Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

Administrators
1) Administrators are trusted editors who are assigned additional user rights and responsibilities, which are to be used for the benefit of the encyclopedia and the community. Aspirationally, administrators should demonstrate and model collegial and collaborative behavior throughout all of their editing activities, whether or not they are acting as administrators or using administrator-specific tools at the time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions against administrators
2) Administrators who seriously or repeatedly violate site policies or norms are subject to sanctions, including removal of administrator status (desysopping) by the Arbitration Committee where appropriate. Sanctions, including desysopping, may sometimes be warranted even where the administrator has not used or misused administrator tools. This is established by ample precedent as well as by common sense. If the rule were otherwise, an administrator would remain immune from desysopping even if he or she, for example, vandalized dozens of articles, deliberately introduced hundreds of copyright violations, repeatedly created unsourced negative BLPs, or criticized the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, mostly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrator conduct
3) In determining whether sanctions are warranted, the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant aspect of an administrator's behavior as background information. However, the following, individually and cumulatively, are generally not grounds for desysopping:
 * The administrator's having passed RfA or its predecessor process at a time when standards were different from those found today;
 * The admin's limited overt or visible use of administrator tools, so long as the community-established minimum editing requirements are satisfied;
 * The admin's use of only a subset of administrator tools&mdash;no admin uses all the tools&mdash;and especially not if the admin spends most of his or her wiki-time working on content;
 * Isolated instances of snappish or uncollegial behavior&mdash;which is not to say that this is a good thing;
 * Isolated instances of incivility or personal attacks&mdash;which is not to say that these are good things;
 * Isolated instances of pressing a point too far ("failing to drop the stick") or misinterpreting another editor's comments&mdash;though these are not good things either;
 * Disputes as to whether the administrator has done any of the foregoing;
 * Instances of actual or alleged misuse of administrator tools eight or more years ago; and/or
 * Unfamiliarity with procedural nuances of Wikipedia arbitration (although editors should try not to make the arbitrators' and clerks' jobs harder than they already are)&mdash;an editor's avoiding the arbitration pages for 14 years deserves praise, or perhaps envy, rather than censure.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Er. As amusingly written as this is, it's not a "principle" but an ad hoc collection of basically unrelated things that may or may not exist in this particular case.  So, my hope would be that something like this is not adopted.  (For example: If somehow the way he passed into adminship matters (which I too doubt) then the way to handle that would be a finding of this is how he became admin, and two a finding that it's irrelevant, here (but probabely best to not mention it).  Or, if something is "isolated" then there should be a finding it's in fact isolated, if that is the evidence, and a finding as to how that matters, here)  But please don't adopt this collection of stuff as a "principle." I have no other interest in this case but I do think being careful with "principles" at Arbcom is particularly important - long after the case is forgotten.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any problem with an ad hoc collection of basically unrelated things making its way into a guideline about what does and does not constitute behaviour sufficient for desysopping, but I do agree that there are some problems with this list, particularly the vague wording: "Isolated instances" seems like it could be interpreted to fit, or exclude, a broad range of data sets. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not every line of every proposal posted on a workshop is meant to be suitable for explanting to the proposed decision page verbatim, even if the arbitrators agree with the content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. So, yeah, it's not suitable, but Snuge purveyor actually raises another point against it. Arbcom is not suppose to adopt "guidelines", and in an Arbcom "principle" it would be a really good practice to link to and follow an actual site policy or guideline (eg.  I'm pretty sure, NO PA specifically forbids certain PA, and no matter how isolated, Arbcom should definitely reserve to decide on a case by case basis that even a singular atrocious PA is beyond the pale.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why one uses qualifiers like "generally." For every rule there can always be an extreme case or an exception. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this odd random (or in this case, apparently specifically designed to specifically exonerate one specific person) jumble of "proposals", particularly the "an editor's avoiding the arbitration pages for 14 years deserves praise, or perhaps envy, rather than censure", when in fact knowledge of our major policies, guidelines, and dispute-resolution measures is essential for any extremely long-term and extremely active editor, especially one wielding power tools, and when in fact the issue in question included the fact that the party had been directly notified of the clerk action on his talk page in the first place. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I disagree with this random jumble in Part 3 as well. As  has stated, Administrators are subject to WP:ADMINCOND and this section seems to be trying to go against that policy in my opinion unless i'm misunderstanding it. -- Dane 2007  talk  22:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It says: "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. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another."
 * So, you can't use one example of a particular dispute to argue that there is a problem here. One then has to argue that this is not just a single incident, there have to be more cases and one has to make the argument that it's then likely that you're going to end up with another incident involving the editor sooner or later. That case has not been made. While you can decompose this single case into many incidents, it's still one incident because Michael had taken certain negative positions w.r.t. to the editors he was in dispute with. It's all linked to the proposed deletion of the article he created, this caused friction between him and a few other editors and things escalated. That's not ideal behavior, but it was also a single incident that shows that he is as imperfect as most other editors here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Hole Truth
4) The First Law of Holes states, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. In other words, "if several sensible people say that you should change some aspect of your behavior, then you should at least think about doing so, even you personally think you're doing nothing wrong." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sensible people" would not include (1) Those who order you not to disagree with them in the future, nor (2) Those who never heard of you until they decided to see if an extensive search of records going back well over a decade can turn up something wrong with anything you did during that time. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How about people who post a good faith question to your user page -- a question that contains a clear description as to why the question is being asked -- with the stated purpose of saving you from the humiliation of being desysoped by arbcom? Are they also "sensible people"? You are in a hole. You keep digging. This will not get you out of the hole. You don't appear to be even making an attempt to understand why so many people are upset with your behavior. Instead you just keep digging a deeper hole. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I responded to your question politely and respectfully. And I certainly have never understood why _you_ are upset with that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I am not and was not "upset" or "angry". That's just something you decided to say about me. My actual emotional/mental state when dealing with you is a calm, dispassionate desire to protect the encyclopedia from your behavior, plus some mild annoyance at things like your refusal to supply diffs to back up your claims or repeatedly telling lies like "Besides Guy Macon, who called that 'unmitigated gall' because I asked about the reason rather than answering his question" when I clearly defined exactly what I thought was unmitigated gall (saying "I asked a question, seeking information" while ignoring the fact that I had just asked a question, seeking information, which you had refused to answer.) Yes, I find people who say things that are not true to be annoying, but they don't cause me to be angry or upset, just annoyed.
 * Second, inviting me to get into a fight with another user is not "responding to my question politely and respectfully". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I made no attempt to invite you into a fight with MjolnirPants. I was pointing out an inconsistency between your reactions to me and to MjolnirPants. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are digging a deeper hole. Your attempt to get me to join your fight with MjolnirPants is a matter of public record. Here is my original question: Here is your response:
 * MH is not being "humiliated" by this process. This process reflects poorly on ArbCom and the people who started this process, not MH. Jrheller1 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Corollary
4.1) The First Law of Holes remains good advice even if you think it is unfair that you are in the hole or you are unsure why you are there.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Second corollary
4.2) Being named as a party to a Wikipedia arbitration case does not necessarily mean that you have done anything wrong or that you should or will be sanctioned. Nonetheless, if an arbitration case is opened with your username as the casename, you may be in some sort of a hole.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is too cute for its own good to be used, you know that brad, but still true --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Skilled players rarely redouble. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, not everything posted on this page needs to be suited for incorporation verbatim in the actual decision, even assuming the arbitrators agree with the substance. In any event, having been accused for years of a ponderous and legalistic writing style on these pages, I'll gladly accept "too cute" as a substitute. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone ever doubted how cute you are in your ponderousness.:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary
1) What should have been a relatively minor dispute has escalated disproportionately. Because the dispute, taken in perspective, is still relatively minor, it is not necessary to allocate fault for this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This does not address MH's behavior post-initial dispute or during this case. --Neil N  talk to me 11:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in principle, and not just because I'm a party (I stand ready to accept a trout for the way I snapped at him). As I explained on the evidence talk page, I think Michael's initial reaction was quite understandable. It was the subsequent escalation which I think is not. That being said, the language here is vague enough that it might be read as opening the possibility that someone like, or  could be at least partially at fault, and I could not disagree more with that. All of them behaved civilly and reasonably, and made efforts to defuse and/or end the situation. Note that this is a statement of verifiable fact, and is in direct contradiction to the unsupported opinions several editors have expressed at the evidence page and during the case request. Diffs have already been provided, but I'll happily make a dedicated, iron-clad defense of each of those editors' behavior.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this finding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in principal, however, the sentient expressed is not a fact, and I would generalize it further. I would remove the comment about assigning blame for the initial dispute, and in the principles section add a comment attesting to how all involved share some degree of responsibility for contributed to some degree to how the situation has escalated. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot support the claim that "all involved share some degree of responsibility for how the situation has escalated". I completely disengaged from Michael Hardy shortly after seeing the nature of his first response to my good-faith question, and continued to refuse to have any interaction with him even when he repeatedly posting to my talk page. I avoided all interaction with him until this arbcom case was posted. How is that "sharing some degree of responsibility for how the situation has escalated"? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Responsible" was not the right word; I have changed it to "contributed". The guy who scratched his leg, and in response a crazy person killed his family, contributed to his family's deaths even though he is in no way responsible for them. Your good faith question has, for no justifiable reason, become a repeated point of contention, so it has played a part even if you have no responsibility for others choosing to argue about it. At the same time though, saying "Everyone involved played a part to some degree" is admittedly a meaningless statement. I guess what I want to say is just that a subset of people cannot be totally faulted for how an event played out because there are aspects in how the event unfolded that no one can be blamed for. Perhaps that's just a platitude though. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Disagree. In my mind, we clearly have a case of repeated defiance of even minimal common sense, civility, guidelines, policies, collegial interaction, appeals to listen and respond accordingly, and several other important pillars of Wikipedia behavior -- enough to demonstrate an ongoing and obvious unsuitability for adminship. There seems to be an underlying or preemptive assumption in many of the above proposals and summary that a person who has withstood 14 active years here will wither up and die if the tools, which were handed to them almost informally 13 years ago and which they never requested, were removed from the person who rarely uses them and doesn't need or particularly care for them and who doesn't care about keeping up with Wikipedia policies in the first place. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, if a user who was not an administrator was acting the way Michael Hardy did, what action would you propose? You do realise that Michael Hardy is not going to change the way he behaves even if he is de-sysopped? Removing adminship doesn't actually resolve the problem here. The focus on his adminship is unhelpful. The focus should be on why a group of editors failed to communicate and resolve their differences, and why escalation to ArbCom was thought necessary. My view is that this is a case of an admin (User:Boing! said Zebedee, BsZ) blocking unnecessarily, focusing unnecessarily on the fact that Michael Hardy is an admin, and escalating unnecessarily to ArbCom because they (BsZ) have a view that the admin corps has a reputation that needs protecting. This is quite clear from the initial outrage BsZ expressed ("This is an admin!" and "Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name?"). Over in your evidence, you used the expression "two of the very best and most respected, circumspect and rational administrators on Wikipedia" [were you including BsZ in that?] - there are 1,292 administrators, how can it be possible to single out two admins like that? The best admins resolve disputes, they don't escalate them to ArbCom unnecessarily. One further point: think about who was actually in a position of power and using admin tools here. It wasn't Michael Hardy. It was the admin (BsZ) who carried out the block and escalated the matter to ArbCom. That needs examining at least as much as Michael Hardy's conduct. Should ArbCom really be used as a tool to get rid of admins who "give us all a bad name"? A relatively minor dispute has been escalated to make an example of someone, and that is leaving a bad taste in many people's mouths. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it was not because "the admin corps has a reputation that needs protecting" (despite my perhaps poor choice of words in that ANI comment). It was because I genuinely think admins should set better examples. But as I said on my talk page, I don't think it would be beneficial to spend a lot of time debating the details at this time and place now. (But you do make some other good points with which, on reflection, I concur.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more with your characterization of BsZ's actions. He instituted the block based on a very reasonable interpretation of WP:NPA. If Michael had been a new-ish user, I highly doubt anyone would have contested the block. I've seen admins come down harder on relatively inexperienced editors over similar behavior, only to be congratulated by others for taking swift action. Indeed, given Michael's subsequent behavior, it seems clear that a block might have been the best response, as it would have (temporarily) prevented him from posting to a number of talk pages and creating a new ANI thread. Perhaps Michael would have left it at that, given time to calm down. Or perhaps not. In any case, the justification BsZ used was valid.
 * But that wasn't all. When it became clear that there was a consensus against the block (looking at time stamps and the ANI thread, it might be more accurate to say that a consensus seemed likely to emerge), BsZ didn't hesitate to unblock. BsZ then refrained from participation in the second ANI thread Michael opened. The quotes you cited on BsZ's talk page were all from other editors. Furthermore, you identified them as incivility, and while there may be something to that, they hardly qualify as personal attacks akin to referring to another user as a "slave driver" or a "hard core bully". They all express shock and incredulity that an experienced admin here would behave in the way Michael did; a reaction I share, even though I did not give voice to it.
 * Finally, even after the swift closure of that thread (at the request of several other users, mind, not BsZ), and the obvious snowball his complaint was, Michael continued to push the matter. At that point, something needed to be done, because Michael's continued accusations were disrupting the encyclopedia. You may criticize BsZ's choice of taking it to ArbCom. I might even agree with much of that criticism myself. But to suggest that BsZ was the primary driving force behind the rapid escalation of this issue to an ArbCom case is simply not a tenable interpretation of the facts. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If Michael Hardy was being disruptive, why was an ANI thread not started on that? I actually dispute that Michael's continued accusations were disrupting the encyclopedia. They were offending the people they were directed at, but that was not disruptive in the sense of affecting actual content - it was an interpersonal dispute, hurt feelings, nothing more. If an arbitration case was filed every time someone had hurt feelings, there would be a lot more cases... The main case page still does not list the attempts at dispute resolution, even after I raised it here and pinged one of the clerks. I'll try again: why are the dispute resolution links missing from the case page? What is missing in the attempts to resolve this was an ANI thread directly discussing Michael Hardy's conduct and what to do. ANI just gave up too early and it was escalated to ArbCom too early. Look again at the archived discussions and ask yourself where were the attempts to resolve this other than a collective throwing up of hands and a "let ArbCom deal with it"? There was no attempt to let things cool down for a bit, no attempt to form a consensus on what to do, just a passing of the buck. It used to take a huge amount of effort and several repeat ANI incidents before ArbCom would accept a case. Why was this one accepted so readily? Read again what Opabina said at the case request acceptance stage: "'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.'" Knowing when to step back, even when the other person is still upset and going on about something, is very difficult, but sometimes it is the best option. If that had been done, if some time to cool off had been taken, that might have worked. Carcharoth (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If Michael Hardy was being disruptive, why was an ANI thread not started on that? As I said above, I would likely agree with much of critique over why BsZ chose ArbCom instead of an ANI thread. In fact, in general, I think an ANI thread would have been the best way to go. But, you must read below. Because, in fact, an ANI thread was started on that, and I've provided a link to it below.
 * I actually dispute that Michael's continued accusations were disrupting the encyclopedia. They were offending the people they were directed at, but that was not disruptive in the sense of affecting actual content - it was an interpersonal dispute, hurt feelings, nothing more I would like to point out that if your logic is sound and accepted as a consensus here, then WP:NPA must go the way of the Dodo, as personal attacks do not affect actual content, but merely hurt feelings. I can appreciate your focus on the encyclopedia itself, and I even agree with it to a great degree in principle. However, in practice, an encyclopedia where we do not take action to prevent hurt feelings will quickly eliminate every editor capable of having their feelings hurt. We can't have an encyclopedia of user-generated content without users, after all.
 * Look again at the archived discussions and ask yourself where were the attempts to resolve this other than a collective throwing up of hands and a "let ArbCom deal with it"? BsZ actually did start a thread at ANI about it, albeit as a sub-section of the one Michael started. In addition, there are the following sections on Michael Hardy's talk page:, , , ,
 * I'll admit that not all of those display a great deal of competence at calming down an upset editor, but all of them are attempts to settle things which happened before it was brought to ArbCom. The fact that they weren't listed is a technicality. Perhaps a very important technicality, but nonetheless.
 * It used to take a huge amount of effort and several repeat ANI incidents before ArbCom would accept a case. Why was this one accepted so readily? I found that rather surprising, myself. But we can hardly lay that as BsZ's feet. It was the members of ArmCom themselves who so quickly voted to accept the case. I got the impression that there was an underlying issue here that they wanted to address, though I've yet to see what, exactly that issue is. Or perhaps Michael is highly unpopular with members of ArbCom. If that is the case, then I share your dismay at this turn of events, as the result will likely be highly unfair for him.
 * Knowing when to step back, even when the other person is still upset and going on about something, is very difficult, but sometimes it is the best option. I agree wholeheartedly. And in retrospect, seeing the way Michael has 'moved on' back to his usual editing, I don't mind speculating that he'd have dropped it long before now if not for the ArbCom case. But remember, at the time the case request was made, the most troubling aspect cited by a large number of editors was Michael's thus-far continued refusal to drop the stick. In other words, at the time, a large number of editors had every reason to believe that would not have been a good tactic to pursue. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the extended response. I only have time to respond to one point, the technicality about the listing of the 'prior dispute resolution'. The filer of the case did list these, so there is no problem there. What I'm objecting to is how the 'Prior dispute resolution' bit was left blank when the case page was created, how those links were not copied across. At some point it will probably get done, but the fact that no clerk or arb has yet done so says something. It is a minor point, but it feels a bit unprofessional (yeah, I know, no pay and all that). I went looking for those links to back up a point I was making, and had to go back to the original case request to find them instead. Try it yourself, go and see if you can find the original links that BsZ placed at the case request about prior dispute resolution (without following the link I provided on the evidence talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to question from : The issue is WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, and, considering his longterm habit of editing mostly anonymously, WP:SCRUTINY. Not interested in debating my response further. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Re Softlavender's comment "There seems to be an underlying or preemptive assumption in many of the above proposals and summary that a person who has withstood 14 active years here will wither up and die if the tools, which were handed to them almost informally 13 years ago and which they never requested, were removed from the person who rarely uses them and doesn't need or particularly care for them and who doesn't care about keeping up with Wikipedia policies in the first place.", that was my conclusion way back when I first saw (at ANI) that this was heading for an arbcom case. My post to his talk page was a good-faith attempt at kindness; I figured that there was at least a 25% chance that he never wanted the tools in the first place and would have no problem asking that they be removed. I figured that If I was right, it would have avoided a lot of unpleasantness, and if I was wrong, he would simply say he wants to keep the tools and that would be the end of it. I certainly would welcome a concerned editor having a word with me on my talk page if it looked like I was headed for arbcom.

Alas, MH evaded the question and tried to get me to help him fight MjolnirPants. (The "I need to know the purpose of your question before I answer" song and dance came later.)

At this point I disengaged, and that should have been the end of it, but no. He would not drop the stick, followed me to me talk page and tried to pick a fight. And he did it again, twice, after I asked him to stay off my talk page.

Since then I seem to have become his main target of attack. He has accused me of wrongdoing, being a bully, and "extreme anger" (at no time during my interactions with MH have I ever felt any anger). He has repeatedly lied (saying I didn't explain why I asked my question, for example), refuses to provide diffs to back up his claims, and in general has done his level best to turn our interaction into a battleground. I was frankly perplexed that he reacted this way when I was making a good-faith effort to defuse the situation, perplexed that he kept dogging me after I stopped responding, and remain perplexed that he appears completely immune to the many voices telling him that his behavior was and is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, where did you explain why you asked your question? As far as I can tell, at the same time as inserting a header in the form of repeating the question, you referred Michael Hardy to your original post on his talk page ("I already told you what my purpose was. It is clearly explained in same paragraph as the question I asked."), where you said "I am simply posting this because as far as I can tell nobody has ever asked you whether you actually want to be a Wikipedia administrator.". Now I can see that that is (sort of) an explanation of why you asked the question (you asked the question because no-one else had yet asked it), but I can also see why someone might struggle to see that this was the reason you asked the question. It is a bit of a weak reason - to do something because no-one else has done it before. It is a good enough reason to climb a mountain, but is it a good enough reason to turn up on someone's talk page and ask them a question like that? Also, it doesn't really answer the question. Sure, no-one else had asked the question before, but even so, why was the question asked? Why did you specifically ask the question. You still haven't actually explained that to Michael Hardy. Presuming you think it is a reasonable question, I'll ask it: why (given that no-one else had asked it before) did you ask that question of Michael Hardy? Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My reason for asking was contained in the words "considering the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This is an admin!,...".`


 * Here is the ANI thread as it looked when I asked my question: Here is the archived version: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930


 * Here are some quotes that MH would have seen if he had clicked on that link:


 * "Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name?"


 * "if you're an admin I would have an expectation that you understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour. The only reason to issue a warning to an admin is in heat of the moment circumstances where a mistake was made unintentionally. An admin, and an editor for 14 years, should by this point be very aware of the policies that they are espousing."


 * "you passed an RfA, Michael Hardy didn't, apples and oranges. ... I'm saying that he isn't using the tools, hasn't used them for quite a while, and is probably "badly out of touch with current admin expectations"."


 * "Not to be disrespectful of Michael Hardy, he's one of the early Admins who was simply granted the tools - so far as I can see without requesting them. He got them Dec 2003, and his last use was to unblock someone about 4 years ago, and before then in 2010. I'd like to see him resign the tools. I think there are still a number of Admins around who got the tools just for editing, don't use the tools and are almost certainly way out of touch that shouldn't have the tools, but unfortunately our procedures don't allow us to remove the tools just for not using them. All they have to do is edit to keep the tools. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but there you are"(emphasis added.)


 * "Yes, I completely agree that old-days admins who haven't used admin tools in years and who are badly out of touch with current admin expectations should lose them, ideally by resigning." (emphasis added.)


 * Linking to the ANI thread instead of copying all of those negative comments to his talk page was a kindness. I was trying to avoid humiliating him any further.


 * An admin should have the basic competence to understand that when someone starts a paragraph with the words "considering the discussion at [ link to ANI thread ]" the reasons why they wrote the paragraph can be found by clicking on that link. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So you asked him if he would voluntarily give up the tools because of the discussion at ANI. Why did you not just say that when he asked you why you were asking him? It might have seemed obvious to you, but clearly it wasn't to him. You could even have clarified by saying "several people at ANI are suggesting that you resign the tools". Do you agree that this would have been more helpful than what you said, and your focus on what you saw as evasion of the question? Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Because his reply didn't ask me why I was asking him. His response ingored the question asked and invited my to join his ongoing fight with MjolnirPants. Here is the link: That's when I disengaged and stopped watching his talk page. Then he tried to restart the fight on my talk page. and when I asked him to not post to my talk page, he did it again,
 * It never occurred to me to try to get Guy Macon to join any sort of fight with MjolnirPants. I did, however, ask Guy Macon about the purpose of his proposal, and it was that to which Guy Macon responded by accusing me of "unmitigated gall". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to get me to join your fight with MjolnirPants is a matter of public record. Here is my original question: Here is your response: It is also a matter of public record that your "why are you asking" song and dance (when my my original question clearly defined exactly why I was asking) was something you came up with a bit later. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are asking me why I didn't interact with his "what is your purpose" question instead of disengaging and choosing not to interact with someone who has proven himself to be looking for a fight. I did it because I am not stupid. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that Guy explicitly defined his reason for asking in the question itself (Guy's questions start with Michael, considering the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...). Even if Michael barely skimmed Guy's comment, he had to have read that part. Michael's question about Guy's purpose was quite obviously not a legitimate question (because Michael had to have been exposed to the answer already). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, that rather than say "maybe you are right" and "maybe others don't think the same way I do", you both insist that your viewpoints (that Michael Hardy was 'looking for a fight' and that he 'had to have been exposed to the answer already') are correct. I am pointing out that from where I'm sitting, he wasn't looking for a fight (he was upset, that is a different thing) and he clearly was asking a question. When someone is asking a question, you try and understand them and rephrase the question, rather than split hairs about whether the answer had already been provided. It is frightening in some ways how this whole case shows how people can be unable to think outside of their own mindset, break away from their preconceptions. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On what planet is "And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself?" anything other than Michael Hardy inviting me to join his fight against MjolnirPants? On what planet are "considering the discussion at ANI (link)..." and "I am posting this because..." anything other than me clearly explaining my purpose for asking the question?
 * Note that, while I had clearly answered the question, I did not "split hairs about whether the answer had already been provided". Instead I disengaged and stopped responding to Michael Hardy -- and he tried to bring the fight to my talk page.. You would have prefered that I continue to interact with him on his talk page after it became clear that he only wanted to fight? No. I am not stupid. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Michael's question about Guy's purpose was quite obviously not a legitimate question (because Michael had to have been exposed to the answer already). That is wrong. I was exposed to a suggestion that I should be de-sysopped. That is not the same as an answer to the question I asked Guy Macon, which is what purpose that would serve. So I asked. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Although my question did not even hint at desysopping (that came up in the ANI thread and again at the arbcom case, both brought up by other editors), I will give you a clear answer now: The purpose of desysopping you is to protect the encyclopedia. The purpose of desysopping you is because the community no longer trusts you with the admin tools. If you want more details on why this is happening and who is at fault (hint: it isn't everyone else's fault) just read the evidence section of this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to think the encyclopedia could be protected by de-sysopping me. My uses of admin tools have helped the encyclopedia.  Can anyone cite one instance where they have harmed it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perspective
2) Although the ill-feeling between editors engendered by this dispute and its aftermath is regrettable, this is probably not one of the 50 most pressing disputes existing on English Wikipedia today.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * A thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A laudable sentiment, but the cynic in me (or rather, the realist, informed by 10 years here) thinks that asking a Wikipedian to exercise a sense of perspective is like asking a blind man to appreciate the colors of a sunset. MastCell Talk 17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to parties
1) The parties to this case and other interested editors are each urged to introspect for not less than 15 nor more than 90 minutes regarding the principles set forth above and how this dispute could have been addressed in a more collegial way. No other action is taken.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Since it's NYB's proposal, should we cite Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.? "The parties are advised to chill." ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! Or as the committee said in Hkelkar 2 (2007), "All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I strongly disagree with the citing of In re Snyder as a precedent for two major reason.
 * First, the circumstances are vastly different. In that case, a lawyer with no other questionable behavior on record wrote one letter in which he declined to participate in what he felt was an unfair system, and refused to apologize for calling it an unfair system in relatively benign language. In this case, Michael posted fourty five times about this issue, in multiple different forums, in language which has been repeatedly criticized by multiple others, and with a history of questionable actions. The fact that Michael has also refused to apologize is really immaterial at this point.
 * Second, this is an arbitration committee, not a court of law. The gulf of differences between those two things is so vast that they are only comparable inside analogies and metaphors. The consequences of a poor decision by this arbitration committee are nothing compared to the consequences of a poor decision by a judge. No-one will be executed, spend time in jail, or even be ordered to pay a large sum of money in restitution or compensation because they lost an ArbCom case. Furthermore, it has always been my understanding that actions of the Arbitration Committee are intended to prevent and mitigate editing problems, not to punish those who break the rules. This vastly changes the gravity. In In re Snyder, with the rights of multiple defendants possibly resting on the outcome, it is not unreasonable for public defenders to complain about the funding of their cases, nor is it unreasonable for a judge to investigate such a lawyer at even a brief hint of suspicion. In this case, it's a pretty clear consensus that opening multiple ANI thread, posting accusations on the talk pages of anyone involved and accusing anyone who disagrees of persecution is quite unreasonable, and it is also unreasonable to subject Michael to weeks of people digging up dirt on him and flinging accusations at him (rightly or wrongly) in order to justify taking away a handful of user rights he rarely-to-never uses anyways. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. Consider my concerns wrt it appeased. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I dislike how this implies that editors haven't or won't spend that amount of time reflecting anyways. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also In re Snyder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My citation of Snyder was just a response to O.r.'s citation of Mattel; the case wasn't meant to be taken as a 100% apposite analogy. In general, comparisons between ArbCom and real courts are vastly overblown, largely for the reasons you provide (if anyone wants to further explore the comparison, see here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this as inadequate; see my two comments above. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why even bother holding an arbitration case if it is to be concluded with this sort of non-resolution? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the time they have read all the materials in this case, the parties and participants have already spent more than 15 minutes in invitation to introspection. For those who generally dislike drama, it likely has been punishment. For others, let's not give them more than 90 minutes. Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 15 to 90 minutes of introspection between comments on AN/I and/or on user talk pages by parties on all sides would have saved a lot of time and unnecessary stress. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Judgments based on a single incident
1) A single incident does not yield useful information about the general conduct of an editor. There is always a finite probability of anyone behaving in a less than ideal way, this can happen to the most qualified Admins. A single incident can prompt an investigation of the general record of the editor in question, if this record is seen to be problematic w.r.t. conduct not related to the particular incident that triggered the investigation, then that may raise serious question about the suitability of this editor to be an Admin.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Correct. But this was not a single incident. --Neil N  talk to me 23:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This was not a single incident, but a whole array of varying incidents over nearly three weeks so far, during which he was and has been given multiple opportunities to step back, reconsider, be patient, be accountable, and treat others fairly and logically and honestly and equitably. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance
2) Admins are ultimately just ordinary people who have the same weaknesses as everyone else. When we make a mistake then there is a chance that our brains will uphold the wrong theory that we're right. This can cause the source of the information pointing out that we're wrong, to be interpreted as part of the problem that we're dealing with. This BBC article gives a good example: "What this (and dozens of other experiments) reveal is the way we filter new information when it challenges our strongly-held beliefs or judgements. We use a series of post hoc manoeuvres to reframe anything inconvenient to our original position. We question the probity of the evidence, or the credentials of the people who discovered it, or their motives, or whatever. The more information that emerges to challenge our perspective, the more creatively we search for new justifications, and the more entrenched we become in our prior view."

What this means in practice for this case is that we're dealing with one incident of misjudgment not many cases where you consider every time someone has tried to communicate with Michael during the case and then count each negative interaction as a new incident. This is not how the human mind actually works when in a dispute about some issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposed principle would serve as an excuse every time an editor was facing sanctions for WP:IDHT behavior. --Neil N  talk to me 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, re: "not many cases" - if an editor treats the removal of blood type information from biographies of Japanese pop stars as vandalism, and continues to do so a week after being told to knock it off, we're not going to treat this as a single case during discussion. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Note that this is not an excuse, it explains why we can sometimes fall prey to WP:IDHT behavior. If someone has made a mistake like this, we need to consider how and why it happened, if the person is prone to making such mistakes as evidenced by other incidents, etc. Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is there doesn't have to be any accountability, even for admins, when in fact accountability is paramount, especially for admins -- and conduct is crucial, especially for admins. Plus this was not a single incident, but a whole array of incidents over nearly three weeks so far, during which he was and has been given multiple opportunities to step back, reconsider, be patient, be accountable, and treat others fairly and logically and honestly and equitably. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There must always be accountability, that's why there exists AN/I and ArbCom and Michael does not is not have immunity otherwise this case would't have happened. But we then must judge what happened, the cognitive dissonance issue that I pointed to here makes it clear that what can look like many different incidents can in fact be due to one misjudgment. This is something we're all vulnerable to. If you get it in your head that X is true when in fact it is false then until that time that you are willing to reconsider that X may in fact be false, information that points to X being false will be wrongly interpreted. That an Admin should be better at making sure this doesn't happen to them doesn't mean that it will never happen to them. If it does happen, and it can happen to anyone, then that doesn't really yield useful information about the suitability of the person to remain an Admin. You really have to consider totally unrelated incidents and see if the Admin in question has a tendency to fall prey to this sort of a problem far more often than the average Admin. Otherwise we're going to fall foul of the prosecutor's fallacy. Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Count Iblis is trying to say is that the ArbCom should take into account Michael's apparently sincere belief that I bullied him, and that several others joined in on the bullying. I believe that the point of this is to remind all of us to assume good faith on Michael's part. As far as that goes, I agree wholeheartedly. Michael's POV matters to this discussion. But that should be obvious, and I dare say, go without saying. and  also makes a good point that I'd like to try to rephrase (let me know if I'm not quite right, but I still want to make this point).
 * An explanation of how Michael justifies his behavior does not itself justify it. WP:AGF is written in clear, logical terms precisely because it is intended to be used as a purely intellectual exercise that can be done done even though you may believe you are right. Cognitive dissonance can explain why Michael felt bullied, but it cannot explain why he did not follow the principles set forth in that behavioral guideline. I don't think anyone can seriously contend that Michael has assumed good faith with respect to me or Guy Macon, or indeed, anyone else who has questioned his behavior at any point. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a proposed principle which is supposed to state how Wikipedia operates or should operate in practice. If adopted, it has ramifications beyond this case. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and not in a good way. This entire argument is based upon the premise "Admins are ultimately just ordinary people who have the same weaknesses as everyone else" and it goes on from there. The easily-checkable facts are that, while all admins are ordinary people who have the same weaknesses as everyone else, only a tiny minority allow the weaknesses we all have to express themselves in the kind of behavior that Michael Hardy has exhibited. His actions have not been the same as the behavior of other admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From a purely literalist stance, this proposal doesn't actually say anything germane to the case, because explaining the psychological processes underlying bad behavior doesn't actually excuse that behavior. However, it strongly implies that the bad behavior should be excused because it's common and explainable. I could not disagree more with that implication, because it can literally be applied to every single case of bad behavior. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes it more of a single case than many different cases where you count every incident during the fallout of this case as an independent misjudgment made by Michael. It's not an excuse, it's still a mistake, but something that can happen to everyone, albeit it with a low probability. Given that this has actually happened is not good evidence that the person in question is not suitable to be an Admin. But suppose that it happens again in an unrelated case. Then it's very unlikely to be this low probability brain fart thing, it's then far more likely that what Michael's critics are saying here is true and that he is indeed not suitable to be an Admin.


 * It's similar to winning a computerized lottery draw and then being accused of having hacked into the system to obtain the correct numbers. The accusers are saying that since you only had a one in a million chance to win, therefore you must have hacked into the system. This is not the correct way to analyze the situation, because you were picked as a suspect after the fact. Had someone else won, we would have picked that other person. And there is always going to be someone who will win the lottery. The probability is thus not one in a million, it's 1. For the one in a million argument to apply, you would have to win again. So, what this principle does is it argues that the whole brouhaha is a single incident, and then the first principle about single incidents apply. If Micheal had previously fallen foul of bad behavior or will end up doing so in the future, then the brouhaha this ArbCom case is about would/will change the picture completely. Count Iblis (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How is Michael Hardy picking a fight with MjolnirPants and Michael Hardy picking a fight with me a single incident? I see a pattern of behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Has anyone looked at the diffs M.A. Bruhn (sp?) provided? Has anyone else noticed how Michael spoke about people who participate at AfD? This is not an 'isolated' incident. It is unarguably part of a pattern. You might argue that it's a sparse pattern, but it's certainly a pattern. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a pattern of behavior with Michael like this, then why is this pattern of behavior constrained to issues related to the brouhaha due to that AFD? He is a prolific editor who is active in a large number, primarily math related, topics. Count Iblis (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait... Are you suggesting that a pattern ceases to be a pattern if one adds an additional criteria? That's nonsensical. The fact that this pattern is confined to certain circumstances only makes it more obvious that there is a pattern. I mean, assuming Michael has never been uncivil or unreasonable outside of the context of articles being possibly deleted, does that forgive the fact that he has been uncivil and unreasonable within that context? Does it make him less likely to be uncivil or unreasonable the next time an article he's edited is AfD'd? No, not remotely. it's still a pattern. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He is a prolific editor who makes uncontroversial grammatical and formatting edits and virtually never engages in content disputes. On the rare occasion he does engage in such disputes and things don't go his way this behavior comes out, but he hasn't recently been engaged in such a dispute and anything older than a year or two is considered irrelevant. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was considering only the fallout from the one AFD that triggered the AN/I discussions that eventually led to this ArbCom case, I have not looked into the other AFDs yet. If there is a systemic problem with his behavior at AFDs in general, then obviously that needs to be addressed. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There aren't any issues with his behavior at AFDs since he hasn't been active in the area for a while with him only posting to an AFD 7 times in the past two years. He was more involved in the past, and his engagement peaked between 2007-2008 during which he started discussions against the speedy deletion community among other things... To his credit though he has since stepped back and generally avoided discussions about deletion until the current dispute came up. This appears to be his first time experiencing having his article deleted. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unprovoked tirades"? I think I posted one thing that might be considered a "tirade", and in fact the problem about which I complained abruptly ceased when I did that.  For about six weeks there were several speedy deletions per day of new articles for the sole reason that they were about mathematics.  Someone orchestrated that.  Essentially what my "tirade" said was that that was what was happening and that it was wrong. And then it abruptly stopped happening. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just replaced tirades with discussions. ... have your views changed since then? What do you think of speedy deleters? M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Formerly they were essentially vandals as far as I ever encountered them, which was only when they had a policy of deleting mathematics articles only because they were mathematics articles. That went on for about six weeks at a rate of several articles per day.  It was alleged that they also did justified speedy deletions at that time, but I don't recall that I ever saw that.  They have not caused any problems in recent years as far as I know. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a good thing that you didn't take the obvious bait by me to say something stupid and offensive about the current speedy deletion community. Since your issues with them are over there's no point in discussing them further, I apologize for bringing it up and have removed what I mentioned above. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

RFA
1) The standards demanded at RFA as it currently exists have never been scientifically evaluated for necessity and effectiveness


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * There is no evidence that the selection process at RFA correlates with successful candidates doing a good job as Admins. So, we can't say that just because Michael did not and is unlikely to meet the current RFA standard, that this is a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Contributions to escalation
1) The following users performed actions which, whether justified or not, contributed to the escalation of this affair.


 * for nominating the article for speedy deletion in lieu of continuing discussion with Michael Hardy.


 * for starting the initial ANI thread, for starting a second ANI thread after that one was closed, for starting a new subthread at ANI entitled "I stand by my accusation of bullying", for pursuing users to their talkpages to continue discussion even after they expressed a desire to withdraw from discussion, and for continuing to make poor justifications such as "That is not considered a personal attack, but an accusation".


 * for blocking Michael Hardy, reopening the first ANI thread, and bringing this case to Arbcom


 * every snowflake here contributed to the avalanche of comments concerning this case on Michael Hardy's talkpage.


 * for posting the evidence of past admin tool abuse which was the impetus for opening the Arbcom discussion


 * for their comments at ANI.


 * for accepting the Arbcom case.


 * Many users who have commented during this case who have: rehashed redundant arguments and brought up redundant evidence, complained about the acceptance of the case after the fact, or posted needlessly inflammatory comments. With regards to users making calls for calming down, this does not automatically translate into deescalating the situation just as telling someone who is upset to "Calm down" does not result in them calming down. In particular when such calls are laden with emotion, alluding to the salem witch trials, or trivializing the concerns of others, they are ultimately only contributing to further escalation.


 * The community at large: for lacking any process by which admin tools can be removed (outside of emergencies) other than through review by Arbcom, for having unclear and uncertain expectations of conduct by administrators, and for failing to address issues in the past that have contributed to bringing us to where we are today.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think the point of this is to protest the claims that the situation was unnecessarily escalated. Try reading it in a sarcastic tone. I tried reading it in a serious tone and it just made me giggle at how pompous I sounded. But read in a sarcastic tone, it's a fairly biting commentary on those who've tried to blame this on the parties (except Michael).
 * Anyways, it was M.A. Bruhn who posted it, who has thus far been arguing that Michael has a problem with civility. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No attempt is made to characterize the above escalation as necessary or unnecessary. The goals of this post are to distribute blame for this escalation where it rightfully belongs, dispersed among many editors rather than focused on one or two; to demonstrate that escalation occurs not just from a desire to create drama, but rather from a diverse set of editor motivations; and to provide a common platform for discussion on escalation to occur upon rather than splitting it into many fragmented discussions that focus on and unduly give weight to one or two editors. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If the goal of this proposal is to protest against the unnecessary escalation of this dispute, then its wording, which pings thirty editors to this page in addition to the arbitrators, seems counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it might prompt scrutiny of an account which has few edits more than a month old, and yet appears familiar with odd corners of Wikipedia. Jonathunder (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The point made about there not being a community process for removing Admin tools is important. This was discussed a long time ago, the RFC failed, I think primarily due to Admins being opposed to it. If such a system were to exist then there would be a lot of policies regulating that process and Michael's conduct would have been judged within such a framework instead of the rather ad-hoc way which added to the escalation. Count Iblis (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is a crucial point. A community-based desysop process, if such a thing existed, would be a better forum than Arbcom for a case such as this one. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Address the real problem
1) The real problem here is not anything said by MH. All MH did was verbally defend himself using very mild language from a gang of editors (MjolnirPants, Cullen328, Tarage, Guy Macon, Callmemirela, Omni Flames, Linguist111, BsZ, Miniapolis, M. A. Bruhn) harassing him.  The real problem is the harassment of a productive, careful, serious editor (MH) by a gang of other editors.  If ArbCom takes any action at all, it should be directed at this gang of editors harassing MH, not MH.

2) Banning MjolnirPants, NeilN, BsZ, Tarage, and any others involved in this complaint against MH from editing any new articles MH is working on would prevent something like this from happening again.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Was he verbally defending himself when he went to the talkpages of AfC editors to attack their carelessness of promoting articles that use hyphens instead of em-dashes in their titles or capitalize the letters in section headings ? What about when he went to Cluebot's page to state it never does anything correctly or when he likens its edits to vandalism ? These are editors who do work just as thankless and tedious as him, and these are not isolated instances. Do you believe this an appropriate way for admins to address editors? M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So I "attacked" those people? In fact I identified a persistent problem: They persistently neglect the title.  I guess if I say that then I'm "attacking" them. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not attack the editors, you attacked their carelessness. Those at AfC are doing high-volume work on an important and heavily backlogged area, you can inform them of correct dash and capitalization usage without calling their edits "rash", stating they never look at the titles of articles they promote, or asking why they "neglect obvious solecisms". M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I object to the claim that I was part of a 'gang' of anything. I also object to the idea that I be banned from anything for someone else's poor behavior. Ridiculous. --Tarage (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * These proposed remedies are patently ridiculous and unhelpful. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Jrheller1 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Not-so-good editors"? Seriously? Each one of those editors is very good at what they do. It's also a bit uncivil. (And MH did file a ANI case against MjolnirPants, that was loaded with personal attacks and quickly declined.) MH is the problem, not the other editors. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "arguably not-so-good" was not necessary. But it is a fact that all MH did was ask a question about an incorrect or unclear statement by MjolnirPants, MjolnirPants responded very negatively to this question, and then a gang of editors (including some admins) associated with MjolnirPants started harassing MH.  Also, the reason for Guy Macon's original question is certainly unclear to me as a completely unbiased observer (I have never had any interactions with any of the parties in this case).  So MH was right to ask GM to explain the reason for his question, and then GM responded negatively to this request for clarification (using the term "unmitigated gall").  I can't see how MH has done anything wrong.  He is asking questions about incorrect or unclear statements (not "fighting" with others as GM repeatedly calls it) and then others are responding negatively to these questions. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the second person to intimate that this was the result of "my friends coming to defend me". So for the second time: The only person involved in this case with whom I've had prior dealings was Guy Macon, and that was rather sparse. Your insinuation that favoritism played some part in the reactions of admins and others at ANI is utterly baseless. Your assertion that MH's response to Guy was reasonable completely ignores the fact that the question MH asked was answered in the very first sentence of the very comment he was responding to. In addition, your characterization of people responding to MH's repeated posts on the subject as "harassing" him is ridiculous. Furthermore, your depiction of MH's language as "very mild" is just as ridiculous; "hard-core bully," "slave master" and other such phrases he used were so obviously personal attacks that the clerk has removed them and warned MH that this language is not acceptable. Finally, your statement that I was somehow involved in this subsequent "harassment" is completely false; I have not posted anything on MH's talk page, or anything directly addressed to him since before he filed the first ANI report. In short, nothing you have said here is even remotely accurate, and it's trivially easy to see so. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * MH stated that he has never experienced an established editor on Wikipedia being as pushy and unwilling to discuss an article as MjolnirPants was during the incident that started all of this. Considering this, his language was not extreme. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting that one can justify personal attacks by claiming they're based on legitimate criticisms? That's nonsensical; all personal attacks here are either trolling or based on legitimate criticism. The fact that I honestly think a certain Wikipedian has no knowledge of the subject of an article he or she is editing doesn't permit me to call them an ignoramus, any more than Michael's belief that I'm the pushiest person he's ever met on WP (which really makes me wonder, because I've met plenty of editors pushier than I) justifies him referring to me as a slave driver. Also, MH's claim that I was unwilling to discuss the article is completely fabricated. I explicitly told him I would be willing to continue arguing about the article even after it's inevitable deletion. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * After this case closes it will be interesting to see whether Jrheller1 and other MH apologists start lumping all of the arbcom members in this imaginary "gang". I believe we now have enough "gang members" to do a remake of West Side Story. I want to play Officer Krupke... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "it is a fact that all MH did was ask a question about an incorrect or unclear statement by MjolnirPants. MjolnirPants responded very negatively to this question, and then a gang of editors (including some admins) associated with MjolnirPants started harassing MH."
 * That is a "fact"? All he did was ask a question, and then a gang of editors started harassing him? You mean he didn't decide to go to MjolnirPants talkpage to argue about his behavior, start an ANI discussion on his behavior, and then go back to his talkpage to start a new discussion on his behavior, all over the span of five hours without MjolnirPants even responding or talking back? MjolnirPants didn't even make any edits until the next day when he posted two comments on his talkpage, one of which is explaining his side and admitting to being more terse than necessary. That's all he did until Arbcom started, and once at Arbcom he has done nothing but 1) state that he doesn't think MH has the social skills needed for an admin, 2) respond to MH's characterizations of his actions, 3) respond to allegations of favoritism towards him, 4) make general comments about the case, and 5) admit to having gotten impatient in his initial interaction with MH and stating that he should have been more polite. You think that is harassment?


 * You say all he did was ask a question, and proceed to be harassed? After the ANI thread started Tarage stated that MjolnirPants had no obligation to give MH time to edit before prodding the article, and that MjolnirPants was initially doing him a favor when offered to give him time in the first place. MH responded by posting a thread entitled "I apologize for doubting the infallibility of someone who pointed out what was wrong with me" to which Tarage responded by deleting the thread and telling MH to leave his talkpage and that he was done with him. MH then started another thread on his talkpage, this time entitled "I will give you a list of all of your faults. I'm doing you a favor, so I forbid you to disagree with any of them", and again Tarage did not reply but just deleted the thread and warned MH not to post to his talkpage and leave a comment on MH's talkpage telling him to stay off his talkpage and he will stay of his. He later posted a single message to ANI complaining about MH's understanding of reliable sources. Since then all he has done is post here at Arbcom that MH hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing, and that he doesn't use his tools. Is this the harassment you speak of? I can't even believe you mentioned them here, they are one of the only users I didn't include in my huge list of users who contributed to escalating.


 * All MH did was ask a question? You mean he didn't start a 2nd thread at ANI about MjolnirPants and create a subthread where he stands by his accusations of bullying by MjolnirPants who had already admitted to wrongdoing on his part and wasn't further engaging with MH? Are you going to go ahead and stand by your accusations of harassment towards all those users you listed? Users whose actions you have demonstrated you are unfamiliar with. If so I will go ahead and show why your accusations about each of those users is baseless. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrators must have community support
1) Administrators who have lost the trust or confidence of the Wikipedia community may have their administrator status removed, per Wikipedia's policies on administrator conduct and accountability.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this principle. I don't know how this can be practically implemented in general, but that's not the purpose of the principle section. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could judge this. On the one hand there are a few editors involved in this case and some of them don't have faith in MH. On the other hand there are a lot of editors especially those in WP:WPMATHS who have a great deal of support and confidence in MH. We have seen 14 years of largely drama free editing. David Eppstein's evidence is an indication of that support.--Salix alba (talk): 23:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The community's faith in an editor is one thing, but what's in question here is our confidence in an administrator. I agree with those who have said this case would not have come to Arbcom if Michael Hardy were not an admin. The events leading up to the case got enough people thinking "Is this someone who's clueful enough to have access to admin tools in the current environment?" and here we are. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Desysop does not require tool misuse
2) Conduct that may result in the loss of administrator status is not limited by policy to the misuse of admin tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Based on a number of comments made in this case, it seems this needs to be made explicit. The admin policy page gives several examples of conduct that does not involve use of admin tools but is clearly incompatible with adminship. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. In the age of sail, a Loose Cannon was a cannon that appeared to be securely tied down but was not. The loose cannon would break free in heavy seas or during maneuvers and the crew would be faced with a couple of toms of iron rolling back and forth crushing everyone and everything it its path. The key concept here is that the loose cannon was a serious hazard before it broke free. Admins have to be qualified to use all of the tools, and Michael Hardy is unqualified to wield the toolset in any situation which involves interpersonal conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom is the appropriate venue
3) Per policy, considering requests for the removal of administrative tools is among the duties and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee. In the absence of consensus on a community-based desysop procedure, the determination that an administrator does or does not retain the trust or confidence of the Wikipedia community is made by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Michael Hardy has been uncivil
1) Micheal Hardy has been uncivil, and has caused this conflict to escalate unnecessarily.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Admonishment
1) For making personal attacks and incivilty, Michael Hardy is strongly admonished. He is warned that a desysopping will be considered if he continues to be uncivil.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * No. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Michael Hardy has shown zero ability to understand why so many people are upset with his behavior. Not a clue. It is a total mystery to him. All he knows is that none of this could possibly be his fault. I estimate that the chances of him "getting it" after an admonishment to be essentially zero. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban
2)Michael Hardy is banned from interacting with MjolnirPants for 1 month, due to incivility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There's no practical reason for this as the two are unlikely to even come across each other again anyways. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators should be willing to stay updated in terms of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and best practices

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2016‎

Editing when not logged in is explicitly permitted
1) There is nothing wrong with editing while not logged in, regardless of whether one has an account and regardless of whether one is an administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. It is true that editing anonymously can be used to do wrong things (like sockpuppetry and skirting around 3RR), but there's nothing wrong with it in it of itself. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not necessarily true and it depends on the situation. For example, if one is reverting vandalism or correcting grammar, editing while logged out is fine. However, if one is using an IP address to extend an edit war, evading arbitration remedies, vote stacking, or one of the other forms of sockpuppetry listed on the policy page, that is not permitted. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a consensus that this issue need not be mentioned in the decision, if there is a formal decision, at all. For those interested, though, the relevant principle can be found here; that principle can be stated in iff form, so that its inverse is also true, and appears applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has benefited and has not been harmed by my use of admin tools
1) My use of admin tools have been beneficial to the encyclopedia and have never harmed it. (Nor am I aware that anyone has alleged that they have harmed it in all the verbiage on this page.) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Never? What about that bot you blocked for violating 3RR. Your blocking of XlinkBot was also disruptive. The bots have server-friendly ways of shutting them down mentioned at the tops of their user pages. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

MjolnirPants's misconduct
2) MjolnirPants presumed to order me to cease and desist from ever expressing disagreement with MjolnirPants. (Note again: This needs to be read in the context in which it was posted.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is an interesting case for Arbcom. Participants at RFAs have traditionally held that candidates must be trusted to use all the tools properly, not just the ones they've professed an interest in. Does that expectation still hold true for successful candidates post-RFA and for admins who, from past history, focus on one area? MH can be trusted doing uncontentious page moves and the like. However this proposed finding of fact, "MjolnirPants presumed to order me to cease and desist from ever expressing disagreement with MjolnirPants", so grossly exaggerates the situation that I have no confidence in MH's judgment to discern what is disruptive editing and block for it (given this is not a one-off statement, but a repeated amplification of what triggered this case). It is very unlikely that MH would admin where these types of cases crop up so Arbcom needs to decide if MH's poor judgement in this area would affect his pattern of tool use. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think it would be good to include a diff in this finding of fact, linking to the order in question. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The diff is there, and I posted it three times on the evidence page. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Michael Hardy won't provide a diff because he doesn't want you to read what MjolnirPants actually wrote, which is not what Michael Hardy claims was written. The diff, which Michael Hardy claims to be "the principal instance of MjolnirPants forbidding me to dispute his assertions or ask him questions", is here: Regarding his "This needs to be read in the context in which it was posted" claim, I did read the context, and MjolnirPants did not write anything resembling what Michael Hardy claims he wrote. This is an ongoing behavior pattern for Michael Hardy and one of the primary reasons I do not trust him with admin tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding a link. Even if you have already included it in your evidence, it should appear here in the finding of fact as well. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 's comments are based on an interesting premise or suggestion. Are admins now expected to undergo periodic tests for their qualification as admin? I would welcome the abandonment of the silly "admin for life" practice on Wikipedia, but some important principles need to be kept in mind. (a) RfA and desysops should be much less cruel than they are now and should have ideally a lower bar for qualifications for admin (b) The "community" which decides which admin isn't fit to serve should not be comprised of only the tricoteuse which hang out at ANI and ArbCom (I include myself in this). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has benefitted from my edits while not logged in
3) My editing while not logged in has been beneficial to the encyclopedia and has caused no harm.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Your editing while not logged in is irrelevant to this case. I've already found like 10 of your IPs (although 5ish of them have only made 1 or 2 edits), and for what it is worth can confirm that they edit in the same manner as your logged in account. If you still want Arbcom to accept this as a "Finding of Fact" though then you will need to reveal all your IPs to Arbcom which you can do in an email to them without revealing the IPs to the rest of Wikipedia. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia has only benefitted from my edits while logged in
4) My editing while logged in has been beneficial to the encyclopedia and has caused no harm.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Beneficial? Yes. Caused no harm? Let's not get carried away here, everyone has edits that have caused harm. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

MjolnirPants
1) MjolnirPants should be forbidden to participate in deleting articles or proposing or supporting deletions or articles for three months.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Not warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

De-sysopping is not warranted
1) De-sysopping is not warranted.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

My use of admin tools
2) Perhaps an arbitrator could examine my use of admin tools for six months, including (but not limited to) the ones of which Wikipedia keeps no record, which I would record. This would bear not only upon any questions of impropriety (which was not alleged as far as I recall, unless you count the statement by Guy Macon that "the community no longer trusts you with the admin tools", which I think is demonstrably incorrect), but also upon the value of the tools' use by me (including...[etc.]).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't believe there is cause to warrant fear of you misusing tools, but this is mostly because you don't really use tools other than the page moving tools. With regards to Count Iblis, you consider it a strawman to argue that an admin's actions can cause fear of misusing tools even if those actions don't involve using their tools? What if an admin routinely states things like "Violations of WP:ACCESSIBILITY are discriminatory and an instant bannable offense" and "Questioning an admin's actions are a violation of WP:AGF and indef blocking is an appropriate response to such questions". Ridiculous example? Yes. But it shows how fear of tools can arise without misuse of tools. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Any such fears are unwarranted and irrational. Aside from page moving, you'll notice that I said (1) I have spent some time judging deletions by looking at deleted articles and in some cases discussing them, and (2) restoring edit histories where appropriate, and (3) edits to the main page, and (4) other things that don't spring to mind instantly. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an editor in good standing, with over 10 years, over 30,000 edits, and 0 blocks. Yet I am not allowed to read those deleted pages or deleted histories. Why not? Because I have not been through a RfA where the community decided that I can be trusted with that material. I fully agree with that decision by the Wikipedia community. We should not allow people like you, who freely admit to not keeping up with the standards required for being an admin, to view that deleted material. We have an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team saying "the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process" You may think that your having access to deleted revisions is just a convenience, but the WMF thinks it is a very big deal indeed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * The above confuses two completely different concepts.


 * I wrote "the community no longer trusts you with the admin tools". (Note that, unlike Michael Hardy, I diffs when I claim that someone wrote something.) This is an entirely different concept from "you have misused the tools". If I had meant to write "you have misused the tools" instead of "the community no longer trusts you with the admin tools" I would have written say "you have misused the tools" and appended diffs showing the edits that did so. Nobody here has expressed the view that Michael Hardy should be desysopped because of (recent) abuse of tools. Multiple editors here and at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930 have expressed the view that Michael Hardy should be desysopped because of his ongoing behavior.


 * I would like to note a pattern here. Again and again an editor writes X (usually something quite reasonable), and Michael Hardy reacts as if the editor had written Y (usually something outrageous and easily-refutable), then vigorously argues against Y, ignoring all requests for diffs showing what the other editor actually wrote. Having knocked down the Y straw man he himself created, he then declares victory without ever addressing X. I considered adding this as a proposed finding of fact, but decided not to because the final result is sure to include language about Michael Hardy having a battleground mentality. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But isn't this straw man-type reasoning provoked precisely by people saying that they don't trust him with the tools due to an incident that doesn't have anything to do with using the tools? So, the question is why are people allowed to question X in the first place when it has zero to do with the issue at hand (as there was no abuse of tools)? Now, it is a given that they are de-facto allowed to do that as this is how things work at AN/I and other venues, but this comes at the price of eroding the straw man boundary where Micheal would be inclined to argue on the basis of having abused the tools when that was not invoked. Count Iblis (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question. It may very well be that others here, including me, are using straw-man reasoning without being conscious of it. That being said, two wrongs don't make a right. Michael Hardy exhibits this behavior consistently and consistently refuses to provide diffs for his claims. That's fine in his role as an editor, but in my opinion disqualifies him from being an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary, but the offer to accept scrutiny evidences good faith. The issues in this case have relatively little to do with use of administrator tools, and more to do with your (MH) manner of interacting with other users. In that regard, I agree with you and others that the evidence falls far short of warranting desysopping, but you haven't done yourself any favors in the way you've approached this case. You do important work that should continue, but it is not too late for you to try sanding down some of your sharper edges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not too late. If MH shows any indication that he understands why so many people are displeased with him and indicates that he will make a good-faith attempt to modify his behavior, I will gladly shift my position to recommending against desysopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with this as well. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators and communities
1) Different administrators serve different communities


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. In this case, User:Michael Hardy primarily serves the community that works on Mathematics and related fields.-- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 12:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrators and toolsets
2) Different administrators use different parts of the toolset in the service of the communities that share their particular interests.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Reasoning as in the first principle, but also because not all administrators choose to engage in every area an administrator might work in, and don't necessarily need to know the bureaucratic details of how to use those tools.-- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 12:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

AN/I is one particular community
3) The interests of the AN/I community is not necessarily reflective of the community at large.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Arguably the AN/I community is generally not representative of most of the other contributing communities. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 12:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Understatement. —Cryptic 12:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not all administrators are part of the AN/I community
2) Administrators who aren't part of the AN/I community do not necessarily represent the AN/I norm of an admin, and don't need to do so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The escalation of this dispute seems to have really gotten rolling when various participants at AN/I expressed that they felt User:Michael Hardy was giving admins a bad name. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 12:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and note that the community had rejected having a de-admining system quite some time ago primarily because it could lead to imposing new demands on admins who do their work just fine. Count Iblis (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Access to deleted revisions requires an RfA or RfA-identical process
In an official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team the WMF said "the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process".
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:
 * Comment by others:

Michael Hardy has never gone through an RfA or RfA-identical process
Michael Hardy became an administrator long before we had anything remotely resembling the "RfA or RfA-identical process" required by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. He went through something called an RfA, but it was very different from the RfA or RfA-identical process the WMF legal team was clearly talking about.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * At no time has the WMF suggested that its statement on RfA impugns the adminship, including the ability to access deleted revisions, of the hundreds of administrators who passed earlier forms of the RfA process. There were 123 administrators (including Michael Hardy) selected in 2003 and 240 in 2004. To suggest at this late date that all these admins' past or present access to deleted revisions raises a WMF-level concern or a legal issue is entirely unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those RfA's are pretty amusing. Only three oppose votes in all of 2003. A ten-year-old with a (2/1/1) voting result (the oppose was due to them being there less than a month) was made admin with the reasoning "Well, since there seem to be no serious objections and two approvals, I made you a sysop." Man what a time capsule. They discussed things on mailing lists where people said things like "I agree we need a 'pedia with NO religion entries, except for historical articles on the religion as one would find in a history textbook". Sorry for off-topic post, I just find this all so interesting. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What about those who didn't have an RfA-like process at all? For instance, one of those people requested temporary adminship to move a few pages (because it's easier to give admin status than move a few pages?). A bureaucrat responded "Sure. Just remind me of your Wikipedia username, please?" and then they became an admin forever. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But then you'll have to consider Jimbo's position as well. Also, there are quite a few high level WMF officials who became Wikipedia Admins during Wikipedia's pre-history. Count Iblis (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noticed that. In fact the user I just mentioned was deputy director of the WMF from 2007 until just last year. There's so few of these admins in question (363), I don't think there's any point in addressing them without basic stats like how many are even around to determine if talking about them is even worth it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in addressing this, period, and certainly not in the context of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noticed that. In fact the user I just mentioned was deputy director of the WMF from 2007 until just last year. There's so few of these admins in question (363), I don't think there's any point in addressing them without basic stats like how many are even around to determine if talking about them is even worth it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in addressing this, period, and certainly not in the context of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy freely admits to accessing deleted revisions
"What I do as an administrator... restoring edit histories... Looking at deleted pages in order to advise their authors about certain things... Looking at deleted pages in order to understand and occasionally participate in discussions of the merits of the articles and of their deletions." None of this implies any wrongdoing; such access is clearly allowed. The question is whether is should be allowed.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Of course it should, unless there are grounds to revoke adminship as to him individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not clear whether there should be or should not be a grandfather clause regarding access to deleted revisions for individuals who have never gone through an RFA or RfA-identical process. Nor is it our decision to make -- it` has to come from WMF legal. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "It has to come from WMF legal"? Or else what? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's WMF's policy, not arbcom's policy.
 * "...As per this declaration, the WMF requires a RFA or RFA-identical process for being granted rights with access to deleted revisions..." --Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient, Village pump (policy)/Archive 86
 * "...Due to the Wikimedia Foundation's restriction on non-administrators being given access to deleted revisions without passing an RFA or RFA-identical process..." --Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee
 * "...due to the Wikimedia Foundation's restriction on non-administrators being given access to deleted revisions without passing an RFA or RFA-identical process..." --Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014
 * Arbcom is not allowed to override decisions made by the WMF legal team. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True enough, but neither is ArbCom likely to interpret such decisions in absurd ways. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is not allowed to override decisions made by the WMF legal team. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True enough, but neither is ArbCom likely to interpret such decisions in absurd ways. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

First option: remove the tools
1) First option: Remove the ability of Michael Hardy to access deleted revisions until he completes an RfA or RfA-identical process.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not a drafter, just a Cambrian critter. I do not think it would be worth anyone's time to continue to pursue this line of argument. If you have an issue with "old" RfAs, take your proposal to the village pump and run it by the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither a drafter nor an extinct swimming bug, who says "Yeah, I really don't know what we're doing here--did we look for something we can call sensitive that we can then drag into the 'admin acted weirdly and that might hypothetically be a problem with this area?" Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by others:
 * Not appropriate, and would set a precedent potentially applicable to dozens of other admins (depending on how many people who passed RfA circa 2003-2004 are still active). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we were to be fair, we would need to have all of those admins removed too. And to be a bit blunt, this WMF directive is poorly enforced on other Wikimedia sites, and to be consistent, several other admins would need to be removed too from those other sites. (I make no comment on whether or not Michael Hardy should be desysopped). --Rschen7754 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we were to be fair, we would need to have all of those admins removed too. And to be a bit blunt, this WMF directive is poorly enforced on other Wikimedia sites, and to be consistent, several other admins would need to be removed too from those other sites. (I make no comment on whether or not Michael Hardy should be desysopped). --Rschen7754 00:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Second option: seek clarification from WMF legal
2) Ask the WMF legal team for a ruling explicitly saying that those who were made admins before there were RfAs as we now know them are to be grandfathered in and not be required to go through an RfA or RfA-identical process.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. "RfA or RfA-identical process" doesn't cover admins who literally had no process other than asking for them in a mailing list and then being instantly given them. They might not consider it worth their time, but no harm in asking. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessary as in "let's assume without asking that some users are grandfathered in and not be required to go through an RfA or RfA-identical process" or not necessary as in "let's assume without asking that no users are grandfathered in and all are required to go through an RfA or RfA-identical process"? The official announcement from WMF legal seems to have zero exceptions, but I suspect that they didn't even consider the case of admins from 14 years ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The former. Not necessary as in "we're not going to bother them with inanities." Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The former. Not necessary as in "we're not going to bother them with inanities." Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Kingsindian's analysis
I had posted a preliminary statement and another one on the evidence page. To my knowledge, nobody has seriously challenged my viewpoint. Indeed, NYB's proposed decision and solution seems to largely agree with it (I can only applaud his good sense, not least because it agrees with mine :P). Here I analyze some of the points of argument raised by me and others and show why they are important, irrelevant or otherwise misguided. It is of course subjective, so YMMV.


 * A cursory glance at the evidence page shows that the "evidence" of misbehaviour is extremely weak.
 * Let's start with the basic principle of dispute resolution on Wikipedia: one should focus on disruption. Consider the supposed charge of "refusal to drop the stick". The only real evidence for this is the second ANI case. All the rest is user talk page discussions. I am not going to pretend that Hardy's behaviour was ideal, of course.
 * About the 2nd ANI, I have already said that this was partly due to the misguided block by BsZ, which they correctly reversed. The second ANI shouldn't have been opened, but there was very little disruption. It was closed post-haste.
 * See MjolnirPants' comment And in retrospect, seeing the way Michael has 'moved on' back to his usual editing, I don't mind speculating that he'd have dropped it long before now if not for the ArbCom case. Exactly. The rest of his comment talks about fears by people that Hardy would continue his disruption. Whatever one thinks about them, they haven't been realized. So why are we here? Two words: sunk cost. This case continues because people find it silly to admit to themselves that it has been a total waste of time.
 * The AfD discussion is proceeding normally. There is no disruption there, at least no more than normal. This is evidence against the supposed claim that Hardy is disruptive.
 * Regarding the talk page comments, as I demonstrated in my evidence, no less than 15 people posted on Hardy's talkpage about this matter. Why they all felt the need to give unsolicited advice is left as an exercise to the reader. I don't doubt that many were well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect was a barrage of unsolicited posts on his talkpage.
 * It is no secret that user talk pages function somewhat like a social networking site. So, one should take a leaf out of the approach one takes with people one doesn't want to talk with on Facebook or Twitter: block them or mute them. It is easy to ignore or otherwise remove posts made on your own talkpage. And, of course, one can avoid posting on Hardy's user talkpage.
 * The points raised by Softlavender are totally irrelevant. Hardy editing while logged out has nothing to do with this case. I'll point out that it is not against policy to edit while logged out, unless anyone can show that such editing is done to avoid scrutiny. Softlavender has provided no evidence for the latter.
 * BsZ says that admins are supposed to "set better examples". I don't particularly consider admins on Wikipedia to be role models, but anyway, let's look at the point. Hardy is of course a well-regarded, long-term and prolific editor. He has managed to avoid getting in trouble for 14 years while managing to make about 200k edits. I would take him as an "example" more than 90% of other people on Wikipedia. As for this case, his behaviour, while not ideal, is not egregious. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just take one diff from 's evidence of conduct "unbefitting an admin". Most of it is unimpressive, imo, but let's look at the removal of the speedy-deletion tag on Maryna Viazovska. It would of course have been much better if Hardy had not removed the speedy-deletion tag himself, but let's look at the context: the tag was obviously nonsense, added by a sockpuppet, since blocked. The sockpuppet didn't participate at all on the talkpage in reaction to the removal. The article was then discussed at AfD, where it was kept, comfortably, from what I can see. I am at a loss to fathom what is gained by this bureaucratic nitpicking over a speedy deletion tag. This can easily be covered by WP:IAR. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * you have missed the point of what I was saying entirely. Indeed, by quoting that one sentence out of context, you are making it seem as if my point were the polar opposite of what it was. The key phrase in that quote is "...in retrospect...", hindsight (as we all know) being 20/20. At the time of the filing, as I pointed out in that very same comment, a number of users had endeavored to convince Michael to drop the stick, and it was my final sentence that contained a concise summary of my point: In other words, at the time, a large number of editors had every reason to believe [letting the matter drop] would not have been a good tactic to pursue.
 * no less than 15 people posted on Hardy's talkpage about this matter. Why they all felt the need to give unsolicited advice is left as an exercise to the reader. I don't believe it is at all inappropriate to conclude their reasons for posting on Michael's page were exactly what they all either stated (or very strongly implied); that they were trying to put and end to this problem. In fact, absent any ability to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, we have to assume their motivations are whatever they stated their motivations to be.
 * The points raised by Softlavender are totally irrelevant. You might be happy to know I only partially disagree here. While Michael has every right to edit logged out, I think that having someone take a look at those edits is a good idea. If, for example, Michael edited logged out, using a rotating IP to regularly vent his spleen at editors who have annoyed him in some way, or to vandalize articles, that is something that should absolutely be taken into consideration here. Now, I consider that to be highly unlikely. In fact, I'd be utterly shocked if it were true. But it's worth remembering that more than one user was utterly shocked at Michael's behavior before. We can't discount the possibility, but I will state categorically that I believe the investigation and its results should be done privately, and should not be made available to the site at large. It's none of our business, really. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I quoted you accurately and only the part which was relevant to my point. You are of course free to look at the evidence and draw conclusions different from mine. As for hindsight, I said right at the beginning of the case that the disruption is already over and people should stop talking about the matter. You can judge by the subsequent events whether this case has turned out anything else other than a massive waste of time. As for the second point, I have nothing to add except what I've said before: it's irrelevant whether Hardy edits anonymously, unless anyone can give evidence to show that he does it to avoid scrutiny. Speculation to the contrary is irresponsible. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with your response to my second point at all; we've simply addressed it from two different perspectives. The fact of Michael editing anonymously, by itself absolutely is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether he habitually 'misbehaves' while doing so, and as I said, I find this to be highly unlikely. That's why I believe ArbCom taking a look at his anonymous editing should be done quietly and the results not posted publicly. I won't be particularly concerned if they decline to do so at all, though I would prefer they did. As to my quote, I might remind you that there is a reason we have an article on Quoting out of context. I disagree strongly that the part you quoted was relevant to your point (except in that it contradicts your point), but the way in which you quoted it makes it seem as if it supports your point. This is disingenuous. The context makes it clear that the most important part of that sentence was the qualifier "in retrospect" and the implications contained therein, whereas stripped of its context the way you used it, the most important part seems to be my statement that ArbCom might not have been the best avenue to pursue. Indeed, in context, the entire sentence itself was merely a qualifier for the next sentence. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I had linked to the original comment and provided a summary of the rest of your point which I didn't quote (see the sentence The rest of his comment...). And now you have given your viewpoint as well. People can read all of this themselves and judge whether what I quoted out of context and/or whether my overall argument makes sense. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * He has managed to avoid getting in trouble for 14 years
 * Are you really going to stand by that claim? They have misused their tools, been subject to ANI and civility investigations, and done many disturbing things in the past 14 years. I leave out any mention of this to focus on his recent behavior, please don't bring up his past as evidence of ongoing good behavior when it is in fact the opposite.
 * With regards to editing logged out. If I had known this was going to become such an issue I would have brought up the fact that before the case was even accepted I had already discovered what I believe to be the bulk of IP's that he has edited with for the past several years and gone through their edits, and can confirm there is nothing suspicious being done by them. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone's edits can be combed with a fine-toothed comb to discover problems. To a first approximation, not being blocked or otherwise sanctioned ("being investigated" means little by itself) means that they have kept out of trouble. I have neither the time nor inclination to look at diffs from 2005, sorry - in fact I refuse on principle to look at them. Regardless of the validity of the claim, my main point remains the same. One does not have to agree fully with all my arguments to see my point, which is subjective anyway. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of going to Arbcom and the block by Boing, this entire process has repeated itself over and over for a decade. Perhaps this Arbcom will, a year or two from now when they are back at ANI, be considered an example of a minor incident brought up by those looking for dirt. Regardless, I will accept that I can see your point either way. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree with not "bringing up things from 2005", but this includes positive things as well as negative things. To me it is common sense that if you refuse look at negative things from 2005, that you shouldn't then use their absence as evidence of long-term good behavior. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The contradiction goes away if you define "keeping out of trouble" as "not being blocked or sanctioned". Of course words are fuzzy, so this is only an approximation. I further discussed why I keep to this approximation and refuse to look more closely. You may not agree with my definition, but it is consistent. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It is uncivil to the person who felt the need to use such a program because they were afraid of writing the LaTeX themselves. I do sympathize with your frustration at people being unwilling to learn very basic formatting code, and in particular I feel every math department should ensure that its undergrads know how to use LaTeX. Both wiki markup and LaTeX are very easy to look at what other people have done and emulate it, but many people still struggle due to general fears of technology and unfamiliarity with working outside of WYSIWYG editors. But edit summaries and talkpages are not the appropriate place to express frustration at these people or make fun of their edits. If you like there are places like this subreddit where you can post snippets of awful code with others who share your feelings without the authors of that code ever becoming aware. Some of the users that you have been terse with have edit histories that reveal a real struggling with LaTeX, and I fear they may feel hurt by your comments. I don't think for a moment that you are acting maliciously, but I feel you should try to be more careful about how you approach others about their LaTeX. In some past instances I believe you would have found people appreciative of your advice if offered in a more warm and welcoming manner, and I believe you yourself would have taken enjoyment in seeing them be thankful and improving as a result of your help. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your posting to the evidence page could make it appear as if I said that some person wrote like a psychotic, when I was suggesting that people should not use software packages that generate code that looks as if a psychotic wrote it. Could you rephrase what you wrote there to tell the whole truth rather than a partial truth that amounts to an untruth? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Some of the TeX code that appeared here looked as if it was written by a psychotic." That is what you wrote. I can't "rephrase" anything there because I didn't write anything there to begin with, I just linked to your statement. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe both of your concerns can be readily addressed by just changing out that diff to this more recent one which states: "The TeX code in this article was written by a psychotic." M. A. Bruhn (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can explain the context. As it is, it is made to look as if I said some person is a psychotic or writes like a psychotic.  Read in context, it would not look that way. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's self-evident that your comment is not personally directed to a specific editor. There is no surrounding context that implies your comment is directed at a robot, but I'll take your word for it. I'll go ahead and add as much to the evidence section. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IAR isn't supposed to be used to overwrite the actions of other users. At the time MH had no idea that person was a sock who would be blocked in the future. When that article was tagged for speedy deletion it had no references and was two sentences long "Maryna Viazovska is a Ukrainian mathematician who in 2016 solved the sphere-packing problem in dimension 8 and, in collaboration with others, solve the sphere-packing problem in dimension 24. She is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Berlin Mathematical School and the Humboldt University of Berlin." At the time of this dispute it wasn't even confirmed that she had solved it, and to a lay person solving this problem in the 8th and 24th dimensions is not immediately notable. Claiming that he could easily delete that tag using IAR is a serious misjudgement in how IAR should be applied.M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you check the article history? Hardy was expanding the article with references when the sockpuppet (who obviously knows nothing about the subject) tagged it. He is obviously one of the game-playing MMORPG types which infest Wikipedia. There is no indication that the sockpuppet did any research before tagging. If you look at the "external links" section which Hardy added, just after the tagging, it is clear that there were plenty of sources. These sources just needed to be integrated into the article as inline references and the speedy deletion would have failed instantly. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hardy was expanding the article with references when the sockpuppet ... tagged it." You have no grounds to argue what he was in the process of doing. Just three months ago he made a stub that he never added references to, and when asked to add references to it stated "Someone else will have to do that". The fact is Harvey didn't add references here until after removing the speedy deletion tag. Also, it is not the taggers job to do research on whether an article is important, it is up to the article to indicate importance. As you stated the speedy deletion would have failed, there was no reason for MH to delete the tag himself. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A clear need for disambiguation necessitated my creation of a stub article in a field in which I lack expertise (Response rate (medicine)). Since I lack expertise in that area I left it to experts to add references. Therefore I should be de-sysopped, right? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you created a medical stub with no references is no reason to be desysopped. The reason it is brought up is to address King's assertion that you were in the process of adding references to a stub. Similarly, to address your assertion that you didn't add references to that stub due to lacking expertise I will point out that you have created stubs with no references on statistics and mathematics articles which are your expertise. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can think of a number of comments I could make about those, but instead I'll just congratulate you: Among my two-hundred-thousand edits, you've found four stubs that had no references. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not like I waded through two-hundred-thousand edits. I just selected the first four math articles with no references out of these 35 stubs you created. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What is required is a sense of perspective. Let's step back and look at the situation here, stripped of all the bureaucratic minutiae. A know-nothing editor, later revealed to be a sockpuppet, CSD'ed an article without doing two minutes research, claiming "no credible significance" for the article subject. Hardy removed the nonsense tag and added a few references - which showed that this is a person who cracked a problem which had stymied a generation of mathematicians. This makes the article easily pass the "credible significance" bar. Now, what's the problem here? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two things to consider. Were his actions justified at the time, and did they have negative consequences? There are no meaningful negative consequences. But his actions weren't justified. At my time of writing there are 13047 unpatrolled new pages. Editors have limited time that they can spend on them. It is not clear to a lay person that two minutes research would confirm or deny the topic's importance. For example, what if someone solved the sphere packing problem in some dimension in some non-Euclidean geometry where the solution is trivial. An editor could spend two hours and still have no idea whether their solution to the sphere-packing problem in that space and dimension are notable. MH's justification for removing the template was that the article "explicitly" stated that person solved two famous math problems. His justification is wrong because if it takes 2 minutes of research to determine that the sphere packing problems in dimensions 8 and 24 are famous then it isn't "explicit". M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's very easy to check whether 2 minutes spent on research would have been enough. Go to this link, which simply Googles "Maryana Viazovska" and looks at sources prior to 31 March 2016, when the article was created. The topmost hit is the blog of Gil Kalai who describes it as a "breakthrough". Perhaps this is not enough for you. You'll find two sources on the first page, both of them were added to the external links section by Hardy. The first source claims that she has solved a "centuries-old" problem - I don't know if this is exactly true or a bit of journalistic hyperbole, but it certainly strikes you as "credible significance" doesn't it?

Let's investigate further. After the CSD tag was removed and a comment by Hardy, the sockpuppet never bothered to argue on the talkpage. The article was later AfD'ed by someone else: the sock never participated in the AfD and it was "kept" comfortably. Now, why on Earth should I care about this incident?

I'll finally make a comment to you, to make to reflect whether you are arguing like a lawyer, or like a person dispassionately looking at the evidence (we all do the former, so I am not blaming you). Consider the time when you added this diff (CSD removal) to the evidence page. Were you aware of the fact that this editor was a sockpuppet? Were you aware of the AfD? Were you aware of the significance of this mathematician? Now, looking back, do you think you would still have added this diff to your evidence if you were aware of all the three things I said above? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * They had no reason to know that two minutes of research would establish notability. Just because it does doesn't mean they should be aware of that fact.


 * Let me ask you, do you not care about people with a conflict of interest editing article's about that interest as long as their edits are good? This is MH's article that he created, his judgement will be biased towards keeping it, and for this reason policy restricts editors from deleting CSD tags from their own articles, a policy he should be aware of.


 * I was aware of the following, yes. Now let me ask you, are you aware that many if not most of the articles that sock nominated for deletion were deleted? I don't see an obvious was to quantify this at the moment, but scrolling through their contributions reveals many pages that they nominated are red links. The point you are making now is the reason I brought up those links to past ANI disputes, because editors then are making this exact same mistake as you are making now. A user named Hetar had to turn to WP:3PO to get MH to stop posting to their talkpage when they kept asking him to stop. Two years later out of the blue MH posted an insulting and condescending essay to their talkpage, and they removed it and asked them to stop harassing them, and he posted again telling them that calling them a "hateful boor" is not harassment. When they posted to ANI with an edit summary reading "please help - add isue" how did the community respond? With this crap:
 * jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it.
 * And this is still going on. People not looking past the PhD and high edit count and just "guessing" they know what is going on. Your "first order approximation" of him never being sanctioned is proof of the community's lack of any perspective, yet you ironically use it to inform your own perspective. I have kept the diffs I brought up very light and minor, they are not me scraping the bottom of the barrel, they are me skimming off the top. You can argue that removing the CSD is minor, and yes I agree, but there's a limit to how many minor issues should be present, and if you look at his history you will see he is well beyond that limit. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As one of those old-school admins who has almost never been involved with or even followed ArbCom cases (and frankly don't much care to), I don't know if a statute of limitations applies. But from a common sense point of view, bringing up things from 2005 in 2016 is silly and has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. Jonathunder (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In case anyone wants to know what sort of editing I have done while logged out, some typical examples are the recent edits seen in this history with the IP number 2601:445:4001:8a30:b8a1:9f1a:290d:5f41 . All of those are mine. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask to whom one is uncivil if one says that computer code that is not written by a human but by a software package looks as if it is written by a psychotic? I have discouraged people's use of those packages for writing LaTeX code because they write purposelessly complicated code that is hard for others to edit and looks as if it was written by a psychotic. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Characterizing an article as lousy or saying that the TeX code looks like it is written by a psychotic is not "incivility" - it is describing the state of the article. For instance, I described an FA here as an "absolute disaster": it was not incivility, but an accurate statement. It was delisted because other people had the same reaction as mine. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Analysis by M. A. Bruhn
This case isn't just about Michael Hardy despite his name being its title. Everyone involved is culpable of some degree of wrongdoing. Even the structure of the community itself is partly to blame. But since Michael Harvey is the central figure here I will limit this discussion to him.

MH never asked to be an admin, one day a group of editors decided to just make him one. Over the years he fumbled with those tools whose policies he apparently never familiarized himself with. Recently, his admin actions have been almost entirely relegated to moving pages, a task which can be equally performed with the Page Mover user right. He seemingly does not view having his tools on hand as particularly important as he does the majority of his edits while logged out.

During the time he has become an admin the standards of behavior expected of an admin by the community has risen, and it continues to rise. MH has consistently not lived up to this standard, and the more time passes the greater this gulf will become. There were many contributions to how this current situation escalated, but the greatest factor was this gap in expectations. After the original ANI thread was closed it was resurrected with a sub-section entitled "This is an admin!". The ostensible purpose for this entire Arbcom case is to examine their administrator status. The tools granted by this status provide little benefit to the project, and are described as little more than a mop and broom. Yet editors have passionately argued that he retain them. Why?

The answer to this is what I believe to be the crux of this case. Because people view the administrator status as a reward and acknowledgement for positive contributions to the encyclopedia. This view, however, is not only flawed, it is also harmful. The initial editors who gave MH these tools thought they were doing him a great service, but it has led him time and again into conflict and confrontation. Almost all his past disputes concern his usage of tools, and those that didn't were escalated because of his status as an admin. Those here arguing that he should retain his tools similarly seem to believe their revocation would be a direct insult to his contributions and feel they are defending him. But they aren't, they are setting him up for future attacks.

The administrator status isn't a reward, it's a burden. The work MH does is a constant source of frustration and irritation, and his high volume of edits makes him a particularly visible administrator. His admin status is saddling him with a responsibility to mitigate how he expresses that frustration, a responsibility he is unwilling to either acknowledge or fulfill. I don't believe he needs to be scolded or told that his behavior has been inappropriate. He probably knows this already and is unwilling to concede any transgression for the usual reason people don't which is fear that if you give an inch others will take a mile. He should just have these tools taken away with as much fanfare as would accompany relinquishing someone of an actual broom, and that should just be that. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Excellent analysis. Hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Let me try to unpack the illegitimate and the legitimate arguments. Clearly the only person who matters for deciding whether the admin status is "a burden" is Michael Hardy - and MH doesn't think that it should be removed. It's really as simple as that. People can give advice or suggestion or unsolicited opinions about whether MH should resign the tools - but MH isn't willing to, at this point. For the rest of us (and ArbCom), what matters is determining whether they have done anything warranting a desysop. And I've argued at length (too much length) that nothing warranting a desysop happened, here or elsewhere. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to a burden of responsibility, a "responsibility he is unwilling to either acknowledge or fulfill". Him not seeing the burden is precisely the reason to warrant desysop. This is a volunteer project, volunteers are easily upset, those who are tasked with overseeing the project should not be needlessly abrasive to them. Imagine walking up to someone voluntarily picking up trash in a public park, and pointing to a small piece they walked by and telling them condescendingly that they've "missed a spot". That's what MH is doing when he goes to AfC editors and complains of their carelessness for not changing the hyphens to em-dashes in the articles they promote. It's ridiculous behavior for an admin. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, So you're desperate for something to criticize. yeah, The "AfC editors" are the ones who created the articles. Right?  On several occasions I've pointed out that they don't fix obvious errors in the titles.  And I've fixed them myself, along with other copy-editing, doing a lot more work than what the "AfC editors" did. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion
Among the more surprising things here are (1) An assertion by Callmemirela. I objected to a user ordering another user to desist from expressing disagreement. I responded to abuse by Tarage's seeming endorsement of that objectionable behavior by sarcastically saying I ordered Tarage not to disagree with me (that's the diff that Callmemirella posted). So Callmemirella construed that as my order to another user not to disagree. (2) A claim that I said some other users write like psychotics when I advised them to avoid using software packages to write TeX code for use in Wikipedia articles, since those packages produce code that looks as if it's written by a psychotic and is over-complicated and hard to edit. (3) The verbally extensive claims by Softlavender that when I edit while not logged in I am violating various rules and otherwise doing something wrong. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I seriously object to the statement that I abused Michael Hardy. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no one has made any claims about your edit summaries containing the word "psychotic", I posted two of them without remark. Secondly, I don't see how a disembodied edit summary likening the TeX of an article to the work of a psychotic can be construed as advising users not to use software packages to produce TeX. Although, I find it somewhat strange that an WP:MOSMATH-compliant TeX software package hasn't been created (or has it?). Anyways, the edit summary is just a mild example of needless abrasiveness, it's really not a big deal. Nobody thinks that you are calling people psychos. On a last note I wish VisualEditor was better, it'd be nice if there was a good WYSIWYG editor for those who don't want to learn TeX. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: