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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Wbm1058, INeverCry's community global ban and the subsequent WMF TOS ban were several years later. The community discussions (1 & 2) are a good start as to the probable cause of the WMF one. -- KTC (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: The fact he previously voted for this is a fair thing to note. I doubt there's any precedent at all regarding the matter of (previous) ArbCom members' knowledge of the rules, but I think it would be fair to establish a new precedent (priniciple) along the lines of "Arbitration Committee members and former members are expected to be knowledgable about Wikipedia's policies, and are expected to uphold a higher standard in following them." But along with that, I'd hold administrators to a higher standard too, including those making the INVOLVED blocks that he reverted. I don't see how you can come down hardline "no exceptions" on the wheel warring while giving an "IAR pass" for the involved blocking. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this has been posted already (or if it is relevant to the timeline) but there was a thread at AN/EW at the time the edit warring was taking place - now archived here. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone clarify the nature of the suppressed material? Did Iridescent out Fred and then block him? I've seen the timelines, but neither of them discuss the content of the material.--v/r - TP 19:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent supplied a diff to online material that documented the events Fred was discussing in the paragraphs immediately preceding, in the section "Questions from Eric Corbett". Since Fred has always edited under his real name, had been openly and voluntarily talking about the events in question himself in that very thread and the links in question had previously been cited and discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, again with Fred's own active participation, this is hardly "outing". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the suppression? What reason under WP:SUPPRESS was used for the suppression? Or does it need to be reversed?--v/r - TP 20:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a discussion thread about this somewhere on one of the talkpages here, probably on Talk/Workshop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A careful read of Iredescent's statement on the main case page will tell you exactly what you want to know. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the edits have now been unsuppressed. Further discussion of this is on the workshop talk page. Risker (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I wonder if you would mind clarifying in your timeline that I did not use the forbidden Rollback, as this has led to some confusion on the Workshop page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing! said Zebedee Fixed. I am sorry for the errors and the waste of time they caused.Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

diff of the fix, in case it is useful to anybody. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just the cases Future Perfect at Sunrise found that didn't result in a desysop:

• Herostratus - a strong admonishment for unblocking in response to a very poor block.
• Marudubshinki - seems to have been running a bot under their account that went dooda, blocking admin explicitly gave permission for a self-unblock.

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Marudubshinki was in fact desysopped for the self-unblock (there was a case about it). What I said in the evidence section was that they got away initially without having the block itself be reinstated immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: it looks like they self-unblocked twice! The first instance doesn't seem to have caused fallout, the second did. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Just a comment, I get the feeling that the suspension of the self-unblocking right was more related to the recent compromised admin accounts. –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but since this case is about in part self-unblocking, it still seems pertinent to the record. Especially, if issues of what should be done or said about self-unblocking arise, during the case or later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've also made an error in saying "functionaries" as they are but a subgroup of administrators and it is in fact all admins who have, for the moment and for unrelated reasons, lost this ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks whoever left this . . . hopefully Arbcom can correct that use of "functionaries", if necessary. But noting the technical permission has been removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldDuncan: in your evidence submission you state "They then get into edit warring, blocking and an embarrassing mess, and Beeblebrox reports Fred Bauder for unblocking."

This is the evidence page, not the unfounded accusations page so I'd like to see the evidence that I did any such thing. (hint: I did not). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: SORRY - As you said limited time. There is plenty of evidence higher up about what happened during the edit warring/blocking/mess phase, so I summarised and clearly made an error. You also did not pile into the Community Ban proposal. The link shows who proposed the ban along with the initial supporters..RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Then whilst he is blocked they try to Community ban him." Please define who "they" is in this context, as it seems to imply I tried to have Fred banned, which is directly contrary to the actual evidence. I have to say I don't care for an eleventh-hour submission of evidence that seems slapped together without any research and with very limited time to rebut or respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Duncan's contributions to the Evidence page are primarily opinions, more suitable for the Workshop. I would suggest that the clerks cull through his text, leaving the factual information, and deleting or striking through the opinions he expressed about those facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two pieces of Evidence that I would like to survive your proposed cull is WJBscribe asking a question then promptly sticking a discretionary sanctions notice onto Fred Bauder which is a big red fag in his talk page and is then used in the next phase, and Winged Blades of Godric carrying on afterwards proposing deletion for pages that Fred Bauder created. The other evidence goes into the actual edit war and blocking in plenty of detail. The point I am trying to raise is that Fred Bauder incorrect behaviour came after a prolonged period of incorrect behaviour by other people, and no one else was blocked, or it suggested that they be banned, and some people are carrying on the poor behaviour after everyone else trying to sweep up the mess.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RonaldDuncan, I wonder if you are misunderstanding what a Discretionary Sanctions notice is? It most definitely is not a "red flag", and its message even says "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" (original emphasis). It is used merely to inform editors who work in such areas that discretionary sanctions are in place, and it is mandatory to provide such a notice before any possible future sanctions-related action can be considered. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Your wording of the question implied that it was serious

You have just received a Discretionary Sanctions notice for an edit you made about Donald Trump (see here)), and that appears to be a subject in which you have strong personal opinions. Do you have any further comment to make on that edit, and do you think it is representative of the impartiality and sound judgment you would need to show on the Arbitration Committee? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is strange that WJBscribe put this on 20 minutes after asking a question on this subject, and then you highlighted this non event notice by pointing to Fred Bauder's talk page rather than some offending edit, with the question above which is not phrased as you have done nothing wrong and got a standard message about a page you have participated in.RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested it was a "non event" - it certainly is an event, just not one that implies any wrongdoing. And as it was a notice relating to things that are very much related to ArbCom work and overlaps with a subject area in which Fred is active, I thought my question was a neutrally worded, perfectly fair, and very much apposite one to ask of him as an ArbCom candidate. I totally fail to see how either the notice or my question related to it was in any way unfair, and I really don't understand your criticism. Are you really saying we should not question an ArbCom candidate about their approach to Arb-related subject areas where they are active? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RonaldDuncan, what the heck?

Have you read about our system of discretionary sanctions and how notifications be delivered to any editor, (working in the area) ? Have you seen that the notification, (the boilerplate-format of which is prescribed by ArbCom itself) begins off with This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. ?

Or are you trying to imply that editors might not point problems of others' editorial behaviors lest it upsets them?

@Winged Blades of Godric: Not at all. I have no problem with the warnings that were given to Fred Bauder back in February 2017 on the subject of Donald Trump User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Donald_Trump There are 4 different editors in this and the next two sections who point out problems with his editing. My view is that it would have been fine to point back at this, but putting on the Discretionary Sanctions notice at that point looked like it was just trying to influence the election.RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, yeah, given the nature of Fred's edits, I have quite-rationally taken a peek at his new-creations and dispatched only those to AfD, which did not seem notable enough. So, kindly don't misuse terms. One was already deleted, (before you asked Sandstein to reopen it) and two more are roughly on the same route. In the case of Ceepeecee, I was wrong and have withdrawn my nom. And, for one, I have even asked a domain-knowledgeable editor (JoJoEmurus), given my uncertainty over it.

@Winged Blades of Godric:Great - It just looked like poor behaviour, and I think the entire incident has been an embarrassment.RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that seems like poor/vindictive behavior, I don't and won't bother any about your perceptions. I am very-inclined to assume good faith with you but that has it's limits, esp. in the face of wild aspersions.

I also note that your user-page mentions of having an account at a private wiki, owned by Fred.∯WBG^converse 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for pointing out my old account on http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/User:Ronald the link did not work and I could not login to the project to find out what contributions I had made. I put that link into my talk page back in 2009, and am pretty sure that I have not edited on that project since 2009 or earlier. Looks like the project is dead. Did a bit more digging. The url has changed and that user account is no longer registered http://wikinfo.org/wikinfo/index.php/User:Ronald. Anyway I can see how you would take that as my being a contributor to Fred Bauder's wiki and thus a friend/colleague. I seldom find time to edit here never mind a dead project. This is the first time that I have looked at voting in the ArbCom Elections, and since I did not know any of the candidates. I had to do a bit more research, and came to the conclusion that Fred Bauder had been treated badly and responded badly.

On the AfD it looked "to me" like poor behaviour, I am glad that you are doing this from a review of edits given poor history point of view. Happy move on and go back to submitting the occasional edit :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you say on your user page that you log into Wikipedia "about once per year", and considering you have previous connections with a project of Fred's, are you really saying that it is pure coincidence that you just happened to log in at a time when Fred was running for ArbCom and that your interest in him is purely coincident and entirely disinterested? Also, do you think your take on an issue as a once-per-year visitor should be given the same weight as the opinions of those who contribute on a regular, even daily, basis? No judgment intended, just interested in your thoughts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I have been into Wikipedia a bit more often this year :), and yes I am busy outside Wikipedia and not able to contribute as much as others. My view point is as someone that whilst they have been supporting the project for a decade still has a relationship with the concerns of new editors and the difference between those who create content and those who delete it. It is quick and easy to put delete, and other templates on pages and much harder work to improve the pages. Since I can not guarantee any time I focus on trying to improve pages. I think that going off and putting delete/other templates onto pages and not being available to discuss my actions would be wrong.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Regarding the 1 editor 1 vote and should I have the same voting rights as other users. I would be happy to see weighted voting based on number of mainstream edits since last election. This is the first time I have read the statements and voted, and I was fairly shocked by the conduct, especially the Candidate discussion page and question pages.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Regarding my relationship to Fred Bauder, if I knew Fred Bauder I would have participated in the discussion about him being banned from Wikipedia. I first read through everything on 26 November and my first contribution to the debate was to post a vote server bug, because having got through the statements and Q&A, I got distracted by the editwar/block/ban during reading the Candidates Discussion page with its spectacularly shocking first line. The bug was that my vote timed out and I had to try and remember everything and vote again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018&oldid=870754664 Which pissed me off and then I got into more of the mess and ended up pointing out that the behaviour that created the block/unblock started at least a week before, since people were focusing on the loss of control rather than the actions that lead to the loss of control.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I also feel that your blocking the other party in an edit war between admins is unacceptable behaviour, especially when it is in the midst of an election and the candidates own Q&A page. You could have reported the edit warring to the Admin board, or election commission rather than bocking and then putting it on the admin board. Anyway it worked for you, he lost it and unblocked himself.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Going back to Winged Blades of Godric's pointed aspersion that my 2009 mention of a login to wikiinfo.org meant that I was a member of a Fred Bauder fan club. I finally found the userlist for http://www.wikinfo.org/wikinfo/index.php/Special:ListUsers and I am not one of the 6 editors. If I was clearly I would have a close relationship with Fred Bauder and I would disclose it and probably give my opinion on him. I do not know him so I can not give an opinion. A decade ago I was one of a unknown number of people that registered on wikiinfo.org, I assume that I lost my login for in activity and do not remember contributing. Since we both disclose our real world identities, it is straightforward to see that we live on different continents and have no shared interests or connections.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldDuncan: You don't need to ping them five times  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained my involvement:

1. In Feb 2017, I had cause to caution Fred Bauder about his addition of material to Donald Trump which was a clear BLP breach - see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 50#Health section and User talk:Fred_Bauder#Donald_Trump.
2. I therefore asked him about his editing of Trump related subjects when I saw his candidature for ArbCom.
3. It then occurred to me to look at his recent contributions to see if he had edited Trump related subject matter. It was in that context that I saw this edit. That edit was an egregious violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV,
4. I considered immediately banning him from articles relating to Trump as an WP:AE action. However, I was mindful that he might be unaware that the topic area was subject to discretionary sanctions.
5. Erring on the side of caution, I therefore chose to provide notice that subject area was the subject of discretionary sanctions - allowing for future enforcement action. WJBscribe (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]