represents opposition research which we usually would not allow. The court decision included multiple facts and details, including personal details, that had not previously been disclosed on-wiki. ~ Rob13Talk 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question whether it was proper to refer and link the off-wiki matters on Fred's candidacy page raises some very interesting questions of policy and wiki-ethics. I could discuss the issues at some length here, but I don't think it would be helpful to do so. Suffice it to say that while the appropriateness of discussing Fred Bauder's off-wiki matter can be the subject of legitimate disagreement, Iridescent's statement in this arbitration convinces me that he referred to the matter (1) in the good-faith belief that under the circumstances, his doing so was allowed by policy, and (2) without any malicious or improper purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my comments in 7.1.a. Katietalk 11:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:
KrakatoaKatie, I don't think you need to abstain. Oversighting information is a purely administrative act, and should be taken from an overly cautious perspective, with the understanding that it is easy to put back if not needed. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. Still abstaining. :-) Katietalk 11:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sure this was an "indefinite does not mean infinite" block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Maxim desysopped Fred Bauder
9) Citing WP:IAR, Maxim(talk·contribs·rights·renames) desysopped Fred Bauder at 19:08 (UTC), over three hours after the latest related administrative action. The Arbitration Committee had not authorized Maxim to do so, nor did Maxim attempt to contact the Arbitration Committee prior to removing the sysop flag. (User rights log)
"The Arbitration Committee had not authorized Maxim to do so, nor did Maxim attempt to contact the Arbitration Committee prior to removing the sysop flag." In hindsight, I actually don't think the presence of the arbcom-en thread makes any difference here. It did not affect the thinking of any of the parties to this case insofar as it was private at the time, so it shouldn't affect our decision. ~ Rob13Talk 07:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better!! I also agree that the arbcom-en discussion is effectively irrelevant to the point this finding is making. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Authorised is better, thanks. Wouldn't have hurt for Maxim to check if Arbcom was aware of and discussing the issue before pre-empting the outcome. But have already offered my opinion on how important that issue is in comments on the proposed remedies. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the above, I've changed the finding to emphasize Maxim not reaching out to ArbCom instead of the ongoing ArbCom-en discussion (and replaced "directed" with "authorized" per Callanecc). Pinging those who have already voted but didn't comment above: @DeltaQuad and Premeditated Chaos:. Also pinging KrakatoaKatie in case she had any further thoughts/wordsmithing to offer on this. ~ Rob13Talk 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm good with it as reworded. Katietalk 11:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Current policy on bureaucratic removal of administrator permissions
10) The 2011 RFC on bureaucratic removal of administrative permissions states that bureaucrats may remove permissions upon request of the administrator involved, at the request of the Arbitration Committee, or due to inactivity. There was no consensus to allow bureaucrats to remove administrative permissions in emergency situations.
This is also accurate. However, with the caveat that this was exactly the rule that Maxim was ignoring as IAR. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This process specifies to what exactly? It sounds like a standard is being implied that's not fully made by the sentence. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 04:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "these events". ~ Rob13Talk 07:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Whether or not 2 passes, as this is for a separate issue. It is important to pass a remedy similar to what we would pass for edit-warring if Fred were not an administrator to avoid the Super Mario Problem. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as a different issue to the primary reasons for the desysop. Admonishments make it very clear that an editor's conduct was unacceptable and that any further repeats of the same conduct will be dealt with robustly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely unbecoming in an administrator. Katietalk 11:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree with the opposes that this is unusual and unlikely to reoccur. Other events like this have happened in the past, just in different areas. Also I don't see Fred being particularly objective at this point. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 23:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't really see the point in admonishments. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't like admonishments in general, don't see the point of this one in particular. I don't think I really believe in the "Super Mario problem" - at least I've never seen any empirical evidence of it - but even aside from that, nobody gets "admonished" over a single instance of edit-warring. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unnecessary. The circumstances of this particular edit-war were unusual and very unlikely to recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2) For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Support:
Effectively, the existing desysop is upheld. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Abuse of rollback" seems like over-egging the pudding, but after someone unblocks themselves twice it's hard to argue they aren't out of touch with community expectations for adminship. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was the second unblock that I take particular exception to. Partially due to wheel-warring, partially due to the fact that no non-admin blocked user could do the same. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per consensus both on and off the Committee. I could live with a somewhat lesser sanction, such as a six-month suspension of adminship rather than outright desysopping, but I'm not going to propose it as an alternative because there is no chance it would pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good advice for anyone. A caution is the absolute highest I'd place this, so weak support only. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Changed my mind, will come back to this after another read through of the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Yeah, like I said above, not his finest moment. If arbcom comes over for dinner I hope we'll have trout. But I don't think a formal remedy is necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessary. The circumstances of this editing dispute were unusual and are unlikely to recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3.2) Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
Support:
I do think the block was involved, given the active edit war between Boing! and Fred. I imagine Boing!'s thought process was that anyone would have similarly reverted Fred's removal of legitimate community questions over at the candidate question page, but the proper course of action would still have been to contact the election commissioners. Fred's actions are a mitigating circumstance – his unilateral removal of community questions during an election process was completely unreasonable – but Boing! still should have awaited an uninvolved admin to block or contacted the election commissioners instead of acting himself. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think cautioning for the block is more important than cautioning for the edit war, but yeah. Katietalk 11:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to fall here, just about. A block was not needed, and lit a fuse. Boing! said Zebedee is an excellent admin who has admitted that he was worked up over this and I absolutely empathise. I'd prefer "reminded" to cautioned, but otherwise I can accept this. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prefer reminded, per WTT, but ok. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
As above. (For the record, though, the involved-ness is of more concern than the edit-warring alone.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iridescent is involved with respect to Fred after posting opposition research, in my opinion, but re-blocking an administrator who self-unblocked is such an obvious action that I think this is a "straightforward case" in the sense of the third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my comments in the FoF. Katietalk 11:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:
Maxim admonished
5.1) Maxim is admonished for removing the administrator user right from Fred Bauder outside of established procedures for desysopping, against community consensus to disallow bureaucrats from independently acting in emergency situations, and in a situation that did not constitute an emergency.
Support:
The community has determined that bureaucrats are not permitted to remove the admin right outside of very specific circumstances. Bureaucrats, as some of the most trusted users on the project, must ensure that they only use their powers inside the limits which have been laid down by the community. The correct action here would have been to report it to ArbCom (or stewards if Maxim believed it to be an emergency) as the body authorised to remove admin permissions in this circumstance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't really see the point of formal admonishments. Let's leave it at this: Maxim, can you please not do this again without consulting Arbcom or the Election Commissioners? Thanks. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undecided about admonisments, but Euryalus's suggestion seems enough. Doug Wellertalk 10:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my previous commentary at the case request - unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again I dont know what admonishments serve as a purpose. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My only issue Maxim's actions with this was the period of time (3 hours) really makes it seem like "not an emergency". If he had done so 2 hours earlier, I would be fully supporting him. He drew a line under the dispute and moved it to arbcom. I cannot in good conscience disagree with that action. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, this was Maxim posting at ANI. At that point, many people had been calling for a community ban of Fred. Tensions were running high and Maxim's statement appears to show that 1) he felt things were going to escalate further without an immediate desysop and 2) Arbcom were not likely to desysop in the short term. After he made the desysop, he submitted himself to Arbcom, and things did not escalate further. Overall, I do not believe we should be admonishing Maxim, I believe we should be thanking him. So, I will - Maxim Thank you. WormTT(talk) 11:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5.2) For removing the administrator user right from Fred Bauder outside of established procedures for desysopping, against community consensus to disallow bureaucrats from independently acting in emergency situations, and in a situation that did not constitute an emergency, Maxim(talk·contribs·rights·renames)'s bureaucrat user right is removed. They may regain the bureaucrat user right at any time via a successful Requests for bureaucratship.
Support:
Mostly per my comments below. To add a bit: Bureaucrat is a fundamentally different role than administrator. Whereas administrators are given a bundle of tools and given broad discretion to use them as they see fit within the bounds of certain policies, guidelines, and accepted community norms, the role of a bureaucrat is narrowly prescribed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. An IAR desysop steps far outside the role described there. I believe a bureaucrat exceeding their mandate by granting or removing the sysop flag outside of accepted community procedures is sufficient to potentially de-crat. The poor judgement in determining an inactive dispute to be an emergency that could not wait for either the Arbitration Committee or a steward pushes me to support this. If the community believes the bureaucrats should be able to act in these sorts of situations, then they should change the procedures guiding the bureaucrats. ~ Rob13Talk 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose:
Unnecessary. This wasn't such an emergency that it needed a rush to IAR, but in practice it simply jumped the gun for what Arbcom were going to get to anyway. Let's move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no sort of conduct unbecoming. A mistake, maybe, I'll leave that up to readers, but nothing towards gross misconduct. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 03:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maxim acted in a good faith attempt to prevent disruption on the project. While it may have been ill advised it was not malicious, nor was it serious or ongoing misconduct of the sort which would warrant decratting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not. There was near-universal agreement at the case request phase that Maxim's action, was entirely in good faith and should not result in negative consequences for him, however much we might prefer that he not do the same thing again in the future. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's important to put this on the table, but I don't believe removal of the bit is necessary. However, my 'prefer that he not do the same thing again in the future' is more of a 'don't do it again'. Katietalk 11:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also per my thoughts at the case request - Maxim erred, but he erred in good faith with the intent to protect the project. No one has brought up any ongoing issues with his conduct or judgment, so I think we can safely assume he'll not do it again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maxim made a mistake. He owned up to it and knows that his actions were incorrect. There isn't history of this sort of action from Maxim, and I don't see this happening again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absoltuely not, per my comments on the other remedy. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maxim's action was unprecedented, as far as I can tell, and I think this has to at least be on the table. This was simply not an emergency, and so there was no reason to fly in with the bureaucrat tools in contravention of community policy on desysopping. Even if it was an emergency, the community has explicitly decided against allowing bureaucrats to desysop in cases of disruption. That aspect of the emergency desysopping question in the 2011 RfC was SNOW closed, even. In an emergency, a bureaucrat should currently contact a steward for immediate emergency desysopping or send an email to the Arbitration Committee. It seems that Maxim greatly exceeded their community mandate, and I am personally uncomfortable with a bureaucrat feeling that it is acceptable to IAR desysop someone. Bureaucrats are chosen for their good judgement and ability to comply strictly with their mandate. Maxim exercised extremely poor judgement and exceeded their mandate to a greater extent than it appears any bureaucrat has done before, so I'm leaning toward supporting this. The community can always decide they wish to retain Maxim as a bureaucrat in an RfB, if they disagree. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to dissent on extremely poor. The full application of IAR is literally to ignore all the rules. Some could say it's a valid interpretation of IAR. But a 2011 RfC doesn't prohibit 'crats from desysoping in emergency, just doesn't allow it either. So the application of IAR should be considered here. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 04:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2011 RfC did not yield strong consensus against all emergency removals, but it did find strong consensus against emergency removals for disruption, which is what this is. See the "Emergencies (closed)" section, which was SNOW closed with votes of 1-15 against allowing bureaucrats to desysop in cases of disruption. Further, even if there wasn't such consensus against removals for disruption, this argument would only apply to truly emergent situations, which this was not. Three and a half hours of complete administrative inactivity does not constitute an emergency, even if the administrative judgement displayed was extremely subpar before that. Being unable to judge whether this situation was an emergency is itself extremely poor judgement, in my opinion. It suggests rashness and haste without a full understanding of the situation rather than the patience and deliberative qualities the community looks for in bureaucrats. ~ Rob13Talk 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editors reminded
6) Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private nature should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.
As I noted above, until last month I was convinced that creating and selecting an "Electoral Commission" each year was an unnecessary extension of the already complicated election bureaucracy. It now appears I may have been wrong about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first sentence doesn't really make sense as vandalism isn't really an example of a circumstance when there isn't time for discussion. I'd probably prefer that this was phrased around issues which can't be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism) should be referred to the Electoral Commission. However, this remedy still needs to make clear that private issues should still be referred to the functionaries or ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7) The community is encouraged to hold a discussion to determine if there is consensus to alter the cases in which bureaucrats may unilaterally desysop an administrator.
Support:
Oppose:
The community is of course welcome to hold a discussion on anything it likes, but as a personal view the proper technical process in this instance was clear enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philosophically, I am against the Arbitration Committee using its soapbox to influence how the community forms policy. I suspect this will be passed, but I wish ArbCom would stop it with the "community encouraged" remedies in favor of individual arbitrators proposing policy changes at the appropriate venues in their roles as individual editors. ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not at the point of needing to tell the community that policy needs to be changed because it's causing issues, but like Euryalus says, it's absolutely welcome to. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the point of this remedy. If you think community policy needs to be changed, start an RfC, if you think ArbCom procedures need to be modified propose a motion. In any case, I don't believe that this is a policy that needs to be changed. ArbCom is quite capable of handling issues such as this. Emergencies that can't wait for ArbCom to pull a permission should be referred to stewards. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone back and forth on the "encourage an RfC" style pseudo-remedies. I tried once to tabulate how often these RfCs actually happen, but they're not always so easy to find after the fact. But I don't think the general case is so important here, because I just don't really think a new discussion is necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The community needs to be the one to stress this, not ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a need to change this. I think we need to look at how fast we get communication on Arbcom, but the 'crats are good. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've written and supported several "community urged to discuss" remedies over the years, where there were glaring gaps in or problems with policy, but this isn't one of those situations. The community certainly may revisit this issue but given the rarity with which this situation has arisen, I can't say it's a top priority that it do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by --Cameron11598(Talk) 07:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 03:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC) by Cameron11598.Reply[reply]
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.
Support
All points are either passing or unable to pass. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
