Revision as of 02:20, 5 January 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Request to desysop Hex

Initiated by Anthonyhcole (talk) at 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• O'Dea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MaxSem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• O'Dea
• Hex
• Max Semenik

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Permanent link to archived AN thread "O'Dea's block by Hex"

Statement by Anthonyhcole (filing party)

Hex blocked O'Dea and Max unblocked him, and reported what he'd done to AN in the abovelinked thread. In the ensuing discussion there was near unanimity on the view that Hex's block was bad and his behaviour around the block was inappropriate. The only editor who does not see the block and behaviour in that light is Hex. Given Hex's failure to recognise the error of the block and behaviour surrounding it, and given that he had performed an inappropriate block ten days earlier (described in the abovelinked AN thread), I believe it would be sensible to desysop him, and request that this committee does so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hex, I apologise for my intemperate comment on your user talk page. I'd just been reading Pesky's memoir and was feeling a little down on admins. That's no excuse, I know, and I'll try to do better in future. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Statement by Hex

Firstly, I've just posted a long statement about this to AN. Anthonyhcole evidently didn't bother to read it before filing this; if he did, he'd be aware that his claim about a "second inappropriate block" was completely untrue. I happened to use the wrong reason (based on a slight misunderstanding of policy) for what was, in fact, a correct block. It's explained carefully in my statement. I've also rectified the block notice on the user talk page in question.

Secondly, this current conversation on my user talk indicates my feelings on the matter.

The short version is that I'm allergic to being screamed at, bullied and threatened by a mob (and being abused on my talk page, which Anthonyhcole conveniently manages to neglect mentioning doing). When I've made a mistake, polite one-to-one conversations with me have a complete success rate. My statement as linked to concludes with an open invitation to interact with me at my user talk. This counts especially in cases of misunderstandings or mistakes on my part.

That's all. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole: I accept your gracious apology. Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey: Everything I say about myself on my talk page is sincere, and always has been in ten years of working with this project. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional: as it's clear that some things need to be explicitly spelled out, I do consider the block to be a mistake. A careful reading will show that my comments in that nauseating AN thread described the thoughts and actions I had at the exact time, and did not at any point stand up for the block in any ongoing sense. Specifically, most of the confusion seems to stem from my having commented on O'Dea's talk page that I could "spot someone taking the piss"; this was a specific reference to his edit "summaries" of "Q20-4B" and "RHT-47A-34Q" after I had politely asked him not to use cryptic edit acronyms as edit summaries. Regardless of the eventual incorrectness of my block, that was unquestionably a hostile response that appeared to be intended to irritate me. My responses to his comments were not couched in anger, but disappointed surprise. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

This response from Hex to the AN discussion above gives me grave doubt about Hex's continuing ability to use the tools correctly, and I urge that Arbcom review this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Vesey

My statements at and apply. I was particularly unimpressed by Hex's response where he spent most of his time commenting on the "auto-da-fé" of the "kangaroo court" rather than the substance of the issue, and used time to comment on Anthonyhcole in an unnecessary way. This comment, on his talk page, was slightly less concerning; however, I'm unsure whether it was sincere or whether it was related to the possibility of this arbcom case. While he remarks that a much better outcome would have ocurred if the venue had been different, an administrator should be able to respond to an issue no matter how it was presented. Ryan Vesey 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment By Uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I am sympathetic to the argument that those who disagree with admin actions should attempt to discuss it with the admin first - before taking it to AN/I. When I think of AN/I, I'm reminded of the great Obi-Wan Kenobi quote, "Mos Eisley Spaceport - You will never find a retched hive of scum and villainy." The editing atmosphere of AN/I is horrible, and in and of itself, worthy of an ArbCom case, if ArbCom was capable of solving community disputes the community cannot solve on its own. I take no opinion on the other issues, my only point is that editors should attempt in good faith to resolve disputes with admins first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment By Floq

This was a jaw-droppingly bad block, IMHO. Certainly bad enough that an immediate unblock was justifed. Not sure what would have happened in the alternate reality where the unblocking admin had left a note on Hex's talk page after unblocking instead of starting an AN thread; might have been more productive, might not have been. But I don't fault MaxSem for that. This kind of thing gets brought to AN for review all the time.

I did find a similar block 4 years ago, also widely criticized at the time. Hex defended that block at the time, but now agrees it was wrong. That's all I found regarding similar blocks. Doesn't seem to be a real pattern here. Normally you'd want to see a pattern before requesting a desysop. On the other hand, if Hex really still thinks it was a reasonable block... well, it's such a bad one that I believe this one block, if defended in an RFA, would be enough to kill the RFA. I really don't like the idea of having an admin who thinks, after reflection, that was a good block.

I'm really torn on what a realistic outcome here is, now that it's at ArbCom. Hex seems to do useful stuff, including useful admin stuff. It would be a shame to lose that. But I also can't countenance doing nothing about an unrepentant "contempt of admin" block. An RFC is a possibility, but i don't know what that would achieve that hasn't already been said at ANI. Plus, it's so uncomplicated, it doesn't need 30 days of discussion.

Maybe a simple motion: "Proposed: 1) That was a jaw-droppingly bad block. It isn't just imaginary admin-hating jackals at WP:AN saying this, it's ArbCom. Hex, don't do that anymore, or bad things will happen." (NYB can expand x4, and make it sound more sophisticated). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment By Boing! said Zebedee

The details of Hex's shockingly bad block, and response to the opinions of others about it, are pretty clear on the AN discussion, so I won't reapeat all that. I am saddened that Hex made the bad block in the first place, but anyone can be forgiven for a mistake (although it was a pretty horrendous mistake). But he has gone on to make things worse with just about every word he has said on the subject since. He was insultingly dismissive of O'Dea's explanation of the case, then it's everyone else's fault that he's on vacation and not following a discussion that he had been made aware of (just a civil "I'm on vacation, will reply later" would have been fine). And then, when we finally get a response, it does not contain a word about the block of O'Dea or about our concerns regarding it - just contempt for what his fellow Wikipedians have been trying to tell him (we spoke civilly throughout, I thought), and a withering attack on Anthonyhcole.

Looking back on Hex's successful RfA, I have to say I'm very surprised it passed, even by the more relaxed standards back them. Looking at the whole thing - all three RfAs, Hex's maltreatment of O'Dea, and his contemptuous responses to being called out on it (pretty much unanimously by a number of fellow admins) - my opinion is that we're looking at one of the "bad old admins" from the old days, who sees the admin tools as weapons he can use arbitrarily to keep ordinary editors in line. I'm also seeing towering arrogance, which is a dreadful thing to see in an admin - I'm still quite stunned by Hex's final "Reply" on the AN. It's very rare for me to call for the desysop of an admin after one recent abuse of the tools (the username block was also a mistake, I think, but it's not in the same league as Hex's block of O'Dea and his response to criticism), but Hex is absolutely not fit to be an admin, and I would urge ArbCom to take this case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

The block was classically a Very Bad Block, but, as I suggested when I undid the premature "archiving" of the AN thread, Hex's conduct in the thread itself is really the worst thing. ArbCom may want to sanction him for battleground behaviour rather than for misuse of tools; as a user rather than as an admin. Of course his AN behaviour was related to the block, and even more related to the criticism of the block, and I agree it shows unsuitability for adminship. Admins aren't only supposed to use the tools right, they're also supposed to respond in a reasonable way to criticism and to be altogether somewhere within shouting distance of courtesy towards all users. As I noted on AN, Hex's demeanour towards non-admins seems to be systematically ruder and more contemptuous than towards fellow admins; it's as if he takes WP:AN to be a free zone for saying whatever shitty thing comes into his head to anybody as long as they're not an admin. From TLDR to Torquemada. The distinction I see could be accidental, I suppose. I merely ask the committee to read the AN thread carefully and form their own opinion. It's all in there, it's as good as an RfC. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/5)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements, particularly from Hex. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I appreciate (but may not reciprocate) the conciseness of the statements posted so far. Any additional commenters, like those who have already posted, should feel free to summarize rather than repeat what they have written in the AN thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As a rule and barring emergencies, the Committee will hear cases to review administrative actions where there is (a) legitimate concerns of a pattern of poor judgement or (b) allegations of severe misconduct. In this particular case, there seems to be agreement that the block was particularly bad (and quickly undone), but I see no serious allegations that this was part of a worrisome pattern. The question then, reduces to "is this block and the following behaviour grievous enough to qualify as severe misconduct?"

  I don't know that it does, but clearly there are enough people who believe so that it bears examination. I'm reserving judgement for a day or two while things settle and others have a chance to opine here, but I'm leaning accept at this time. — Coren  00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awaiting statements. AGK 01:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Noting that I've read the AN thread and the request as of this timestamp. My thoughts on this largely mirror those of Coren, but I will wait for more statements to be made, though it would be appreciated if additional statements by those not named as parties are kept brief, as the statements presented so far, and the AN thread, do seem to cover most of the details. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Just starting to read things now, but in general, Coren is correct - we desysop for especially egregious errors in judgment or a pattern of incidents that independently aren't desysop-worthy but are still inappropriate. In determining whether this case should be accepted, I'll mainly be looking for evidence to that effect. More comments to follow. Hersfold 02:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)