Initiated by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Civility enforcement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Self, no confirmation needed

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Hawkeye7 desysopped

As of December 2014, I have contributed to 39 Featured Articles, a featured list, 75 A class articles, 178 Good Articles, and 163 DYK articles. I have been active as a MILHIST administrator, being re-elected to a fourth term in September 2014. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and written articles and reviews for the MILHIST newsletter. I assist at DYK with reviews and assembly of the prep areas. I have also written and maintained the MilHistBot and FACBot used by the featured article and MILHIST A-class article processes, and for updating the MILHIST announcements page. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012, where I filed stories and interviews for Wikinews, and worked on keeping the Paralympic articles up to the minute. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball and rugby, and the games in Sochi in 2014. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 on a scholarship from the Wikimedia Foundation. I also ran, albeit unsuccessfully, for the post of president of our Australian chapter.

In all of these activities, the loss of my admin tool set has been keenly felt. It is embarrassing to have to file constant requests for admin assistance, and painful to watch DYK run late because I cannot reset the queues. I am not seeking to have my admin status returned; merely to be restored to being a editor in good standing with the community by having the verdict against me vacated. Per WP:CLOUD: exceptions may exist in some cases, for example reinstatement may be by Arbcom appeal or perhaps consensus was reached to leave the matter a particular way at the time. This often happens in cases where passage of time is needed to decide what is fair, where demanding reaffirmation could actually be seen as unfair or impractical. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.

An earlier request in 2012 so I could be a candidate in the ArbCom election that year was dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a later date, on the grounds that ArbCom was fully engaged in that year's elections. I was hoping that the community might adopt proposed measures to supplement or replace the RfA process. Chances of reform have now dimmed, but I chose to wait until after a recent case had close before refiling. ArbCom have criticised me for being a poor politician, but I have always tried to do the right thing, and I hope that the Committee will consider this request.

@Thryduulf I am asking for the verdict against me to be vacated. The last sentence differs from the conventional wording, "may regain the tools via a request for adminship". In my case, ArbCom retained the right to overturn the RfA verdict. It also precludes the use of an alternate mechanism in the event of reform of the RfA process.

@Newyorkbrad Thanks for your comments. You will be sorely missed when you leave ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade The admonishment was part of the Racepacket case. A conflict between an editor (LauraHale) who was a close friend of mine, and one called Racepacket spiralled out of control, with Racepacket harassing her, and attempting to contact her employer about her Wikipedia editing. This resulted in an RfC/U, and then an ArbCom case. My part was quite minor. The Olympics Project decided to rename one of the articles she was editing, and had up for GA review. Racepacket jumped in, and the GA bot became confused, resulting in multiple copies of the review being generated. The tools were needed to fix this problem, so I stepped in. When Racepacket interfered, I blocked him for 48 hours while I repaired the articles. It was very wrong of me to do this. Another admin (Ironholds) reviewed my block, found that it was improper because I was WP:INVOLVED, and switched the block to a more reasonable one of a week. When the case went to ArbCom, my bad block was again reviewed, and I was rightly admonished by the Committee. There was only one admonishment. Ironically, while the case was ongoing, ArbCom put a stay on my content work, so I only did admin work for a time. ArbCom criticised me for issuing very few blocks, so I became more involved in this area. Racepacket's one year ban was subsequently extended after he made comments about me on another Wiki, which ArbCom did not choose to share with me. Every now and then one of his socks shows up, and I file another SPI.Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade The second case, which happened a year later, involved the editor now known as Eric Corbett. I had never had any interaction with him before, and knew nothing of him. When I came in, he had been blocked by one admin, and then promptly unblocked by another. He then said this, and I blocked him. The case went to ArbCom, which defined wheel-warring as "undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator". At the time I believed that I had not done this, but ArbCom ruled otherwise. The one week block was not overturned. During an appeal for admin assistance I said that Eric seems to be a koala (an Australian military term meaning a protected species). This was considered an egregious personal attack, but I had not meant it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade I would prefer never to block anyone again. Ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano You seem to have forgotten that you wheel warred by lifting my block without any attempt at discussion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs I have not been in any trouble for three years, but that means little because the case continues. I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf I found some more:

• MONGO 2 (January 2008)
• Tango 2 (October 2009)
• Herostratus 2 (June 2010)
• Jéské Couriano 2 (August 2011)
• PumpkinSky (October 2012)
• MONGO 3 (November 2012)
• Piotrus 2 (May 2013)

• There were two successful ones, both in May 2011, neither of whom had been desysopped for cause:

• SarekOfVulcan (May 2011)
• HJ Mitchell (May 2011)

When ArbCom votes to desysop, it does so with the expectation that the admin may leave immediately after their desyop. Up to 2010, 13 out of 29, or nearly half, did so. (This is not counting 13 more who were also blocked.) Since 2010 though, only one has done so; another 11 chose to stay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ GorillaWarfare: (1) I am not going to run for ArbCom. (2) The remedy specifies only RfA, so if another mechanism is put in place, it is not available to me. (3) ArbCom retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time So the clause about RfA can be removed by a vote by ArbCom. Therefore, the result of any RfA would be subject to ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth The practice of desysopped admins leaving was brought up by Jclemens in 2011, so there was an assumption (well-founded) that desysopped admins will leave. It has now dropped to 1 in 12, which is about the same as editors leaving after being rejected by RfA. The Arbs would have that figure in mind when making any decision about desyopping. (Some of the desysopped admins have since left, but it is not possible to tell whether or to what extent their desysopping entered into the decision.) Another change since 2010 has been the interpretation of WP:CLOUD by the bureaucrats, which is now less literal and more expansive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox I was asking for permission to not have to use RfA, which is broken, and I felt that ArbCom's handling of the case, which has gone on for another three years, was a compelling reason. But you are saying that any alternative to RfA is precluded? Are you saying that RfA is the only indicator of the trust of the community and that desysopped admins should leave? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant remedy reads, in full, "Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator, in the face of previous admonishments regarding administrative conduct from the Arbitration Committee. Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time."

Given the last sentence, I don't understand what is being asked of the committee? It seems clear to me that ArbCom has declared that it has no objection to the community giving Hawkeye7 admin status following a request at RFA whenever they (the community) feel he can be trusted with the tools - there is no need to get the committee's permission to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm not reading the power of veto in that sentence that you are, particularly as the "conventional wording" post-dates your case. RFA reform has been in discussion for a long time, but serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process first emerged long after your case so the intent of the restriction is clearly only to distinguish between requesting adminship from the arbitration committee and requesting it from the community (or from Jimbo).

In any case I don't see the need for this to be vacated - at most replacing the final sentence with the now standard wording or "Hawkeye7 may regain the tools following a successful request for adminship at RFA or alternative community-sanctioned process". However, I think all that is actually needed is a clarification from the Committee that the wording used here means the same thing as the standard wording.

To avoid the issue arising again in future, it may be worth the committee explicitly stating (by motion?) that if the community sanctions an alternative process or processes to the current RFA (whether a direct replacement or not) then any editor who has been desysopped by the Committee with instruction/allowance to reapply at RFA or by "request for adminship" may use such any alternative process (they would be entitled to use if they had never held the tools in the first place) without explicit permission from the Committee. I would strongly encourage them to use better wording than that though! Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I am not aware of any such list, but I've looked through all the closed nominations from 2014, and this year there have been three former administrators who stood at RFA. All of them resigned under a cloud rather than being actively desysopped, and all three were unsuccessful:

• SarekOfVulcan 3 (resigned March 2013, self-nominated at RFA January 2014)
• Piotrus 3 (resigned November 2009, nominated by Malik Shabazz and Cirt in February 2014)
• Mkativerata 2 (resigned February 2012, self-nominated August 2014)

It's now 2am, so I haven't looked at 2013 or earlier and probably wont get time to do so for a day or two. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Hawkeye at MilHist and DYK and I have the utmost respect for his work. He has made some mistakes in the past, and I won't dispute that the events leading up to the desysop were—shall we say—not his finest hour, but I thought at the time (and, now that I know Hawkeye better, have no doubt) that the 'personal attack' was a misguided attempt at humour with no malice intended. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then (as near as makes almost no difference, three years' worth—half a lifetime on Wikipedia). I believe Hawkeye has redeemed himself, and has amply demonstrated his trustworthiness. If we had a suitable process for (re-)appointing administrators, Hawkeye would be an admin again. But the standards at RfA have little, if anything, to do with what would make a good admins and more to do with extracting a pound of flesh from candidates in retribution for perceived wrongs by the candidate, RfA, Wikipedia, The System™, or something else.

Although I understand the reluctance to get back to reinstating removed admin rights, ArbCom does have the ultimate ability (ArbCom giveth, ArbCom taketh away, blessed be the name of ArbCom!) to do so, and I would echo Anthony's comments that devolving such authority to the community (while in principle an idea I heartily support) while the community has no functional process to make such decisions would be unwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy comes to mind that, to me, nicely addresses the jurisdictional/constitutional argument against this request: for ever other remedy, ArbCom retains the sole jurisdiction to vacate the remedy. ArbCom is not in the habit of posting appeals by editors it has site-banned on ANI, nor does it tell editors topic-banned by arbitration remedy to appeal to the community, so why would it insist that an admin desysopped by remedy go through RfA (which, as a side issue, is a broken process that is the greatest act of masochism on Wikipedia)? It seems out of sync with all other arbitration remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye is crystal clear that he is not asking the Committee to restore his admin bit. Why then is almost the entire response from the Committee discussing Committee re-sysopping? Of course if the Committee were to take such action it would be welcome, no doubt, but perhaps it is better to focus first on the question of restoring the more intangible but more important "good standing". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Hawkeye7 demonstrated quite clearly at the recent GGTF ArbCom case that he has not moved on and is still carrying his grudges around with him. It would be a grave mistake for him to be re-sysopped without undergoing an RfA. Eric Corbett 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Hi @Hawkeye7: That is indeed a stellar body of work. It is true that we still have jurisdiction over the case but, even at that time, the committee was moving away from reinstating sysop privileges (something it had once regularly done) and leaving it to the community to make the call. There is no bar to you going to RFA and this is touched on in the remedy discussion. ArbCom has been seeking for some time to return peripheral responsibilities (which it has had foisted on it as part of a delegation of God-King powers) and, regretfully, this is one which I would be very reluctant to resurrect.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far I can see, the last time ArbCom resysopped someone was in 2009. Since then, the updated Arbitration policy has been ratified, giving ArbCom authority in its own right and incidentally superseding our earlier authority as a delegation of Jimmy's powers (which includes the power to sysop). In the process, the policy limited ArbCom's jurisdiction to removing sysop privileges.

    However, we do have the authority, as part of our ongoing jurisdiction over cases, to restore the tools when we withdrew them because a fatal error in an earlier decision. We have never been down this route because truly fatal errors are rare and because we are not in the business of re-writing history for the dozens of former admins who were desysopped by us or resigned under a cloud.

    The sysop/desysop process has three components: (a) community consensus, which determines who may receive the tools but not who may lose them; (b) ArbCom, whose decisions determine when an admin loses the tools but not who may gain them; and (c) the bureaucrats who independently and after due diligence execute the sysop/desysop process and we have no authority (apart from a vague term in the "Management of websites" section of the Terms of Use) to compel them.

    What ArbCom certainly does have the jurisdiction to do - always assuming that sufficient cogent arguments and persuasive examples would be provided to convince arbitrators to accept - is hear a case about serious conduct issues arising at RFA, the resulting toxicity/dysfuntionality of the RFA environment, and the consequent misapplication of policy/guidelines there. In such a situation, ArbCom could issue temporary injunctions, mandate a binding RFC to resolve the issues, or impose procedures to ensure that RFA is policy-compliant, and issue injunctions in the interim.

    In other words, while ArbCom cannot resysop desysopped individual admins by fiat, it can do something within the framework of a case.

     Roger Davies ^talk 13:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction to this request differs from Roger's in that I would be open to restoring adminship to an administrator we had previously desysopped where circumstances warranted, consistent with decisions this Committee has made on occasions in the past. ¶ In this instance, I cast the sole vote in opposition to desysopping Hawkeye7 in the original case in February 2012 (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision#Hawkeye7 desysopped). My view at that time was that while Hawkeye7 had significantly mishandled the incident that led to the case, there were mitigating factors, one of which was that the matter would likely never have come before this Committee at all if it had not happened to involve a particular editor, and another of which was that I saw little likelihood of repetition of the incident. ¶ If Hawkeye7's description above of his contributions since February 2012 is a fair one, which I have no reason to doubt but on while I will await community input, I believe that more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct we found, and I would be inclined to vote to grant this request. ¶ That being said, based on evolution in this Committee's practices in recent years, I anticipate that this approach might not receive majority support from my colleagues. In that event, I hope that the community would be open to a new request from Hawkeye7 at RfA (particularly if he agrees in such request to avoid controversial blocks). In addition, if the community were to create a new or revised approach to selecting administrators in addition to or in lieu of RfA, nothing in our prior decision would bar Hawkeye7 from applying and being considered under such approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For crystal clarity:
    • (1) No one is disputing that Hawkeye7 is eligible to file a new RfA at any time if he chooses to, and that if he passes the RfA, he will be an administrator again without any action required by this Committee. In the past, on occasion we have imposed "do not resysop without ArbCom's permission" only in a couple of cases where heavy non-public information was involved in a desysopping. This is not in that category and we specifically did not make that statement here.
    • (2) No one is disputing that if the community creates a new avenue for selecting administrators, in addition to or in lieu of RfA, then Hawkeye7 is eliglble to apply for that avenue without ArbCom's permission either beforehand or afterwards. The wording of the remedy adopted several years ago, long before the current discussion about potentially replacing or supplementing RfA, was not at all intended to lock in the then- or now-current RfA system. If anyone thinks there is genuine as opposed to theoretical doubt about this point even after this thread, we can pass a motion, but I think it would be the height of bureaucracy.
    • (3) When I initially read Hawkeye7's amendment request here, I took his statements about how he could use admin tools again, has contributed well in the past three years, and didn't think RfA was really open to him as a request that we restore his adminship. If that is not what he meant, I think the clarification we have provided has achieved the purpose of his request. I remain open to considering terminating the sanction and restoring his adminship by Committee motion if he were to make that request, but the point is moot if it is not what he is or was requesting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Newyorkbrad I actually believe the committee should, in some cases, move to restore an administrator's status. That said, although I have never interacted with him directly, my one memory of seeing Hawkeye on the encyclopedia outside the original case gave me a dim impression of him. On balance, I am undecided about this appeal. Although I disagree with the shift towards non-motion adminship restoration, I am also not minded to grant the petition for this particular user. I will continue considering and will read further statements with interest. AGK [•] 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf says, "serious proposals for the way forward being an alternative process" – RFA is unfit for purpose, as the entire project accepts, and it is therefore an unsuitable recipient of the committee's delegation of powers. AGK [•] 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be minded to at least consider such a request. As AGK says, we all well know the current incarnation of modern RfA has its issues, to put it mildly. However, I would want to see the request, rather than say "I've done great things on articles and it's been a while since the issue," directly and specifically address the issues that led to both the initial admonishment and later desysop, and explain how Hawkeye7 intends to ensure that a third such incident will never happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The FOF was accurate and the consequent remedy was appropriate. In light of this, I think we should not vacate the relevant part of our decision. And, although I agree that the RFA system is broken and that it's far too difficult for good users to become administrators, I recognise that the principle so far has always been that the community grants the tools and ArbCom may review their use. ArbCom's remit is very limited and does not include the power to interfere in how the community appoints administrators, even if we were to consider it dysfunctional.

  I can see us regranting adminiship when we made a mistake, or when new evidence comes to light which should have been taken into consideration but wasn't or other, similar, and exceptional cases. This, in my opinion, is not one of them and I don't see why we should treat Hawkeye any differently from any other editor who wished to become a sysop simply because he already was one before being desysopped for cause. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I most definitely did not wheel war and I'll thank you for removing your unfounded accusation. Being one of the case clerks, I unblocked Eric for the sole purpose of allowing him to participate in the arbitration case about him, as was (and is) customary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Salvio on this matter. I don't see the original FoF and remedy to be incorrect. As such, Hawkeye can reapply for adminship via an RfA at any time, but I don't see where it's acceptable for us to return it by fiat at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit confused as to why you're asking for the verdict to be vacated. You said above that you're not looking to have your admin status returned. You also say that ArbCom has the right to overturn the result of your potential RfA, but I don't agree that that's included anywhere in the remedy. The only reasons you seem to mention are so you can stand for election to the Arbitration Committee, or pursue re-adminship, neither of which is prevented in the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Newyorkbrad that 'more than two and one-half years away from adminship would be a sufficient sanction for the misconduct'. I also agree with Hawkeye7 when he says 'I find it very difficult to believe that the remedy ArbCom adopted was the best possible under the circumstances.' It would be better for ArbCom to recognise that a new RFA is difficult to near-impossible for desysopped admins, and to leave open a pathway for reinstatement of tools in some cases. However, given the resistance to that expressed by arbitrators here, what I would suggest Hawkeye7 do is the following: (i) make a list of all the times when the tools would have helped you in your routine activities around Wikipedia; (ii) At some suitable point, make a request for adminship and point to that list (if necessary, pledging not to use the blocking component of the tools); (iii) if the request for adminship fails or narrowly fails, then continue to make a list of the times when it would have helped you to have the tools, and continue to make your case to the community and/or ArbCom that someone needs to reform things so that we aren't in the silly position where routine use of the non-controversial components of the admin toolset are denied to long-term contributors who are clearly here to work on building the encyclopedia. (The same applies to any other editor who might struggle to pass RFA, but clearly would benefit from being able to use parts of the toolset). Incidentally, does anyone here know when the last time was that a desysopped admin made a request at RFA (both successful and unsuccessful)? Or even a complete list of such cases. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Thryduulf and Hawkeye7 for the examples. There are some other examples I am aware of where an administrator resigned the tools under a cloud (to be complete, those examples should be included as well) and didn't manage a successful return through RFA (the example I remember because I participated in the second RfA is Sam Blacketer 2). I agree entirely with what Newyorkbrad said in his 15:07, 9 December 2014 comments. Hawkeye7 is wrong to say that there is an assumption that desysopped admins will leave. The default should be that they stay and carry on building the encyclopedia (as Hawkeye7 has done), regain their good standing through their own efforts (as Hawkeye7 has done, IMO), and at some future point submit an RfA again if they wish to do so (this appears to be the sticking point). That is how it should work in theory. I think it can work in practice as well. RfA is not so broken that it rejects those who demonstrate a clear need for the tools and allow enough time to pass. I didn't participate as an arbitrator in the case where Hawkeye7 was desysopped (I wasn't on the committee), but I would likely participate in and support a future RfA if Hawkeye7 chose to file one, purely on the basis that granting the tools should not be such a big deal. The admin tools should be able to be taken away easily and returned easily, not built up to be something difficult to obtain and difficult to take away. Finally, if such an RfA passed, ArbCom would not be able to step in and overturn the result without justifying such an action (and from what I've seen, there would be nothing to justify such an action). ArbCom have not retained jurisdiction in this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree that RfA is not fit for purpose - RfA is a place where you have to show the community that you're good enough to be an admin. There may well be better processes, but we don't have them yet - and RfA keeps the right people out and lets most of the right people through. Secondly, I do not approve of Arbcom reinstating the tools. The community absolutely needs a proper voice in such matters, and RfA is the right place to go. I would be willing to support a "statement" that sufficient time has passed that Hawkeye7 should be allowed to run through an RfA (which is not required, but may help), but I would not support vacating the Arbcom remedy. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If Hawkeye wishes to be an admin again, he will need to ask the community to trust him again, and the way to do that is through RFA. I don't see a compelling case here to vacate the remedy, which on no way stops him from filing an RFA whenever he wishes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]