Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Kharkiv07 (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DeltaQuad (Talk) & DGG (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 16:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

This all started as a dispute over the article Ancestral health created by User:Michael Hardy, in which User:MjolnirPants was, I think, a little snippy at worst - see User talk:MjolnirPants#Ancestral health. Michael Hardy then, in my view, went overboard in response. Rather than simply dealing with PROD or CSD nominations in the normal way, he posted a complaint about MjolnirPants at ANI (linked above), which was closed as inappropriate. He then posted a gem at User talk:MjolnirPants#I apologize for doubting your infallibility.

At User talk:Michael Hardy#August 2016, User:NeilN tried to calm things, only for Michael Hardy to make clearly false claims about what MjolnirPants had said, calling him "a hard-core bully". I blocked for 31 hours for the personal attacks, but unblocked with a suitable block log reason when a consensus was developing that a block was excessive.

You can see from the above links that Michael Hardy is not listening to the large number of people advising him to drop the stick, and yesterday he repeated his accusations of bullying here. He then went on to make another complaint about MjolnirPants at ANI here, which was quickly closed. NeilN has warned him that a block will come if he doesn't stop, at User talk:Michael Hardy#Please read.

User:M. A. Bruhn has uncovered a list of previous problems going back over the years, which apparently include wheel warring and outing (I'd forgotten, but I redacted the outing) - diff.

Michael is an old-school admin who was appointed after this RFA. He has not kept up with required standards of admin behaviour, as he admitted at User talk:Michael Hardy#Drop the stick - "However, I've never attempted to keep up with policies not related to my regular activities".

I don't know if ArbCom will consider a desysop of an admin without recent abuse of the tools, but I think the links above show a serious failure to follow WP:ADMINCOND and indicate someone who really should not be an admin. Over to you for your thoughts, and perhaps any other path of action that you might feel is appropriate.

  • Just a comment on User:Bbb23's suggestion that "I don't think is a case about an administrator, but rather a case about an editor who happens to be an administrator". I can appreciate that. But I'd also suggest that this kind of aggressive overreaction can be significantly more intimidating when it comes from someone who is seen to be an admin. Fortunately, MjolnirPants doesn't seem to be easily intimidated, but there are many who would be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • <Response removed - it was a bit long, and it's more evidence phase material anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
  • @GoldenRing: What makes you think I'm bedridden after surgery? I can assure you I am in rude health. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: It's only an attack when there's no link provided to support it. So thanks for reminder - I've provided a source now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to make one point, pinging @Michael Hardy: The key issue here is the repeated accusations made with no diffs to back them up despite being asked multiple times, and the multiple repetitions of those same unsupported accusations (including here on this page, before they were removed by a clerk). Even at this stage, if Michael will accept the Wikipedia requirement to provide evidence to back up accusations and to accept any resulting consensus, then I'd think we can still back away from this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and agree to stop imputing extreme emotions to other people, eg "immense anger". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michael Hardy: There is nothing in that link that *forbids* anything. There are statements of the form "If you do A then I will do B", but that is not the equivalent of "I forbid you to do A". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Michael Hardy: So, we have to go on your interpretation of what you think he meant rather than what he actually said, despite the fact the he has subsequently clearly said that he did not intend to *forbid* you from anything and despite a number of other people disputing your interpretation (and nobody as far as I can see so far agreeing with it)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael Hardy

I have never before encountered any user ordering me not to express disagreement with something he said or to post reasons for that disagreement, nor ordering me not to ask him questions to clarify something he said. He had stated that some pages I linked to existed only for the purpose of selling something. I responded that I could find nothing on those pages that appeared to attempt to sell something. He said at length that it was abusive for me to dispute anything he said and he would absolutely not tolerate disagreement with him. He also said an article I created was a duplicate of another article, but made no attempt to say which other article. So I asked which one. He was immensely angered by that question and told me it was abusive for me to ask about that.

Ordering another user not to disagree with one's statement and also not to ask for a clarification should be considered inconsistent with the way Wikipedia should function. One seeks consensus by discussing things. Respectful disagreement (saying that the linked page shows no sign of trying to sell anything) and a respectful request for clarification (asking which page he thought was duplicated) are an essential part of the process of discussion whose goal is consensus.

Among comments on this episode I find at least two people suggested I resign as an administrator. The first notice I had of that was a question on my talk page: whether I would consider resigning as an administrator. I responded by asking what purpose this suggestion was to serve. That is a natural thing to wonder about that, and that user then expressed immense anger that I didn't answer his question. I'm really surprised at that behavior. I don't owe answers to such questions to every random stranger who comes along; the nature of the question itself suggests some justification should be offered; it was reasonable for me to request a complete statement of the proposal before deciding whether to answer the question or not.

  • What I do as an administrator. In recent years the things I have done that I could not have done without being an administrator have included these:
    • Moving pages over redirects, both involving articles to which I was contributing and those to which others were contributing, in some cases restoring edit histories of the pages that had become redirects (restoring histories can be done only by administrators, if I'm not mistaken).
    • Looking at deleted pages in order to advise their authors about certain things. For example, one might discover by reading the page that it was original research and then notify the author that there is a policy against that. One might think that would become clear in the deletion process. But sometimes those are conducted in language of those fluent in Wikipedia's rules and customs and even quite intelligent newbies don't understand them. I don't remember details right now, but I've seen a number of variations on this.
    • More generally, looking at deleted pages in order to understand and occasionally participate in discussions of the merits of the articles and of their deletions.
    • I remember an occasion when an editor was going about indiscriminately deleting the word "conversely" wherever he found it. I blocked him for one hour, reverted a bunch of his edits, posted a notice on his talk page that that word has a precisely defined meaning in mathematical logic (his edits made clear that he didn't know that), and then unblocked him.
    • I think the one time I unblocked someone was when the administrator who had blocked him appeared to have done so out of anger and out of disagreement with the views expressed by the person blocked. That is quite improper.
    • There are some other things, and I haven't made the least attempt to keep track of them.
    • What I don't do as an administrator includes getting involved in disputes among users. And many other things, of course. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that this section has been edited by someone other than me. Here again is the principal instance of MjolnirPants forbidding me to dispute his assertions or ask him questions. I posted this here before. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One instance of outright dishonesty on this page is the statement from both MjolnirPants and Tarage that I disputed Mjolnir Pants assertion about "selling" instead of working further on the page. I did so chronologically earlier than my further work on the page, not "instead of" working further on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boing! said Zebedee: says there is nothing in the link I provided that "forbids" anything. To that I can only say that it must be read within the context in which it was written. And what if I say this is a nice little shop you got here; it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. There is nothing in that that _threatens_ anything, is there? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

For starters, I have posted my own summary of the dispute between me and Michael here. B!sZ, NeilN and Linguist have had their say, and I have little substantial to add to that, beyond conveying what my own experience has been.

After tagging the article for speedy and logging off for the night, I came to WP the next morning to look something up, only to find 14 notifications, including of an email Michael sent me. (The contents of that email are substantially the same as what he posted here). After wrapping my head around all of that, I wrote up my version of events. Initially I thought to post it at the AN/I thread, but since the thread had ceased to be about our disagreement and become about Michael's reaction, I elected to write it on my talk page and post a link to it, there. However, after it became clear that Michael was pushing forward with his accusations against me, I decided not to fan the flames, so to speak, and occupied my time on wiki elsewhere. Since then, I've received ten more notifications over this, the vast majority of which were Michael editing my user talk page.

Clearly, something needs to be done. Throughout this affair (and, apparently in several prior instances) Michael has demonstrated what appears to be a near-complete lack of those social skills necessary to collaborate with others on a project like this, especially in the position of being an admin. I agree 100% that his status as an admin should be revoked at this point. While he has yet to do any damage with his admin tools, the longer this goes on, the more I'm convinced that will become a question of when, not if. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

Please see this exchange. This whole matter has been blown way out of proportion by Michael Hardy. The first ANI thread shows he does not understand how deletion tagging works. Copying from my close, "Absolutely does not belong at ANI. Editors can tag articles at any time if they feel, using good faith, the article should be deleted. The reviewing admin will take into account objections on the article's talk page." An editor saying they will tag an article if improvements aren't made and then tagging the article when they feel the other editor wishes to argue/discuss rather than improve the article is a valid action. It may be hasty or based on an incorrect perception but it is not "ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you." [1]

The opening of a second ANI thread, after discussion on multiple pages and a brief block, shows a clear lack of judgment, far below what is expected from an adminstrator. --NeilN talk to me 13:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "MjolnirPants and at least one other user told me that I was forbidden to express disagreement with them", I tried to get a diff from Michael Hardy for that but failed (see first diff in my initial statement). --NeilN talk to me 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: "...admin action is concerned, that should have been that." That would have been that hadn't Hardy opened a second ANI thread, essentially duplicating the first, and continued his misrepresentations on a variety of pages, including even here. --NeilN talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: With regards to, "hasn't had the opportunity to step back" - I think you're wrong here. Michael Hardy has had plenty of opportunities to step back. Instead, he's charged forward. Witness his actions on the talk page of Guy Macon. Guy asks Michael to stop posting there. [2] Instead of stepping back, a couple days later we get the bizarre characterization of "Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?" as "a personal question on a stranger's talk page" accompanied by a mini-lecture. [3] --NeilN talk to me 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M. A. Bruhn

I'd like to start off by saying that I originally had no intention of getting involved in the dispute in ANI as I felt that for the most part comments being added were just unnecessarily escalating a situation that should die down on its own. Looking through ANI logs though I saw unresolved discussions perennially brought up about removing the admin status of MH, commonly rehashing the same points presented here. With this in mind I felt it would be good to lay everything out and have a discussion about this in hopes to end this topic from being brought up again. With that said I'll go ahead and transcribe my summary from ANI below:

2005 - MH is rebuked for protecting page that they are engaged in an editing dispute over
2007 - MH starts an ANI discussion complaining of two admins who deleted an article whose AfD they closed (6 delete vs. 1 keep by MH) who he states "appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures". MH is subsequently pointed out to have been wheelwarring against three other admins on this page's deletion. MH argues that the AfD was not an umambiguous vote for deletion since notices where not posted in places like the math wikiproject, and additionally states "Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people."
2008 - MH is subject of ANI discussion about stalking after leaving an unprompted antagonistic and demeaning essay on someone's talkpage regarding a dispute between them which occurred over two years prior. MH makes comments such as "I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered.", justifies his calling someone "mentally challenged" by saying "I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar"". Also "I was not insulting him; I was accusing him."
2009 - MH is subject of ANI topic for calling another users comments "bullshit" multiple times, and wheelwarring with two other admins even leaving an edit summary while reverting the first admin reading "his deletion looks like another attempt of speedy deleters to look as if they lack common sense."
2012 - MH has comment redacted (by none other than Boing! said Zebedee) for outing violation
  • I'd like to echo some of the sentiments expressed below about digging through MH's edits looking for dirt. For this reason I almost posted a comment earlier requesting that other users consider not bringing forward additional evidence unless they feel it significantly changes the merits of accepting this case, but felt it inappropriate to make such a request for my not being a clerk or arbitrator. However, for what it's worth I'd like to go ahead and make that request anyways. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

Statement by Linguist111

I would be in favour of a desysoping, if this is feasible. I haven't looked too closely into the MjolnirPants-Michael Hardy dispute, but what I did see was that the latter wasn't innocent of personal attacks, as Boing! said Zebedee stated above. I respect that he may feel he was being bullied, but his inability to drop the stick, bringing disputes to the wrong place, and being on the receiving end of blocks and speedy boomerang requests clearly show he isn't fit for his position as a admin. Also worrying is that while this dispute is going on, he has access to the admin tools, which, although he hasn't used them in years, does risk bigger problems. Linguist 111 Who, me? Who? Me 14:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Admins are expected to lead by example and are expected to deal with disputes etc themselves, The constant bickering, not dropping the stick and ANI threads by this Admin is rather unbelievable and quite honestly it gives me no confidence in this admin at all, Personally I think they should be desysopped and at the correct time they can perhaps retry RFA although that probably won't be for a very long time. –Davey2010Talk 16:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a strange and unfortunate case. To open, I should acknowledge that I had a sort of run-in with User:MjolnirPants some months ago, in which I started to moderate a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and MjolnirPants disagreed with my moderation approach. However, they subsequently said that they were willing to put that behind us. I have since seen that MjolnirPants can be stubborn or 'snappish', but not to the point of being disruptive. I have had no previous dealings with User:Michael Hardy. I see that they raised the issue of whether MjolnirPants was engaged in bullying. I don’t see any clear case of bullying. I don’t see any bullying by MjolnirPants, and I do see that the claim to that effect was treated as a personal attack resulting in a block. However, I do see that a case can be made that the conduct of Michael Hardy, including "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!", is bullying, especially when the editor has access to the block button, even if they never use it.

We have too much difficulty in getting new admins. RFA has become a trial by ordeal, partly because some editors start off with the assumption that admin abuse is widespread and that it is important to be hostile to admins and would-be admins. We certainly don’t need admins who don’t try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think that there is actual impropriety here, but there certainly is the appearance of impropriety.I think that there is actual impropriety here. There is definitely at least the appearance of impropriety. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Michael Hardy should be desysopped. I am saying that the ArbCom, which is the only review for English Wikipedia administrators, should review his fitness to be an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Some editors are saying that Michael Hardy should be desysopped. Others are saying that there is a rush to judgment. I am not saying that he should be desysopped, but only that the case calls for the attention of ArbCom. (By the way, ArbCom should look at the conduct of all parties.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on statement

I have read the subject's reply saying that I quoted them out of context. It appears that he meant to be quoting another editor and that he failed to provide context. The subject started an ANI thread labeled "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!". I read that statement repeatedly and even verified from the history of ANI that that statement was entered directly by the subject. I verified who had entered it because it was so bizarre, and thought that someone had changed his words. No, the subject entered it, and didn’t enter it in quotes, and so I didn’t know that he was quoting; it appeared to be his own statement. If, as it now appears, it was a quote from User:MjolnirPants, then there has been a double misunderstanding, and both MjolnirPants and Michael Hardy may have been ranting, but Michael Hardy is an administrator. I stand by my recommendation that the ArbCom take up this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise Michael Hardy’s statement is too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that important whether User:MjolnirPants actually said that. It is important that User:Michael Hardy used that as the heading, without quotes, thus having it appear to be in his own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I didn't take any substantive role in the ANI discussion. I commented only because I was amused at what RfA was like back in 2003. I don't think is a case about an administrator, but rather a case about an editor who happens to be an administrator. IIRC, Michael said at his brief RfA that he didn't really see why he should become an administrator, and his history, particularly in the last several years, has underscored that remark. Michael hasn't blocked anyone since 2010. He made one unblock in 2012. His only page deletions appear to be focused on making his own editing easier. He protected one page, not an article, in 2005. I understand an administrator may act in his capacity as an administrator even without the use of tools, but still it doesn't appear that the tools are of any significant importance to him. Frankly, it seems a bit much to desysop him based on this incident, although it never helps when an editor appears to have no insight into his own conduct. Again, depending on his statement, my recommendation would be an admonishment by motion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed in Michael's statement and withdraw my recommendation. As is too often the case, Michael has only dug himself into a deeper hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dane2007

My involvement in the ANI and surrounding events began when I was monitoring the recent changes log and stumbled across Ancestral health. I disagreed with the CSD nomination and removed it/commented why on the talk page of the article and Michael's talk page. It was there that I became aware of the ANI discussion and the back and forth on user talk pages. I attempted to help the situation as best as I could and noticed that Michael had made some very sarcastic remarks on User talk:Tarage, which I initially mistook as a personal attack and gave a Level 1 warning to Michael for. Previously, I had given a similar warning to Tarage due to comments he had placed on Michaels page. I continued to monitor the page and the exchange between NeilN and Michael and there seemed to be a disconnect from what Michael thought happened and what actually happened, as NeilN pointed out. I do believe that a desysop would be in order as Michael has demonstrated that he does not use the tools and is disconnected from several wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:ADMINCOND, WP:DRN, WP:DROPTHESTICK). Dane2007 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patient Zero

Having looked into the evidence as well as the AN/I threads and user talk pages involved, I have come to the conclusion that this "old school" administrator should have the tools revoked. This user has exhibited behaviours which fall significantly below the expectations for someone with these tools. I also highly suggest that Mr. Hardy read all of the policies and guidelines should he choose to edit again, as this revelation was indeed appalling in my opinion. Zerotalk 19:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarage

I was going to let this whole thing drop since it appeared that cooler heads were going to deal with it, but my name has been brought up, so I thought I would give my two cents. The issue is that User:Michael Hardy has a fundamental lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works, which is concerning given the fact that they have edited for so long and have administrative powers. He continues to misunderstand that User:MjolnirPants was trying to do him a favor by NOT immediately tagging the article in question, and instead, yes, instead, decided to argue with him instead of accepting this favor and trying to work with him. On top of that, he has a gross misunderstanding about what reliable sources mean. He seems to be running under the incorrect idea that "independent reliable sources" are "reliable sources that can think independently", as he stated on his own talk page. Given all of this behavior, including refusing to back down from making personal attacks that he has been told time and again are incorrect, I feel it would be inappropriate to just let this situation go. Letting a person keep a loaded gun they found on the street just because they haven't shot anyone is not a healthy idea. --Tarage (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael Hardy at any point in time before you escalated this to where it is did you say anything like "Well, I disagree with your points, but I am willing to work with you to fix this" or "I understand that you have concerns. Can you give me a few days to address them?" You gave no indication at all that you were going to do anything but argue, and quite frankly, you have done nothing but argue. Every word out of your mouth is blaming someone else. You have not once admitted any fault of your own. Multiple people have now told you that you are wrong, and you continue to ignore it. You should not have those keys. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, you have no idea what independent sources mean, and seem incapable of reading about the requirements. You must have independent sources for all articles. If you do not, then it should not be an article. And yes, independent means having no direct stake in the topic in question, which all of your sources have, since they are all the same damn source. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You... blocked an editor without trying to talk to them? Without so much as leaving a warning first? Are you serious? Take away his keys right now. --Tarage (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'organization' seems to have a direct stake in the topic of the article, in that they appear to be the only ones pushing it's existence at all. And since you can't find a single outside source independent source, it appears to be to be worth deleting. But then again, how many other editors have told you this at this point? Please, tell me, how many editors and administrators have to till you that you are wrong before you will admit that you are wrong? --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miniapolis

As a clerk, this is my first trip to this side of ArbCom. After repeated requests by a number of editors I respect to drop the stick, Michael posted this in response to my concerns. Although it's well-known that the standards for adminship were different back in the day and this isolated diff seems benign enough, combined with what they've posted elsewhere this degree of WP:IDHT would be blockable in any editor (let alone an admin). I sympathize with MH to a degree; WP was a very different place when they got the mop, but I believe that they are temperamentally unsuited for adminship in the present climate (which is all we have to work with). Miniapolis 23:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And out of the blue, in the midst of what I considered civil discourse, MH accused me of having a role account. I know when I'm being baited, and told him I was done with him. IMO, MH is unfit for adminship at this time. Miniapolis 22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Omni Flames

Yes, please do accept this case. It's my personal view that Michael Hardy is unfit for the tools and should be desysopped. This whole incident has shown us his inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from conflicts, which is something I'd most definitely expect in an admin, and I believe the rest of the community would agree with that. After the original discussion was closed and he was instructed to use dispute resolution processes instead, he still continued to make personal attacks on his talk page, calling MjolnirPants a "hard-core bully". After being blocked and subsequently unblocked, once again stated that he believed MjolnirPants was bullying him, despite the fact that the issue was already well resolved and the community had expressed that they were not in support of his view. That's not all though. Later, he started another thread, basically just restating the same points he'd been using the entire time. The thread was speedily closed under WP:BOOMERANG.

Now, we all have out bad days, and I would be able to understand it if this was a one-off incident. However, from looking at M. A. Bruhn's evidence, and making a quick ANI search, it doesn't seem to be one. I've seen this happen before, where an admin who hasn't used the tools in some times comes along and causes a lot of drama because they're not up-to-date with current practices (example). That's one reason why our inactivity policy for sysops needs updating. That's another issue though. My point is that Michael Hardy clearly doesn't have a good enough knowledge of basic policies to have the admin tools, and since he's avoided answering the question of whether or not he'd be willing to request a voluntary desysop, ArbCom intervention is necessary here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callmemirela

I was the one to post a message on Michael Hardy's talk page here. I stand by what I have said. He has no knowledge of current policies and guidelines. He engages in "childish" behavior by consistently bringing the same argument about Mjoir (sp?) and pursuing the the issue continuously. The title of his ANI thread caught my attention. I followed the issue at hand and saw that Michael was not improving the situation. Then Boing mentioned he was an admin. I had to double-check myself. I was appalled. No admin should act this way. It's one thing to act like a jerk on Wikipedia, but it's another thing acting as if a teenager took over the keyboard. He refused to drop the stick, even after I warned him. It was determined that what Mjoir said was not bullying or a personal attack. I was even more appalled when he opened another ANI thread once his first one was settled. I agree with anyone that says he should be revoked of his admin rights. He is in no position to be an admin based on his behavior lately. He is not up-to-date with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Had he gone through the current RfA, he would not had made it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I came here planning to recommend against a desysop on the basis that a long term productive editor with expertise in mathematics had lost his temper once. But then I took the time to read the evidence presented by other editors including quite disturbing discussions at ANI going back many years that show that this administrator has an ongoing propensity to engage in personal attacks against editors who disagree with him. This administrator has repeatedly assumed bad faith without solid evidence and interpreted the comments of other editors in the worst possible way. Because these problems have been so persistent, I must conclude that he lacks the temperament and self control required to be an administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

When I noticed this case at ANI, as far as I could tell, nobody had ever asked Michael Hardy whether he actually wants to be a Wikipedia administrator. So I asked.[4]

Note that I was very careful to not express any opinion about the behavior of Michael Hardy or the person he accused when he posted to ANI. All I wanted to do was to save everybody some time. Before starting a time-consuming arbcom case, shouldn't we at least ask him whether he wants to be an admin?

Michael Hardy assumed bad faith where there was none, refused to answer my reasonable question,[5] then countered with "And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself?"[6] despite my crystal clear statement "I am not at this time expressing any opinion as to the merits ...because I have not personally examined the editing history."[7]

At this point I disengaged and unwatched his talk page, because it was becoming clear that Michael Hardy was far more interested in sucking me into his fight with MjolnirPants than he was in answering a good-faith question about whether we really need to invest the time and effort of an arbcom case. That should have been the end of it.

Then he tried to restart the fight on my talk page.[8] and when I asked him to not post to my talk page,[9] he did it again.[10][11]. This shows a battleground mentality and is, in my opinion, conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

For convenience:

I would also note that Michael Hardy keeps posting descriptions of his interactions with other users with no diffs[12][13][14][15], and that multiple people have told him "that's not what happened"[16] and asked him to supply diffs.[17][18] I would go farther and say that if he can't or won't supply a diff, don't believe him. What he claims happened didn't happen the way he says it did. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GoldenRing

I didn't log on for the weekend and I cam back to find... well, this. What has happened to previously sane people in the past few days?

Frankly, I can see Michael Hardy's point. Here's a history-in-diffs of the early part of this dispute, as I see it:

  • Following the PROD, Michael made a very civil request for some detail about what MjolnirPants thought was wrong with the article.
  • MjolnirPants responded with a civil reference to specific sections of WP:ELNO and CSD A10. (For some reason this appears as part of the next diff - I'm not sure if we're seeing some obscure software defect, whether Michael copied a response from somewhere else or if he invented a reply on behalf of MjolnirPants - since no-one's shouted loudly yet, I assume the last explanation is not the correct one).
  • Michael responded, again in a fairly civil way, asking, if A10 is met, which article it duplicates? He then followed up with queries on how the cited ELNO provisions applied to the article. So far, all fairly civil and reasonable.
  • Something in MjolnirPants seemed to snap at this point. His response starts, "Listen, do you want me to just go ahead and nominate this for speedy deletion? Because if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do." He goes on, "This thing will get deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed. ... If you post back here without improving the article significantly, I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it, and we can happily go on arguing about an article that doesn't even exist anymore."
  • Michael protested, again civily, that if it was suggested that the article might be deleted because it duplicated an existing article then which article might be a perfectly reasonable question, and pointed out the tone of MjolnirPants' reply as inappropriate in a collegial setting.
  • MjolnirPants' response was to slap a db-a10 template on the article. He did at least indicate in the template which other article he thought it duplicated.

I'm not saying ANI was the right next step from there, but I'm having a pretty hard time seeing MjolnirPants' actions as reasonable and collegial. I'd have certainly been asking for help somewhere if it was me, and I'd have hoped that I'd have some sympathy wherever I did ask for help, not the rather snippy, "The editor was doing you a favour," that he got. It's perhaps worth noting that, contrary to MjolnirPants' threats, the article was not "deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed"; the CSD was declined by Dane2007 as "Clearly not A10".

User:EvergreenFir seems to have had the sanest voice in all this (at ANI, no less): "Looks like a content dispute. ... I don't think any admin action is needed." As far as admin action is concerned, that should have been that.

In my view, User:Boing! said Zebedee richly deserves a trouting for blowing this out of all proportion, first at ANI and now here. Perhaps when bedridden after surgery is not the best time to initiate a witch hunt? Having taken three days from a user telling him to stop asking questions or something bad might happen to his article, to being hauled in front of arbcom to have his mop snapped in half, this particular witch hunt is really only missing the pitch forks and the torches.

Summary: I suggest Arbcom decline this, and everyone else take a deep breath. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: My humble and sincere apologies for stupidly mistaking something said by M. A. Bruhn for something said by you. However, I still fell considerable sympathy for someone whose mop is being demanded of him largely because someone else refused to discuss matters and he objected to that. GoldenRing (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved EEng

Before going DEFCON1 and bringing the magnificent and expensive Arbcom apparatus to bear, why not wait a bit longer to see if M.H. can be personally persuaded to give up his adminship (as he probably should). EEng 12:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! says, "I am in rude health" -- is it a personal attack if an editor labels himself rude? EEng 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Not surprisingly, turns out I'm not the first to consider this possibility: WP:No self attacks. EEng 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I don't have much of an opinion on the benefits of a desysopping case, but please consider accepting in order to address the rampant misuse of the term "bullying" that has taken over the site. Or, in lieu of a case, perhaps forbid it by motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tigraan

I just watched the whole thing going on at ANI; as far as I remember, I have had no interactions with MH, and I remember having seen MP's signature around but not much more.

While I think that the second ANI thread constitutes desysoppable behaviour, there has been no abuse of the admin tools, and there is no urgent action to take, so this fails Wikipedia:Arbitration#Prior_dispute_resolution #1. It obviously fails #2 as well, since none is really taking MB's side. As such, ArbCom should be involved only if all other venues being exhausted.

I would argue this is not the case. The second ANI thread is now closed so what are exactly the issues left to be resolved? At that point, another rant with personal attacks will lead to blocking, which can be done by any non-involved admin, and the desysopping, which can be done by an RfC of the community. Actually, I see a non-zero probability that the whole thing could be handled with a desysop request made after the recent incident has cooled down, where MH admits to have overreacted, and the desysop fails thanks to that. Even in (what looks to me) the most probable case, where MH insists on having been right, and is desysopped by a landslide, I think the stop at ArbCom can be skipped. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

This is rather a shock development and one that I have been following for the past two days. On the one hand we have an editor (Michael Hardy) who has displayed WP:IDHT in the two threads that were made by them at AN/I and violated WP:NPA by making accusations that aren't entirely accurate, on the other hand, it's been what? 2 days and already this is being taken to ARBCOM. I think EEng made a good comment about DEFCON1, this case is a false alarm. There has been no indication that Michael Hardy will abuse their tools, if they were going to start abusing their tools they would have done so against MjolnirPants when challenged. That has not been the case. Rather than to try and resolve the issue by letting it sink in for a couple days and then go and try to communicate to Michael Hardy that they are unfit for the duty of administrator, this bandwagon has jumped from AN/I to ARBCOM for an immediate desysopping of an editor who, while they display problematic behaviour, hasn't actually done anything to warrant bringing them to ARBCOM. I have never (which is about 9 months) seen a case go from AN/I to ARBCOM this quickly. I recommend that the arbitrators decline the request for review because; shall I repeat that this issue has been blown up to an immensely larger scale than it actually is. To illustrate; it has gone from peanut size, editor who's ticked off with another editor, to elephant size, requests for immediate desysopping as a threat to the Wikipedia community; threat to the community in that they may abuse their tools, I'd like to add, that any administrator may abuse admin tools, so why the presumption that they will be guilty (I note Wikipedia is not a court of law, but still). Michael Hardy does not appear to be about to go on an admin abuse rampage. Should they hand over the mop? yes, it seems so as they are out of touch with current policies. Is it necessary to drag them to ARBCOM to do it? it may be someday, but, not now. This is far more disruption than it is worth, and while it was initiated by Michael Hardy it is being propagated by this bandwagon. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Yngvadottir

I'm going to support GoldenRing in urging the Committee not to take this case. my take on the exchange between the two editors is similar to theirs, with the addition that I'm reminded of the famous formula, "Nice little —— you have there; it'd be a pity if anything happened to it". I would urge MjolnirPants to keep criticism of new articles on a professional, unemotional level (that's why people sat down and developed templates for the purpose; your offering a "favor" instead of either nominating the article or querying the author didn't come off as a favor in practice), and remind them that a fun/silly user name (actually one of the very few on Wikipedia that grate on me) makes that all the more important. Michael Hardy is evidently one of our few and much needed mathematics experts, and presumably didn't realize that in offering us a new article outside his central area of competence, he was contravening WP:MEDRS; it happens to the best of us. He's also apparently developed a reputation for being unduly blunt. I would urge him to read with fresh eyes the information for new admins and to think about how best to deal with non-experts in his fields of expertise (there are a lot of scientific ignoramuses like me working here, but we are all colleagues) and in general with people who don't explain clearly what they mean the first time, and I also have a question or two. Michael Hardy, do you want to continue as an admin? If so, would you be willing to help out with some of the backlogs requiring administrative tools, and if that, which? Arbs: hold on a bit, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ThePlatypusofDoom

You should probably accept this case. I have read both of the ANI cases, and the user's conduct falls far below what is accepted for an admin, and has a disturbing lack of competence for an admin. This may be a slight overreaction, but an admin showing that he can edit disruptively is a big deal. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Michael Hardy clearly does not have a knack for dispute resolution, nor from comments like, "What in the world do you mean by 'independent reliable sources'? Are you saying the sources I cited cannot think independently?"[19] does it appear that he understands policy either. I do not think it would be helpful or necessary to his contributions to mathematical articles to be an administrator.

MjolnirPants here engaged in intimidation and ownership,[20] which I have not seen to be at all out of character for him. (I have in the past tried and failed to prompt some introspection and humility on his part.)

I believe this case should be accepted with the usual understanding that all parties are to be scrutinized. Rhoark (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 71.110.8.102

Would the Committee explain why they feel a full case is necessary? The only reason anyone is here is because ArbCom is the only body with the power to de-admin. This isn't some multifaceted dispute like the unrelenting mire of the various ethno-nationalist topics. Everyone knows this will end up in Michael Hardy being de-adminned. Just de-admin by motion and let the community discuss whether other sanctions are necessary. If the Committee feels that, short of someone going on a rampage with the tools, de-adminning requires a full case, I think we can officially declare "no big deal" dead and buried. (For those without long memories, ArbCom has previously de-adminned by motion.)

71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied after talk page edit request here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Admins should only be judged by how they use their tools. We should nor fire good Admins just because as an editor they committed a minor infraction, nor should we give bad Admins a pass just because they're such talented editors. Count Iblis (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with going forward in this case is that this creates precisely the sort of bias that we need to prevent. While one can say that no prior judgments have been made, it's still the case that a perfect Admin conduct will now be balanced against conduct as an editor in this particular incident. Contrast this with judging an Admin based on complains about how the tools are used. We're obviously not going to start an ArbCom case about every minor issue that comes up from time to time, we wouldn't have many Admins left if we were to go about this way. But this does mean that Admins who are not all that ideal with how they use their tools (significantly below average), but who don't outright abuse their tools, will not lose their tools. But an Admin who may well perform above average when using his/her tools does risk losing his/her tools when he/she steps on some toes during editing when no Admin tools are used. A case can be made for demanding that Admins should behave well as editors, but passing any judgements that uphold such principles has to be part of a comprehensive system where the conduct of all Admins is rigorously reviewed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc9871

The outcome has already been decided: he will be desysopped. There's not even a chance that he won't be. Agreeing here with those opposed to this inevitability is moot, I suppose. But I do also feel that it's a rush to judgement. Yay. Doc talk 07:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second the opinions of Mr Ernie and EdChem. A bad precedent is being set with this case. Doc talk 14:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

This is a non-issue blown up ridiculously to serve the drama god. ArbCom should decline this case, advise Hardy and MjolnirPants to stop talking to each other and let them go their separate ways. Nothing Earth-shattering has happened.

As far as I can see the events are as follows.

MjolnirPants PROD'ed an article Ancestral Health, which Hardy had started as a stub. The latter quite reasonably and politely asked him to elaborate. MjolnirPants threw a bunch of policies at Hardy. Hardy replied to each of them and asked how they applied. MjolnirPants refused to answer Hardy in detail, saying that he'll speedy the article in a week if the issues aren't fixed. But without waiting for a week, they speedied the article anyway, which angered Hardy. So far, nothing too bad has happened, just a little bit of friction based on sub-optimal behaviour.

Hardy opened an ANI against MjolnirPants, which was dismissed because anyone has the right to speedy any article for any reason, provided it's done in good faith. Meanwhile people were sounding out Hardy on his own talk page, where Hardy, responding to queries, referred to MjolnirPants as a "bully". Boing! said Zebedee thought that this behaviour reflected badly on admins and violated WP:ADMINCOND; they blocked Hardy in an ill-considered move. I don't agree that the behaviour violated WP:ADMINCOND - Hardy did not use his tools and brought the matter to a noticeboard, which is precisely what WP:ADMINCOND says. BSZ's block was objected to at ANI as over the top, and BSZ reversed himself, to his credit. This block, however, stoked the drama god and Hardy dug in at ANI, and opened another request, which was also speedily dismissed.

This dispute should simply be allowed to cool down, which it already has. There have been only two ANI requests over two days. Hardy did not abuse his tools. The article is currently at AfD, where it is being handled appropriately. People should stop trying to poke Hardy on the talkpage. MjolnirPants and Hardy should be separated and asked to go their separate ways. Hardy should drop the stick. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

MH may be a crusty curmudgeon but that is not a desysoppable offence. There was no abuse of admin tools here and the stormy but brief dispute has already cooled down. What is the point in accepting the arbitration case now? MH has not and is not actively using his admin tools, and it seems unlikely that he will abuse them in the future. Dragging him through a nasty arbitration case and an almost inevitable desysop will fairly likely drive him away from Wikipedia altogether. He may not have the most agreeable temperament, but he has been a long term productive WP editor. I'd say that in this case ArbCom should exercise common sense, or, if you like WP:IAR, and decline the case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 142.105.159.60

I'd like to add as an uninvolved party that Michael has taken to harassing Guy Macon on Guy's talk page despite Guy's request that Michael not post there anymore. Michael has proven himself to be completely incapable of dropping the stick. He also seems to not understand WP:NOTTHEM. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from talk page —MRD2014 T C 21:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Looks like this is being accepted. I'm not involved and have only read the proceedings somewhat cursorily. However I did want to point up the fact that Michael Hardy states that "anonymous edits ... have been most of my edits in recent years" [21]. I find this disturbing, especially for an admin. Why would this be the case, and is this being done abusively or in any way that could be construed as against policy or best practices? Anyway, since I'm not sure I'm going to be presenting any evidence for the case or participating, I wanted to throw that into the mix for others to consider. Softlavender (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I'm disappointed to see so many accept votes here. It seems quite obvious that this will end with a desysop for Michael Hardy. Why go through the process of inviting people to dig through his every edit to find dirt? Pass a quick motion or something (but make it perfectly clear that it's not misuse of admin tools, but that some editors are uncomfortable that he got them so easily). I would also like to mention that a desysop here sets a precedent for admins who occasionally lose their cool for a grudge holder to drag them to arbcom where everyone can comb through histories for "Gotcha" moments. We should recognize his dedication to the project and end this as humanely as possible. I'm also disappointed in the very questionable block by Boing! Editors should spend more time thinking about the effects of their actions on others before piling on the drama or escalating it. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

So, ArbCom, are you deliberately setting a new standard that ArbCom cases on admins will be started based on their manner and alleged ignorance of (or disdain for) policy and editors with no evidence of tool abuse? Or are you not realising that you are inviting cases against other admins who choose at times to behave poorly without using their tools? EdChem (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I have removed the wikilink in the request name. If the case is accepted and created, there cannot be a wikilink in the title. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the case is accepted, since I commented here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health I must recuse myself. Miniapolis 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlength statements trimmed. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: In the anticipation of the opening of this case, a mass message list has been created to inform interested editors of updates to the case. Non-parties may add and/or remove themselves as they please. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/2/0/0>

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

  • accept I should clarify that review of admin tool use/behaviour is squarely in our remit, to the point that other avenues are just not. It doesn't mean that were are thinking a desysop is inevitable, just that we need to take a systematic and thorough look and there is no way around that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as a temporary-holding-pattern vote to get us out of net-four-ZOMG-full-speed-ahead!!! This request has moved faster than anything else we've done all year. There's no doubt there are some issues here, but they are not that urgent and it is not clear that a full case would be the best way to resolve them. I left Michael this note to please take the time to rethink his approach to this incident less than four hours ago, about a request filed less than 24 hours ago, about an incident that originated two days ago. This is not an emergency. If I were in Michael's shoes I'd feel more than a little defensive and more than a little pressured at this point, and I think we can more than afford to let this sit for a bit while he takes in the feedback he's received. Meanwhile, arbs who have some time on their hands, paging you all to ARCA... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Superficially there's not much similarity between Michael's situation and mine - he's an early admin who has been continuously active, primarily in content work; I was originally a 2006 admin who was inactive for almost 8 years before returning - but the arguments surrounding early admins who haven't kept up with policy details and long-term inactive ones who return tend to follow parallel tracks, so I do feel like I have some insight here. I continue to think that, while the adminship aspect does make this fall under arbcom's remit, this case request was filed prematurely; a two-day-old ANI thread closed specifically because the matter was at arbcom is hardly "prior dispute resolution". More importantly, a great deal of the intervening commentary has been individually well-meant but collectively off-putting. As much as I agree with Floq about the term, Michael clearly has experienced the whole incident as "bullying" and hasn't had the opportunity to step back from the situation or investigate what his options are besides continuing to post defenses to the continuing comments on the matter. And in any case he seems quite reasonably more interested in content work than in the picky details of arbcom-statement presentation. (I started writing this with "I'll be brief because Yngvadottir has already hit the key points", but then wrote a long post anyway. But I still essentially agree with her. Except for the username thing ;) That's an awfully long post to say I reaffirm my decline vote despite the fact that it's now moot, but I don't think anybody voted for me expecting brevity.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided to reread this again, thinking that if nine smart people disagree with me then I may well be wrong. (A very rare event, but still... ;) After all, I've said on-wiki before that I think the trend toward ANI or AE pseudo-resolutions of disputes and away from formal cases has gone a bit too far and we should be handling more things in a structured, moderated format, and yet I've voted to decline several of the more serious case requests we've seen this year. On re-evaluation, though, I still agree with myself; in fact I'm striking a bit of my comment above in light of EdChem's perceptive post above. This isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Desysopping. Arbcom is in principle here to work through intractable disputes in order to dampen distracting drama, not to participate in the unnecessary escalation of minor matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept With the previous history around Michael as outlined above, a review is clearly in order, whether something comes out of it or not. I would encourage @Michael Hardy: to include diffs to back up his statements also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Accept Doug Weller talk 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Keilana (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline while I know it is moot per OR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While I appreciate Yngvadottir's and Opabinia regalis' points above, our acceptance of a case is not an assertion that some wrongdoing has taken place. There is clearly something to look into here; whether we act upon it can be decided in the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Arbitration in dispute resolution

1) A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Communication

2) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor conduct

3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

4) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

5) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

6) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

7) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The Michael Hardy arbitration case was opened on the 11th of August. The case was opened to review the dispute on Ancestral health and the actions of Michael Hardy as an administrator and editor.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes

2) The dispute surrounding the ancestral health article and its deletion was fast-moving and escalated quickly, reaching an arbcom request three days after the article was first created.

  • 18:07 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy created the article [22]
  • 19:52 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy posted a note about his "stubby new article" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health and fitness [23]
  • 20:05 UTC, 4 August 2016: MjolnirPants prodded the article [24].
  • 20:32 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy removed the prod tag [25]
  • 20:43 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy queried the prod rationale on MjolnirPants' talk page, resulting in a contentious discussion [26]
  • 22:06 UTC, 5 August 2016: MjolnirPants tagged the article WP:A10 [27]
  • 04:56 UTC, 6 August 2016: Hardy posted an ANI thread titled "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!" [28]
  • 05:22 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 removed the speedy tag [29]
  • 05:35 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 added a number of cleanup tags [30]
  • 05:37 UTC, 6 August 2016: NeilN closed the ANI thread [31]
  • 06:34 UTC, 6 August 2016: Johnuniq started a thread at WT:MED requesting input on the article [32]
  • 08:28 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing! said Zebedee posted a subthread titled "This is an admin!" in the closed ANI thread [33]
  • 08:33 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing blocked Hardy for 31 hours for "personal attacks or harassment" [34]
  • 11:25 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing unblocked Hardy with the summary "There's a growing consensus that my block was excessive, so I withdraw it unconditionally - please consider it a non-block" [35]
  • 13:56 UTC, 6 August 2016: Guy Macon posted to Hardy's talk page, asking "Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?" [36]
  • 15:32 UTC, 6 August 2016: OrangeMike started an AfD [37]
  • 04:25 UTC, 7 August 2016: Hardy posted a second ANI thread about MjolnirPants [38]
  • 04:54 UTC, 7 August 2016: Linguist111 closed the second ANI thread [39]
  • 10:19 UTC, 7 August 2016: Boing posted a case request [40]
  • 12:44 UTC, 7 August 2016: Kudpung closed Boing's subthread, commenting that the matter was already at arbcom [41]
  • 16:42 UTC, 11 August 2016: Kharkiv07 opened the case [42]
  • 06:44 UTC, 14 August 2016: Sandstein closed the AfD with the result that the title should be redirected to paleolithic lifestyle [43]
Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Case scope (Ancestral health)

3) The dispute surrounding Ancestral health was not ripe for the committee to review without further attempts at dispute resolution. (Arbitration Policy)

Passed 5 to 4 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)

4) Michael Hardy, between 2005 and 2008, was in violation of core project policies governing the use of administrative tools and the conduct of editors.

No allegations of administrator abuse by Michael Hardy occurring after 2008 have been presented to the Arbitration Committee.
Passed 7 to 4 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User conduct

6) Numerous editors in this dispute communicated with one another in a suboptimal manner, inconsistent with Wikipedia Policies. Discussions were inflamed by overreactions, misinterpretations, incivility, sarcasm, and unnecessary escalation of the dispute. This hampered any attempt to resolve the issue early on.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (User conduct)

7a) Hardy interpreted MjolnirPants' comments about his deletion nominations as "ordering" him to "obey", or "forbidding" him to disagree ([44], [45]) and described MjolnirPants' conduct as "bullying" [46], [47]. He has persisted in this interpretation throughout the case [48]. Hardy has also persisted in posting to the talk pages of users who have asked him to cease doing so [49], [50], [51], has responded to criticism with sarcasm [52], and has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions [53]. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants

7b) MjolnirPants inflamed the dispute by ignoring requests for clarification on the problems with Ancestral health and threatening to nominate it for deletion. ([54])

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee

7c) Michael Hardy was blocked for 31 hours by Boing! said Zebedee. Boing unblocked after 3 hours stating "There's a growing consensus that my block was excessive, so I withdraw it unconditionally - please consider it a non-block". (Block Log). Boing then initiated a case request after Hardy's second ANI thread had been closed and after the article had been taken to AfD [55].

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Other community members

7e) Although not named parties to this case, a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case. Callmemirela [56] [57], Guy Macon [58] [59][60] [61] [62] [63], Softlavender [64], and Tarage [65], [66] in particular have made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute.

Passed 6 to 5 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Michael Hardy (Reminded)

2) Michael Hardy is reminded that:

  1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
  2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
  3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants reminded

5) MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.

Passed 9 to 2 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee reminded

6) The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

Passed 5 to 3 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy&oldid=1088038909"