Revision as of 19:37, 7 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.

User:Firsfron

Initiated by Tal1962 (talk) at 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tal1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Firsfron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tal1962&diff=next&oldid=531072085
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tal1962&diff=next&oldid=531710125

Statement by Tal1962

My issues are not pertaining to making sure things are accurate or done within the wiki guidelines, but with the fact that Firsfron has been undoing EVERY contribution I have made to the Joan Crawford article regardless of whether or not everything I have added is at issue. Despite my asking him to stick to the suggested policies of using the talk page to settle any disagreements when it comes to what can and cannot be considered reliable or what is or is not sufficient information detailing reliable sources, and even going so far as to copy and paste them within our talks, he has stated he will undo things regardless.

This is upsetting because, except where I have at times forgotten to include page numbers, his comments are confusing. He claims I included a link to a fan website – I did not. He claims also that I failed to include ISBN numbers for books – again, I did not. So far, all books I have used as resources were either already included in the ref list prior to my using them, or added as per the ISBN#s on the back of each of the books (all of which I hold in my own collection).

His apparent refusal to use the talk pages BEFORE undoing things appears to me to go against the suggested methods as outlined by wiki. I did show him the courtesy of offering to work with him in that way, but his response was to say he would undo things regardless.

I have no issues when someone points out my mistakes – good for me and them. But to state that I need to learn the rules while ignoring them himself/herself seems to me to be absurd. While I may not be perfect as to formatting and always including complete information (page numbers), as it happens, many comments within the article remain insourced –yet he has failed to challenge these at all.

His seeming air or condescension is not in keeping with Wiki standards. As an administer, I believe that, regardless of my seeming lack of ability or alleged mistakes, it is incumbent upon him to exhibit patience and be willing to do what is best for the article as oppose to simply challenging/undoing everything, even when he is incorrect.

Example, I referenced a link to an article about Miss Crawford’s appearance on television in 1975, a time after which many assume she was no longer making ANY appearances. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927

This is not a link to a fan website, but rather an article which is the ONLY source I can find in writing thus far to back up my research that Crawford was, even if to a lesser degree, still very active after October of 1974.

I am not very concerned with the article itself so much as the admins manner of handling things.

Statement by Ryan Vesey

This needs a quick and easy procedural close. There is no level of dispute resolution that this discussion has reached. An absolute minimum amount of discussion has ocurred on Tal1962's talk page. No discussion has occurred on the article talk page. I don't know whether it can be considered a content or conduct dispute yet because discussion has not reached a point allowing that determination. I suggest that this be closed and that Tal1962 take discussion to the talk page. If a solution cannot be found at that venue, Dispute Resolution seems to be the place to go. Ryan Vesey 09:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/1)

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

• Comment: Obviously waiting to hear from Firsfron but, in the meantime, Tal1962, could you please supply diffs to provide examples for each of the aspects you are concerned about. Thanks,  Roger Davies 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: Arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution. Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for alternate methods of trying to resolve any dispute before bringing the matter here. NW (Talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Even without comment from Firsfron, I think it's fairly clear from the level of dispute resolution which has presently happened that this is not yet ready for arbitration. Tal1962, I see you haven't actually edited a talk page on Misplaced Pages since 2010, I suggest you attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make to the article at Talk:Joan Crawford, where other editors will be able to offer their opinions on the matter too. Beyond that, there's a lot of different methods of dispute resolution which you could try before we would consider arbitration. Worm(talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per WTT. Salvio 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Let's try and hash it out at other venues first, please. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Firsfron's revert approach to editing is inappropriate. Tal1962's edits were not vandalistic, and appear to be a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. Discussion is the way forward, and doing a total revert of another editor's 4+ hours work (over thirty individual edits) with an edit summary that they should start a discussion rather than starting a discussion oneself is likely to lead to conflict. Tal1962 has used sources, and reverting the edits because the cites are not fully formatted is not the correct way forward. In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it. However, this is a minor incident, and is not at the level of formal dispute resolution - and certainly not ArbCom. Discussion has barely started, and I encourage both editors to continue to talk together to reach an appropriate solution. I am pleased that Firsfron has offered to assist Tal1962 in formatting citations, and I hope that this supportive, collaborative approach will continue. Decline as ArbCom case. SilkTork 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Henderson Knocked out Fedor

Initiated by PortlandOregon97217 (talk) at 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Delinquent1904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Delinquent1904

Dif of notifiying IP edit. I just saw they were warned earlier for disruptive editing.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Fedor Emelianenko Talk page
• dif of GiantSnowman asking to discuss on the talkpage rather than removed unsourced material
• Diff of attempting to talk about Dan Henderson knocking out Fedor, with sources to boot

Diff of unexplained IP edit Another Unexplained IP edit of sourced content in question

Statement by PortlandOregon97217

Delinquent keeps undoing my sourced edits with no explanation. , as well as here, and he flat out removed my edit, which I had mentioned on Fedors Talkpage, without even trying to discuss the matter. I'm not sure what else to say. I just think that I have the sources that say this is a KO, and other parties can't seem to see reason, or even discuss the matter.

Edit: The same is being done, except by IP's, at the Dan Henderson page. I was having trouble adding the IP as a party involved, But I will notify them. I actually completely forgot about Dan Henderson's article until afterthefact Thanks Thank you

Answer to question of core issue The core issue is that the user in question, as well as the IP(plus probably multiple others) keep undoing my good faith, and well sourced edits, without an explanation, all while blatantly disregarding an administrators requests to discuss the matter on the talk forum. The user that is. I did not ask the admin about the IP editor in question. I also figure that it is best to settle the matter here, since it spans multiple pages, and since I dont want to just run to the admin that warned the user and say "look he did it again", and then move onto notifying an admin about the once warned IP editor about the matter. The material is whether Dan Henderson knocked out Fedor, or if it was in fact a TKO. The sources say knockout, yet people keep reverting it to a TKO.

The other core issue is that if you check my contributions I started out on here as an outright jerk, but have since calmed down and have learned to wade through the processes and try to play by the rules as best I can. Then I have people who see fit to trample on my well sourced edits with no explanation. I'm sure there have been many a person driven away from Misplaced Pages because of this. I'm not going to be one of them. But all the same it is very irking. One of the other people responding about this issue coming to a head. Why not make it now? Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

The article is part of the MMA area, which if I'm not mistaken has been the subject of a community-imposed sanction. This doesn't come off to me as something that really needs arbitration on first glance, but probably needs a bit more attention than the typical "content dispute" thing that gets declined off this page every week. --Rschen7754 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This is clearly not ripe for Arbitration, but the Committee ought to be aware (as I am sure they are) that this subject area is a hornet's nest, and will probably require ArbCom intervention at some point, since various parties don't seem to know how to play well together, and off-wiki canvassing provides the irritation that keeps the hornets abuzz. It's likely that, because of the outside influence factor, ArbCom will have to be fairly draconian when this finally comes to a head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Vesey

As Beyond My Ken said, this clearly isn't ripe for Arbitration; however, can one of the Arbitrators or one of the administrators who watch this page make an action as an administrator? Undoing an edit that is not vandalism requires an explanation. It is clear that PortlandOregon's edits are not vandalism. Delinquent's has undone the edit with the generic summary, the generic summary, someone really needs to ban this guy, default summary. It has been too long for administrative action to be taken; however, any administrator is allowed to impose sanctions on an editor editing MMA related articles per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions (which doesn't include the letter combination MMA, a mistake in my opinion). I'm sure an administrator can think of a sanction that could help solve this issue. Ryan Vesey 10:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I make the following declarations: Involved in the various MMA discussions from a policy and existsing consensus side.
I note that no reading of the MMA riot act ({{Uw-mmawarning}}) has been made to Delinquent1904. I suggest that this be enacted post haste as the locus of dispute is tagged with the MMA project banner and MMA is discussed somewhat significantly in the page. I do concur with other editors that in the future there will likely be a ArbCom case that finally settles the behavioral disputed in the entire article space of MMA, but this is simply annother tall blade in the field of grass that is the area of debate in MMA. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

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

• Question: I think I grasp the essentials of this but would someone kindly explain what the core issues of the dispute are please?  Roger Davies 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• While there may be general problems with editing in the Mixed martial arts topic area, this particular incident appears quite minor. Delinquent1904 is a significant contributor to Fedor Emelianenko and so may feel they don't need to explain their actions when reverting the edits of a more recent contributor. I feel that informing Delinquent1904 that when engaged in an editing dispute one is expected to communicate with other editors should be sufficient, and I will do that. If Delinquent1904 continues to revert without explaining their actions, then the matter can be raised at ANI, or other dispute resolution forum. Decline as an ArbCom matter. SilkTork 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per SilkTork. NW (Talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, SilkTork sums up my thoughts here rather well, I expect we may have to look at MMA in the future but this incident doesn't need arbitration. Worm(talk) 12:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, where there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. In this case, for the content side of the dispute, I would suggest opening a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard; if there are conduct issues that should be dealt with, on the other hand, after discussing with the editor in question, you can start an WP:ANI thread. The topic area is under discretionary sanctions, which means that admins are given a wide latitude to deal with ongoing disruption. Salvio 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. With regard to the content dispute, I don't know how records or statistics are kept in the MMA world, but is there some sort of official governing body that publishes records of match outcomes? In professional boxing, for example, one could debate endlessly whether a given fight's outcome should have been recorded as a knockout or a TKO or whatever, but there wouldn't be uncertainty into how the outcome was officially recorded, even if there were conflicting reports in the newspapers the next morning. Not sure if the same applies here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I've spent some time today looking back on Hex's last couple of months of editing. It's only a couple of months but in that time I saw a little bit of irritability and unreasonableness directed at a fellow admin (less unreasonable irritability than I usually emit in an average week) and a lot of excellent respectful collaboration with editors of all stripes, demonstrating wisdom, compassion and a real commitment to this project.

My only problem with him is I think he's been making too many mistakes with the block button which, as I pointed out on his talk page, is not surprising given how rarely he uses it. I've suggested on his talk page that he takes a 12 month break from using the block button. He needs the others for his work. This has obviously been an awful experience for what I now believe to be a good and valuable member of this community, and I think we should give him plenty of time to think about this situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward has just endorsed Floq's suggestion that Hex only use the block button on spammers and vandals. I'd prefer he spent some time not using it at all. He does very little blocking as it is, so I'm hoping such an undertaking won't be too onerous. There is room for error even when dealing with apparent spammers and vandals, and Hex has been making errors with this tool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Quick post as I'm out and only have my phone. (Warning: I think IE Mobile has a bug that causes double encoded entity errors when saving pages here, so this may mangle my section! But I won't have another chance to respond tonight, so I'm going to take the risk. If that does happen, I would appreciate some kind soul fixing it with a search-and-replace.)

Firstly, I want to thank Anthony for his considered comments, courtesy and thorough diligence, especially as he is the filing party. I have no objection to his suggestion of taking a year off from the block button. I briefly considered saying "except for obvious emergencies," but really, there'll always be someone else who can deal with that stuff. It was never an area I enjoyed working in, anyway.

Secondly, to Roger - I don't dispute any of those points. Although I maintain that WP:AN is an appalling environment and that the pile-on I received was quite unnecessary.

Anyway, I hope that this helps bring things towards a conclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment 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 more wretched 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)

• I'd just like to make one more general point. ArbCom typically does not intervene unless an admin shows a pattern of misuse of the tools, as several people here have made clear. A long-standing problem is that that stance can leave a gap between what the Community would clearly want, and what ArbCom is prepared to do - and that gap is at the root of the dissatisfaction with the desysop process that many people voice. In my view, there needs to be a process (a proper one, not one that is entirely voluntary on the part of the accused admin - so RFC/U is really not it) that will address valid Community concerns when there is a clear consensus that an admin has abused their position, regardless of arbitrary rules like the need for there to be a pattern of abuse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 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 him making between admins and non-admins 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).

Comment by Epipelagic

I have bumped into Hex only three times on Misplaced Pages, but each time he has become very haughty, characterising me as a drama queen, paranoid, and as a roflcopter, hypocrite and blowhard. I have assumed that since he is an admin he is entitled to treat me with this contempt, since that is how it is here. No doubt the outcome of this request will confirm that. (Wasn't Malleus blocked for calling an admin a hypocrite?). --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MaxSem

Let's be brief:

About O'Dea

He indeed should've been less combative and not used those cryptic summaries. Which doesn't mean that his block is deserved in any way.

About Hex

I don't see a pattern of systematic abuse of the tools, however I see a systematic pattern of wrong attitude, from administrative requests to properly use the edit summary feature to considering everyone criticising him a cangaroo court. Dude, you're not from The Ruling Party, you're just a guy with a mop.

About myself

I stand by my decision to unblock immediately. Outrageously wrongfully blocked people should not wait blocked for bureaucracy to be committed. My posting to AN created some drama though, will consider a TP message instead next time.

Max Semenik (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Briefly: Hex's statement of regret is very late in coming and appears to be motivated more by the possibility of losing his admin powers than by an actual understanding that he behaved very badly. There doesn't seem to be a pattern of misbehavior (as far as I can tell), but that shouldn't deter ArbCom from reading him the riot act about this incident, which was an egregious abuse of his powers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RashersTierney

This was an extraordinarily bad block, but the only reason we are here is because of Hex's apparent inability to see it as such until the imminent threat of Arb Com intervention. Irrespective of whether the case is taken or not, any future blocks by Hex will be under close scrutiny, so there should be less prospect of a repeat performance. My main concern here is for the wronged User, O'Dea. I don't know if a mechanism exists for his block log to be purged, but it should be recognised somehow in the log as a 'bad block'. RashersTierney (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ched

First let me say that I wasn't sure which of these kerfuffles would find its way here, but I'm not surprised that one did. It seems that the years end/beginning often brings something of this nature to Arbcom. Perhaps due to ACE issues, some sort of holiday stress issues, or perhaps just some sort of yearly "cleansing"; IDK. I'll resist the urge to "name names", but I've noticed a LOT of bickering, admin. vs. admin. issues which involved blocking, unblocking, snide comments (often to the point of disrespectful), and even some long term and high profile editors self-destructing; at least in the "wiki reputation" sense.

In trying to step back and look at the bigger picture I get the impression that the expectations of "administrators" on Misplaced Pages have evolved over the last few years. It seems that where once a strong ruling body was needed to ensure vandalism was kept to a minimum while the site rose to prominence, it now seems that the community wants a more compassionate, more understanding, less arrogant, less self-righteous ... in short, a kinder and more mature and less impulsive administrator.

On a positive note, I do see a handful of administrators doing their very best to bring about these changes through action rather than words, and I do so very much applaud them for their efforts. I don't know as this is something that can be codified into an Arbcom ruling or motion; or even put down in black and white words within our "rulez". I think it's a mindset that has to develop over years of self-evaluation, but at this point I'm really drifting off on a tangent; so with that, I'll just wish all the best and watch with interest. — Ched :  ?  10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG

Very bad but not severe. No pattern. An ArbCom case and desysop would be an overreaction. Best to decline now; the respondent will be on notice, and will think twice next time or else... The ArbCom request has served its purpose. Move on. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation and call to action by NE Ent

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia collaboratively using a community of volunteers. To facilitate that process some more equal editors are given the sysop bit by the community. They are entrusted with the bit in order to minimize disruption; a corollary is that they act in a way to deescalate situations whenever possible.

As I initially stated at AN, a single event is not grounds for serious discussion of desysoping, and I personally I think demands for mea culpas are problematic; we don't need them, we just need an admin not to repeat the behavior in the future. However, given the additional events that were linked at AN, especially the bad block of User:Twehringer thesociety, and Hex's continued failure to acknowledge such, I support ArbCom taking some action here.

Admins do not need to be perfect, but Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. (emphasis mine). Hex's contention that this only applies if editors meekly approach an editor meekly hat in hand on their talk page rather than a noticeboard is ludicrous.

As an early adopter of Misplaced Pages and long term administrator, Hex is a pioneer, while it would be regretful is they are unable adapt to current expectations of administrator the health of the Misplaced Pages community must take precedence. NE Ent 13:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on Hex's updated statement recommend just declining the case with no action. NE Ent 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@NYB -- you're right -- it is trivia quibbling, doesn't benefit the encyclopedia one way or the other.
@AGK -- yuk -- edit makes the wording of the motion worse -- ugly prosed designed by committee -- either leave it as:

Proposed:

1) The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs), but our decision is that there is no significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

The request for arbitration is dismissed.

or change as suggested to

Proposed:

1) The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

The request for a full arbitration case is declined as unnecessary.

but don't try to do both at once. NE Ent 10:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment and proposal by Bwilkins

This is a tough one. Prior to the filing of this ArbCom request, Hex was adamant that he was right, and that the community were a disgusting pile of filth for suggesting he was wrong. He was going to ignore all requests to discuss the issue unless they met his own very narrow requirements of approach. Suddenly, when faced with possible desysop, he's changed his tune. We have recent cases of admins who were criticized for their action, but "retired" rather than face the music - Hex was similarly refusing, but finally (with blunt force) changed his mind. We should never have to force someone to explain their actions when asked to. Can we not simply close this case with two simple statements: "1) Hex is admonished for for using administrator tools improperly in a situation that he was WP:INVOLVED in, and indeed helped create by taunts" and "2) Hex is severely admonished by failing to respond to valid community concerns, as per WP:ADMINACCT" ... or something along those lines. Then we can all go back to doing what we should be, and future issues will be pretty automatic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Senra

Complicated. The bait (Q20-4B and RHT-47A-34Q) by O'Dea (talk · contribs) lured a now widely admonished block from Hex (talk · contribs). O'Dea was swift to complain and the block was lifted by MaxSem (talk · contribs) after 1 hour 44 minutes. The alleged bad-block debate gained rapid traction at WP:AN which was very eloquently expanded by O'Dea 6 hours 24 minutes after the block. Calls for Hex to provide a reasonable explanation, initially unheeded, bring us here.

My own analysis: Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) is right to bring Hex's initial failure to account for his actions to Arbcom. As an administrator, Hex has a duty to discuss his actions whenever and wherever debate is occuring—not just on his talk-page one-to-one (paragraph starting I've been called out on mistakes before ...). Hex should be unequivocally admonished but he should not be desysopped. In addition, the (mainly) administrator pile-on at WP:AN following the block reversal shows generally poor admin-ship and a widespread failure to examine all the facts. O'Dea's initial baiting should not go without comment --Senra (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Je ne comprends pas

Having reviewed the developing motion, it appears that I am a lone voice in calling for the Arbitration Committee to at least acknowledge that editor O'Dea (talk · contribs) baited administrator Hex (talk · contribs), which seemed to escalate from Hex's minor edit note here (17 December 2012). I see baiting as one of the endemic problems between all types of editor at Misplaced Pages. I would welcome a reasoned explanation from anyone on my talk page. In addition, I am saddened that O'Dea has not responded to multiple calls for his own statement—such as by Hersfold and Salvio giuliano. This lack of response seems unfair to Hex at best and, at worst, indicates to me that O'Dea tendentiously baited Hex to achieve what appears now to be an inevitable conclusion --Senra (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I more than appreciate everyone who has taken the time to comment on the above. Thank you --Senra (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved DBaK

I am with the "don't do too much right now" school of thought here, especially per (1st preference) BorisG and (2nd) Bwilikins above. Hex does great work. If none of us ever lost our rag or made a mistake then the world would be a better place but, given all that's happened here, I can't see that a repetition is likely or that throwing the book right now will help to improve the encyclopaedia. I like "move on". Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Uninvolved DHeyward

I've read through the ANI material and talk page comments. Obviously bad block is the correct and obvious consensus conclusion. I would prefer Hex simply take Floquenbeam's advice on the page and not block anyone except obvious vandals and spammers. I think a forced plea deal enforced by Arbcom would be a quick and obvious solution without removing the bit or spending a month discussing it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved leaky

The community does not get to select the range of tools an Admin gets to use. It's all or nothing. Signing up to a voluntary non block proposal for a period to avoid proper and effective Arbcom scrutiny is outwith the scope of the original complainant or anyone else to agree and should be rejected in favour of a binding Arbcom sanction. If Hex wants to do something meaningful ask for community endorsement via a RFA. Leaky Caldron 22:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Kanguole

I would describe the edits Senra calls "bait" as an unfortunate response to a heavy-handed and unjustified block threat. Some people react poorly in situations like that. The suggestion that this was some carefully laid trap is rather far-fetched. Kanguole 01:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kurtis

I hate to do this to Hex (especially seeing as we're cutting into his vacation time), but I don't think ArbCom should just dismiss the notion of having a case as if this were a one-off incident. The misuse of administrative tools with regards to O'Dea is so egregious as to warrant a complete, 100% assurance that such a thing would never happen again, but his participation in the ensuing discussion demonstrated a very dismissive attitude towards non-admins and a generally contemptuous approach to those who question his actions. There are a few other examples listed both here and at the AN discussion which may serve to establish a longstanding pattern, rather than an isolated lapse in judgment. If that is the case, then Hex needs to have his sysop actions reviewed so that we can determine whether he is currently suited for the role. Kurtis 04:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mors Martell

While I understand the committee's reluctance to open a case based on a single (bad) block, this situation appears to warrant more than just an admonishment. I suggest that in addition to the below motion, the committee clarify that Hex is WP:INVOLVED with respect to O'Dea, and that if O'Dea engages in any future conduct which Hex believes to be deserving of a block, Hex must leave the decision of whether or not to block up to another admin. --Mors Martell (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Would a clerk please draw Hex's attention to my "Procedural comment" below and mention that I'd very much like to hear from him?  Roger Davies 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/7/0/3)

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)
  • Decline as a full case, would consider a motion to admonish. Comments:
    • The consensus is clear among everyone who has commented that this was an ill-thought-out block. Everything there is to say about the block has already been said.
    • If there were a pattern of such blocks, I would vote to accept, but there is no such pattern. The username/spam block in December has been explained, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, is the action quite a number of admins would have taken regarding that account. The only other questioned block is from 2008, which in wiki terms is ancient history.
    • An administrator reviewing an unblock request has the right to unblock on his or her own if the block is clearly wrong. The preferred practice will usually be to consult with the blocking administrator and/or post to a noticeboard before unblocking, but there is an exception where the reviewer is convinced that the block is completely mistaken (and especially where, as here, the block is just for 24 hours, so having a daylong discussion on AN would defeat the purpose of reviewing the block).
    • Hex's comments reflect a feeling shared by many administrators and other editors that the overall tone of discussion on AN and ANI is often poor. A lot of people, including me, agree that the tone of discourse on the noticeboards should be improved, though there is no agreement of how to bring that about, and for the most part I don't share Hex's critique of all the non-administrators who choose to post there. (The level of concern about how conversations often go on AN and ANI was epitomized to me last year when I told a blocking administrator that I was thinking of asking for an ANI review of one of his blocks; the response was "just unblock him yourself if you want to, but don't threaten me with the drama board." That reflects a somewhat dysfunctional environment.)
    • Although Hex's concern about the tone of AN discussions has some general validity, in this case I think the tone of the discussion was generally acceptable. The first posts to the thread were fair comment on the block and unblock; the later comments expressed understandable concern that Hex still didn't appear (at that time) to understand the reasons the block was viewed as bad. One editor may have used excessive rhetoric, but the thread clearly did not degenerate into the sort of free-for-all that many of us disapprove of. (The situation also dragged out for a bit because, unbeknownst to everyone else, Hex was on vacation and offline for a few days; that is no one's fault.)
    • Hex has now acknowledged that his block of O'Dea was not the correct action to take and has committed not to repeat such a block. That acknowledgement comes later in the day than we all might have wanted, but it is here, and I have no reason to doubt its sincerity.
    • There is no need to drag this matter, in which the facts are substantially undisputed, out through a weeks-long arbitration case. At this point, the proper reaction to Hex's conduct is a reminder or admonition that he should be more circumspect in using the block button, because blocking is a serious matter. By now, I think Hex already is, and feels himself to be, thoroughly reminded and admonished, both on the noticeboard and on this page. A formal motion of admonition adopted by the Arbitration Committee would be a pile-on and is probably not necessary. However, if my colleagues believe such a motion is appropriate for the record and to send a message that the block button is not the main tool in the administrators' toolkit, this would also be a reasonable outcome.
    • Even though I've voted to decline, based largely on Hex's comments in the past 24 hours since the case was filed, I'd like to add that in my opinion, this was an appropriate request for arbitration to bring before the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To Senra: The fact that O'Dea isn't mentioned in the motion that is passing does not mean that anyone is endorsing all of his edits. I agree that there appears to be some twitting involved in the last couple of edit summaries before the block. Perhaps O'Dea will comment on this request before it closes and address the issue, though I don't think it will change the result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Accept; there are clearly sufficient concerns expressed that we need to look into them and provide a proprer opportunity for Hex to make a case. — Coren  20:35, 5 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)

  A note that my vote to accept is inclusive of supporting a admonishment by motion is lieu of a case, given that the facts are not substantially in dispute and after taking into account Hex's later statement. While it's clear that Hex has understood that the block (and subsequent behaviour) was viewed very dimly, I still feel it necessary that the Committee responds actively to editors bringing concerns about administrators' behaviour with an explicit act when it is appropriate. — Coren  06:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Senra: This motion in no way implies that O'Dea is blameless, but I don't think that there has been evidence presented to show that what they may have done raises to the level of a motion, let alone a case. This in no way precludes normal community processes from examining their behaviour and decide whether further action is appropriate on that side of the issue. — Coren  20:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awaiting statements. AGK 01:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Decline in favour of motion 1), which I have proposed below. AGK 15:18, 6 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)
  • Update: I am leaning towards dealing with this by admonishment by motion, per Bwilkins, with the option to open a full case if Hex wants to defend his actions in detail, or if others (including my fellow arbitrators) present persuasive reasons that a full case is needed (what has been presented so far doesn't convince me to accept). The only thing that makes me pause is that the party who was blocked has not made a statement yet. O'Dea's most recent contribution was 23:15, 4 January 2013 which was around 20 minutes after notification was left on his talk page. I presume he would have seen that message, but may possibly have missed it. There is no strict need for a statement from O'Dea if they don't want to make one, but if they are reading this and want to make a statement, that would help. Carcharoth (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline and deal with by motion as below. A few final comments: (i) I see what Senra is saying about baiting, but in the absence of a statement by O'Dea there is not much that can be done. I suggest you take up your concerns with the user in question. (ii) I would like to acknowledge here the statement by MaxSem, where he agrees that a talk page message before unblocking may have avoided some of this drama. (iii) My impression, despite this case being declined and dealt with by motion, is that this committee is willing to consider more cases such as this, though patterns of misconduct and preliminary steps in dispute resolution are still needed before requests will be accepted. (iv) As always, efforts must be made to resolve matters by discussion, and that includes calming things down at user talk pages or at community venues when things get too heated. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 6 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)
  • I'll wait a bit longer before actually voting, but having read all the related stuff I'm not sure there is much for a case here; the block and Hex's conduct prior to and following it certainly falls into the doubleplus ungood category (Or is that doubleminus? Maybe I shouldn't be making 1984 references. Anyway...). However, O'Dea's responses to Hex's most recent warnings about the minor edit/edit summary stuff could have better as well, including the edit summaries Hex mentions which appear to have been for the sole purpose of baiting Hex. More importantly w/r/t arbitration, I'm not seeing a pattern of abuse here, and Hex has acknowledged above (perhaps a bit belatedly) that the block was incorrect. So waiting for a few more comments, most especially from O'Dea, but leaning towards declining at this time. However, Hex, I would strongly advise that in the future you take a step back when someone appears to be "taking the piss" at something; if you are aware that you handle such things poorly, as your "allergic" comment seems to imply, then that only adds to the confusion as to why you acted as you did. Hersfold 03:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Decline as a full case. As mentioned above there doesn't seem to be a pattern of abuse of tools, and while the behavior afterward still leaves me a bit uneasy, I think the community has made quite clear enough that they disapprove of everything that happened here to serve as a sufficient deterrent to any repeat incidents; belaboring the point with a full case wouldn't really benefit anyone, particularly now that Hex has acknowledged his errors. Given that Hex has already been well admonished by the community, I'm not sure that a motion is really strictly necessary, but if one were to be proposed I'd probably support it. Hersfold 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• What is concerning to me is not just the block, which we all now agree was at minimum a "mistake", but the eccentric misinterpretation of policy that it was based upon, and the mounting evidence that Hex has been dismissive and intolerant of other users in a broader context. We don't just desysop because of inappropriate admin actions; we also desysop if there is a chronic pattern of poor behaviour otherwise, or an inability or unwillingness to follow significant policies. At this point, I'm leaning toward acceptance. Risker (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards decline for the same reasons as Hersfold, though I will make up my mind within the next day or so. NW (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline a full case, and would generally oppose a motion on the grounds that it is probably not beneficial to spend time voting on sanctions that don't have any effect. If Hex's behavior comes before the Committee again, our decision to or not to admonish will have no practical effect on the outcome of such a case, and I think he has gotten the message people are trying to get across even without a motion. Per Brad. NW (Talk) 06:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'll be unoriginal: the block was particularly poor, but what I consider most problematic was Hex's reaction to criticism. And the fact that other instances of inappropriate behaviour towards fellow contributors have been brought up as well certainly does not help. Now, I do not have a firm opinion yet, but I tend to think that ArbCom should probably do something here. Salvio 12:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Carcharoth; I'd rather deal with the issue by motion, unless Hex wants a full case. I'd also be interested in O'Dea's opinion, if he wants to share it with the Committee. Salvio 21:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • @Mors Martell: I'm not sure it's within the purview of the Committee to declare, for the future, that a given admin is involved with regard to a certain person or topic. But, certainly, Hex would be well advised to avoid acting in his admin capacity when O'Dea is involved. Salvio 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: at this point, it might be an idea to establish whether Hex disputes that: (a) he made a poor block; (b) he was involved and (c) he has not subsequently fully complied with WP:ADMINACCT. If these are not in dispute the facts, we can deal with this by motion. If not, we can continue to consider the request and the options.  Roger Davies 21:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @Hex: Thank you for the quick response.

    A reminder about familiarising himself with applicable policies and taking care to stay within them is probably the best route forward. It would fall, I suppose, somewhere between "take no action" and an admonishment, and also clear the way for firmer ArbCom action in the unlikely event that there are further difficulties. Thoughts?  Roger Davies 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Decline case in favour of motion,  Roger Davies 16:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. I do not see what a motion to admonish would accomplish (if Hex carries out a similarly ill-considered block again, we'll surely desysop, whether or not we pass an admonishment in this case), but I will not stand in the way if my colleagues wish to pass one. T. Canens (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not going to vote, as I'm getting on a cruise ship tomorrow morning and won't be around for a week to do any follow up. I'll just say this; bad, bad block, and we all know it now. If a similar level of performance happens again, a desysop is going to be unavoidable -- and doing from that understanding, passing or not passing an admonishment motion makes little difference, though on the principle of it not making any difference, I'd lean towards not passing one as there isn't the need to officially issue wrist slaps that these comments and filing have surely delivered. Should Hex ever end up back here again, I'm sure this filing will be linked to and discussed whether a motion to admonish is made or not, if we're not going to desysop right now, better to just let this sorry incident die a quicker death. (I am talking ONLY about the normal wrist-slapping admonishment that have no actual restriction.) Courcelles 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Hex

Enacted - (X! · talk)  · @860  ·  19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed:

1) The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:

(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;

(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and

(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.

The request for a full arbitration case is declined as unnecessary.

Support

1. I think it's important to explain to Hex, in clear terms, what we find improper in his conduct (particularly as he seemed to struggle to separate blind vitriol from constructive, valid criticism when presented with an ANI thread concerning his action). For my part, that he gave the impression of being involved ("see what happens"), made a poor block, and was not fully responsive to community criticism is what made this minor incident so problematic. I propose this motion in the hope that we can bring closure to this incident, and show Hex how he can avoid being in a similar situation again. AGK 15:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   Copyedited as suggested. AGK 10:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

2. This seems to be exactly the right level of response to this incident. — Coren  15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Kirill  15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
4. It covers all the ground,  Roger Davies 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Salvio 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
6. I'm not sure we can honestly say there's no significant problem here, since we did not have a case to examine his actions in depth; we've simply not been presented with sufficient evidence to move to a case. More importantly, I'm hard-pressed to see why we are implying that Hex was not fully responsive to criticism; he actively participated in all discussions in a timely manner. It's clear that the community (and ultimately the Arbitration Committee) do not agree with his initial responses, and it's apparent that his response changed with the spectre of an Arbcom case before him, but that isn't the same thing. Having said that, this request should not go without comment from the Arbitration Committee. I believe we're missing out on the quality of interactions that Hex has with users, which I believe he must change so that he is less derisive and more open-minded; and the fact that this block was the result of a very significant misunderstanding of a longtime policy that has never said what Hex believed it did. On the whole I believe that Hex's proposal that he refrain from blocking is a step in the right direction. For this reason, I will support the motion. Risker (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
7. As I said above, I don't think this is strictly necessary, but it does provide a formal closure to the situation that simply declining the case would not. @Risker: I think the issue with "fully responsive" is just one of semantics. Hex responded, yes; however, he didn't respond appropriately, which I think is what AGK was getting at. Hersfold 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
8. We could quibble over wording and intent of the wording of this motion, but it sends the right message which is the important thing. There are a couple of other points, but I'll make those in the section for comments by arbitrators when I formally decline the request in favour of this motion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Support for the general approach of the motion. As per my comments above, I am not convinced that a motion is essential here, but it is not unreasonable either. As a matter of copyediting, I would change "The request for arbitration is dismissed" to something like "The request for a full arbitration case is declined as unnecessary" or similar. And per Risker, I would change "our decision is that there is" to something like "there is no evidence of" and I would break that sentence into two. Meh; I'm quibbling; the overall approach is right, although I think it's clear by now that Hex has already got the message. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

   I'm fine with both those copyedits, and have worked them into the motion. Thanks, AGK 10:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
11. There's not much more that I can add. Worm(talk) 08:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. T. Canens (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Per T. Canens' comment above. NW (Talk) 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• I've not had time to read the evidence, though as this seems from the comments above and the voting pattern to be a clear cut situation, I don't think my vote or viewpoint would change anything, so I am declaring myself inactive on this motion. SilkTork 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)