Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Hawkeye7

Comment about your answer to the third question
I thought the Arbcom ruling was "Hawkeye7 may re-apply for the administrator permissions at RFA at any time", so I don't think you've correctly interpretted this. PhilKnight (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I have not got it wrong. A request for clarification was issued and answered. I can apply at RFA at any time, but it will not restore my editing privileges. The Committee 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 desysop ruling can be changed. If it is vacated, then no RFA would be required. Similarly, it can be changed to vacate the outcome of any RFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean 'it will not necessarily restore my administrative privileges?' If so, then I understand the point you're making, even if in practice, it makes no real difference. ArbCom almost certainly wouldn't remove administrative priviliges unless there were significant problems, and as it happens, ArbCom could remove administrative priviliges from any admin (myself included) if there are significant problems. PhilKnight (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, ArbCom did do just that. There were no significant problems, but ArbCom decided that two admonishments could warrant being desysopped. Some of them were pretty aggrieved over the second racepacket case. The usual custom is for desysopped admins to vanish, but I did not wish to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)