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
Request to desysop Hex	Motions	4 January 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 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: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently 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)

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.^[1]

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 [1] and [2] 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)

• 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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 ^talk 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/5)

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)
  • 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)
• 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 06:32, 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)
• 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 ^(t/a/c) 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 ^(t/a/c) 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 ^(t/a/c) 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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 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 ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:01, 5 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Decline case in favour of motion,  Roger Davies ^talk 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

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

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.

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)
2. This seems to be exactly the right level of response to this incident. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[talk] 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
4. It covers all the ground,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. T. Canens (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

---