This all started as a dispute over the article Ancestral health created by User:Michael Hardy, in which User:MjolnirPants was, I think, a little snippy at worst - see User talk:MjolnirPants#Ancestral health. Michael Hardy then, in my view, went overboard in response. Rather than simply dealing with PROD or CSD nominations in the normal way, he posted a complaint about MjolnirPants at ANI (linked above), which was closed as inappropriate. He then posted a gem at User talk:MjolnirPants#I apologize for doubting your infallibility.

At User talk:Michael Hardy#August 2016, User:NeilN tried to calm things, only for Michael Hardy to make clearly false claims about what MjolnirPants had said, calling him "a hard-core bully". I blocked for 31 hours for the personal attacks, but unblocked with a suitable block log reason when a consensus was developing that a block was excessive.

You can see from the above links that Michael Hardy is not listening to the large number of people advising him to drop the stick, and yesterday he repeated his accusations of bullying here. He then went on to make another complaint about MjolnirPants at ANI here, which was quickly closed. NeilN has warned him that a block will come if he doesn't stop, at User talk:Michael Hardy#Please read.

User:M. A. Bruhn has uncovered a list of previous problems going back over the years, which apparently include wheel warring and outing (I'd forgotten, but I redacted the outing) - diff.

Michael is an old-school admin who was appointed after this RFA. He has not kept up with required standards of admin behaviour, as he admitted at User talk:Michael Hardy#Drop the stick - "However, I've never attempted to keep up with policies not related to my regular activities".

I don't know if ArbCom will consider a desysop of an admin without recent abuse of the tools, but I think the links above show a serious failure to follow WP:ADMINCOND and indicate someone who really should not be an admin. Over to you for your thoughts, and perhaps any other path of action that you might feel is appropriate.

• Just a comment on User:Bbb23's suggestion that "I don't think is a case about an administrator, but rather a case about an editor who happens to be an administrator". I can appreciate that. But I'd also suggest that this kind of aggressive overreaction can be significantly more intimidating when it comes from someone who is seen to be an admin. Fortunately, MjolnirPants doesn't seem to be easily intimidated, but there are many who would be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• <Response removed - it was a bit long, and it's more evidence phase material anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
• @GoldenRing: What makes you think I'm bedridden after surgery? I can assure you I am in rude health. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GoldenRing: No problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @EEng: It's only an attack when there's no link provided to support it. So thanks for reminder - I've provided a source now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to make one point, pinging @Michael Hardy: The key issue here is the repeated accusations made with no diffs to back them up despite being asked multiple times, and the multiple repetitions of those same unsupported accusations (including here on this page, before they were removed by a clerk). Even at this stage, if Michael will accept the Wikipedia requirement to provide evidence to back up accusations and to accept any resulting consensus, then I'd think we can still back away from this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and agree to stop imputing extreme emotions to other people, eg "immense anger". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Michael Hardy: There is nothing in that link that *forbids* anything. There are statements of the form "If you do A then I will do B", but that is not the equivalent of "I forbid you to do A". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michael Hardy: So, we have to go on your interpretation of what you think he meant rather than what he actually said, despite the fact the he has subsequently clearly said that he did not intend to *forbid* you from anything and despite a number of other people disputing your interpretation (and nobody as far as I can see so far agreeing with it)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never before encountered any user ordering me not to express disagreement with something he said or to post reasons for that disagreement, nor ordering me not to ask him questions to clarify something he said. He had stated that some pages I linked to existed only for the purpose of selling something. I responded that I could find nothing on those pages that appeared to attempt to sell something. He said at length that it was abusive for me to dispute anything he said and he would absolutely not tolerate disagreement with him. He also said an article I created was a duplicate of another article, but made no attempt to say which other article. So I asked which one. He was immensely angered by that question and told me it was abusive for me to ask about that.

Ordering another user not to disagree with one's statement and also not to ask for a clarification should be considered inconsistent with the way Wikipedia should function. One seeks consensus by discussing things. Respectful disagreement (saying that the linked page shows no sign of trying to sell anything) and a respectful request for clarification (asking which page he thought was duplicated) are an essential part of the process of discussion whose goal is consensus.

Among comments on this episode I find at least two people suggested I resign as an administrator. The first notice I had of that was a question on my talk page: whether I would consider resigning as an administrator. I responded by asking what purpose this suggestion was to serve. That is a natural thing to wonder about that, and that user then expressed immense anger that I didn't answer his question. I'm really surprised at that behavior. I don't owe answers to such questions to every random stranger who comes along; the nature of the question itself suggests some justification should be offered; it was reasonable for me to request a complete statement of the proposal before deciding whether to answer the question or not.

• What I do as an administrator. In recent years the things I have done that I could not have done without being an administrator have included these:
  • Moving pages over redirects, both involving articles to which I was contributing and those to which others were contributing, in some cases restoring edit histories of the pages that had become redirects (restoring histories can be done only by administrators, if I'm not mistaken).
  • Looking at deleted pages in order to advise their authors about certain things. For example, one might discover by reading the page that it was original research and then notify the author that there is a policy against that. One might think that would become clear in the deletion process. But sometimes those are conducted in language of those fluent in Wikipedia's rules and customs and even quite intelligent newbies don't understand them. I don't remember details right now, but I've seen a number of variations on this.
  • More generally, looking at deleted pages in order to understand and occasionally participate in discussions of the merits of the articles and of their deletions.
  • I remember an occasion when an editor was going about indiscriminately deleting the word "conversely" wherever he found it. I blocked him for one hour, reverted a bunch of his edits, posted a notice on his talk page that that word has a precisely defined meaning in mathematical logic (his edits made clear that he didn't know that), and then unblocked him.
  • I think the one time I unblocked someone was when the administrator who had blocked him appeared to have done so out of anger and out of disagreement with the views expressed by the person blocked. That is quite improper.
  • There are some other things, and I haven't made the least attempt to keep track of them.
  • What I don't do as an administrator includes getting involved in disputes among users. And many other things, of course. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that this section has been edited by someone other than me. Here again is the principal instance of MjolnirPants forbidding me to dispute his assertions or ask him questions. I posted this here before. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• One instance of outright dishonesty on this page is the statement from both MjolnirPants and Tarage that I disputed Mjolnir Pants assertion about "selling" instead of working further on the page. I did so chronologically earlier than my further work on the page, not "instead of" working further on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Boing! said Zebedee: says there is nothing in the link I provided that "forbids" anything. To that I can only say that it must be read within the context in which it was written. And what if I say this is a nice little shop you got here; it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. There is nothing in that that _threatens_ anything, is there? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I have posted my own summary of the dispute between me and Michael here. B!sZ, NeilN and Linguist have had their say, and I have little substantial to add to that, beyond conveying what my own experience has been.

After tagging the article for speedy and logging off for the night, I came to WP the next morning to look something up, only to find 14 notifications, including of an email Michael sent me. (The contents of that email are substantially the same as what he posted here). After wrapping my head around all of that, I wrote up my version of events. Initially I thought to post it at the AN/I thread, but since the thread had ceased to be about our disagreement and become about Michael's reaction, I elected to write it on my talk page and post a link to it, there. However, after it became clear that Michael was pushing forward with his accusations against me, I decided not to fan the flames, so to speak, and occupied my time on wiki elsewhere. Since then, I've received ten more notifications over this, the vast majority of which were Michael editing my user talk page.

Clearly, something needs to be done. Throughout this affair (and, apparently in several prior instances) Michael has demonstrated what appears to be a near-complete lack of those social skills necessary to collaborate with others on a project like this, especially in the position of being an admin. I agree 100% that his status as an admin should be revoked at this point. While he has yet to do any damage with his admin tools, the longer this goes on, the more I'm convinced that will become a question of when, not if. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to respond to one thing that Michael has been repeating over and over again, because it seems to strike at the heart of this issue. He claimed I "forbade" him from disagreeing with me. In fact, I explicitly told him I would be happy to continue arguing with him about the article even after I hatted it for speedy deletion. Just to be clear, I told him one thing, and he has been repeatedly claiming that I said the exact opposite, in the face of multiple people correcting him. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this exchange. This whole matter has been blown way out of proportion by Michael Hardy. The first ANI thread shows he does not understand how deletion tagging works. Copying from my close, "Absolutely does not belong at ANI. Editors can tag articles at any time if they feel, using good faith, the article should be deleted. The reviewing admin will take into account objections on the article's talk page." An editor saying they will tag an article if improvements aren't made and then tagging the article when they feel the other editor wishes to argue/discuss rather than improve the article is a valid action. It may be hasty or based on an incorrect perception but it is not "ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you." [1]

The opening of a second ANI thread, after discussion on multiple pages and a brief block, shows a clear lack of judgment, far below what is expected from an adminstrator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "MjolnirPants and at least one other user told me that I was forbidden to express disagreement with them", I tried to get a diff from Michael Hardy for that but failed (see first diff in my initial statement). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: "...admin action is concerned, that should have been that." That would have been that hadn't Hardy opened a second ANI thread, essentially duplicating the first, and continued his misrepresentations on a variety of pages, including even here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: With regards to, "hasn't had the opportunity to step back" - I think you're wrong here. Michael Hardy has had plenty of opportunities to step back. Instead, he's charged forward. Witness his actions on the talk page of Guy Macon. Guy asks Michael to stop posting there. [2] Instead of stepping back, a couple days later we get the bizarre characterization of "Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?" as "a personal question on a stranger's talk page" accompanied by a mini-lecture. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to start off by saying that I originally had no intention of getting involved in the dispute in ANI as I felt that for the most part comments being added were just unnecessarily escalating a situation that should die down on its own. Looking through ANI logs though I saw unresolved discussions perennially brought up about removing the admin status of MH, commonly rehashing the same points presented here. With this in mind I felt it would be good to lay everything out and have a discussion about this in hopes to end this topic from being brought up again. With that said I'll go ahead and transcribe my summary from ANI below:

2005 - MH is rebuked for protecting page that they are engaged in an editing dispute over

2007 - MH starts an ANI discussion complaining of two admins who deleted an article whose AfD they closed (6 delete vs. 1 keep by MH) who he states "appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures". MH is subsequently pointed out to have been wheelwarring against three other admins on this page's deletion. MH argues that the AfD was not an umambiguous vote for deletion since notices where not posted in places like the math wikiproject, and additionally states "Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people."

2008 - MH is subject of ANI discussion about stalking after leaving an unprompted antagonistic and demeaning essay on someone's talkpage regarding a dispute between them which occurred over two years prior. MH makes comments such as "I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered.", justifies his calling someone "mentally challenged" by saying "I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar"". Also "I was not insulting him; I was accusing him."

2009 - MH is subject of ANI topic for calling another users comments "bullshit" multiple times, and wheelwarring with two other admins even leaving an edit summary while reverting the first admin reading "his deletion looks like another attempt of speedy deleters to look as if they lack common sense."

2012 - MH has comment redacted (by none other than Boing! said Zebedee) for outing violation

• I'd like to echo some of the sentiments expressed below about digging through MH's edits looking for dirt. For this reason I almost posted a comment earlier requesting that other users consider not bringing forward additional evidence unless they feel it significantly changes the merits of accepting this case, but felt it inappropriate to make such a request for my not being a clerk or arbitrator. However, for what it's worth I'd like to go ahead and make that request anyways. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]