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

Mr Ernie's Section
This case will set an interesting precedent. Taking into account the weak preliminary statements, what Arbcom now seems to condone is that any editor with a grudge against a certain admin can dig through that admin's entire account history to find some moments of incivility and drag them to arbcom for a deeper look, where the drama lovers will pile on and needlessly post on the admin's talk page, poke at him or her until they get a response, and then proudly hang that response on the evidence page. User:Drmies I know you've had some moments of sarcasm that could be construed as uncivil. User:Keilana there's a nice big article in the signpost filled with uncivil language that you wrote. The case against User:The Rambling Man will surely have to be accepted, as it's far beyond the level of what User:Michael Hardy did or said. What I wish Arbcom (and case bringers like User:Boing! said Zebedee) would understand is that there are real people behind wikipedia usernames who respond differently to different circumstances. What effect will this case have on the invaluable content contributions of MH? Is anyone else that well equipped to edit math articles like he does? Did anyone think about that before they jumped onto this case? User:NeilN did you? Did you think about what effect your comments would have on a real person? User:Guy Macon did you think about what your unwarranted question on MH's talk page would do?

Next time, before you click the edit button, just think for one second that there's another real person out there who you are about to impact and maybe, just maybe, do something else instead. There's no way we can expect the incredible contributions from MH at the same level after this. I know I wouldn't want to contribute to a project that treated me the way he's been treated recently. We lost the incredible impact of Kevin Gorman while his case was active, and indeed he never seemed to come back with the same level of passion as before, and now we've lost him forever. User:Gamaliel retired and resigned, and there's no doubt he had a positive impact. Was it all worth it Arbcom? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

user:NeilN my point was that arbcom put 0 scope limits on this case and only accepted based on prelim statements that showed mild incivility. This sets a bad precedent and encourages people to go looking in the closets of admins they don't like to find skeletons. And instead of letting this event die at ANI you went to his page and kept it rolling. He was clearly misunderstood and the constant unwelcome sniping clearly got to him. But I'm not going to change your mind or anyone else's who feel that MH is solely to blame here and the punishment should clearly be the loss of his admin tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies thank you for the measured response. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

NeilN's section
And how is loss of his admin bit or an admonishment going to hamper his content contributions? You seem to gloss over the fact that MH had numerous opportunities to drop this. A case statement simply saying, "I felt I was being bullied and went to ANI to stop the behavior" would have probably sufficed. Instead, MH continued and amplified his lack of good judgment. Perhaps he could have realized that he was impacting real people with his accusations? knows when to pull in the sarcasm instead of amplifying it and your personal opinion of Keilana's Signpost article has zero relevance here. --Neil N  talk to me 17:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain which edits of mine (last non-revert of sock made on Aug 9) "kept it rolling". --Neil N  talk to me 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(or any other clerk), can you please change MH's proposals into the proper format? --Neil N  talk to me 18:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies's section (?)
I'm the worst Arb in the world: I don't know if we can do threaded discussions here, or if we can't, why not. Anyway, I'll just fall in line. , it is entirely possible that I have wrote stuff that can be construed as uncivil and there is no doubt that I have been uncivil more than once. I appreciate 's comment on your comment, and can only hope that most editors agree. I have no opinion on your assessment of Keilana or TRM. Well, I do, but that's mine and mine alone. As for this particular case, on which I am of course not commenting even in this comment, ArbCom didn't "jump" on this case. ArbCom hates jumping, though it is true that in the past ArbCom has made a strange leap or two. ArbCom doesn't really like bringing admins up for scrutiny, but that's not because they're admins but because those cases are always complicated and require us to spend too much time outside of Courcelles's hot tub. The case was accepted because a significant number of members of the community seemed to have arguments to make a case. That there is a case doesn't mean anything about the outcome; it is entirely possible that the case be dismissed and that ArbCom send roses to Michael Hardy and rotten trout to the people who started it. The best thing for you to do, if you wish to defend Michael Hardy, is not to pick fights with others here, but to present evidence that the others are wrong, or that they misunderstood, or that they made a mountain out of a molehill, or whatever you think the case may be. And I would urge all editors on all sides to work toward a favorable outcome, whichever one you think favorable, by keeping it cool. Baiting and/or taunting of opponents is not cool, pointing at others is also not cool--you know about NOTTHEM as well as I do. Collect your evidence and make your case--or support others' evidence and make your case--or critique others' evidence and make your case. I wish you all good luck making your case. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie: sure thing. I look forward to a good set of arguments. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Keilana's section (???)
Like Drmies, I have no idea whether or not arbs should do sections like this, but I'll just follow suit and point out that there's a big difference between calling someone a "fucking badass" and, say, a "fucking idiot". Incivility is a hell of a lot more than just saying fuck here and there. Keilana (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You can post wherever you like unless the clerks or drafting arb put the big box on the top of the page telling everybody not to. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 14:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

M. A. Bruhn's section (where anybody can post)
I'm really lost and confused by the entire Arbcom forum process. If Arbcom does not object, then please feel free to reply to me here at the ends of the relevant subsections. Thank you. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Precedents set by Arbcom

 * Precedent's set by Arbcom are non-binding
 * I just wanted to call this to attention, that despite the pseudo-legal nature of these proceedings, the influence of any precedent created by Arbcom comes entirely from people's perceptions, and not due to any sanctioned obligation for others to follow those precedents as can be the case in law.


 * Influence of precedents


 * There have been several arguments surrounding precedents set by accepting this case. However, these are no longer relevant as the case has been accepted.
 * Looking through past Arbcom decisions I can see no evidence of Arbcom basing its decisions off of previous decisions that they or former Arbcoms have made.
 * Looking through Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests it is clear that Arbcom precedent is not sufficient for preventing users from introducing cases which lack merit, especially in the case of user-admin disputes. It is possible that there have been users in the past who have not brought forth a case against an admin due to seeing how previous Arbcom cases have gone. However, the significance of this is questionable given the presumed small amount of editors who: 1) Are in a dispute with an admin, 2) Know of and desire to take that dispute to Arbcom, 3) Have heard of previous Arbcom cases similar to theirs or have examined previous similar Arbcom cases, and 4) Would be dissuaded from posting after seeing precedent against them.
 * It is conceivable that there are administrators who, in reaction to an Arbcom ruling on admin misconduct, perceive that their conduct with the community will be held to higher standards.
 * Consideration of the influences of these precedents, however, will likely lead to them being given undue weight since the variation in each Arbcom member's understanding of their importance (based off many hard-to-gauge and rarely looked at variables such as knowledge of who will ever even become aware of the precedent) is likely much greater than the variance in how much weight Arbcom member's give to other considerations such as interpretation of policy and impression of community norms. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom's primary consideration
Although not a legal entity the quasi-legal framework under which Arbcom operates lends itself to comparisons with actual legal proceedings. Depending on location, legal cases often contain two distinct phases, a trial and a sentencing phase, the former based mostly off following the letter of the law, the latter based mostly off consideration given to its practical effects. In Arbcom, these two phases are sort of merged, with "Findings of fact" and "Remedies" occurring in the same "Proposed decision" phase. This is seemingly because "Principles" and "Findings of fact" usually lead somewhat directly to proposed "Remedies". That is not the case here. What will be the major proposed remedy, desysopping, is not clearly supported or opposed by the either the conflicting community expectations of admins or the loose criteria for which adminship may be removed in policy. In this case, what should primarily be considered in deciding for or against desysopping are the effects that it will cause. Effects which cannot be analyzed as facts since they will occur after-the-fact, and effects which are not discussed by policy. These effects can be categorized as stemming from the tools granted by adminship, as well as by the status. I believe the ending of this Arbcom case will be mostly determined by weighing these positive and negative effects against each other.

These are the clearest effects to predict. In the evidence section I present evidence that most of their admin tool usage could still be performed by replacing their admin rights with page mover rights, something that I hope could be done by Arbcom itself rather than requiring them to make a request for permission at the relevant board. The fact that he does most of his editing while not logged in indicates that he doesn't view his tools as something he needs to keep by his side.
 * Effects caused by loss of tools

These are much more difficult to predict, but also much more significant than the effects caused by a loss of tools. Relevant considerations include:
 * Effects caused by loss of status

My thoughts on these are as follows:


 * Embitterment: This problem is basically unavoidable. Its effects will be shared by many, but be most strongly felt by MH. However, it's hard to tell if rejecting desysopping will significantly mitigate the overall negativity that MH must be feeling, or if supporting desysopping will even greatly enhance its negativity. He seems not particularly engaged in these proceedings, and will certainly have people showing him support on his talkpage at this case's conclusion. If he loses adminship, users will be upset at a perceived endorsement of people mudslinging at admins under the pretext of legitimate discussion of their suitability, but if he keeps adminship users will be upset at a perceived condoning of behavior falls far short of the expectations and trust that the community puts into its administrators. There isn't much that can be done about this, but in its final proceedings Arbcom should attempt to placate everyone without copious acknowledgment of many things such as: the increasing conduct standards expected of admins by the community, and the vulnerability that the position puts admins in since their actions are likely to upset users and since they are expected to responsive to complaints from the community.


 * "Authority figure": The community's image of admins as custodians is admirable, but unrealistic. People tasked with the authority and means with which to police the conduct and behaviors of others in a community will never be viewed as janitors as long as the community is in need of policing. An admin's actions set a tone about what is acceptable and allowable behavior on Wikipedia, and this tone is most keenly felt by the newest users who lack experience to modulate it. If a new user see's behavior from an admin that they find disagreeable, they are likely to expect that behavior to be common. And it is not as though adminship is hidden, people accustomed to social media who want to click on a user's page like they are viewing someone's profile are often immediately greeted by the fact that they are an admin, and even if they don't look at their userpage the talkpage itself normally reveals this.

In my opinion the emotional effect that any ruling will have on the editors involved is difficult to weigh; but the relatively little harm caused by losing access to his admin tools is easily outweighed by the various potentially negative things that may result from leaving him as an ambassador of community conduct, such as a re-ignition of this entire dispute following the next time an uncivil engagement occurs. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Admin Conduct and Civility
My last thoughts will explain two bits of evidence that I began with which I presume have drawn questions due to their seemingly innocuous nature. Indeed the reason I bring them up is not because I believe MH is responsible for what happened afterwards and that he should be condemned for it. Before explaining this though I have two points to make.

Let me know if my impressions are incorrect as I have not been a part of the dialogue for years as others have. However, it appears that editors occupy certain niches, and that the forums where civility is discussed are often very uncivil, and that they also commonly occur in the niches of editors who are prone to heated discussions which are also commonly uncivil. Thus it seems that those most predisposed to incivility are the ones having the most influence on what is acceptable, with what is considered acceptable largely determined by how it suits their goals and objectives in a greater content/editor dispute.
 * Community expectations of civility are under-influenced by those with the highest expectations

A user who is uncomfortable with conflict is unlikely to monitor ANI and join in heated discussions about whether a certain level of incivility is block-worthy or not. Many of these people, if approached by something they perceive as hostile, will never address it, let alone attempt to escalate it by taking it to ANI. The voices of these people are not heard at all when people try to gauge "the community's" views on civility.

In past disputes about admin civility, even though "incivility" is what is said to be the topic of discussion, it would be more appropriate to describe it as "incivility during a heated exchange". Since the topic of incivility in admins only seems to come up in the context of admins engaged in disputes, it appears the community has never seriously discussed what level of civility is expected of admins in their normal, day-to-day interactions with users. The primary reason people give to excuse instances of admin incivility is because it occurred in the context of a dispute, and this reason is given primarily by people who themselves exhibit this behavior in disputes. The community, however, has seemingly never excused or condoned incivility in admins that are not engaged in disputes, likely because they expect them to behave well otherwise and because of the importance for someone in that role to be a model of good communal behavior. I won't make any stronger characterization of MH's civility other than this: there are instances of MH being uncivil with zero provocation. And I believe that this is sufficient for concern.
 * Discussions on admin incivility never qualify the circumstances around it

With regards to my two pieces of evidence, those concerning Mim.cis and Statperson123, I don't believe at all that MH is responsible for them leaving. There are certainly many contributing factors. However, given the fact that they were active until MH's interaction with them, it is unreasonable to claim it had no contribution at all. Yes with Mimi.cis Jytdog expressed concerns over possible COI, but Mim.cis continued active editing after that and even left a reply at Jytdog's page entitled "Thank-you so much for your kind response". Salix alba has stated that their pages had too much detail and are overly focused on their own research work (which is admittedly, central to the field), concluding "If anything the case illustrates the problem with Expert editors who never quite get to grips with the way wikipedia works." Yet, after being asked about a potential COI they told Salix alba's on their page "I dont think I am back to doing it and am happy to have you edit my edits. I added all of the software for diffeomorphic mapping of the entire community with the major software that does it. perhaps that gives more balance but I am finished on that. I accept your edits whatever you thin is appropriate. Thank-you.", does that sound like someone "who never quite get to grips with the way wikipedia works"?

The reason I bring up these up is because I feel wikipedia hasn't come to grips with the way the rest of the world works. I am afraid that a small sub-community engaged in perennial low-level conflict is dictating the civility standards for a project which should be fun and enjoyable to participate in. Would anyone here ever consider the above, very mild terseness by MH, to possibly have any effect? I don't think so, but I believe the immediacy of their departures suggests that Wikipedia is missing out on editors because it doesn't appreciate the extant to which volunteer retention is determined by proving a positive environment, and the importance of administrators being consistently civil and even amiable to maintaining that environment. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A proposal
Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Deadlines and such
There's been a lot going on on the workshop page today, including some constructive things. Any problem leaving it open until the constructive parts peter out? Communication, the lack thereof, and miscommunication seem to be at the heart of all this anyway. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 22:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)