Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence

Hoping the case could still be resolved by motion
As I was typing a statement expressing my hope that the delay in opening the Michael Hardly case meant the committee was talking amongst themselves about possibly resolving it by motion, and "end[ing] this as humanely as possible", as Mr Ernie put it, it was actually opened by a clerk. (The case pages still arent linked on the RFAR page, though. But I found 'em!) I was hoping the case could be resolved without dropping another ton of bricks (by which I mean inviting a round of "evidence") on, you know, an actual live person. There is already a sufficiency of information. Please resolve it by motion, and yes, please recognize Michael Hardy's dedication to the project. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC).
 * - Case is being opened at present. It take a significant amount of time to open one of these as its a manual process, it should all be updated in the right places within the hour. Amortias (T)(C) 17:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bishonen's suggestion. I had actually hoped we might see the kind of response from Michael that could have already settled this, but unfortunately it didn't happen. I don't see any benefit in an Evidence phase as it's already all been presented, and I also don't see anything to gain from a Workshop phase. I'm happy to trust ArbCom to judge it by motion, and happy to accept whatever you decide - even if it's maybe just a reminder about the general behaviour required of admins. I also recognize Michael's dedication to the project, and I hope that would be acknowledged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't complaining, Amortias. (Though I'm a little surprised you guys still don't have something more automated for that stuff.) Just getting in a modest boast of my own cleverness in finding it. And thank you, Boing!, you're a good guy. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC).
 * So Boing! what was your intention for bringing this case to arbcom then? If you don't think there needs to be an evidence phase, and you don't think there needs to be a workshop phase, why couldn't we just let the community or WP:AN handle it? I'm really confused about what you want to see out of this. I have a lot of respect for you and your actions in the past, but bringing this to arbcom seems like a bad way to move forward. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no community procedure for examining an existing admin's suitability to remain an admin and to consider the possibility of desysop - that is something that falls only within ArbCom's remit, and I felt that Michael's recent actions made his suitability for the role seriously suspect. My intention, therefore, was for ArbCom to examine it and decide whether to and how to deal with it. ArbCom has the options of a motion or a full case, and after seeing how things have gone so far I'm suggesting that a motion might be easier on Michael than a full case and no less effective. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have possibly agreed had not MH himself stated that he has done most of his editing anonymously in recent years (and since he's been here  more than 14 years, "in recent years" could mean three to five years or more). Since there's no declaration on his userpage of an alternate account or that he mostly edits logged out, this appears to me to fall afoul of various policies such as WP:LOGOUT and/or WP:ALTACCN. At some point in this case I'm going to formally request that either MH declare his anonymous editing (accounts or IP or whatnot) to ArbCom via email (per the policies, and to ascertain whether articles/pages are being edited both logged out and logged in [or with two different accounts]), or that a CheckUser be run, or that some other way of investigating, dealing with, and/or stopping this is enacted. I'm not formally going to make this request yet since it's "early days", as the Brits say. Softlavender (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no prohibition on editing logged out - WP:LOGOUT merely says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts...". And unless you have any actual evidence of misuse of alternative accounts, then I don't think you'll get very far with a Checkuser request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on editing while logged out as long as it doesn't break WP:ILLEGIT, and there is no reason to believe that it did in this case. I don't think ARBCOM would agree with being used as a witch hunt for policy violations, it's probably a dead end. ansh 666 18:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the majority of an administrator's (or any longterm daily user's) editing is done anonymously is problematic. I think the community, and ArbCom, need to investigate this. If articles or pages are repeatedly being edited both logged out and logged in, in my opinion that runs afoul of the policies. Furthermore, I'd like for there to be some explanation given, either to the community or privately to ArbCom via email, of why most of this very prolific and very longterm user's/administrator's edits are being done anonymously. Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with . I think there's something to be said for an Arbcom case on whether violations of WP behavioral policies are grounds for desysopping an admin in general, and I'll happily participate in such. But focusing on Michael Hardy with the full light of an Arbcom case seems a bit of overkill. Enough evidence about him has already been presented, the opinions of all involved and many uninvolved parties have already been made clear. There's enough info here to act by motion. There's no point in turning this into a a giant witchhunt for evidence of every past civility infraction he may have had. On top of the lack of incentive, there's also the issue of what effect this will have on Michael. Does anything think that being subjected to a witchhunt will make him less 'curmudgeonly'? I don't. We'd be taking something that's been an (apparently important) part of his life for over a decade and using it to bludgeon him. That's not going to make things better, from his point of view.
 * As to the light this may shine on me (I know for a fact at least one of the uninvolved commenters would love nothing more than for my own behavior to be scrutinized), If enough editors want to see me stand in it, I'll happily start an AN/I thread about my editing and behavior myself. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this doesn't need to be a case. A motion would work well enough. This isn't quite ArbCom level. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the scope of this case?
I haven't really participated in many arbcom cases, so maybe a lack of scope is the norm, but could the arbs please provide some guidance here? There are 5 named parties to this case. Are we supposed to provide evidence about everyone? Are we supposed to dive in and dig through everyone's history? I'm sure I could find some instances of mild incivility in the contribs of each case party. Or is this case strictly about the admin status / tool misuse of Michael Hardy? That would make the evidence phase quite short - there are no instances of admin tool misuse relating to this incident. If editors are upset that Michael Hardy has the bit, or he got it too easily, or if they don't believe he has the temperament based on this one incident in his 13+ year tenure, let's hear it out. But if this is purely a chance to go needle hunting, let me know so I can grab my scuba gear. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope of this case is, to my understanding, whether or not Michael Hardy is temperamentally suited to being an admin, given behavior that a number of editors perceive as extreme in this situation, and given the evidence of prior poor conduct and documented misuse of admin tools (wheelwarring with other admins is, IMHO a clear misuse of those tools, as is any use of the tools in a situation in which one is involved, cases of both being documented by M. A. Bruhn). There is also the question of the 'anonymous' edits brought up by Softlavender. While that's not necessarily a problem, we don't know that he wasn't behaving disruptively (and we have reason to believe that he might have been) until we know the details of these anonymous edits. That part should probably be handled privately, however. I think that's just for the Arbcom and Michael to sort out, with the results informing their decision. None of the rest of us have any need to know what he's been doing anonymously.
 * Given the opportunity to amend change the scope, I would also like to see this become more explicitly about whether violations of WP:ADMINCOND should be considered grounds for desysopping. But that's just me. I like rulings, as opposed to precedents. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited my response to change it. Boing! makes a good case above for dealing with this by motion and I agree with that. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ADMINCOND seems pretty explicit: "...may result in the removal of administrator status." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That is true, I did not see that the last time I looked. I guess this means that the users defending Michael either did not see that part either, or they think it should not apply because reasons. So now I believe Arbcom should simply desysop Michael by motion and be done with this. There's nothing to see here, just a routine cause-and-effect. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very disingenuous for you to quote that without the context immediately preceding. Let me do that for you. "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very disingenuous for you to quote that without the context immediately following. Let me do that for you "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." Your quote was not the context immediately preceding Guy's quote, nor does MH's behavior here qualify as a 'mistake'. He's made almost (if not over) a hundred edits in the span of just a few days about this, with no indication of even understanding what's wrong with his behavior. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you can show with diffs "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia?" I'll look forward to your very targeted evidence showing exactly these conditions for a desysop on the evidence page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, but that's been done already. Check out Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. I haven't contributed because I hold to hope this can be settled by motion, but enough people have to show that this was a case of "egregiously poor judgement". MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm I have scoured that page but can see no instances of egregiously bad judgment. All I see are minor squabbles and disputes that begin over content and occur all day every day throughout Wikipedia. I do spot one sub par admin action - a block, which the admin in question reversed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're entitled to an opinion. But when you call someone disingenuous for quoting something out of context (especially when the context doesn't change the meaning) and then immediately quote something else out of context in what is, to all appearances, a deliberate attempt to change the original meaning of the material, I'm gonna call you out on it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: Will the arbs limit the time period for investigation to the time around the discussion and ANI case that started this mess (per precedent from the previous administrator misconduct case)? Or are we really going to accept evidence from 2005? @ User:L235 User:Kharkiv07 User:Amortias Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've forwarded this section to the Arbs. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect" (from WP:ADMINCOND), it has been my experience that in practice this extends far past occasional mistakes. Even major misbehavior by admins often ends up closed at the ANI stage and rejected at the arbcom request stage if the administrator in question shows an understanding of what he did wrong and makes a promise not to do it again. This is a Good Thing, because the entire purpose here is to prevent future misbehavior, not punish past misbehavior. Michael Hardy could go a long way towards keeping the bit if he simply [A] acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with politely asking an admin heading for arbcom if he is willing to voluntarily resign as an administrator, and [B] admits that asking me to join his fight against MjolnirPants instead of simply giving me a "yes", "no", or even "I decline to answer" response was inappropriate behavior, and by making a commitment to try to do better next time. Instead, me has repeatedly implied that I am one of the people who are bullying him and that his behavior in the diff above was somehow justified by MjolnirPants's actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness
Michael Hardy is now at 1445 words, 445 past his 100-word limit.

The extra words were used to make claims about me, but I cannot respond without exceeding my smaller, 500-word limit.

Seeing as how Michael Hardy has made me the focus of his evidence section (as if proving that I misbehaved will somehow excuse his misbehavior) should I be made a party to the case? I am OK being in or out, so I will let the arbs decide. But meanwhile, please enforce the word limits in the interest of fairness. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ..aaaand now he is up to 1531 words. Do we have rules or don't we? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , I count 597 words (including section headings, but not including signatures) in that section. How are you coming up with your totals?  (Note that preliminary statements copied from the original request for arbitration are not included in the evidence limit.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I get my count by feeding the entire statement into http://wordcounttools.com/, as suggested in several arbcom page headers. If it was a few words over, I might think about deleting sigs, etc., but there are not 100 words in those places.


 * So he gets 1000 words to my 500 words and he gets another 886 words (yes, you let him go over his 500-word limit there as well) copied from his preliminary statement while my preliminary statement was deleted? I am the target of accusations yet I am not allowed to respond. How is this even remotely fair? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , I am counting Michael Hardy's preliminary statement, because his preliminary statement was added to the evidence page while my preliminary statement was deleted from the page where I posted it. Thus I needed to use most of my 500 words saying what I said before, while Michael Hardy is free to use his 1000 words to make accusations against me -- what he said before was added to his section without being counted in the word count.


 * Making me a party would solve the immediate problem, but not the larger problem that the arbcom word count system is rigged to give some individuals an advantage over others. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * At the risk of pointing out the obvious: if you're not a party—which, currently, you are not—then it doesn't matter what Michael says about you; your conduct is not being examined, and you are not required or expected to respond to him. If we decide to add you as a party, you will of course have an extended evidence limit to go along with it. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is right to allow parties to arbcom cases to attack non-parties while forbidding the non-parties the ability to respond. You are allowing him to say "If you go to the talk page an administrator you choose at random, to whom you are a stranger, and ask whether they would voluntarily accept having their status as an administrator revoked, WITHOUT informing them that such a thing has been contemplated and WITHOUT informing them of the reasons for such an action..." while forbidding me responding by pointing out that my question informed him of both those things by providing a link to the ANI discussion where they were discussed. I fail to see how it helps Arcbcom to see an unsourced accusation on the evidence page but not being allowed to see a rebuttal with diffs backing it up.


 * By the way, you are a binary plantigrade, and you may post no more that 25 words and five diffs responding to this accusation. Not really, but it might give you some insight as to how it feels. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If I see anything that's not backed up by diffs that is a personal attack I will have no problem pulling the sections in question. Amortias (T)(C) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * you may if you wish to do so request an extension of your word limit from the committe either by contacting them directly or by requesting one here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to grant a 500 word extension, unless Guy wishes to be added as a party, then we'll consider that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Amanda I request a 500-word extension. Seeing as nobody but Michael Hardy (here or ANI) has even hinted that I violated any policy or guideline, I will leave it to Michael Hardy to either file an ANI case against me or file an arbcom request only to have it instantly rejected because we are supposed to try to resolve things at ANI before running to arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Granted for a 500 word extension. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to MjolnirPants
Re:, I am not an administrator and have turned down multiple offers to nominate me.

The above made me curious, so I looked up all interactions with MjolnirPants before this arbcom case. Here they are: --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard
 * Talk:Vaxxed
 * Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 5
 * Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 6

DeltaQuad's section
I want to take the time to respond to the material that got collapsed above.


 * Regarding resolving by motion: As I've discussed with my fellow Arbs, I'm definitely willing to consider a closure by motion after we are through the evidence phase (which depending on people's needs may or may not get shortened). Either way, I'd rather we hear out the people who have things to say so that the matter is fully looked into and we are not cutting it short.


 * I ask that you present that in evidence so that we make sure it's not overlooked.


 * As for the scope of this case, we are looking at a few things:
 * The actions (administrative or not) or edits of Michael Hardy, without time limitation
 * Any conduct, by any user, regarding the recent ANI case about Michael Hardy
 * Any conduct during the case

If anyone feels I'm missing something, please ping and i'll see about adding it. The reason why there is no time limit on the first one is because it's a critical reason on why the case was accepted. When a pattern in presented that may be breaching the trust required to stand as an administrator, it needs to be looked into. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about the amount of work that could result with this. That said, we aren't going to be reviewing all 186k edits. Of the ones we do review, we will have to taken into account if sufficient time has elapsed since the event that was brought up and the circumstances of the event.
 * As for other arbitrators agreeing with the scope, the other arbitrators commented on the general scope, not my exact wording. In the past 21 hours (including myself) 5 arbitrators supported the general scope of Michael's edits reaching into the past - 1 commented on other matters and did not mention the scope - and 1 disagreed with the scope. While it wasn't a formal vote, I thought the numbers might help.
 * As for why this case and not others, I'll speak to my personal opinion on the matter and not be speaking on behalf of my colleagues. In the past ArbCom has made mistakes with limiting the scope of timelines to the point where it ties our hands behind our backs when it came to decision time. I don't want us repeating that same mistake again. That was my reasoning for supporting all edits. Does that help? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that justifying inclusion as we go along is a bad idea and does not encourage openness. It's why I wanted to get this cleared up in the beginning as early as possible while still giving my fellow Arbitrators time to comment and counter-propose if there was a better idea. I hope that my fellow arbitrators will express discretion as will I in reviewing the events. It is definitely not my intention to hang anyone to dry, which is why I've also mentioned the review of the case after evidence to consider a motion if that is the best way forward. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Carcharoth's section
I hadn't intended to comment here, but my eyebrows were raised when I noticed that the scope has been defined as "The actions (administrative or not) or edits of Michael Hardy, without time limitation". This is a very large scope. His contributions date from March 2002 and there are over 186,528 edits. If the standard for bringing an arbitration case is now "a pattern [...] breaching the trust required [...] as an administrator", then you will get an awful lot of cases and an awful lot of work (except most people are sensible enough not to get worked up and will move on after disagreements). Two specific questions, please: DeltaQuad, did you define the scope yourself, or did other arbitrators agree with the scope? Why this scope in this case and not in other cases involving trust of administrators? Carcharoth (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, DeltaQuad. My experience of case participants and arbitrators taking into account time elapsed and the circumstances of the event, is that people tend to be inconsistent. Those who have a tendency to take a hardline stance on certain things will be prepared to include something from a long time ago if that means they can make an example of someone, and those who have a tendency to be more lenient will make a similar justification the other way. That is why arbitrators need to be scrupulously fair and either allow something or not according to objective criteria, rather than justifying inclusion as you go along. I hope that helps to further explain my concern. Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary comparison
I have been reading through the evidence. Do the clerks see the following comment in Callmemirela's evidence section as crossing the line into a personal attack, or at least unnecessarily personalising things:"It's as if a teengager [sic] took over the keyboard and when things didn't go their way, hell breaks loose." My view is that there is no need to make this comparison. Comparing someone (who is presumably not a teenager) with the conduct of a teenager isn't really going to help. (Using "as if" is a common way to 'avoid' directly saying something that would be unacceptable if said direct.) That part of Callmemirela's evidence section is purely their opinion (it obviously can't be backed up with a diff), and should really be removed. Pinging the clerks Kharkiv07 and Amortias to get their views. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Links and corrections
Is it bad that looking back all these years is more interesting than the ANI incident in 2016 that precipitated this case? Pinging SB Johnny in case he misses this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Michael_Hardy/Archive5
 * User_talk:Michael_Hardy/Archive5
 * User_talk:Michael_Hardy/Archive5
 * Log page for the Robert Denno article refers to actions taken in 2008 not 2009. The second deletion and undeletion relates to copyright, not speedy deletion. See explanation at Talk:Robert Denno. Also discussion here. For those who can't see the edit history, the original article was a word-for-word cut-and-paste of this article, also available here, from the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America.
 * Maybe a suitable remedy in this case would be to work on the article Robert Denno? Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

To SB Johnny, yes, Michael Hardy does talk semantics like a logician/mathematician. I suspect a large part of the problem stems from that. It doesn't work very well in a text-based environment. Or rather, it would work well, if people realised how to respond to that sort of language. About pre-emptive redirects, that dredges up a very old memory. When you have biographical articles where a disambiguation page exists, it is relatively common to create a placeholder redlink like this (Ernest Neal (biologist) (see here and here). If you know the initials, you can create pre-emptive redirects at Ernest Gordon Neal, Ernest G. Neal and E. G. Neal. And then debate whether Ernest Neal should stay or move. Frankly, the effort is better spent at the point of creating the article. Similarly, when creating a biographical page there are often redirects to create as well. An example is here for Philip Hepworth, where I created the redirects (P. D. Hepworth, Philip D. Hepworth, and Philip Dalton Hepworth). One article did contain a link for "P. D. Hepworth" (actually P.D. Hepworth), which I changed here. All those could have been created as pre-emptive redirects if such a thing had ever been possible. That's probably enough on pre-emptive redirects... Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

At SB Johnny, yes. An interpersonal dispute that got blown out of proportion. Maybe others will make more of it, or will be able to justify digging up things from years ago. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

On admins, since some people seem to be struggling with this, to find out if someone is an admin, you can use Special:ListUsers. For example: this is me, and this is MjolnirPants and this is Guy Macon. To see a log of when user rights were given (for these three users), see here and here and here (this method fails for Michael Hardy because the user rights log doesn't show the very early grantings of adminship, you have to look up his RFA for that). I can see that David Eppstein is using 'admin' in the sense of someone active at ANI. Also, the admins named as parties to this case have been listed using the admin template. If any admin actions should be examined, it should be the block of Michael Hardy by Boing! said Zebedee (which was, to be fair, reverted). Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk actions
It can be difficult to keep track of what clerk actions have been taken on the evidence page, so I'm listing them here: Hopefully that will make clearer what is going on here. I suspect that this will get removed as well. Maybe at this point the clerks and arbs could maybe consider that Michael Hardy might need some assistance here to provide diffs? Simply removing what he is saying and not helping him seems a bit, well, unhelpful. It is an example of the same inability to communicate that characterised the incident that led to the case being filed. Are admins supposed to know how to present evidence in an arbitration case? Maybe. But are clerks and arbs supposed to help case participants (with the aim of actually resolving the problem) rather than rigidly enforcing rules? I'd say yes. The current approach is not helping. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * removing claims not supported by diffs - clerk action (14 August 2016)
 * struck PA (15 August 2016) - PA = personal attack
 * Edit summary links to a user. Removed as no diffs provided. 48 hours originally asked for have expired. (17 August 2016)

Missing from case pages
I have just been looking back at the original request (just before the case was opened), and the links and diffs under 'Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried' don't seem to have been copied over to the case page. If you look here, the 'Prior dispute resolution' section on the main case page is empty. Should that not have been filled in with the links from the original case request? Pinging Kharkiv07 who opened the case to see if that got missed somehow? Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Understanding history
- you express amazement that an admin might need the concept of providing diffs for evidence explained to them. I am surprised that you don't seem to understand the history here. Admins are not all the same, and the concept of adminship was very different back in 2003. If you read Requests for adminship/Michael Hardy you might get a sense of that. Surely an admin (you) should actually be aware of the history of Wikipedia and how things have changed? By not being aware of that, you end up failing to understand what is going on, and this can impact your judgement as an admin and your ability to defuse situations where you get inter-generational conflict. You started editing in the same year that I did (2005). Did you never ever realise how different Wikipedia was in the early days, and that there are admins that only use part of their toolset and would never have needed to become familiar with providing evidence in the form of diffs. I am (and I mean this) shocked that you don't seem to realise that it is possible to be an admin with a very different editing profile and tool use to other admins. Do you really think all admins are active at ANI, aware of arbitration, and active in dispute resolution? And the focus on him being an admin makes no sense at all. If he had not been an admin, this would never have reached arbitration. It feels very much like someone who failed to move with the times, and who only uses the toolset for a limited purpose, being penalised for still being an admin and failing to act the 'right' way when they got into a content dispute at an article. What was the massive problem that needed solving here? It feels like people got all worked up and then felt like they needed to do something, rather than just calm down and move on. Where is the understanding? Where is the empathy? Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Perceptions
It is clear that what upset Michael Hardy the most was this. It is this that led him to say that an editor was "forbidding me to dispute his assertions or ask him questions". Now start from the premise that Michael Hardy is not an idiot or wilfully being nasty. He is trying to communicate his viewpoint. He might be failing, but he is trying and he is being consistent in what he says. So maybe try and understand why he feels the way he does? Maybe it is the "if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do" bit that is the key here. Michael Hardy felt he was being backed into a corner and being told what was going to happen, and not given the chance to dispute it. For someone who obviously takes things literally, that is how the comment was perceived and how he has been describing it ever since. He perceived it as being told not to argue and just accept the result, and even if he asked questions that wouldn't change anything because the nomination was going to happen regardless. That is (in his mind) one of the worst things you could say to him - not give him the chance to dispute the assertions and ask questions. Does that analysis (which might be completely wrong) sound like it might explain some of this? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants' section
, I think you're counting Michael's preliminary statement, as well as what he's added. When I counted what he's added since the evidence phase began, I got 595 words for what he's added, and 1415 including his preliminary statement (which, notably, had to be trimmed by the clerk because MH wouldn't do it himself).

That being said,, Guy has a point. I believe he should be able to respond to the accusations MH has made, as well as comment on the original case. It seems extremely unfair that Michael (by dint of behavior that resulted in an ArbCom case) should be able to make accusations against Guy, and Guy (by dint of remaining calm throughout this whole affair) is left unable to respond. I think his word count should be expanded, or (given Michael's accusations and the fact that his overreaction to Guy's question was a part of what started this) Guy should be named as a party. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Very quickly, I'm not sure what you meant by "playing whack-a-mole on RPP." Are you referring to WP:RPP? If so, that had nothing to do with it. I noticed that Michael added a link on Paleolithic diet to Ancestral health and I took a look at the latter, since the former is a bit of a WP:FRINGE subject. What I saw there convinced me to PROD the page.

Regarding points 4 and 5 on your timeline, I took issue with Michael dismissive tone (asking me if I my answer was chosen by throwing darts at a list), as well as his numerous edits, which caused both an edit conflict and for my initial to be shifted out of context by his subsequent questions. However: Yes, I did get impatient at that point, and I don't mind admitting that I should have been more polite. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see anything to suggest that MH was a fringe pusher (I checked his contribs, too). That's why I first offered to wait a week before hatting it for a speedy. I was expecting a response more along the lines of "Do you think you could lend a hand then?" or "I'll get to it on Tuesday" or something like that. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  01:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(In response to this comment. ) , you might want to reconsider and edit your evidence; I'm not an admin, and certainly not part of any "in-crowd". Hell, I don't even have 4k edits yet, and a huge chunk of then were in the Graphics lab. To my recollection, the only admin involved in this I've ever had prior contact with was. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  02:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL meta-mistakes. My apologies.

I noticed that. I'm not feeling defensive, it's just that your evidence post implied that there was some favoritism responsible for the reaction of the admins who engaged with Michael after we argued. I'm fairly certain that's not the case. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  06:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To anyone watching this page This is my first time participating in an ArbCom case, so maybe this isn't too common, but it seems to happen a lot here. People are responding to things other editors said in different sections or on different pages, and this can get pretty confusing. So I made a template to address that. I subst'd it above in my response to David Eppstein, so you can see what it looks like. It can be found at Template:In response to or you can use to save some characters. I hope it proves useful. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It feels very much like someone who failed to move with the times, and who only uses the toolset for a limited purpose, being penalised for still being an admin and failing to act the 'right' way when they got into a content dispute at an article

It has always been my understanding that sanctions and decisions imposed not only by the admins, but also by ArbCom were never meant to be punitive in nature. While I understand that in actual practice, this can be remarkably untrue, I really don't see how that is the case, here. The concern here seems to be about 1/3 what Michael has done with the tools, and 2/3 what Michael may do with the tools, in light of his behavior in this case. Sure, this time he didn't abuse his tools, but as has been pointed out, he rarely uses them, and likely rarely thinks of them. Imagine if this case resulted in no action, and then he got into another tiff like the one we had. Having been 'validated' here and having his admin tools on his mind, is the guy who still can't admit to doing anything wrong going to refrain from blocking the other party or protecting the page in question (as he's done before)?

With someone like Michael, who edits virtually every day for many years now, a temporary block might be considered punitive. But desysopping? How often does he use the tools? How much would he notice their lack? He's said he uses them mostly to move pages, an ability it is my understanding he can (and IMHO, should) be granted even without being an admin.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I at least don't want to hurt Michael in any way. I've already expressed that my desire is for the Committee to just desysop him now and shut this case down instead of letting it run its course, precisely because for an editor like Michael, just knowing this is going on has got to feel like some sort of betrayal. The longer this goes on, the more people are going to be giving evidence against him. I've been in that situation before (and yes, like Michael, it was one of my own making), and it's extremely disheartening. The actual, tangible consequences were not so bad, it was the fact that a place I'd always thought I'd been welcome had "turned against" me that hurt. That was punitive. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if your question was directed at me, but... Yes. Based on what I have seen, your description of Michael's POV coincides with what I perceive his POV to be. I even understand it, for the most part (at least in the beginning). I did not consider his initial response to that on my talk page to be out of line in any way. It's understandable that he read "if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do" and took that to mean I would brook no argument. It's even understandable that he would ignore those parts of my comment that didn't fit with his perception of my meaning (though being understandable doesn't make that excusable).

But what's not understandable is why he still refuses to take my word for what I meant, why he still refuses to take NeilN's word, or Boing's word, or Tarage's word for what I meant. It's not understandable why he refuses to take Guy's word for what he meant, or NeilN's or my word. Unless Michael purports to be possessed of some psychic powers allowing him to discern the true meanings behind what people say on the internet, then the only source of evidence he has about our meanings is what we say. What's also not understandable is the way he's gone about expressing his disagreement with what he (honestly, if erroneously) thinks I meant. To focus down on one particular bit, let me ask you one question, please. How many times have you used an "email me" link on someone's page just to tell them off? Michael has done it at least once. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Kharkiv07's section
Your comments were edited by because it was evidence that did not have any diffs or proof of any sort associated with it. He and I are the clerks for this case, which means that we're assigned by the Committee to make sure these cases run smoothly and part of that is making sure that statements made in the evidence phase are support by, well, evidence. Feel free to add and/or add back anything once you can support it with evidence (probably diffs). Thanks, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 13:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As requested: (moved from my talk page, thanks Guy)
In this edit you say

"I'm not seeing any abuse of privileges here, but I'll happily list them if someone can bring them to my attention: [...] If someone brings abuse to my attention, I'll note them above. I can even add more slots if there are more than 5. If not, please consider the lack of evidence to be evidence, since as we all know it's very hard to prove a negative."

Here are three examples:


 * 2005 - MH is rebuked for protecting page that they are engaged in an editing dispute over
 * 2007 - MH engages in wheelwarring against three other admins.
 * 2009 - MH again wheelwars with other admins

Wheel warring is a very serious offense. See WP:WHEEL.

I look forward to seeing you keep your "If someone brings abuse to my attention, I'll note them above" promise.

While your claim of no abuse of tools is demonstrably false, a claim of no recent abuse of tools would be fair an accurate. I don't think there has been any abuse of tools in the last five years. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll put those in when I have time to look over them. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 11:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

notes on the links
This is quite a stroll down memory lane. The 2005 incident involves a somewhat sudden change in policy regarding redlinks, redirects, and a bugz request which I don't know what became of. It's hard to track down all of the context, but Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_3 is a place to start. The epic battle over redlinks-are-bad-for-the-reader vs. redlinks-are-good-for-inspiring-people-to-make-content probably doesn't make much sense to people who started editing this decade, but it was, indeed, a thing. See also.

The other two incidents were part of the great wars between the inclusionists vs. the deletionists at their peak in the late aughties, which is still a thing.

FWIW and YMMV, a person in 9th grade when the most recent incident occurred could now be a college graduate. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The 2009 2008 incident actually does show some less-than-thorough looking before deleting (first deleted as an autobiography, then as copyvio, when it's pretty clear if you read the original version that it was an obituary). Not that it was at all encyclopedic in the original posting, but MH was working on that when it was re-deleted. Pretty good application of IAR, particularly in that period of WP history. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 14:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, see User_talk:B_denno for further understanding of the situation. Not sure if Moonriddengirl is still around but it looks like she resolved the spat. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

yes, certainly more interesting! (Where's the dancing banana?) Just another observation here: in most if not all of the conflicts being referenced here MH argues the semantics between "making an accusation" and "making a personal attack", and in a fairly typical manner of a logician/mathematician who happens to be caught arguing about semantics. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 15:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

yes again, though if you'll remember in 2005 a lot of the fun of WP involved creating redlinks for threads you didn't have time to follow (but maybe someone else would), and in turning redlinks blue by creating stubs.

Anyway, my point about the argument style is pretty much just that. From what I can tell this started because
 * 1) User:MjolnirPants was playing whack-a-mole on RPP and tagged it according to what he saw
 * 2) User:Michael Hardy inquired why
 * 3) User:MjolnirPants gave a quick response
 * 4) User:Michael Hardy challenged his response in rather a lot of depth to challenge each point (there's the formal argument part)
 * 5) User:MjolnirPants became perhaps a bit impatient
 * 6) User:Michael Hardy took offense, and eventually went to a noticeboard presumably thinking that was the right thing to do when a dispute dead-ended
 * 7) Drama ensued

Sound about right? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 16:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

yes, I meant WP:RPP, though you got to it doing a (nicely old-school) watchlist follow-up. Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other, though I don't see any reason to believe MH is a fringe science proponent, so perhaps a less imperative approach would have been better. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 22:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Timelines and diffs
Crazy busy with work and family birthdays and such over the past couple weeks. I'm pretty sure my evidence section refers to plenty of other diffs on the page, but if my point isn't made, would it be permitted to add more of them (just diffs) over the weekend? The more I look into this the more it seems like a mob going after a nerd, and I feel obliged to stand up for my fellow nerd. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the drafters are watching this page, but just to make it easier for them to find relevant stuff, pinging . Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * if your talking about adding diffs to your current statement, go ahead. We will still be proceeding with motion consideration and/or the workshop phase as planned though. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. And thanks even more for giving me the impression that the Committee is feeling relaxed on this one. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein's section

 * Please note that the timeline of events in my comment does not include any wrongdoing in the role of the "admin" (you in this case). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If it is indeed misplaced, please move it to the correct place. However, my reading was that the workshop was for proposed remedies, and my statement included none. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN's section
Why is the "preliminary statement" by being allowed to stand on the Evidence page? Isn't it more appropriate for the Workshop talk page? --Neil N  talk to me 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

An admin that needs the concept of providing diffs for evidence explained to them? Really? --Neil N  talk to me 06:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering when this would come up. I'm quite well aware of history. If you want to justify Michael Hardy's unsuitability as a present-day admin by pointing to when he was adminned, then you should use the same historical standards for desysopping. That is, WP:NOBIGDEAL. If adminship was easy to get, it should be easy to lose. Regarding "rather than just calm down and move on" - you realize that Hardy is still hasn't moved on and is making the same false accusations? --Neil N  talk to me 13:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

isaacl's section
The workshop page has a section for analyses of the evidence. The evidence page is in theory for relating events that occurred, with supporting diffs. Although personally I think maintaining the distinction is useful to isolate more contentious discussion to the workshop, for better or worse, the separation is often (but not always) blurred. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Amortias's Section
Assistance to Michael had not been offered (speaking only for myself here) as he had previously used diffs. He has added a diff to a section of his evidence so I do not believe that assistance is required. If I am incorrect in this he is free to ask anyone he feels happy to for assistance. Amortias (T)(C) 17:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We were asked to close at 1200 UTC this has been done and were just waiting on a friendly admin to protect the pages. Amortias (T)(C) 12:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tarage's Section
Michael has shown multiple times that he has nothing but disdain for this entire process. He claims not to know what a clerk does, saying "this whole process leaves me with progressively less motivation to treat it with respect and I haven't paid all that much attention to it" and "All I can say about that is that life is too short to waste on understanding something like that, and I use the word "waste" advisedly". He clearly has no desire to cooperate with the process, so I feel that any attempt to assist him will either be ignored or met with the same guile he has shown everyone else. --Tarage (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I don't hate Michael. I have no animosity towards him. I believe he is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. The issue is not his behavior as an editor, but his behavior while representing administrators. If he were a normal editor, he would have simply been told to stop, and if he hadn't, he would receive proper sanctions. As an administrator, none of this has occurred. The fact that he is an administrator is preventing this from resolving in normal channels. And he STILL refuses to admit any wrong doing. --Tarage (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia's section
To several commenters above: a certain degree of distance from, and skepticism about, arbitration is probably a good thing overall ;)

To Using your most recent few edits as an example: this is what we mean by asking you to please add diffs to your evidence. You say that editor X said Y, editor X may say they meant Z, and we need a link to the actual conversation in order to understand the context in which these interpretations came up. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm only speaking for myself, not the drafters, but IMO the subplot going on on the evidence page about logged-out editing is a distraction. It is perfectly fine for people who have Wikipedia accounts to edit logged out, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so, there is no evidence that Michael Hardy has done so duplicitously, and we should not be investigating or recommending that someone be investigated "just in case" they might have misbehaved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

MH Anonymous editing
Since has brought it up I will just go ahead and state that before Arbcom began I came across 4 (maybe it was 5?) IP's that he has used over the years. He has made no effort to hide his association with those IPs, if you just casually look through his edit history you will find them. However, there is no suspicious activity from them, and I don't think it is useful to explore the matter. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Cardamon's section
Much ado about minor incivility. Cardamon (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen's section
Quoting the top of all these pages, i. e. the casenav template: "Evidence closes 25 August 2016." Apparently not. When will it really close? Pinging Bishonen &#124; talk 11:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Some people above requested additional time, which was granted. So we just didn't get around to formally shutting down the page till today. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Amanda. Do you know if the Workshop will close as announced, i e 1 September? Bishonen &#124; talk 08:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC).
 * It should. The only reason the Evidence closure was delayed was because of the requests made on this page above. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's section
(If I'm allowed to create one for commentary; I'm not a party.)

Michael Hardy doesn't need admin tools for what he does. He says he uses the admin tools for: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving pages over redirects: This can be done with the WP:PAGEMOVER right, and I'm confident it would be granted to him.
 * Looking at deleted pages to advise their authors about certain things: This is not a necessary function. Users are advised as to why a page was deleted by the speedy-deleting admin's deletion rationale, or by the XfD discussion that led to deletion.
 * Looking at deleted pages to understand and participate in discussions of the merits of the pages and their deletions: Ditto.  We would all find this ability convenient, but using it this way is not what what the admin ability to see deleted revisions is for. If anything, it gives one who uses it that way an upper-hand, in discussions that are best left in the past.

PS: That's just a statement; many people don't know about PAGEMOVER yet. It's not advocacy of desysopping. I agree very strongly with the idea that admins who were just declared admins, or passed when there was virtually no RfA process to speak of, should need to go through RfA, or a modified RfA that presumes retention of the tools for, say, a 51% vote of confidence, or something. The idea that admins should have a mandate from the community is correct and powerful in my view. Same goes for the idea that admins who do no admin work should be treated like absentee admins, and given the same "your adminship is going to expire if..." notice.

But the community hasn't set up such processes yet, and Hardy is not a whipping boy for the entire "early admin" class, has surely learned from the errors pointed out, and might even do more admin stuff, now being aware that the tool needs to be used or faith in their proper use will be lost. 19:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)