Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision

Number of active arbitrators?
On the main page it states that there are 13 active arbs, with one inactive. On this talk page, and in several other places, it says there are 12 active arbs with 2 inactive. Either I'm missing something, or there was an error somewhere. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By "the main page" you mean WP:ARBCOM? That shows 11 active, 3 inactive. This case shows 12 active, 2 inactive. That's because Kelapstick chose to be active on this case, but not on general business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. By main page, I meant Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision.  That page lists 13 active, one inactive, which I assume is an error?  "For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority." Tazerdadog (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for noticing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Drafting arbitrators
Adding a note here to flag up the addition of DGG as a drafting arbitrator after the case was opened (the initial listing only had DeltaQuad). As Template:Casenav/data is not on many watchlists, those participating in this case may not have noticed this. Not as important to note, but a clerk removed themselves from the case as well. Carcharoth (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Delay in PD
Hi all. Due to unforeseen days at work, and additional arbwork, the PD will be delayed. I hope to have it up as soon as possible. My absolute last resort time to post it will be sunday night eastern time. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG has requested an additional day to work on a 1 specific part of the PD. The PD is written, we are just finishing up 1 principle, 1 FoF, and 1 remedy and will also use this last day to continue to solicit final opinions from the rest of the committee. Tl;dr ~24 more hours. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The PD has been posted. Due to the late hour it is here, please note I will be unavailable for several hours before conducting my voting and responding to comments. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

My named section
I have a problem with part of it... Not the "inflamed" part because I admit to that. But the part that says I failed to provide adequate justification for PRODing the article. The article was AfDed, and then deleted for exactly the reasons I gave to Michael for PRODing it: the information on the page didn't convey anything that wasn't in other articles already. I cited the exact ELNO and AFD problems I had with it, though I didn't spell them out. (I thought then -and still do- that an experienced editor who has a link to WP:ELNO and a link to the specific PROD reason can find the text of the criteria on their own). I suppose one could argue that I should have continued arguing with him about each of the ELNO criteria I mentioned, but it seems pretty obvious to me that two people who differ on what a policy means... Well, differ on what a policy means. If not getting into the specific with him about each of those points is the crux of this, then what that boils down to is the suggestion that because I didn't convince Michael, that means I necessarily didn't do enough to explain myself. That's just nonsensical.

I'm feeling a little ambushed here: I'd have said some of this during the evidence phase, except I had absolutely no idea that anyone but Michael actually thought that I didn't explain myself, and I had no reason to think that Michael would listen to anything I said about anything, anyways. no-one asked me if I thought I'd explained myself well enough, or -to my knowledge- ever opined that they couldn't tell from the diffs why I PRODded it in the first place.

As I've said before, I admit to getting snappy with Michael. I agree that my comment inflamed the situation, in the sense that it's obviously what set him off, and should have been put more politely. But to claim that I failed to justify my reasons for PRODing it is ludicrous. The truth is that I failed to convince Michael of my justifications. Shouldn't a finding of fact be, you know, an actual fact? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mjo, I have amended the fact per your comments. I apologize for the oversight. I'm still of the belief that justifying something, having a request to justify it further, and properly responding to that is reasonable and models the ideals of consensus and positive collaboration. If it got to a point of IDHT, then I could see your point. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , while I don't think this is a key finding, I don't really agree; you acknowledged later that your original prod rationale  was deliberately based on technicalities in order to to be rid of what appeared to be a pro-fringe stub article. After your prod was challenged - and after Hardy had explicitly disputed your "redundant" argument  - you attempted to speedy the article, which another editor declined  with the statement "Clearly not A10". The AfD ended with the decision to redirect the title, explicitly without taking a position on what if anything to merge, and implicitly without taking a position on the external links, which is not quite deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed . Intentionally using "technicalities" as a deletion rationale, attempting a speedy after your A10 argument had been explicitly disputed, and using a tone in your response to Hardy's question that was uncollaborative and combative, collectively makes "inadequate justification" seem like a pretty milquetoast description. My overall impression of this sequence of events is that you were overconfident that you were right. Unfortunately, so was pretty much everyone who participated in this dispute. Wrote this in an old tab, just gonna leave this here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As the finding is currently written, I do not dispute it at all. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ernie's Section
Having read through the proposed decision, I can reiterate my description of this case in my initial statement as a charade. The Locus of Dispute contains no such description of a dispute - it states the case was opened 11th of August (how is this relevant?), states that the case was opened to examine the dispute around ancestral health (there are no such opening statements, and arbcom wouldn't comment on content anyways), and mentions a review of Michael Hardy's administrative statements (there were NO opening statements documenting any misuse of administrative tools!). So the first "finding of fact" is actually quite wrong.

If the best anyone can show is 4 cases of tool misuse that happened so long ago, Michael Hardy actually deserves commendation, not an arbcom wrist slap. How about a motion to immediately end this case so we can all go do something else now? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, there was a statement about misuse of tools (RFARB/C Diff) and Ancestral health was mentioned in Boing!'s statment, Dane2007's statement, Kingsindian's statement, and a clerk even recused from the case over it. Also, The information you say doesn't exist, exists right below. I did propose (non-publically) a motion to close this case with a few comments and something similar to the probation remedy now, at least a week and a half ago to the committee, but there appeared to be no support for it and a full decision was requested. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic's section
FOF4 looks to be going down in flames, and I don't disagree with the current nay-voters' reasons. If it does turn around, though, please consider linking to policy as it existed at the time: WP:INVOLVED didn't exist in March 2005 and wasn't mentioned on Wikipedia:Administrators at the time; the equivalent was a much milder one-liner below the fold on Wikipedia:Protection policy. WP:WHEEL did exist in August 2007; at the time, Wheel war was a separate page, and was again much milder than the current version. I was on hiatus in 2009 so don't have any first-hand knowledge of how WP:WHEEL was regarded during the third event, and can't comment on the suppressed diff, of course. —Cryptic 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have linked the policies at the time, and the views of the community at the time the actions occured, regardless of the outcome of the FoF. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Tarage's Section
Under proposed remedies 3: "All parties to this case, Callmemirela, Guy Macon, Softlavender, and Tarage are to drop the stick and return to normal editing activities in accordance with policy. They are placed on probation for a period of 1 month. If any editor fails to do so while on probation, further sanctions may be issued at Arbitration enforcement at the discretion and consensus of uninvolved administrators."

Am I not understanding what 'all parties' means? I find it a tad leading that the editor above, including myself, could be called out for 'probation' when the one who was the least civil this entire time, Michael, is not included. Was this intentional? I know the voting is not finished yet, but I would be upset if the only result of this case was myself being reprimanded... --Tarage (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * +1. I don't know why I and others are being called out for not dropping the stick when it was the opposite. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "All parties to this case" refers to the named parties to this case (Boing, Hardy, Mjolnir, NeilN, Bruhn) and then additional personages that aren't named parties in the case (the other four names) are included in the remedy. So that remedy would include Hardy along with the others.  It's like saying "My favorite days of the year are federal holidays, my birthday, and the first day of autumn," which doesn't mean that my birthday or the first day of autumn are federal holidays."  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. It seemed as if the names called were the parties of the case. I am fighting a cold. Please excuse my stupidity. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  03:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CoffeeCrumbs explains it well and correctly, and maybe it's a wording that can be fixed. If anyone has a suggestion, I'm open to it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still against the notion of equal sanctions on everyone, but it seems like I don't get a say in the matter. All of the incivility of every other named party combined only barely matches that of Michael's. He STILL has not dropped the stick. --Tarage (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed in this arbitration. Michael has never admitted to any wrong doing and will likely completely ignore everything here and continue doing what he has always done. He has given no indication to the contrary. So the end result is quite a number of users who don't trust an administrator, and an administrator who will continue to ignore all of the duties and requirements of an administrator that don't align with what he wants to do, and nothing got solved. It seems there is not, and likely never will be, a way for the community to de-sysop anyone. What a farce. I guess this means I'll get sanctioned for being fed up with the process. So be it. --Tarage (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The silence from the committee is deafening. Have you nothing to say? Contented to sit in your ivory tower? --Tarage (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Tarage, there has been nothing off-wiki at this point discussing the case, from 13 September 2016 at 11h12 eastern till earlier today where only one message was sent pointing to something that might need commenting on.
 * To get to the point...Your right, Michael has not admitted to any wrong doing. That's why this case will now act as a reminder. Honestly if I see this again, then we go into the pattern territory. This case has been full of over-reactions, and to desysop him over a single 3 day incident...doesn't fit the "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." part of WP:ADMIN. So I mean we could go desysop him out of process...but what's the point in doing that? Regarding your sanctioning, I've pulled my support of that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how I respond to your "single 3 day incident" assertion without being accused of picking up the stick so I'll just remind you of this statement posted at the top of every talk page: "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." This only has to do with your assertion. --Neil N  talk to me 03:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe 3 days wasn't the proper way to word it...the point still stands though that this is a single incident, not multiple. I get it, I do, that his behavior is not appropriate. But I expect the stress someone feels under at ArbCom to be higher. That's why no one was any bans or equivalent level remidies related to them in this case. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have no issue with the PR. Only with the implication the behavior lasted three days. --Neil N  talk to me 09:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

After giving this issue much thought, and observing the actions of the arbitrators, I have come to the conclusion that no legitimacy should be given to anything about this case. It was a trainwreck the entire way through, and as such, I am willfully and completely ignoring any and all proposed and enacted remedies. Doing otherwise would set a dangerous precedent that this sort of farce should be respected. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And now, since the case is moving to close, let me state on record that I wish to never interact with any of the three admins who refused to change their vote on the Probation remedy, and they are not welcome on my talk page. As far as I am concerned you are caricatures of admins and nothing more. --Tarage (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NeilN's section
"All parties to this case, as well as Callmemirela, Guy Macon, Softlavender, and Tarage are to drop the stick and return to normal editing activities in accordance with policy. They are placed on probation for a period of 1 month." Excuse me, but what the heck? Arbcom accepted the case and I'm being put on probation for offering evidence as a named party (the last of which came on August 19th)? If Arbcom did not want to have this case proceed in the normal manner they should have said so. If this remedy passes I would like an explanation why every Arbcom member who voted to accept this case should not be trouted for their part in directly facilitating what "all parties to this case, as well as Callmemirela, Guy Macon, Softlavender, and Tarage" are supposedly doing. --Neil N  talk to me 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded The parties to this case and the named editors have all dropped the stick, only to have Michael throw it back at them. I don't mind this being directed at me (even though I've been one of the least prolific contributors to this) because I helped make the situation that kicked it off. But to chastise these editors for doing something they OBVIOUSLY did not do? That's ridiculous. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirded But we won't get it. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourthed I initially wasn't going to comment, but this section seems to be getting more attention. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fifthed jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

as you have posted the PD, I am specifically calling on you to provide a detailed explanation as I requested in my first post. I'd also like to draw your attention to this conversation on Newyorkbrad's talk page. --Neil N  talk to me 03:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As there was more commentary on NYB's talk, I opted to post there. If there is anything I missed don't hesitate to ask again. Also ftr, I have removed my support from the remedy. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you. I might take a day to process and respond there. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't responded, but hopefully you've seen my votes. I'm kicking myself for not taking a closer look at the PD while it was in draft. I did get one change made but should have looked at this stuff more carefully and also gotten an admonishment remedy as it was obvious there was no intention to desysop. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to save my comments until after the case closes on why PR 3 was inappropriate in the first place and why some arbs opposing now are doing so for the wrong reason. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

, regarding this, I am equally disappointed in your behavior surrounding that PR and a lack of acknowledgement of how it contributed to prolonging the problem. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia community reminded
7) The Wikipedia community is reminded that ArbCom cannot fill any perceived gaps due to a lack of a community based desysopping procedure. In the absence of an accusation of abuse of tools, ArbCom will only accept a case against based on criteria which don't depend on the Admin status of editors.


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Michael's Admin status played a role in the escalation. But at AN/I people should realize that in such a dispute making a big deal about the Admin status is pointless unless there is an abuse of tools. If the community feels uneasy about that then the only way to remedy that is by having a new RFC about a de-Admining procedure. Count Iblis (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Played a role, yes. My problem with this is that it makes the claim that someone has to have abused the tools to be desysoped. That's not true (as presented over the past year at least once) and would set an improper precedent on accountability. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee reminded?
Sort of a strange phrasing. Might I suggest:


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

I think that would be less vague, more accurate, more specific, and (no offense) exhibit slightly better grammar. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a better written version of the same message. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 01:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to admit that my grammar is shit without taking four hours to review a paragraph, never mind it being at 4am. I have made those modifications which are purely grammatical, and I thank you for your contribution. That leaves the wording change of reminded -> resolve, should -> will strive to, and the addition of narrowly. I'm still thinking over this but wanted to at least reach out and say i'm considering it. I feel this is already going to be hard to pass with the current committee; and as I've found out over the past year, wording is everything. By going from should to will strive to, we are adding that arbs should "struggle or fight vigorously" and I'm not sure the current committee is willing to take that on. Should we be each and every time? Ideally yes. But each case has it's own issues, some which need to be examined more broadly than others. So to strive may contradict what we need on a future case. The addition of narrowly has implications on how we view and act on the arbitration policy. It's sufficient here in this case if we had of just stuck within those boundaries. Also if we focus narrowly on the scope we have, we would by default have to hear this case and any other case that requests the removal of administrative tools. It's not something I want to bind committees into. Lastly, switching to 'resolves', I have to say has the same issue that I mention with strive. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SMH. FWIW: "reminded -> resolve, should -> will strive to" is mostly about "acting" vs. "yeah, I guess so maybe". I doubt it will make any difference to the wikilawyers, but I for one would support a show of spine. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 2.1
Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about his conduct, even when those concerns are expressed are suboptimal: s/his/their; "are expressed suboptimally"? Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Made a quick copyedit, thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Coffee Crumbs's Section
One thing I'm disappointed to not see so far is some clarity on legacy admins. One of the factors that caused this case to spiral out of control was the fact that Michael Hardy is a legacy admin, who got his gavel before the modern admin processes were instituted. Without a lot of the questioning about whether Hardy is a "real" admin or suggestions that he is in a group of "second-class" admins with less apparent authority, some of the interpersonal conflict very likely becomes less heated than it did in reality.

Some guidance from ArbCom, interpreting the policies concerning admins as pertaining to the legacy admins, would do a lot to head off such an issue in the future as there are quite a few legacy admins still around. And some clarity on the policies would in the future make it easier for the community to judge if changes need to be made to the policies themselves. I would not propose what the correct interpretation should be -- and did not in Workshop -- but I think this is something that could be productively addressed at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I don't see how the committee could provide "clarity" on this question. Yes, you're surely right that some of the interest in this situation was prompted by the mere fact that an admin was involved, even though the actual admin tools weren't. But the notion that there is a distinct or recognizable class of "legacy admins" has no basis in policy whatsoever, so any comment by arbcom on the matter would be ultra vires. If the community wants to explore the concept of admin reconfirmation yet again, they're of course welcome to do so, but should bear in mind its appearance on the "perennial proposal" list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the principle, but it did come up a lot in the leadup hoopla and make things even harder to untangle. Just a principle *stating* there is no distinct or recognizable class of legacy admin, and thus ArbCom ruled no differently on Hardy, would provide something that may defuse the next similar situation.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to dignify the idea of "legacy admins" or "second class admins" with a response from arbcom --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A number of users (including active admins) have expressed questions about this. Assuming that Arbcom's take on the issue is that there is no difference, I don't see how stating this would be in any way paying lip service to the idea that there is a difference.
 * That being said, I'm not sure this is the right case for it. Michael went through an RfA. If the process was less adversarial then, well, that's just a difference in the times. The difference between Michael and the last successful RfA is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. It'd be better to address this in a case involving an admin who did not go through an RfA. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins are admins. There is no second class, second rate, or sectioned part about what class of admin you are. Adding it to this case would only fuel resolution attempts by giving the RfA dispute groups a reason to come here and comment. Like Guerillero, entertaining that, especially here sends the wrong message. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I said much the same thing, above. What I suggested (by implication) was that a finding of fact be added that says "admins are admins, there are no separate classes" in more formal terms. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kingsindian's section
The "probation" remedy is needlessly inflammatory. Everyone has already dropped the stick (apart from participating in this case), so why do we need "probation"? If we count the "time served" portion of the case, the "probation" will already be over before the case is decided. If the aim is to keep everyone away from each other, a simple "reminder" is enough. It should not be a sanction. It's also a bit weird and unfair to sanction non-parties to the case. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting observation, but one that is not the case. All remedies would start from the closure of the PD into the decision. (And do I need to say again that I've pulled my support on this or am I repeating myself?) -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we close the case? Since this case shouldn't have been accepted, doing nothing is the correct thing to do: and that's basically the effect of the remedies passed so far. Nothing is to be gained by dragging this out. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never seen so much discussion over absolutely nothing of any consequence. Please close this case. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A new allegation is made for the first time on this page
I find an allegation of "willful misrepresentation" made on the workshop page. No such allegation against me appears on the evidence page or the main case page. I have not willfully misrepresented anyone or anything, and this page is not an appropriate place for the initial appearance of such an allegation. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is a remark made by I think 2 Arbs, it's not a finding of fact that has been accepted. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The FoF combines an assumption of bad faith with persisting in a certain interpretation which was soundly rejected in the events leading up to this case. No one ordered you to obey, or forbade you to disagree. I believe that this was a willful misinterpretation but, as noted, I said this in a comment, not in the FoF. Do with it what you will, but do not just shove it aside. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I second Drmies reply. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Doncram's section

 * I just comment on one narrow topic, about keeping up to date in policies vs. procedures

A resolution being voted upon as something that MH should be "reminded" of is: "All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date." But why this resolution? What core policy, if any, has MH been shown to be unaware of, and that matters in what went on?

It is vague and may seem obviously benign, but IMO there should be some finding of fact related to the resolution, or at least some theory of the case that involves a problem caused by an administrator not being aware of some core policy.

I haven't followed this case closely, but scanning the pages of the case, I don't see a case where MH being unaware of some policy caused a problem. In the Evidence page, SB_Johnny summarizes that MH might be "unaware" of how the culture has changed in Wikipedia, which might explain MH taking offense for some behavior that would have been rude previously but is now common. Even if that assertion was found to be a fact, that is different. That is not MH being unaware of a core policy.

I am sure that MH is aware that civility is expected. And the topic of civility is addressed in another resolution. Perhaps MH is not aware of what specific types of uncivil behavior are common or more successful now, though, and perhaps MH responded to incivility with other incivility that is not currently the norm. If so, that would still not constitute unawareness of any core policy.

Also in my prior following of the case I understood that MH does not get involved in disputes and does not intend to. Rather, he uses administrator tools to take benign technical actions. An implication was that he is unfamiliar with arbitration and perhaps other dispute resolution procedures. And I believe there was an example or two where, in his first arbitration, in fact he was unaware of which edits only a clerk is currently allowed to do. (Aside: some editors spoke approvingly of the fact that he has not been involved in arbitration.) That speaks to MH being specialized in other areas, which is allowed and is beneficial to Wikipedia. Some unawareness of procedure is not the same at all as unawareness of any core principle. And, is there any review or testing of other administrators' awareness of procedure in arbitration or other areas? I imagine many administrators would fail a test using simple multiple choice questions about procedures, if there was a reasonable test available.

And, if this is meant to be a "reminder", where is it stated that administrators are expected to keep up to date with all policies, or any core group of policies?

It is not clear to me, anyhow, that this resolution is relevant or fair. I submit this narrow comment believing that it is okay in procedure to do so. -- do ncr  am  03:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a section at the administrator policy that:

Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.
 * And also:

Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.
 * Among other examples. It does not say directly that keeping up with policies is required, but it's definitely an expectation for issues like outing, involved use of the tools, and wheel warring that administrators be up to date with and comply with. MH failed to show that he understood the policies in the "Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)" FoF, and they may or may not have existed at the time he first looked for them. It does make a good faith assumption with it that he did not understand he was violating those policies at the time. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Probation section
Since I saw others bring this up on 's talk page, I have read the PD page more closely and have realized that the sanction against me (one month probation ) for merely providing evidence on the Evidence page was perplexing and unfair, in my opinion. The wording of the FoF is "Although not named parties to this case, a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and commented extensively during the events leading up to the case." I am named as one of them and the sole evidence link is to my Evidence presented in the case. Since that wasn't "during the events leading up to the case", and I have never interacted with Michael Hardy outside of the ArbCom page there, I'm not sure why I was mentioned. I was going to ignore that PD since I never and have never interacted with MH anyway outside those ArbCom pages so it doesn't affect me and there was no stick to drop, but now that I just now read the wording of the FoF more closely, I'm not sure what I did wrong. If non-parties are not allowed to present evidence in a case, I was not told that by anyone (and in fact I received a talk-page reminder to present evidence if I had any that I wished the arbitrators to consider ), and to my knowledge that has never been a previous restriction at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanket notes in all sections mentioning it that I have pulled my support from it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to also note that I was specifically requested by an arbitrator,, to present exactly the Evidence that I presented, which is the only thing being held against me (by the remaining arbitrators who still support that section): "* I ask that you present that in evidence so that we make sure it's not overlooked." (03:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)). I'd therefore appreciate it if my name were removed/stricken from that proposal, as I was only doing what I was specifically requested by an arbitrator to do. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section
I became aware of this PD via the discussion at Newyorkbrad's talk page. Although I have not followed the case from the start, I am concerned about proposals about editors, who are not named parties, that are based solely on those editors' postings in the Evidence and Workshop. There is a community norm at Wikipedia that editors do not normally face sanctions for conduct that occurred without any sort of prior warning. Even with Discretionary Sanctions, there is a strict requirement that an editor must have been made aware of the existence of the DS before being subject to Arbitration Enforcement. I am aware of, and appreciate, the explicit rules about conduct on Arbitration pages. However, absent a specific Finding of Fact that a non-party editor was warned by an Arbitrator or a Clerk about some aspect of their postings and continued the conduct after the warning, any inclusion of that editor in the PD seems to me to reflect badly upon the Committee. And with the Committee "reminding" themselves about what they are expected to know, it looks particularly inappropriate. If Arbitration pages become a "gotcha" process, the community will loose faith in bringing cases here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This raises a good point. Where are the findings of fact (and the evidence to support it) that anyone who is not a named party has failed to drop the stick? Has done anything wrong, at all? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps AN/I should have been included in the scope of this case because there are problems with the way things work there. After the case, a notification of discretionary sanctions could be posted on the AN/I page similar to what has been done in case fo climate change pages, Scientology, Israel/Palestine related pages etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not too late for Arbitrators who supported certain proposals to reconsider their support. And you should. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tryptofish. In the case of being put "on probation" merely for posting evidence on the Evidence page, it's a case of shooting the messenger and convicting the witness, for doing exactly what occurs in every other ArbCom case (and which we were requested to do by notices on our talk pages) and without any sort of warning whatsoever. ArbCom: Either accept a case or not, but when you accept a case, please don't then turn around and sanction people for merely providing the Evidence-page evidence you requested people to submit. Softlavender (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanket notes in all sections mentioning it that I have pulled my support from it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that! I urge other Arbitrators to likewise reconsider. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon's section
This refers to sanctioning non-parties without presenting any evidence:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision

I protest in the strongest possible terms any arbcom decision that applies any sort of sanctions against me in a case where
 * No editor filed a complaint against me, either at ANI or arbcom.
 * No arbitrator added me as a party to this case.
 * I was not notified that Arbcom is considering sanctions against me.
 * ANI was not given a chance to address any misbehavior on my part.
 * I was not allowed to present any evidence concerning my behavior.
 * Zero attempts were made to address my behavior at any other dispute resolution forum.
 * Nobody bothered to drop me a line on my talk page to see if I would agree that I was out of line and change my behavior.

If you really think that I failed to drop the stick, the right thing to do would be to tell me so on my talk page, see if that was enough to get me to drop the stick, and if that didn't work, file a report at ANI and let the admins deal with it.

Taking me from not-knowing-that-anyone-has-a-complaint to facing-sanctions-from-arbom with no warnings or attempts to resolve the issue is just wrong.

All of the above would be true even if I was 100% guilty of all charges. I would now like to argue that I am not guilty.

Note: six diffs supposedly documenting my not dropping the stick are listed at the proposed decision, but one was me responding to a Wikipedia administrator asking me a question on my own talk page, and another is my posting to the workshop phase of this case.

I made exactly four comments over slightly more than 24 hours, then I disengaged, stopped interacting with Michael Hardy, unwatched all the pages where we had interacted before including his talk page, and did nothing else until others brought him to ANI and them arbcom.

I maintain that I did drop the stick as soon as I realized that Michael Hardy wanted to fight. You really want to claim that four comments is "commenting extensively" and "refusing to drop the stick"? How many am I allowed? Two? Zero? I even refused to engage him when he repeatedly posted to my talk page after being asked not to.

If I am not allowed to discuss my own behavior with an admin who asks me a question on my talk page, please give me an official arbcom ruling to that effect so that I can refer any inquiring admins to the decision.

If I am not allowed to participate in the workshop phase at arbcom, please change the "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." language at the top of the workshop page. At least let people know that if they participate they may be sanctioned without any warning for participating.

I have to tell you right now, if you do this, I am seriously considering leaving Wikipedia for good. I have done my level best to stay well within the rules, and have over ten years and 30,000 edits without any blocks or other sanctions.

I would also like to bring to your attention the discussion at User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 40. While Drmies may find it "reprehensible" to attempt to deal with such issues quietly on a talk page, it sure seemed to work it that case. If it hadn't worked and Barek had tried to pick a fight instead of having a reasonable discussion (which would have caused me to disengage) would you have sanctioned me for that one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * These points are very well-taken. (I nearly left after the GMO case last year, for not dissimilar reasons. I hope that you stay around.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only person who failed to drop the stick was Michael. And according to Arbcom's logic in the remidies, his multiple ANI threads, pissing off admins and editors left and right, posting to the talk page of anyone he felt was remotely involved and completely refusing to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever was no worse behavior than me making one snappy comment. I saw some disaffected former user once posit that anyone who didn't think Arbcom was the worst thing on WP had never been through an Arbcom case. Well, I agree with that person now. I have lost all respect for this process. To not only treat my one comment and Michael's crusade as both meriting the same response, but to haul in everyone involved who'd spoken out against Michael's behavior to be sanctioned is outrageous in the extreme. If they had set out with the goal of ruining their reputation, they could not have done a better job. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, the only thing I want to know is how to go one step beyond this arbitration. I've never had to think about this, so admittedly I don't know what the next step is, but clearly something is fundamentally broken here, and it needs to be fixed. This sort of farce needs to not happen again. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ArbCom decisions can be appealed here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * C'mon, it's not as bad as this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are the relevant sections of the Arbitration Committee Procedures:


 * "The Committee usually expects editors to have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration." --Arbitration Committee/Procedures (emphasis added)


 * "Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under consideration. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area." --Arbitration Committee/Procedures (emphasis added)

I see nothing in the Arbitration Committee Procedures that allows remedies to be applied to non-parties, and zero attempts were made to exhaust the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration against me or the other non-parties named.

I would also point out that I have been here for over ten years, have over 30,000 edits, and have never been sanctioned by any administrator. This is because whenever any Wikipedia administrator gives me a warning or asks me to stop doing something, I immediately stop doing it whether or not I agree. If any arbitrator or other administrator had asked me to "drop the stick" my only question would have been how, seeing as I had stopped all interaction with Michael Hardy other than participating in ANI and Arbcom discussions, and I have zero intention of ever interacting with Michael Hardy in the future.

'''Opabinia regalis, Drmies, kelapstick, n actu, DGG and Casliber, please don't do this. It isn't right.''' --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I interpret " all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area" to many not just all editors collectively, but any involved editor. It is routine that all aspects of a case that may arise during the arbitration will be examined--it isnot necessary to refer every point back to ANI. True, the US Supreme Ciourt usually does that to avoid reaching a decision. but its unnecessary bureaucracy here.  But I will recheck whether what we said in the decision was fully appropriate, or whether it can be said differently.  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, there's a lot that needs to be said differently, and a good deal that should not be said at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, with all due respect, is it routine to apply sanctions without providing any evidence that the editor did what you say he did? I think I made a compelling case that I disengaged after my fourth comment until I posted evidence at ANI and later arbcom. From the time I totally disengaged I refused to interact despite multiple unwanted talk page messages. If you really think that I refused to drop the stick, why not provide some evidence? You are proposing putting a great big mark on my ten-years-without-sanctions record here, without giving me the slightest hint as to what you think I did wrong or how to avoid doing it again in the future.


 * Even if you are willing to throw me under the bus on this one, you are accusing Softlavender of "refusing to drop the stick" despite zero interaction with Michael Hardy other than presenting evidence at arbcom.


 * This is wrong. Please don't do this thing. I beg you to reconsider. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , I know you're trying to do what's best here, so I am going to be really frank: you have had a lot of input into this case for someone who was not involved in the original dispute. You are the #2 contributor of text on the workshop, and #1 on the evidence page after the clerk . You are right that we made a mistake: you should have been listed as a party to begin with. While I have no doubt that you meant well, your "voluntary desysop" question to Hardy came off poorly and was a substantial contribution to the entrenched, defensive, mutually uncomprehending nature of much of the subsequent discussion. I'd almost forgotten till just now that you were also the one who reacted to a minor issue early in the case by posting the same complaint about "fairness" to every active arb's talk page (here's my copy). Looking at this thread on your talk page is pretty frustrating, because you've already received similar feedback and ended the conversation with "I was right", and a month later apparently still have the same opinion. I've moved to oppose the probation idea, as it is proving obviously ineffective; however, I hope the substance of the feedback you're receiving doesn't get lost in the procedural matters, and after the case is over you have the opportunity to reflect on how this dispute escalated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do I suspect that if I respond to the above I will be sanctioned for doing so?


 * I accept the above criticism of my initial interactions with Michael Hardy and will take it to heart. I acknowledge that I handled my initial interaction with Michael Hardy (four comments over a 24-hour period) poorly. I realized this at the time, which is why I disengaged from him after that fourth comment and had no further interactions until the case came up at ANI and then arbcom.


 * I am troubled by the fact that a good-faith attempt to offer evidence (much of which was direct responses to Michael Hardy's multiple accusations against me) can be seen as reason to list me as a party to a dispute that I had nothing to do with. I will take that to heart as well, and will do my best to never again offer any evidence to arbcom (I might have to make a brief response if someone directly accuses me of wrongdoing). I always knew that the person who files an arbcom case often ends up sanctioned, but it did not occur to me that simply offering evidence could also piss off the arbs enough to get you sanctioned with no warning.


 * I do have a question for you. If, as you appear to claim, you found the amount of input I made in this case excessive, why didn't you simply tell me? I have always had a strict policy that whenever any Wikipedia administrator tells me to stop doing something I stop immediately whether I agree or not. (I may discuss it further with the admin, but I stop the behavior while discussing). If you had asked me, I would have stopped offering evidence. It seems like you only allow yourself two options; either stay silent, giving me no clue that my behavior is a problem, or dump a load of bricks on me without warning.


 * Finally, I was completely gobsmacked when I found out that multiple arbs feel that it is OK to post outright fabrications (blatant example: saying that Softlavender "chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case.") You should admit that all who initially voted to support that were factually wrong and apologize to Softlavender. If you dispute this claim, please supply diffs showing Softlavender commenting during the events leading up to the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I am disengaging and withdrawing from this discussion. I am unwatching all arbcom-related pages and all talkpages of anyone involved in any arbcom case. If they try to sanction me without notice again, would someone please notify me? I have zero confidence that the arbs or clerks will do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathunder's section
I am opening my own section so that this does not lead to further back and forth to simply note that people are *still* talking about other people not dropping the stick. It would have been "optimal" if the stick was dropped long ago by everyone, and now would be another good time to do so. Jonathunder (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you been paying attention? Multiple editors who absolutely did drop the stick are being threatened with probation for not dropping the stick. No evidence presented. No chance to respond. Just BAM! arbcom sanction. Are you implying that discussing this blatantly false accusation is itself refusing to drop the stick? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerks, or something
Guys/gals/etc.: either remove the notice at the top of the page or start enforcing it. Sheesh. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 02:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed it as there does not appear to be a need for it at this point in time and it won't screw everyone up on where they are at. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Hardy Precedents
I pointed out before this case was opened that it would likely set a precedent for taking on cases against "admins who choose at times to behave poorly without using their tools"; my observation was described as "perceptive" by Opabinia regalis. I now read the proposed decision and discover that many other precedents are being set. As far as I can see, they include:
 * 1) Fairness can be arbitrarily defined: Under Principle 4, ArbCom seeks case resolutions which are "fair", but this may include sanctioning non-parties without evidence.
 * 2) Arbitrators held to a lower standard: Under Principle 5, "consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status", but egregiously poor judgement like taking this case, extending into the consistently poor judgement demonstrated throughout this decision, has no consequences for the status of administrator-arbitrators.
 * 3) Cases may be scopeless: Consider Finding 3 where 5 arbitrators support the wording, 3 oppose, and 3 abstain. The three abstaining arbitrators (Doug Weller, Casliber, and DGG) all agree that the finding means that ArbCom was too hasty in taking the case, but by abstaining ensure that a no-scope Finding passes with 5 in favour and 6 (in effect) opposed.  This Finding should be voted down and replaced with a genuine scope if there is a case; if there is no case, then vote to dismiss it.  Don't establish a precedent for a case having no scope.
 * 4) No one is safe: The broad-brush user conduct finding can and likely will be used to target anyone the arbitrators choose in future cases. This Finding fits with the criticism of others in creating a sanction against non-parties in a repudiation of policy and is an unambiguous signal that this Committee will take action without warning, without proper evidence, and without respect for the limits of its granted authority.  I say without evidence as the claim of disruption "during the events leading up to the case" is unsupported when the supporting diffs come from the case pages.  That the probation is a relatively minor sanction is irrelevant (though the sanction being actionable at "the discretion and consensus of uninvolved administrators" is ripe for conflict); it is the principle that is the problem (and kudos to  Kirill Lokshin for saying so).
 * 5) Power without responsibility: ArbCom is wiling to remind itself to consider its actions and to state it "should" act within policy. How noble.  No declaration that you will act within policy, no admission that actions here were unconsidered, and no willingness to clean up its self-created mess.  Boing! said Zebedee was found to have initiated the case request and then criticised for having done so; M. A. Bruhn presented evidence.  Apparently these were persuasive enough for ArbCom to take the case, it is pretty harsh to then attack those who brought it to you.   The responsible thing to do with this case if you have found it has no scope and you shouldn't have taken it is to say so.  Take responsibility for your decisions, pass a motion that dismisses this case (user:Newyorkbrad can tell you all about dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, I'm sure), add a motion to warn Michael Hardy if needs be, and move on.  At present, this case reads as "we made a mistake and we blame you because you let us make the mistake, and no one can make us take responsibility".

Arbitrators, please, consider whether any of the five precedents I've described here, plus the no-tool-use case acceptance precedent already established, are how you want ArbCom to be seen moving forward. You already have a lot of egg on your face, but you can choose a path that doesn't add more. EdChem (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I pointed out before this case was opened that it would likely set a precedent for taking on cases against "admins who choose at times to behave poorly without using their tools" that an admin can be desysopped for actions that do not involve the use of the tools is already a well-established precedent. See, for instance, or here or, finally, here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Salvio, there is a big difference between the type of poor behaviour contemplated in this case and the examples you cite, which include sock puppetry, outing, and sexually violent language. And I'm sure you know that.  By the way, any comment on the substantive point here? EdChem (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a difference, but I do not see it as a bad thing to start extending that principle to repeated violations of other (let's say, less important, although, for instance, civility is one of the five pillars) policies. After all, per policy administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Regarding the other points, I do not really have much to add, considering I oppose FOFs #3, #7d, and #7e, and remedies #3, #4, and #6... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * True, Salvio, civility is policy and it is something you will need to consider in the TRM case. I won't be participating in it, however, because of the above precedents.  I'm glad you opposed the problematic parts of the proposed decision, so from that perspective I wonder how you think the decision will be seen and how it will effect ArbCom going forward.  EdChem (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainly, I have two concerns. The first is that, going forward, this decision will probably discourage people from participating in cases, which I find problematic, because ArbCom relies on, and benefits from, the community's support and cooperation. If users are afraid to bring cases, or provide evidence, or make workshop proposals, it's ArbCom that will be worse for it. The second is that, as a matter of fairness, it's wrong to pass FOFs or, worse still, remedies  against editors without giving them the chance to explain themselves, and without letting them know in advance that it is a possibility (which is usually achieved by listing them as a parties). On this, though, I know that I am a bit of an outlier, in that not only do I believe that we should only pass FOFs and remedies concerning parties, but also that we should not be adding parties after the evidence phase has closed (or, if we absolutely have to, then the evidence phase needs to be reopened). ...  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the first is already happening, in that I have decided to avoid the TRM case. As for appearing incompetent, there is worse - appearing malicious / vindictive - and there are parts of this decision which seem to me to straddle this line.  EdChem (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any arb is being malicious / vindictive here. I do see self-serving comments and lackadaisical efforts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to sanction people for bringing a case, and going after non-parties without notification or any semblance of procedural fairness / natural justice, are both beyond incompetence. Perhaps I have chosen poorly in my words, but I was trying to indicate that the unfairness of these actions creates an impression of not only incompetence but also meanness and (insert suitable adjective).  EdChem (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Callous unpredictability. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I moved to oppose Finding 3. Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrarily that pun is so old, isn't it picking this thread to acknowledge getting a bunch of pings from commenters here and on NYB's talk page, but I've been away for a work event the last few days and haven't caught up on this case yet. Will look tonight. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very much against using arbitration to "send messages" and "set precedents", so I dispute your premise here. I still think this shouldn't have been a case in the first place, and given that it was opened, Amanda had the right idea in proposing to dismiss it earlier, but there's no stare decisis to worry about.
 * I hesitate to yammer on at length, because I usually think that if you get outvoted fair and square then you quit soapboxing. However, I suspect what you're seeing here, and what people are reacting to in the PD, is the effect of the fact that the case, not the decision, never really cohered in the first place. The dispute surrounding ancestral health was obviously not in need of arbitration, and the case would never have been filed or accepted had it not been for the happenstance that its author was an admin (and specifically, one who became an admin early in the project). The result was that the ANI thread, various talk pages, and the case pages ended up containing a lot of commentary that was unhelpful in resolving the Hardy-specific issue because it was really about more general issues with the institution of adminship and the role of long-serving admins. If we are going to opine about fairness, then in the first instance we were unfair to Hardy himself for allowing a dispute involving him to turn into a coatrack on which to hang these other issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't mean a precedent in the sense of something cited in future cases by future ArbComs, I know ArbCom considers itself unbound by prior case. I mean precedent in the sense of something that, once done, can be done again - like targeting the filer without notice, or sanctioning someone based solely on their case evidence, or disregarding the requirement for notice in ArbCom policy and procedures.  I agree with you that hanging a coatrack on MH was another unfairness.  I don't agree that the response is because the acceptance was flawed but because the decision seeks to avoid admitting that fact and addressing it, instead shifting blame.  I can offer an approach that I believe would be much better received by the community - but would it be considered?  EdChem (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not; input is always good. However, I don't agree that the current draft is intended to "avoid admitting" anything (isn't that the point of remedy 6?). But if you think you have something useful to add, of course go ahead. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So, regarding conduct, you're saying that if the committee discovered late in the peace while reviewing evidence for a case, that an editor who hadn't been specifically as a party had engaged in sanctionable conduct then they should be immune from any finding or remedy? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Consider two theoretical editors. In the case of Editor A:
 * He was warned on his talk page not to do it again.
 * His behavior was discussed at ANI before they kicked it up to arbcom.
 * He was given a chance to stop doing it, and refused.
 * One of the arbitrators who discovered the sanctionable conduct is willing to post evidence with diffs showing the misconduct.
 * I would say that, assuming that sanctioning non-parties is allowed at all, A could be sanctioned.
 * Now consider the case of Editor B:
 * He was never warned by anyone that his behavior was a problem.
 * Nobody making the accusation is willing to compile diffs showing that he did what he is accused of doing.
 * There was never any ANI complaint filed about the behavior.
 * He was never given any opportunity to repent and make a commitment not to do it again.
 * In the case of editor B, it would be morally wrong for you to sanction that editor. And I think you know this. I also think that you know that if an admin at ANI sanctioned someone for not dropping the stick with no warning, the sanction would be overturned by the other admins.
 * In the case of editor B, it would be morally wrong for you to sanction that editor. And I think you know this. I also think that you know that if an admin at ANI sanctioned someone for not dropping the stick with no warning, the sanction would be overturned by the other admins.


 * What you should do with editor B is to give the user a warning, just like any other editor is required to do, and if the behavior persists file a report at ANI, just as any other editor is required to do.


 * The answer here is not a specific "never sanction non-parties" or "it is always OK to sanction non-parties" rule, but rather a more nuanced "If you are about to sanction someone who was never told that what he is doing is wrong or given a chance to stop doing it you are doing it wrong" rule.


 * And, just a suggestion, you don't have to do everything. It is perfectly OK for arbcom to deal with contentious or complex cases that ANI cannot handle while kicking any obvious misbehavior that you discover along the way back to ANI to deal with -- even if you notice it during an arbcom case. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is yes, a non-party is not sanctionable within a case. The longer answer, however, is that you present a false dichotomy. As Kirill has noted on the decision page, Arbitration policy and procedure explicitly mandates notification and effectively requires making an editor a party for action to occur. Yes, there is a get-out-of-jail-free card for ArbCom in the "except in exceptional circumstances" clause, but I see nothing that justifies it here. The non-parties targeted here could have been made parties and been given a proper opportunity to respond to allegations and that would have been within the authority granted to ArbCom. Exceptional circumstances justifying non-notification might include some egregious off-wiki conduct which required ArbCom action, but I cannot see how anything substantiated by diffs visible to all could be so exceptional as to justify invoking this clause. These procedures are not merely bureaucratic, they are basic components of fairness (remember Principle 4) and are not optional - not least because ignoring your own procedures provides evidence of the Hardy principles.

So, the first aspect of the false dichotomy is that a non-party can be made a party. The second is that no action in this case does not preclude the evidence being examined in a future case if the editor's behaviour continues as problematic. The third follows from Principle 1, that ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution. Arbitrators regularly (and appropriately) decline case requests because there has been inadequate attempts at dispute resolution, and equally are free to place evidence into that procedure. I would not have a problem with a Clerk or Arbitrator starting an ANI thread (say) stating the evidence noticed and leaving the disposition to the community. I would also not have a problem with informal action, such as an Arbitrator posting to user talk saying we've noticed X, it's not ArbCom-level disruption yet, but stop / don't do that again / something else appropriate. Of course, it would depend on what evidence has been found and whether it was discussed in dispute resolution but not raised in evidence, but ArbCom as a body and individual arbitrators definitely have options including: notify the editor and make him / her a party and then act within the case (with the range of sanctions then available), initiate dispute resolution separate from the case / pass to the community, counsel the editor informally, choose to take no action. There may be other alternatives. My major point is that sanctioning a non-party without warning is not only outside ArbCom authority, it is unfair and wrong. I can accept that there is a disagreement amongst Committee members as to when an editors can be made a party, and I favour Salvio's perspective that adding someone after the evidence phase is closed should be restricted to really serious issues. I don't think adding parties at this point is wise or appropriate, especially to sanction them for bringing a case ArbCom should not have taken, but it is within your authority.

By the way, there is still a way out of this by way of motion or a re-write of the decision, which I can suggest if there is any interest. EdChem (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
Ok, having received some encouragement to propose another approach, here it is. I am trying to bring together what I see as the messages in the current PD plus feedback here, rather than just listing what I would do. Material in black is lifted from the present PD, in red is additions, and in blue is commentary / explanation of my thought processes. EdChem (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed principles
Arbitration in dispute resolution

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

Communication

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

Editor conduct

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

Conduct on Arbitration pages

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

Administrator conduct

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

Good faith and disruption

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

Sanctions and circumstances

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

Proposed findings of fact
 locus of dispute

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


 * March 2005: Protection of a page while involved (Log, Policy at the time §How #2, Administrative Views on the policy and actions at the time)
 * August 2007: Wheel warred to restore Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture after deletion from community consensus (AFD, Log, Policy at the time, Views on the policy and actions at the time)
 * September 2008: Wheel warred to restore Robert Denno (Log, Wheel war policy at the time, Admin Policy at the time, Views on the policy and actions at the time)
 * August 2012: Outing of a user (Diff, Policy at the time)



User conduct

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

Michael Hardy (User conduct)

Hardy interpreted MjolnirPants' comments about his deletion nominations as "ordering" him to "obey", or "forbidding" him to disagree and described MjolnirPants' conduct as "bullying",. He has persisted in this interpretation throughout the case. Hardy has also persisted in posting to the talk pages of users who have asked him to cease doing so, , , has responded to criticism with sarcasm , and has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.



Proposed remedies
Michael Hardy (Reminded)

Michael Hardy is reminded that:
 * 1) Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
 * 2) All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
 * 3) Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.





Response to Proposal
Comment / criticism etc welcomed from all, but especially from arbitrators, case parties, and non-parties who are named in the current PD. EdChem (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting your thoughts, . A few quick comments:
 * The principles are usually pretty boilerplate, unless an issue is particularly unusual.
 * I like the idea of mixing the history of the dispute with the case acceptance issue, and I like the reflection remedy a lot (though somehow those "...encouraged" remedies never seem to take off... ;)
 * I see why you've added the material you did on FoFs 2 and 5, and remedies 2 and 3 - speaking for myself, my original view of this case and its decision was to be fairly minimal, and to avoid emphasizing the various admin issues that were raised ("legacy" adminship, "giving us a bad name", admin "hierarchies", etc.) other than to find the evidence unsuitable to support a desysopping. I'm somewhat averse to the appearance of legitimizing the use of arbitration in this way. Which is not to say the issues are illegitimate, but this is the wrong venue for them, and it's inappropriate for us to use individual editors as avatars of a broader class.
 * I encouraged you to post, and thank you, but since it was obvious from the beginning that I was in the minority on this case, I'm going to shut up for now and let the drafters comment if they wish :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, I am hoping you will not be the only person to offer any thoughts on my suggestions on wiki, . I am also glad to hear that you liked some of it, maybe the drafters will take some of it up?  Some brief replies:
 * I know that the principles are typically boilerplate, I only added where I saw an opportunity to support what was to follow. I think there are some unusual aspects here, including a request which some Arbitrators admit was questionable to take in the first place, and a coatracking of an issue which ArbCom cannot resolve and might want to discourage from returning here.
 * On the additions connected to legacy and hierarchy, etc, my aim was not to legitimise but rather reject as of relevance to future proceedings or as issues for ArbCom to attempt to resolve. Saying that all admins are judged to the same standards under the same policies should not be controversial, in my view.
 * With the reflection, I wonder if arbitrators commenting in their votes of particular editors to whom the comments might apply coupled with personalised post-case posting on relevant user talk pages asking that they give consideration to the request might make it easier for editors to recognise their behaviour partly prompted the remedy. Naming directly in findings and remedies is appropriate for parties (even those added during the case), but doing that or nothing is a false dichotomy - communications in a less formalised setting with no sanction hovering in the background can be an effective way to pass a message.  Just my opinion.
 * I understand your leaving space for the drafters and others to comment, and I hope that if my ideas are seen as poor that that too can be expressed for my edification. I really do believe that the message in the current PD is dangerous going forward.  I stepped out of the TRM case because of it, despite having knowledge and views on DYK and its future; even contributing here has risks when the Committee is collectively willing to act as it is in this case.  I hope that redrafting of this PD continues and something which does not illustrate what I termed above the Hardy precedents ultimately emerges.  EdChem (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to that arbitrator OR for considering and then actually providing comment on my suggestions. I would also like to thank the one editor who commented to me by email. The case is now starting to close, no one else apparently thinks anything I have said is worth any comment or response, and I am disappointed. Disappointed that no one has said where my ideas might be wrong, disappointed that few arbitrators apparently recognise or care about the massive mess that is being made here or the principles of fairness being trampled, and disappointed but not surprised that yet another ArbCom tranche is unable to admit to a collective mistake. EdChem (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I, for one, did read your proposals at the time, and I thought they were very good. I could have said, though, that the chances of the changes being adopted were nil to zero. It would require too much for the drafting arbs and ArbCom as a whole to admit that a better proposed decision was available for voting. Much easier just to carry on with the proposed decision that is being voted on. If the proposed decision had been workshopped, then your suggestions might have had a chance of being incorporated. Please don't be discouraged by what has happened here. Try again in another case. Maybe also ask someone like Newyorkbrad what they think of what you proposed? Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I didn't think the arbitrators would pick up everything, but I hoped it might have some effect.  I also knew that agreeing with everything I said is highly unlikely, and differences in views are healthy and appropriate.  I believe you are correct that the difficulty in admitting error and the effort of changing direction are barriers to action, but neither should be. The most discouraging, though, is the decision to proceed without acknowledging or responding to the unprincipled and ethically questionable behaviour.  I am avoiding the current TRM case, despite familiarity with the area and the issues, because this ArbCom collectively has lost my trust and seriously damaged their authority.  EdChem (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought the proposals you offered were soundly thought through and well-written, although given your bottom line that the case was not ripe for arbitration, my own preference was always simply to dismiss it. More broadly, thanks for putting the draft together. As Carcharoth said, if in a future (and perhaps more substantial) case you do so at the workshop stage, I'm expect you'll get the sort of detailed, item-by-item feedback you may have been anticipating. As I've mentioned before, I workshopped a few cases early in my wiki-tenure, and that experience was one of the things that led me to think I might make a good arbitrator, and perhaps one of the things that led some community members to select me to serve. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, a straight motion to dismiss would have been my solution - certiorari improvidently granted and all that - but I tried for suggestions which built from the existing proposal. Having encountered numerous ArbComs, my optimism of getting substantial feedback at a Workshop is less than yours.  (Frankly, I have no idea how you served so long while holding to your principles and maintaining such high community respect.  I might disagree with you at times, but I would never disregard what you say without serious consideration.)  Unfortunately, I have formed the view that this ArbCom is irreparable damaged by this case; while some individual arbitrators have acted well, the Committee as a whole has lost my respect and undermined its authority.  Engaging with it is unsafe due to its unpredictability and willingness to ignore principles and its own procedures.  I commented on the opening of the TRM case but have withdrawn and expect it to singularly fail to address the issues at DYK and elsewhere.  I really suspect that having contributed on this page was a mistake as it achieved nothing.  EdChem (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EdChem, I did read your statements, and I appreciate the time and effort that you put into it. Many of my comments about such proposed changes were littered throughout this talkpage, though, obviously, not in one spot for you to comment back on. I will offer you some feedback on why I did not go through with your proposed changes, and not just because I can't admit I'm wrong. (Hint: I clearly am able to do that as I did on NYB's talk)
 * Principles
 * I agree for the most part with your changes. My problem is though is that ArbCom is not the only body given the authority to do so. The community also has that option, and in limited jurisdictional cases, Crats also have that ability.
 * You don't make a direct proposal here, so it's hard to view what it would look like. Nonetheless, ABF is mentioned right in the principle below. My concern with putting AGF into there is that the principle speaks directly to the communications themselves, and not any spin off interpretations that spun the dispute even more. Therefore we dilute the strength of the underlying principle by doing so.
 * Not only have I expressed opposition already in other sections on this talkpage about giving the 2nd class admin any meaning or mentioning, "including by refocusing it onto a pre-existing controversy" speaks directly to this case. Principles are meant to cover the ideals behind how we edit and patrol ourselves on Wikipedia and focus on collaboration to make the encyclopedia better, not address specific behavioral findings. Plus, you would then have to have a correlating FoF directly mentioning that the dispute was refocused to further disrupt the encyclopedia. That would also likely come with a stiffer remedy for Boing or MA, which a fair amount of people have been opposed to.
 * There has already been discussion about parties being added to the list and when that can be done. While yes our procedures do give us this mandate, we still would have received the same response on this page about adding a party post-evidence as we did now for not adding them. Therefore, while we can add parties in theory, doing so during the workshop or PD of the case would inflame disputes. So while it's a right, it's one that needs to be exercised cautiously. This I feel would then require it's own principle. To spring it into it's own principle, we'd be inviting a debate (productive or not) about the arbitration policy. It's just not the place for that when tensions are already inflamed.
 * This one again, as above, has issues of legitimizing the term of 2nd class admins and speaks to specific facts of this case, and not the editing atmosphere in general. It's like someone taking a case to court and asking a judge to make a decision on it before a law is passed disallowing it, even though society disapproves of it. If that analogy doesn't help, ignore it and chuck it out the window.
 * No edits are indicated.
 * This one is about sanctions and their circumstances, not administrative or editorial rank. I'll leave out my, again, previous objections.
 * FoFs
 * I don't really have any objections to this, to be honest. The only thing i'll note is that "not consensus over whether this dispute was ripe for arbitration" is not something we knew when this went to proposed decision, it was only found out after the fact.
 * I'm not attempting to comment on your intent here at all, but this is omnibusing. The problem with doing that is if arbitrators disagree with one point, the they vote oppose. Get enough of that, and we lose this FoF right out of the PD. As you can see in the current PD, this FoF could easily fail for including the ripe for arbitration point. Also omnibusing can be seen as an arbitrator trying to put enough into one remedy so that arbs really should support it, even if only in principle, to advance that single arbitrator's view. It's not something I find particularity appropriate, and find it actually to be a political game. Those don't have a place on the committee. Again, i'm not saying this was your intent at all, but when we do it, that's what it looks like. I also disagree with the "The case as accepted" portions for reasons already outlined, maybe not directly in my comment now, but in talking about the case. "Similar actions, if taken today, would likely lead to sanctions by the Arbitration Committee" would not only have gotten the oppose of many arbitrators as indicated by the votes, but it also redates something and requires Hardy to face the policies of today for actions in the past. I directly oppose that idea. There is more in there that again the votes would have torn apart, but I think you get the point.
 * No edits are indicated.
 * No edits are indicated.
 * I'm not going to write another paragraph on what i've already, in detail, explained above.
 * Remedies
 * No edits are indicated.
 * This omnibuses ArbCom's involvement and the community involvement. Separately, I could be persuaded on the community portion. "has chosen not to add parties" ...no. Please read my comments on NYBs talk for my view on this.
 * This has several characterizations which are not backed by evidence nor do they seem appropriate for remedies as it's an interpretation, making it a finding. "Everyone connected [...]" onwards, I could likely agree with.
 * Again, I do appreciate your efforts to try and help us move forward. The reason I didn't move forward with your changes was because of the issues I outline here. For the only change I fully agreed with, to make that single amendment and require a fresh vote on it, did not seem to be worth the trip, time, and further delay. I'm sure that although they don't state it, the two former arbs commenting above would not have supported at least a chunk of the proposed changes. But as NYB states, they were definitely "soundly thought through". -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding and providing your perspective. I did not expect my suggestions to be taken up in toto, but I did hope to have some effect.  As you would likely expect, I disagree with some of what you have said, which I see as healthy for a functional ArbCom to come to a consensus position.  You refer to me omnibusing, which to me is an obvious area where reasonable people can disagree, and I have not served on ArbCom so am poorly positioned to comment on the effects on consensus building.  I wish I could say that the way outcomes portray this ArbCom as functioning is positive, but in fact I see a disillusioning unwillingness to respond to valid concerns, to hold to policy, and to seek a considered and balanced resolution.  I do want to comment on a couple of specific points:
 * Re my principle 1, you said: My problem is though is that ArbCom is not the only body given the authority to do so. The community also has that option, and in limited jurisdictional cases, Crats also have that ability. I do not understand how the community has any ability to desysop, nor why the limited 'crat jurisdiction is important here.  We aren't talking about an admin who blocks every member of ArbCom, changes the main page to read "Donald Trump is the single greatest human being to have ever lived", and adds a humour tag and full protection to ANI.  We are talking about cases raising issues of admin judgement and (at worst) minor tool misuse where ArbCom might reasonably decline a case.  The power and authority of the community to do anything but block is somewhere between zero and infinitesimal.
 * Re ArbCom has chosen not to add parties, regardless of the views of individual arbitrators, the simple fact is that ArbCom has the power to add parties, as do individual arbitrators in some circumstances, and they have not been added. The consequence of this is clear under policy and procedures, absent extraordinary circumstances.  ArbCom had numerous authorised and justifiable approaches.  The collective decision and result is to follow none of those and instead to both proclaim its unpredictability and undermine its own authority.  Not every arbitrator has acted in a problematic fashion, but as a body I can no longer respect it nor really trust it – which is why I have stepped away from the TRM case.
 * Re acknowledging the controversy over some admins from older RfAs, etc, this is an area for varying reasonable approaches. I understand not mentioning it because it is not worth elevating by noting it.  My suggestion was to be definitive on its flaws so it can be squashed quickly when it pops up again in future.  Both approaches are arguable, and that you see it differently from me is entirely unproblematic.
 * ... not just because I can't admit I'm wrong.' My apologies, I did not intend to claim no arbitrators can admit to error – that has and does happen on occasion – and in any event, not acting on my suggestions could have been because I was wrong or had not thought through potential consequences.  Unfortunately, I do think arbitrators are (historically) over-reluctant to admit to errors, and as a collective, ArbCom almost never admits to any error.  When I was in high school, I had a headmaster who took an exceptionally poor decision which virtually everyone in the school knew was unworkable.  He reversed himself three days later, claiming that he had decided to be generous and not even hinting at the mess that he had created.  I remember thinking that he had taught me that his ego was such that he would not admit to a mistake and would lie to cover up, and insult us in the process by treating us as too stupid to understand what had happened.  He massively undermine his credibility by not saying "I was wrong, I am not perfect, my decision has been shown to be unworkable and so I have reconsidered."  I don't expect anyone to be perfect, and will readily put someone's error into the past with this kind of approach.  Arbitrators admitting to errors would have their authority enhanced rather than damaged, from my perspective, in appropriate circumstances.  Some arbitrators on this decision have reconsidered, which I am sure I am not alone in having noticed.  I will re-read your comments on NYB's user talk page, and recognise some of what I am saying may apply to you as well.  I don't think that disagreeing with me means someone is wrong; reasonable people can disagree.  Sadly, there are parts of this decision that I cannot see as fair or reasonable and I will avoid ArbCom (though not individual arbitrators) while the present committee is in place.  EdChem (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , to echo the above, I don't think that anyone intended to ignore your input, double down on errors, or waste your time after you invested some of it in developing your proposals. I do think that this case, dragging on toward October over a three-day incident at the beginning of August, is becoming a waste of everyone's collective time. The key decision has long since been made: Hardy isn't getting desysopped over this. (I can imagine a place for a more limited admin-review format with evidence, no workshop, and a binary result on desysopping or not at the end, without the trappings of a full decision - but that's not the system we have.) The dispute that gave rise to the case is over. Tempting as it is to keep fussing at any remaining rough edges, this is one of those circumstances where done is good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A chilling effect
I am significantly concerned that a bad precedent is being set here that will discourage people from participating in the arbitration process, lest they offend the Committee and be subsequently sanctioned. I wonder if people will be even more reluctant to bring cases against administrators to ArbCom now (including cases that really should be brought to them), even more so than they are today. And if people think that RFA is bad now, when they see this case and what happens to people who want administrator conduct reviewed, perhaps it will get even worse. (I tried digging for one of the comments made by Risker in the past where in her view, more administrators would be desysopped if people simply brought cases to ArbCom. Sadly, I couldn't find it.) --Rschen7754 17:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. If the best members of the community decide not to contribute to case pages, ArbCom will only hear from the worst. I'm reminded of the GMO case, where there was nearly a finding of fact that I had "posted unclear diffs", whatever the bleep that was supposed to mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One can't have everything. One cannot be able to sanction/reprimand/desysop all "bad" administrators and leave/not investigate all "good" ones. Too lenient and we get cries of administrator abuse and carte blanche with the tools. Too tough and we get police state and no-one undergoing RfA. At present, arbcom is about the only place to appraise admin conduct and act upon it. Hence I voted to have a look at the situation, which did not mean inevitable sanctions. There is no such thing as 100% sensitivity and specificity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand that, but my concern is the mention of the case filer in the proposed decision, which is unusual in a case like this. --Rschen7754 03:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to sound too flip, if people had chilled out a little, we wouldn't be here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Including your fellow arbs? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, including all of us. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favor of people chilling out, but to chill good faith discussion is something else altogether. The bottom line is simpler than people are making it out to be. And I am happy that enough of the Arbs have come around to realizing it. Of course ArbCom reviews administrator conduct. But editors generally, not only administrators, should not be made by ArbCom to feel like making good faith contributions to evidence or workshops will result in surprise repercussions. Editors should comport themselves appropriately on case pages, but they also are entitled to make mistakes without being caught without prior notice in a "gotcha". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, if editors just chilled out, all the time, we could do away with ArbCom. Put another way, the absence of chilling out is probably a characteristic of every Arbitration case, ever. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Participation is one thing. Manner of participation is another. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rschen7754, I just saw your closing comment. I suppose you are suggesting that there are some (or many) admins who shouldn't be admins but are because the mechanism for desysopping is cumbersome or unfair, and we just made it worse. Well, I don't know if I subscribe to that opinion, and I'm sworn to uphold the blue line, of course--but this case is not the yardstick. Besides some of the participants, I think there's pretty broad agreement that in the end this was not the test case for desysopping, given there was no abuse of the tool and the alleged abuse/disruption did not rise to any meaningful level. But if there's one thing I learned from being an arb is that none of these cases are easy. And ArbCom is not, generally, that much smarter than most of you non-arbs. That's a shame, but there is a remedy: you run next time. Seriously. All of y'all, please run--if you think we're abusing process, setting bad precedent, or working too slowly, you may well be right. Please run. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to DGGs section below or determining where the line is on desysop. As far as administrative conduct review, the community always has their own opportunity and chance to work out a desysop procedure. It may not be something that everyone likes at first, but even getting a rudimentary that may handles the extreme cases is a good start. Then if the community thinks cases like these should get a desysop, then they can go wild, that's their option. But simply putting someone before ArbCom, screaming admin abuse, will not get you a desysop. (From "...would be desysopped if people simply brought cases to ArbCom...") Cases have to be legitimate, and it will always be an opinion on whether or not to desysop someone. Honestly, if someone were to come through RfA like Hardy is now, I'd be wholly surprised. But Arbcom is not here to create policy based on legacy admins being handled tools at "the wrong time" (an adaptation of The wrong version) Holding RfA together has never been and will never be in the scope of arbcom duties. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I do not know if Michael Hardy should be desysopped. Perhaps I would know if I looked at the evidence more closely. Perhaps I would not. However, I have to object to a WP:BOOMERANG of a good-faith editor who has brought forward legitimate concerns about a current administrator, when the only venue for reviewing administrator status is ArbCom. (And by legitimate, I mean that at this writing at least one arbitrator is voting for a desysop). --Rschen7754 00:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Balance
A chilling effect might be relevant had people been banned, or the like. not for the extremely mild remedies being proposed here. Furthermore, anyone with experience a ANI knows that an editor bringing a case there are often found to be at least equally in need of a sanction as the editor being complained of; the same thing can -- and should-- sometimes happen here. About half the people posting here agree that someone should have been sanctioned more severely, about half have the opposite view. All these posting ate in good faith; were I in the same position as any of the people posting, I would probably share their opinion. The admins, by and large, feel likewise. For this or at almost any other case this year, there is no result that would have gotten a really  strong consensus from the community, nor can many such cases be expected, because they would have been handled without the need to come here.

Everyone agrees admins should be held to a high standard both for admin and no admin activities, but with the exception of really wrong behavior, judging where the line should be for desysop is never going to be exact, nor will people generally agree on it. It is a matter of judgement and balance. No one person, on or off the committee, can possibly give a convincing case why their view of where the line should be either in general or in any particular case, should be  the one that the community should take as the standard. Each of us is usually of the opinion that our view is right--whatever it is, and no matter how different from any other person's opinion. In judging personal behavior when the question is the conformity to necessarily vague standards such as "inappropriate", rarely will there be general agreement. In my view, the approach of some previous committee has been therefore to avoid making any decisions at all in such matters, and I for one, and I hope the others in the present committee, do not think this is a useful approach to the problema. The reason we are on the committee is to make such decisions, and it is impossible that everyone will agree with whatever decision is made. That the committee should be divided in the final result in most such cases is inevitable, but the alternative is to do nothing. As elsewhere in any consensus-based process, fairness is going to be a matter of individual discretion, in the hope that the eccentricities will balance out.  DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, my perception of a potential chilling effect arose directly from the proposal about probation, because it affected editors in a "gotcha" sort of way. So in that regard, thank you for changing your vote on that specific remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not including the chilling affect aspect here (cause I don't have an opinion on it right now), I have to second DGG here as he explains the situation very well. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The dispute surrounding Ancestral health was not ripe for the committee to review without further attempts at dispute resolution
Criticize this all you like (from a Wiki-legal point of view you could say that ArbCom should be able to review more or less anything especially if questions about the potential use of tools are raised), but consider this from a practical point of view. Here you have a dispute that unfolded over the course of a few days, raw emotions still present and you run to ArbCom which is then persuaded to accept the case because the editor in question is an Admin and the competence of tool use is invoked, even though there was no evidence of problematic use of tools. If one takes the view that in principle ArbCom should have a lower threshold for accepting cases involving Admins, whether or not there has been allegation of abuse of tools, one then has to consider the loophole here where you can then invoke the Admin status to get just about any case accepted by Arbcom.

So, ArbCom i.m.o. fell into this loophole of accepting a case that was not ripe to be dealt with by them. ArbCom has a long track record of reviewing long term disputes, the system has evolved to deal with those sorts of disputes that have gone on for too long. ArbCom has also intervened in emergency cases where Admins had to be desysopped for various reasons. In case of some long term disputes or other problems over a long period of time, poor behavior not involving the abuse of tools has also led to desysopping. But this case was then exceptional as it involved only a short term dispute and it didn't involve abuse of tools, so nothing about this case could be reviewed using the traditional methods used by ArbCom.

In a long term dispute it is reasonable to say that the sticks should have been dropped a long time ago, the fact that they haven't then means that ArbCom would demand that everyone does so now. But in this case you could say that it was reasonable for people to have been engaged in the dispute because that's the job Admins are supposed to do at AN/I, it's only a problem if this goes on without any end in sight week after week, month after month. But then for ArbCom to say that in this sort of a short term dispute X was right and Y was wrong because Y should have rolled over and accepted X's POV, is never going to happen because Y may have had valid points too that were not accepted by X. If X is going to invoke that the few days this was going on was actually too long and that Y should have conceded that he was wrong, dropped the stick, etc. then that sort of logic could perhaps also to some degree be applied to X as well.

Clearly then, there is a fundamental problem with having let ArbCom stepped in into a recent brouhaha that isn't a continuation of a longer term pattern of poor behavior involving the editor under discussion. The editor about which the complaint is made simply isn't standing out all that clearly above the noise generated by the dispute. ArbCom was unlikely to desysop someone for the involvement in this incident and then you're only left with the collateral damage of ArbCom intervention seen in most other cases. In many cases topic bans have been issued not just to the editors recognized by the community as the "problem editors" who were the main subject of the case, but also against the editors who were perceived as the "good guys" who were dealing with the "problem editors", examples are the cases about alternative medicine and the climate change case where William may have been a controversial editor but where other editors were topic banned for 6 months due to a perception of tag team reverting when they were doing that to revert Scibaby socks.

Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Desysopping isn't the only option open to Arbcom. A reminder, warning, or admonishment are are valid paths to take and all could be seen as proportionate decisions. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they have more options but they needed to delve into a fresh dispute here and the ArbCom way of handling things isn't so suitable for that. The people calling for desysopping wanted to use ArbCom to get their way, as Michael had not voluntarily resigned as Admin. But ArbCom cannot just very narrowly look at only Michael in such case when there was no abuse of tools, it then has to take a broader look. But if you look beyond this particular dispute then there is nothing to see, so you need to look at only this dispute. That's already cherry-picking, which means that they ended up giving Michael a lot more of the benefit of the doubt than in a usual ArbCom case (that will typically involve problematic behavior over a longer period of time). So, this case wasn't likely to have an outcome anywhere close to what Michael's critics wanted to get. Count Iblis (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can follow this (I don't really understand paragraph 3), this seems to be a pretty accurate picture of the issue from my point of view. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee's section
As per Proposed Decision 4, it appears I am to be "reminded to review the merits of a case and attempt prior dispute resolution before requesting an Arbitration Case". Would the members of ArbCom who support my "reminder" be kind enough to identify another venue I could have tried that would have stood any chance of adequately addressing Proposed Finding 7a? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the underlying dispute was pretty well resolved already and there was no continuing problem, a very plausible alternative would have been not to pursue the matter in any venue at all. But I agree that it's highly inappropriate for the Committee to criticize an editor for filing a good-faith arbitration request, much less one that the arbitrators themselves voted overwhelmingly to accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That was going to be my next point, yes, but I wanted to hear what exactly they meant by "attempt prior dispute resolution before requesting an Arbitration Case" first - and I would still like an answer from them. Had my request for a case been considered premature/unreasonable (and I was always open to the possibility and would have accepted it as a judgment), they simply should not have accepted it. Once they had accepted it, in my view they had forfeited any right to criticize me for requesting it - their acceptance of it made my request acceptable, by definition. Anyway, I appreciate your words, but it's the members of ArbCom who support my "reminder" that I want to hear from. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the underlying dispute was pretty well resolved already and there was no continuing problem... Is that a given, though? It was clear that Michael was upset. It was clear that Michael was refusing to drop the stick. I'm not 100% sure of the timeline, but even assuming there was a delay between Michael's last edit about this and Boing!'s filing of this case, there's a good argument to be made that this was simply a lull, likely to end very soon. I certainly did not get the impression that Michael was going to stop calling me a bully to whomever he thought might listen. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's my best take on the situation, that the incident would have wound down and been forgotten if it weren't for this case. Of course, nothing is 100% certain on-wiki any more than in the rest of life, and if it turned out I was wrong and the problem had continued, then it would have been dealt with. For what it's worth, which is probably very little, while I don't think you handled the incident brilliantly, I also don't think you did anything that rises to the level of warranting your being criticized in an Arbitration Committee decision. (But I do have to ask you one question that had puzzled me since the very first thread about all of this on ANI: how do you pronounce your username?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The same way as at Mjölnir, adding 'Pants' afterwards? Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's pronounced like "MYOL-ner pants", the first syllable being basically "mole" with a Y right after the M. (Sorry, I never wrapped my brain around IPA standards.)
 * I didn't get the impression that Michael would have wound down. At least not without significant further disruption. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I do not believe that accepting a case means that the case is already a good case. Personally, I believe this was not a good case, and I think it was clear that this was not a good case, and I do not think that many people thought this could end with a desysop. But ArbCom reviews administrators; that is our job. Again, speaking only for myself, that very fact means that a case of admin abuse, especially one that found so much support, should likely be accepted. That many good-faith longterm contributors supported the case means it wasn't a crazy case, but it was never a strong case, and that is what I signed for when I "criticized" Boing--really, "reminded". That's all. But who else is going to review the behavior of administrators? "The community" wanted us to review; we reviewed. And now we have to review another. It may be a better case, it may not be. But what y'all should note is that in both cases it's not about tool abuse, but about manners--thus, civility, the problem that the community as a whole has never been able to solve. Or, if you will, the thing that the community frequently sees as a problem. Please don't expect us to work miracles. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Boing, I ended up opposing the reminder as framed, but I'll admit to suggesting a reminder for you with different text when we were discussing this before posting. A lot of this discussion has crystallized in my mind what exactly I disliked about the case when I voted to decline it, and what I found so objectionable about the behavior that led to it. It's really the collective community sanctimony over the irrelevant fact of his adminship, which obviously has its roots in broader community divisions about adminship and RfA, that brought this (if I may be frank) turd of a case to us. Many people chose to use the dispute, and later the case pages, to advance arguments about adminship in general that unfairly use Hardy as a test case or exemplar. I'm frustrated that your original contribution to the drama - opening a new section of a closed ANI thread, with a somewhat snarky header, and announcing you'd decided to block one of the participants based largely on which bits he has on his account - was the first major contribution that drew the discussion in that direction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your answers, I don't deny you make some good points. However, neither of you has actually answered my question, so I shall pose it again in a more laborious form... In a case where an editor believes that an admin's conduct (which, remember, one of you ended up describing as "deplorable" in this case) should be reviewed with respect to considering whether they are suitable to continue as an admin, and given that ArbCom is the only body which has a remit to carry out such a review, what is this "prior dispute resolution before requesting an Arbitration Case" that I am being reminded I should have tried first? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Briefly (and apologies for butting in), I suspect the now-marked-historical Requests for comment/User conduct would have been useful for the community to review admin conduct in a forum less tense and less adversarial than ANI. Even though no (effective) sanctions could result, that could still have resulted in community sanctions, or a more considered consensus to ask ArbCom for a review. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Boing, you see in FoF#2 that this went from zero to RFAR in three days. The prior dispute resolution you should have tried first is closing the browser tab with ANI in it and doing something else ;) Aside from that being a good idea in general (ANI is just the worst), it might have prevented the hyperfocus on Hardy's adminship that got its start with your post and block (announced under the title "This is an admin!", with text ending "Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name?"). Failing to use prior dispute resolution wasn't the problem, escalating the dispute was. More broadly, I think there is a subtle underlying disagreement that this case has exposed about what precisely arbcom's role is in dealing with potentially problematic admins. You put it above as "consider whether they are suitable" and here as "whether an admin is fit for the role". I think of arbcom's responsibility as rather narrower than that; we should be looking at whether someone has misused their tools or behaved in specific ways that reflect serious failures of judgment - harassment, outing, abusive socking, etc. - not a general "review of suitability". We're not a stand-in for admin reconfirmation; I've made this quasi-joke a few times during this case, but this isn't Arbitration/Requests/Desysopping. Despite my comments above about "precedents", I don't think it's a good idea to establish a record of taking "He hasn't really done anything bad but I just don't like that this guy is an admin" cases. I think I tend to have a narrow view of arbcom's scope in general, as compared to what should be handled by the community, but regardless of philosophical differences I hope everyone sees what a rabbit hole that is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So if "Failing to use prior dispute resolution wasn't the problem", why am I being "reminded" that that is what I should have done? Surely you (all) can see it is contradictory to to remind me to do something and then tell me that's not what I should have done? (I don't want to get into the wider philosophical issues here, interesting though they are, I just want a straight answer to my question.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My connection to the hive mind must be on the fritz ;) I didn't vote for that remedy as written, and don't speak for those who did. I responded in this thread because I suggested a reminder for you when we discussed this prior to posting the PD - I don't have my notes on hand but something along the lines of "reminded to carefully evaluate whether actions at ANI would perpetuate a dispute" - and I thought it would be fair to acknowledge that in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would have made sense - it's clear, addresses a specific action, and makes a specific point about that action. Had that been the proposed remedy, I wouldn't be here now still trying to find out what the actual remedy is supposed to mean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read all of the above, and I'm still not convinced that Boing! did anything wrong. If anything, I'm more convinced that no-one can rationally conclude that Boing! did anything wrong, but you all want to say so because it's easier than just admitting that this is a crap situation that should have never happened. What I'm seeing is Boing! being told "You should have handled this differently!' then when he responds "How?" the only answer is "I dunno." Well, if no-one here can suggest an alternative, then I suggest that maybe there was no alternative. One of the biggest things I ever learned from being in a management/leadership position is that if a subordinate is handed rough crap and told to make something of it, the result is almost always polished crap. Once in a while, you may get a miracle, but counting on that is just plain stupid. That is fairly clearly what happened here. Boing! was handed a shitty situation and made a shitty solution for it.
 * With that situation in any of your laps, what would you have done? So far, the only clear answer has been "Well, there's this outdated and no-longer-used forum that could have helped..." as if Boing! had the ability to roll back the clock, or arbitrarily resurrect that forum. Hell, as if Boing! was necessarily even aware of that forum. So Boing! did what I would have done, and what everyone else who has criticized this proposal would have done, and what I would bet good money any of you would have done: sent it up the ladder to a venue where desysopping could actually happen, where a formality could be introduced that might cut through the bullshit. I was actually relieved at first, because I thought this might be the end of the drama. But instead, what I found was a whole extra heaping of drama, as those who are supposed to be rational, neutral voices in shitty situations decided that an admin going on a rampage of personal attacks against another user is no worse an offense than not knowing what to do when it turns out that admin won't listen to anyone telling him to knock it off. Or rather, knowing exactly what to do when that happens.
 * I'm sorry, but the rationale for criticizing Boing!, or anyone else in this case is ridiculous. That includes Michael. Because whether you desysop him or not (and note that since you've clearly voted not to, there are now dozens of editors who need to worry about annoying this admin in the future, because he can get away with however he wants to react), the only sensible proposal for fixing the problem would have been an IBAN. One way or two way, I couldn't care less. But the fact that you don't see any problem with someone who STILL refuses to drop the stick or accept correction continuing to interact with a guy who merely snapped at him one time just screams that actually solving this problem is the least of your concerns here. When you add to that the fact that you've been willing to point the finger at everyone else in this case just reinforces the point. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I was pretty specific about what I think Boing should have done instead: nothing. Maybe go have a beer. "Nothing" would've been a better alternative for you too.
 * People seem to be reacting to the proposed decision one element at a time, and usually to the elements that affect themselves. Understandable, yes, but read holistically the point is "everybody fucked up a little bit, nobody fucked up that much, let's forget it and go home". In combination with the thread below about ANI, this is all making me wonder if we need a mini-case format where people can present their problem in a structured, clerkable venue to a predefined audience, but the result doesn't have the psychological significance of An Official Arbitration Case. (Yes, I know I'm not the first to suggest that sort of thing.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I was pretty specific about what I think Boing should have done instead: nothing. I'll bear in mind that your official advice to admins dealing with editors who are posting personal attacks and blatant falsehoods about another editor in multiple ANI threads and on the talk page of anyone who engages him in any way without sign of stopping or dropping the stick is to do nothing. I'm sure that tact won't result in the WP talk pages looking like the youtube comment section after a few months.
 * "Nothing" would've been a better alternative for you too.I think you need to go back to the evidence page, or maybe check out my contribs. Because "nothing" was exactly what I did. The only edit I ever made about it before I was named as a party to this case was to post my run down of events on my own talk page.
 * People seem to be reacting to the proposed decision one element at a time, and usually to the elements that affect themselves. I'm not sure what part of my comments stating unambiguously that I wasn't protesting me being put on probation, but the other non-parties you think serves my interest. Nor can I puzzle out what part of my protesting Boing! being "reminded" serves my interest. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  01:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think part of this is people dividing into two camps. Either: (a) "OMG! Those are terrible personal attacks and something must be done about it" - call this the restitution camp; or (b) The "Meh. This Hardy person is not making much sense, and most people can see that this is a storm in a teacup. Just tell people to calm down." - call this the jaded old-timers camp. The thing about doing nothing (the thing that is quite hard) is that you need to carry on doing nothing even when the other person is still going on. They will stop eventually. But if you respond to them, things will carry on. Similar to letting someone have the last word. No-one can be sure, of course, but things might well have fizzled out if enough people had walked away from it. About "there are now dozens of editors who need to worry about annoying this admin in the future, because he can get away with however he wants to react" - I very much doubt that. There are enough people that will be watching now, sadly. I predict that some people will jump on anything he (Hardy) does, though I hope that doesn't happen. What might also happen is that a group of editors at ANI might come to a different verdict and decline to go to arbitration if something blows up again. Hopefully not. Hopefully everyone will just get on with editing normally, rather than trying to police each other. We are all really on the same side, you know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing about doing nothing (the thing that is quite hard) is that you need to carry on doing nothing even when the other person is still going on. I refer you back to my comment ending in the reference to youtube's comment section. Given enough time, any dispute will die down on it's own. Even the Hatfield and McCoy families now host a charity run together. I was under the impression that the purpose of WP:NPA and the powers granted to admins and Arbcom were to cut such disputes off, rather than letting them run their course. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wanted him desysoped, then you've answered your own question, there is no other venue to review that. But by your initial statement on the case page, you were not convinced that was required. There are ways to resolve conduct disputes though without requiring a desysop. I took a look back over Michael's talkpage, and the ANI threads, and I only see one attempt to directly engage him. Why not have just gone to his talkpage, and tried to talk the issue out there? All I see on the talkpage is courtesy notifications, block notices, and responding to one other user. Like I mean just sit him down and say "hey, I know we are all up in a flair, can we maybe talk directly about the original issue". That's option 1. Option 2 would have been going back to ANI and started a (sub?)thread about an editorial restriction that would have stopped the issue or he would have faced blocks (then if he still didn't get it, our direction would have been fine). An IBan with the users involved or who he was targeting at that moment, a community authorized block (which stands higher than a normal block), or a topic ban for Ancestral Health and the surrounding dispute. But instead, after a block that you redacted yourself, you figure that arbcom is the best venue? I fail to understand how that was deescalation or at least saying "i've tried to resolve the dispute with the user, and it's failed". I've had disputes with administrators before (even under improper tool use), and I have resolved them without ArbCom intervention. There was even a case where I had made a case request to ArbCom, but after taking the time to stop and discuss it with the user that day, was able to withdraw my request for Arbitration. That's what the issue is here is the pure escalation without attempting to resolve it.
 * (Hope you don't mind my splitting your comment, as there are two clear subthreads in it) Thank you for trying to answer my question. Indeed, I wasn't sure a desysop was appropriate, but then I wasn't sure a desysop wasn't appropriate, so I didn't specifically want a resolution that included a desysop but I also didn't specifically want a resolution that did not include a desysop. Now, you make the suggestion that if a desysop was a possibility that I wanted considered then I should have done nothing rather than ask the only body that can carry out that consideration? (Having said that, a PR that I should have done nothing would have been fine and easy to understand, rather than that I should have done an undefined something else.) The other thing you suggest is that I should have talked to the admin on his user page. In most cases I'd say that's an admirable suggestion, but in this case it was obvious that he was sticking to his own interpretation 100% and was not going to budge (and the ArbCom case has proved my judgment correct on that - one of your number even spoke of "willful misinterpretation" and described it as "deplorable"). I think you possibly missed part of my request? "Would the members of ArbCom who support my "reminder" be kind enough to identify another venue I could have tried that would have stood any chance of adequately addressing Proposed Finding 7a?" - I've emphasized the key part. Next you suggest a return to ANI, when another of your number ( above) is suggesting my contribution at ANI was exactly what I should not have done? An IBAN? Nonsense - my ArbCom request was absolutely nothing to do with stopping interactions between two specific users. And there's no "editorial restriction" that could possibly have addressed the question of whether the admin's behaviour was compatible with retaining admin status. You keep telling me that I should have taken other action to try to resolve the issue that I brought to ArbCom, but I repeat... there is no other venue in which I could have pursued the question of whether an admin's behaviour is compatible with retaining admin status. You know what this is sounding like to me? It sounds increasingly like you decided you wanted a PR concerning me (which is fine), but then you just came up with some hand-waving words that you really did not think through. If it's a "reminder", then it needs to be something where I can think "Ah, yes, that" (like OR's suggested wording, above), and not something where I have to go through this mess to try work out what it means. My feeling is also being reinforced that what you really wanted to say is that I simply shouldn't have brought the ArbCom case (again, fine), but that that would bring you lot in for criticism for accepting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight...After your full opposition to the Probation remedy, which was a weak IBAN to be honest, your telling us that you wanted us to place a full IBAN between people within this case? And you would have supported it? And Michael still hasn't dropped the stick? Please point me to this. He's made one edit on the 15th (to respond very briefly to what he thought was somewhere he hadn't defended himself), and other than that, He hasn't touched the case since the 2nd. This case isn't going anywhere fast, there aren't votes to close it. Please take the time to breathe, otherwise we aren't going to get to a resolution, therefore the case will be closed with no resolution in sight, which is not what I want for either of us. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amanda, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. When the arbitrators are satisfied with the proposed decision, and confident that all the relevant community input has been given due consideration, you vote to close the case. You don't require buy-in from or agreement to the proposed decision from every party before closing, or no cases would ever be closed.
 * Personally, I would still prefer that there be a number of further changes to the proposed decision before closing (in brief, the finding concerning ancient conduct by Michael Hardy dating back to 2005, which you collectively decided was irrelevant anyway, should be dropped; I'm not sure the reminder to Michael Hardy is needed given that, as you've noted, he's walked away from the issue, albeit belatedly; the proposed finding and remedy concerning MjolnirPants do not strike me as rising to the level of warranting mention in an ArbCom decision; the "other community members" finding singling out people by name merely for commenting is widely perceived as unfair to them; the remedy criticizing Boing! said Zebedee for filing a request for arbitration that the Committee voted 9 to 2 to accept is extremely problematic; the self-criticism remedy still misses the mark for the reasons stated by the arbs opposing it). But the fact that one or more parties disagree with the decision, by itself, is no reason for keeping the case open. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * After your full opposition to the Probation remedy, which was a weak IBAN to be honest, your telling us that you wanted us to place a full IBAN between people within this case? I explicitly stated that I was opposed to sanctions against any editor mentioned except myself, with the unstated understanding that my objection did not extend to Michael Hardy (I didn't think anyone would assume I felt that he hasn't warranted any sanctions, given my comments to the contrary elsewhere). I mentioned the IBAN as what would, in my opinion be a proper response to the conflict that engendered this case, as opposed to a warning or "reminder". It is my understanding that sanctions, whether coming from Arbcom or admins or even Jimbo himself are intended to be preventative, not punitive. An IBAN would absolutely prevent Michael from picking this particular stick back up again in the future, whereas the current 'reminder' seems unlikely to matter to him at all. If Arbcom felt it needed to be a two-way IBAN, I'd be fine with that as well, as this was my very first (and hopefully, very last) interaction with him.
 * Also, I don't see any language in the proposed 'probation' that would lead anyone to interpret it to be a weak IBAN. It strikes me as more likely to be interpreted as if every edit each user affected made were to be treated as if it were made to an article under a weaker version of standard discretionary sanctions. In other words, crossing any line of behavior should result in immediate action. At least, that's how I'd interpret it if I were an admin asked to enforce such a remedy. If it were worded more explicitly as a weak IBAN, I would likely support its application to me and Michael (but not to anyone else).
 * And Michael still hasn't dropped the stick? I see where I did say that, though it wasn't what I intended (I've struck that part out, because it's not accurate). Apparently, I got more hyperbolic that was warranted, though if you take "...drop the stick or..." out of that sentence, it's perfectly accurate. Throughout this entire process, Michael has never visibly entertained the possibility of being less than 100% right, despite constant correction from others.
 * I could be wrong, but I believe that Amanda was referring to the fact that the Arbs are holding off on voting, and changing their votes based on this discussion. That there has been enough uproar over the proposals that the Arbs are unlikely to finish voting until it dies down. Again, I could be wrong, that's just how I interpreted her comments to that effect. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The ANI-liphant in the room
The dispute between Mr. Hardy and Mr Pants really didn't go off the rails until it hit ANI. Perhaps a "reminder" or "discouraging" towards that forum is appropriate?

It's a fucking mess you all have gotten yourself into here. Something positive (anything, really) should be gleaned from the copious chaff if at all possible. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not the only one who has "ha ha, only serious" proposed that ANI posts should be rationed. You start the year with ten freebies and you earn one more for every hundred unreverted non-automated mainspace edits. Use 'em wisely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of "if you're not an administrator or an involved party, please don't comment", but sure that works at least as well if not better :-). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 03:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone drags you to ANI and you ignore it, and the thread closes with no action, do you get credits back? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The culture on ANI is obviously problematic, but "if you're not an administrator or an involved party, please don't comment" is a bad idea. Non-admins do often make useful comments, and just as important, the quality of a non-admin's participation in forums like ANI can be a good way of telling whether he or she might be a good administrator. Speaking for myself, I don't think the quality of my comments on ANI was better the month before my RfA versus the month afterwards. I also think the community would be unhappy with putting up another barrier between admins and other editors, especially when things like community bans are concerned.
 * However, I do agree that some of the "ANI regulars" would do well to dial it back a notch. There is no need for anyone to comment in most of the threads on the board, and there is no need to comment just to echo what someone else already said&mdash;except that some of the threads find themselves transformed into a quasi-vote on whether to sanction someone, and then suddenly "me too" stops being a useless and even counterproductive echo, and starts being a data point that can influence an outcome. (Compare, for example, RfA, where no one would say "don't support the candidate because others have already supported for the same reasons.") And you know, I never thought of it before, but the inability to be sure that a thread won't turn from the former category into the latter, may be one of the major reasons for unhelpful pile-on comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ANI is nothing like it was before you were an admin. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The ability to demarcate that kind of change is why some forums are moderated. Wikipedia has never had dedicated moderators, just a commentariat. Ironically, Moderator redirects to WP:ADMIN. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Appointing moderators would probably be a huge positive step, but frankly I can barely imagine a person with the appropriate temperament being willing to stand for election for such a post. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't use elections, at least not direct ones. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The WMF has huge financial reserves, they could easily attract a few full time paid moderators.


 * One can use encryption with a clerk as an intermediate, to deal with these issues. If an editor is accused of problematic behavior, then one has to email the AN/I clerk who will open discussion and post the description of the problem. But all subsequent comments and the reply by the accused editor are posted using RSA encryption. After a set period of time all these comments are decrypted and posted below the encrypted text allowing everyone to verify that all he emailed comments were posted and were correctly decrypted (using the public key to check that the decrypted text when encoded yields the corresponding encrypted text, the private key is not disclosed). Then the next round where people can reply will start, this will also involve emailing comments to the clerk who will post the RSA encrypted texts. Count Iblis (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't sure I could think of a worse system than we have now, but you've managed to come up with one. Should I find that reassuring? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I explained this a bit better here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a strange redirect. I would retarget it to Moderators/Proposal, which is where Moderators points. Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sure someone will (eventually). The history of that redirect indicates that the original content was moved to Help:Moderator (history) which was later itself redirected to WP:ADMIN, after some other desultory attempts at defining something. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you get when you cross ANI-liphant with a rhino? Eliphino, but it might be better than what we have now. Jonathunder (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This is another place where I can plug my little ANI experiment. Bottom line: ANI is useless for something which is not clear-cut and egregious. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

One should not have a forum where the input of tricoteuse (together with sensible people) is built into the design of resolving disputes. Once it is clear that the issue is not trivial, it should perhaps be moved to a forum where one can have structured discussions. I don't like WP:AE, but the format there is better (I know, it's a high jump over a low bar).

I should add that there is also an opposite problem: people who give comments at ANI are derided as "active on the drama boards" and not "writing content". To a certain extent, participation there is a public good. Consider the alternative: what would happen if everyone drops their activity altogether. You will only have admins and involved people comment.

Incidentally, why is this case still open? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer to this now appears to be, "Because the clerks are not paying attention." The fifth net support vote is well over 24 hours old.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hardly urgent and 24 hours is not long. Nothing much will happen when it does close because this was all a tempest in a teapot to begin with and the storm, such as it was, has calmed. Jonathunder (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, this is exactly how I and others felt when this waste of time case was brought to arbcom. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)