Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
SwarmAbusingPower		11 November 2018	0/4/0
Fred Bauder		11 November 2018	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024
Amendment request: Pseudoscience	none	(orig. case)	9 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

SwarmAbusingPower

Initiated by So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) at 03:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TheGreatWikiLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [2]
• [3]

Statement by TheGreatWikiLord

The accused said I was not recognizing vandalism, after I emphasized that I was recognizing it and reverting vandalism. I pointed out to him that I was taking a softer approach and that I had marked more than 40 edits as vandalism. He retorted to administrator-ship. Instead realizing that there is more than 1 way to do things he just said "an administrator" is saying so and so. I found that very arrogant, and pointed that out to him, and my intent to walk away from the disagreement. He, without, any warning blocked me. I have no history of disruptive behavior and I find this abuse of administrator rights. If he took offense to "high horse" then he proved my point by blocking me. If he took offense to questioning his maturity, then not only proved me right, but is also guilty of same behavior. Please make sure that administrators follow the same rules as everyone else. Thanks.

Statement by Swarm

I refer you to the diffs provided by Softlavender, which contain the entirety of the situation. In sum, the user requested additional user rights at PERM. I happened to be the admin to review the request, found some red flags, and declined accordingly. The user replied in a way which indicated both that they did not understand the underlying reasons their request was denied, and that they were agitated by the unfavorable response. I replied, further explaining the underlying concepts at hand, and noting my concerns about the user's competence and maturity for the record. The user then proceeded to launch into multiple, blatant personal attacks in response. The user needed to understand that this sort of behavior was unacceptable, so I issued a very short block for personal attacks, as they clearly appeared to be completely unable to be reasoned with by way of straightforward communication. This notion was reinforced by their subsequent block appeals, and this request. I think my conduct throughout the situation was entirely reasonable, and I will note that the block, which was lenient, was upheld upon review, twice. The user's claim that they were responding in kind to negative comments made by me ignores the fact that the user requested vetting by an administrator by applying at PERM, and my comments, while critical, were simply an unbiased assessment of the user's edits and behavior. I think we're likely just dealing with a young but good faith user, but reasonable, controlled behavior is required here. They have already indicated that they intend to continue to drag this out at AN/I if their request here gets declined. I hope the committee can deliver some sort of statement to get this user's attention before they end up getting boomeranged.

Statement by power~enwiki

This certainly isn't the right forum as the case will be rejected as premature even before investigating the merits of the complaint; perhaps the complaint should be filed at WP:ANI first? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. If it is rejected I will take it to WP:ANI. Thanks. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

Here is the block log and block rationale: [4]. The conversation in question was here: [5]. Here are the declined unblock appeals: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion by SN54129

@TheGreatWikiLord: If it is rejected I will take it to WP:ANI. A couple of points to consider. Firstly, there is no "if" as to whether this will be rejected; rejected it must be, by the very fact that you haven't taken it anywhere else first. Secondly, be mindful that the air at ANI is—how can we put it—populated by boomerangs just waiting for somewhere to land. It is a fact that an editor acted in a professional manner towards you, and that you responded with personal attacks. It is also a fact that they were personal attacks, and saying otherwise does not make it so. Your best approach in fact is to simply drop it, focus on the editing areas suggested—thus copperfastening your usefulness to the project—and both keeping your block log from further entries and radically increasing your chance of receiving advanced permissions. ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Great Wiki Lord, you could change your username to something less presumptuous. You’ll get better reactions from fellow editors. As for blocks, unless an editor is damaging articles or harassing another editor (as opposed to merely mouthing off at an administrator), best to avoid a block for the sake of conserving drama. Jehochman ^Talk 10:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Hhkohh

Is it a controversial case? Maybe. But is it necessary to take it to Arbitration? No, it is waste of time. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

My spidey senses tell me TheGreatWikiLord is going to end up blocked per NOTHERE,
TheGreatWikiLord A) Please change you username to something less pretentious, B) Instead of taking offence to having ROLLBACK declined take it as helpful advice and and learn from the mistakes you are making and you may be successful on your next retry, C) Drop this and don't bother taking it to ANI (or any other venue for that matter).
I would obviously urge the committee to decline this. –Davey2010^Talk 11:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector (SwarmAbusingPower)

Noting for the record that the filer's duplicate submission to WP:ANI on this same topic has been closed before it attracts attention the filer would not likely find constructive. Further noting that Swarm's action has been implicitly or explicitly endorsed by three administrators ([7], [8], [9]). Recommend the committee decline this for being pointless as well as procedurally premature. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline

I noticed this request on my watchlist and for the tremendous respect I have for the person who is admin Swarm, I did have to review the allegations that a case was in need. It's very clear that a case is not warranted, as I had suspected and hoped, and it's clear that I can not add much rationale as to why it is not needed that hasn't already be given with unambiguous clarity. Rather than simply leaving while the spilled milk fades away, I thought it better to wish TheGreatWikiLord the best, and let him or her know that misunderstandings like this are not entirely uncommon, especially for newer users who are, at times, more likely to take a thing like this personally even while it was not given with any such intent. What I hope to pass along, to TGWL now, is encouragement, and assurance that this matter will pass, and that overcoming it does not require a pound of flesh, great pangs, or gnashing of teeth; you can simply drop it and walk away (completely acceptable). Best, however, would be for you to withdraw the request without requiring a quorum of arbitrators to arrive just to tell you the same things you've already heard with (I hope) sufficient clarity. This is your chance to show that you have the collaborative maturity to become an asset in this community and I promise you that we (your peers) would much rather see you succeed here, as an editor, than fail. That is the unabridged truth, I promise, even if it doesn't sound this way to you right now, Best.--John Cline (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC) .

Statement by {editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

SwarmAbusingPower: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

SwarmAbusingPower: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Procedural decline as premature. Arbitration is a venue of last resort and no other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted. Mkdw ^talk 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Likewise, a procedural decline. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, premature. I would suggest to GWL that he take the advice being provided by seasoned editors into account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Decline. I agree with the others’ advice above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Decline as above RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per Mkdw. Katie^talk 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

Initiated by Maxim_(talk) at 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Fred Bauder

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Not applicable

Statement by Maxim

I've desysoped Fred Bauder per WP:IAR in light of two self-unblocks today. As it's a Sunday and frankly we (or most of us) have lives, it is not clear when Arbcom would formally motion to desysop, and it is not unreasonable to assume that Fred Bauder may unblock himself again. Committee members, how you want to proceed here is your call, whether it is to do a level I/II desysop after-the-fact and dismiss this case, or whether you prefer to do a separate motion altogether. Or whether you want to trout me for my application of IAR. Point being, I'm not here seeking specific relief but more putting my actions on the record. Maxim_(talk) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I wonder if a proposed scope regarding Level I and what are de-facto bureaucrat reserve powers (in the Commonwealth sense), would be better suited to a well-advertised RfC. There's a whole lot that can be hashed out regarding how bureaucrats and Arbcom handle matters on resysops and desysops. What comes to mind, other than today, are recent contentious requests for resysop at WP:BN. Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Adding myself as a party pro forma in light of the fact that I'm the one who performed the reblock which Fred Bauder reversed—i.e. when the issue changed from a violation of WP:NEVERUNBLOCK to a violation of WP:WHEEL—and as the editor who proposed that Fred Bauder be formally sanctioned in addition to the desysop element. Unless anyone has any specific question, I doubt I have anything to add that hasn't been said at the ANI thread. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010, I think you're misunderstanding why we're here; this isn't a tribunal to rule on whether Fred Bauder should be blocked or unblocked (that's a matter for ANI), this is a case to decide if Maxim exceeded bureaucrat authority in desysopping without an Arbcom ruling to that effect. The committee can't decline this even if they wanted to (unless they intend to ask the WMF to intervene directly, which they won't). ‑ Iridescent 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lourdes

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

Suggestion by SN54129

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

Statement by WBG

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

Statement by Funplussmart

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

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

Questions by Alanscottwalker

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

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

Statement by Dave

Said it at ANI and I'll say it here - He should've been desysopped but I believe any sort of ban/sanction is OTT, He didn't go on a rampage blocking everyone and causing mayhem - He simply unblocked himself twice (which is still a dickish thing to do but point is it could've been much worse), I would suggest the committee decline this. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent I've completely misunderstood why we're here!, This is what 6 hours sleep does to you lol,

Well I support Maxim's actions anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

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

Examining the initial block might be worthwhile though; per my comments at WP:ANI ([10][11]), that is really the more significant issue since the matter of desysoping for wheel warring/unblocking yourself is well settled. Considering this relatively recent motion in a similarish case of edit warring and then using the admin tools in the same dispute, a look at involvement in relation to edit warring would be beneficial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Why couldn't the committee use level I?

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

Statement by Ivanvector (re: Fred Bauder)

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

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

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

And to this last point I recommend that, since he has been desysopped by a bureaucrat ignoring the rules in the clear best interest of the project and so the immediate threat should be considered mitigated, Fred Bauder should be unblocked to participate in this case request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

A link to the edit war that led to this seems conspicuous by its absence. [12] —Cryptic 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Fred Bauder: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• At the direction of a committee member I have added Boing! said Zebedee as a party to this case request. I have notified Boing! said Zebedee here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept whether or not Fred seeks reinstatement of his administrative bit, because I think we need to examine how we respond to situations like this. I'm not interested in blaming Maxim for taking a reasonable action to remove the bit from a sysop crossing obvious bright lines, but we need to examine why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I in this situation, a clear example of what it was intended for, and what bureaucrats are meant to do in emergency situations. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The more I look at this, the more I don't like. I would also like to examine the original block to determine if it violated WP:INVOLVED. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The resysopping issues should be handled by RfC, Maxim, and I would gladly participate in such a discussion. Until the community decides otherwise, desysopping is ArbCom's wheelhouse. In the past, this means we have set up our own procedures surrounding desysopping. I also believe that we can delegate this responsibility to the bureaucrats in emergency cases without an RfC, just as we delegated other roles of the Committee to non-arbitrators in the past. The Audit Subcommittee comes to mind. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Accept per Rob. Katie^talk 19:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Accept RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Accept and handle by motion Well, first of all, there's no need to have six weeks of inquiry to unravel the great mystery of "why the Arbitration Committee was unable to apply Level I"; the answer is that WP:LEVEL1 was written for obvious emergencies and doesn't apply if any arbs object; I said on the mailing list I'm on board for level 2, don't see the point of level 1 (in this specific instance or in general), and that was taken as an "objection" (fair enough, though it was more of a discussion point than a formal Process; I did also say we should move quickly and would probably have been persuadable to use the faster process despite my general preference for slow-and-steady). So there you go, no need for a case about that.
  As for the actual issue, the core facts here are obvious and not in dispute - Fred unblocked himself under contentious circumstances, that's clearly a misuse of admin tools, Fred should be desysopped. But what has happened is that we're all tripping over ourselves in the hurry hurry rush rush to Do Something and we've repeatedly escalated what is at root a very manageable situation. I am going to stand by the point that "emergency" procedures should be for emergencies. Yes, there's "multiple accounts actively wheel-warring", but has to mean they are causing harm. In most genuine emergencies - compromised accounts and the like - arb procedures are basically redundant and I am totally on board with IAR desysoppings to stop active damage. In fact would prefer that the procedure turn that into the R. The "emergency" here was "well, Fred might unblock himself again". Well, yes, he might. The original edit war was about some material on his candidate questions page that he apparently found distressing. Would the wiki have fallen if we waited for another couple of hours to settle that apparently very pressing issue? Erm, no. The key thing about emergency procedures is that they should stabilize the situation pending further review. So - thanks to Maxim for making an honest effort at doing that, but I don't think this was really a necessary escalation; the underlying problem wasn't something that couldn't wait a bit. (I'll push back a little on the "it's Sunday" thing, too - in my book that's an argument to sit on your hands and be patient, not to escalate further.)
  As for the disposition of the case - IMO it's best to just handle it by the motion we were already going to do as a level 2 procedure anyway, but by the letter of level 2 the affected user can request a full case, so I'd be willing to go that route if Fred requests it. While I'm up on my soapbox here, I'll comment briefly on the original dispute - if you don't want someone to be elected, or are skeptical of their platform, fine, but everybody who puts themselves forward is volunteering for a hard job; while we obviously can't have candidates curating their own questions, this seems like it would have been solved with far less drama by stopping immediately after Fred's first revert and asking the election commissioners to review the situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)