Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) at 10:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• M. A. Bruhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Michael Hardy
• diff of notification MjolnirPants
• diff of notification NeilN
• diff of notification M. A. Bruhn

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Responses at ANI here (permalink)
• Follow up at ANI here (permalink)
• Discussion at User talk:Michael Hardy#August 2016
• My block at User talk:Michael Hardy#August 2016 2 (I unblocked on developing ANI consensus)
• Discussion at User talk:Michael Hardy#Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?
• Concern shown at User talk:Michael Hardy#Color me puzzled
• Discussion at User talk:Michael Hardy#Drop the stick
• My response at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Respectful discourse

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

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]

Statement by Michael Hardy

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. This user presumed to order me not to do those things, and said such behavior on my part was intolerable.

Later that user said that I was posting those comments instead of improving the article. That is nonsense. I stated at the moment of creating the article that it is a stub; that in itself expresses an intention to improve it. That my comments were posted chronologically before my next edits to the article does not mean they were done instead of doing further work on the article.

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. This present paragraph may seem to be on a different topic, but a certain commonality between this behavior and that in the previous paragraph makes me wonder if they might both be part of a common general trend among some Wikipedians: Both feel entitled to give orders and not to be questioned or argued with. Both users were profoundly rude and unbelievably arrogant.

This statement is composed in some haste; I may add to it later.

Robert McClenon quotes me as writing : "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!". That is an out-of-context quote if ever there was one. I was in fact objecting to the idea that one user should forbid another to disagree with them. MjolnirPants and at least one other user told me that I was forbidden to express disagreement with them. That is what I called bullying. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarage states that I "decided to argue with him instead of accepting this favor and trying to work with him." That is not true; as soon as I created the article I labeled it a stub because I knew it needed more material and it continued to be my intention to work on it further throughout my exchanges with MjolnirPants. I did not do anything instead of working on the article; my exchange with MjolnirPants was in no sense instead of anything. What should I do when someone says an article is a duplicate but does not say which article it is a duplicate of? If I respond by asking which article, does that mean I'm asking that instead of working on the article? In fact, asking that does constitute cooperation with him: he had raised a concern that it was a duplicate and the only way to work with that requires knowing what it's a duplicate of. That I asked that question is no occasion to say I decided to do no further work on the article; on the contrary, it indicates I have not abandoned the matter. Tarage says I was rejecting a favor by expressing disagreement with the statement that the linked web page was trying to sell something. Was I obligated to "accept" the "favor" by agreeing rather than disagreeing with a statement that I believed had no merit? (I.e. that the page was trying to sell something.) MjolnirPants and Tarage do not understand that if I express disagreement with the allegation of trying to sell something, that in no sense indicates that I changed my mind about intending to work on the article.

Tarage also says that I think "independent sources" means sources that can think independently. This is based only on out-of-context quoting. I posed a question: What does "independent sources" mean as applied to this particular article? Does it mean sources who can think independently? That needs to be read within the context in which it was written. If I had intended the article to be about an organization, then presumably it might mean sources independent of that organization. But I intended it to be about a topic of study, so no question of independence from an organization arises. The publications in the organization's journal are independent published sources on the subject matter. Some (maybe most) of them probably are independent of the organization, but that is not relevant since the article is not supposed to be about the organziation.

I wonder what would have happened if I had done further work expanding the article before rather than after expressing disagreement with one of MjolnirPants's statements and asking him to clarify the statement that was unclear? Would it still be claimed that my disagreement and my inquiry were done "instead of" that work on the article? The question of whether my disagreement with one of MjolnirPants's statements and my inquiry about another was before or after my further work on the article should be treated as irrelevant. But MjolnirPants and Tarage are saying that because it was before rather than after, it was a rejection of any suggestion that I should work further on the article, as I had intended all along.

Tarage and MjolnirPants are saying that my expressed disagreement with one of MjolnirPants's statements and my request for clarification of another were wrong; that I was doing something wrong by doing that. That amounts to an order not to express disagreement with another Wikipedian's statement about an article and an order not to ask for clarification of another Wikipedian's statement about an article.

I never rejected MjolnirPants's offer of help with the article in the form of a statement that it was a duplicate; rather I cooperated with it by asking him to identify the article he thought was duplicated. I did reject his statement about "selling" because it had no merit, but I did not complain about his expression of his views; rather I disagreed with them. My disagreement and my inquiry were not rejections of a suggestion, which I agreed with, that I should work on the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• Tarage wrote: "independent means having no direct stake in the topic in question". That is incorrect. Physicists write about physics; arguably they have a direct stake in the topic, and one cites their publications as independent sources. When writing about an ORGANIZATION, then "independent" might mean having no direct stake in the ORGANIZATION. But I didn't intend the article to be about an ORGANIZATION. I wonder if Tarage understands that. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was astonished by this statement by "Tarage", which I just read a moment ago: "Your 'organization' seems to have a direct stake in the topic of the article". That is nonsense. I do not have any connection or affiliation with any organization that has any stake in the topic of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tarage misunderstands crucial things related to this:
  • Tarage seems to think I have some connection with an organization that has a stake in the topic of the article. I do not.
  • Tarage seems to think an organization with a stake in the topic of an article is not an "independent source". That is a very confused idea. If an article is ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION, then it is reasonable to expect "independent" sources, where "independent" means not connected with the organization. If the article is NOT ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION, but about a topic of study, then no such consideration applies. The same sort of "independence" is not an issue. An article may be about a topic in physics, and may link to the web site of a physics laboratory, and may cite only a paper whose author is affiliated with that laboratory. That is not a situation where "independent" in the sense of not connected with that laboratory, applies. That is parallel to the article being discussed here.
• The principal (but not the only) occurence of the order to me from MjolnirPants not to dispute one of his points and not to ask a question about another is [this. It has to be read within the context in which it was posted. Context-dropping as been used here by MjolnirPants to try to make this appear to be the opposite of what it was. Context-dropping is also done by @Rhoark: and @Tarage: when they suggest that I think "independent sources" means sources capable of thinking independently. Rhoark is probably misled innocently; I think Tarage ought to have figured out what was really meant.
• Tarage's suggestion that I improperly blocked a user without warning should be set in a broader context: The block was for about two minutes, stopping him from indiscriminately removing a certain word from all articles containing it (in which he demonstrated clearly that it didn't understand its technical meaning) and was removed as soon as I finished posting a statement to him that that word has a technical meaning that he missed and he shouldn't indiscriminately delete it with no understanding. During those two minutes he would probably have done the same thing to another couple of dozen articles -- more work reverting them. The block was accompanied by a message saying I would undo it as soon as I finished posting a notice on his talk page.
• "Miniapolis" says I accused him of having a "role account". In fact I asked whether it's an account that speaks for more than one person because he had actually said he speaks for more than one person. He should not claim to be anyone else's spokesperson. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm astonished by some of the hostile behavior I've encountered here in the last few days:
  • "Guy Macon" asked me a personal question; I asked what the purpose of his question was; he responded that I had the "unmitigated gall" not to answer him. This was a seemingly random stranger. I don't have an obligation to answer every strangers' questions.
  • "Callmemirella" told me that my inquiry about the purpose of the question was "harsh". Really? In fact, it was a polite an respectful response to a personal question from a stranger.
  • "Miniapolis" say that "we" (that's quoted verbatim: "we") understand something I had just said (which the person I was answering appeared _not_ to understand. I ask who was meant by "we" and whether the account called "Miniapolis" therefore claimed to speak for more than one person. "Miniapolis" responded that he or she was being "baited". and claimed to be a spokesperson for _everyone_ who has attacked me in recent days.

These are instances of uncivilized behavior. Yet I am taken to task for responding with anger to someone who is in fact a bully. 06:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

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]

Statement by NeilN

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]

Statement by M. A. Bruhn

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

Edit: I didn't realize when I first posted that this discussion is just for accepting the case and that there is a 500 word limit. I've gone ahead and removed my commentary and will re-insert it during the next the phase. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Linguist111

I would be in favour of a desysoping, if this is feasible. I haven't looked too closely into the MjolnirPants-Michael Hardy dispute, but what I did see was that the latter wasn't innocent of personal attacks, as Boing! said Zebedee stated above. I respect that he may feel he was being bullied, but his inability to drop the stick, bringing disputes to the wrong place, and being on the receiving end of blocks and speedy boomerang requests clearly show he isn't fit for his position as a admin. Also worrying is that while this dispute is going on, he has access to the admin tools, which, although he hasn't used them in years, does risk bigger problems. Linguist 111 ^{Who, me?} Who? Me 14:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Admins are expected to lead by example and are expected to deal with disputes etc themselves, The constant bickering, not dropping the stick and ANI threads by this Admin is rather unbelievable and quite honestly it gives me no confidence in this admin at all, Personally I think they should be desysopped and at the correct time they can perhaps retry RFA although that probably won't be for a very long time. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a strange and unfortunate case. To open, I should acknowledge that I had a sort of run-in with User:MjolnirPants some months ago, in which I started to moderate a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and MjolnirPants disagreed with my moderation approach. However, they subsequently said that they were willing to put that behind us. I have since seen that MjolnirPants can be stubborn or 'snappish', but not to the point of being disruptive. I have had no previous dealings with User:Michael Hardy. I see that they raised the issue of whether MjolnirPants was engaged in bullying. I don’t see any clear case of bullying. I don’t see any bullying by MjolnirPants, and I do see that the claim to that effect was treated as a personal attack resulting in a block. However, I do see that a case can be made that the conduct of Michael Hardy, including "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!", is bullying, especially when the editor has access to the block button, even if they never use it.

We have too much difficulty in getting new admins. RFA has become a trial by ordeal, partly because some editors start off with the assumption that admin abuse is widespread and that it is important to be hostile to admins and would-be admins. We certainly don’t need admins who don’t try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I think that there is actual impropriety here, but there certainly is the appearance of impropriety.I think that there is actual impropriety here. There is definitely at least the appearance of impropriety. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Michael Hardy should be desysopped. I am saying that the ArbCom, which is the only review for English Wikipedia administrators, should review his fitness to be an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on statement

I have read the subject's reply saying that I quoted them out of context. It appears that he meant to be quoting another editor and that he failed to provide context. The subject started an ANI thread labeled "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!". I read that statement repeatedly and even verified from the history of ANI that that statement was entered directly by the subject. I verified who had entered it because it was so bizarre, and thought that someone had changed his words. No, the subject entered it, and didn’t enter it in quotes, and so I didn’t know that he was quoting; it appeared to be his own statement. If, as it now appears, it was a quote from User:MjolnirPants, then there has been a double misunderstanding, and both MjolnirPants and Michael Hardy may have been ranting, but Michael Hardy is an administrator. I stand by my recommendation that the ArbCom take up this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise Michael Hardy’s statement is too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that important whether User:MjolnirPants actually said that. It is important that User:Michael Hardy used that as the heading, without quotes, thus having it appear to be in his own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I didn't take any substantive role in the ANI discussion. I commented only because I was amused at what RfA was like back in 2003. I don't think is a case about an administrator, but rather a case about an editor who happens to be an administrator. IIRC, Michael said at his brief RfA that he didn't really see why he should become an administrator, and his history, particularly in the last several years, has underscored that remark. Michael hasn't blocked anyone since 2010. He made one unblock in 2012. His only page deletions appear to be focused on making his own editing easier. He protected one page, not an article, in 2005. I understand an administrator may act in his capacity as an administrator even without the use of tools, but still it doesn't appear that the tools are of any significant importance to him. Frankly, it seems a bit much to desysop him based on this incident, although it never helps when an editor appears to have no insight into his own conduct. Again, depending on his statement, my recommendation would be an admonishment by motion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed in Michael's statement and withdraw my recommendation. As is too often the case, Michael has only dug himself into a deeper hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dane2007

My involvement in the ANI and surrounding events began when I was monitoring the recent changes log and stumbled across Ancestral health. I disagreed with the CSD nomination and removed it/commented why on the talk page of the article and Michael's talk page. It was there that I became aware of the ANI discussion and the back and forth on user talk pages. I attempted to help the situation as best as I could and noticed that Michael had made some very sarcastic remarks on User talk:Tarage, which I initially mistook as a personal attack and gave a Level 1 warning to Michael for. Previously, I had given a similar warning to Tarage due to comments he had placed on Michaels page. I continued to monitor the page and the exchange between NeilN and Michael and there seemed to be a disconnect from what Michael thought happened and what actually happened, as NeilN pointed out. I do believe that a desysop would be in order as Michael has demonstrated that he does not use the tools and is disconnected from several wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:ADMINCOND, WP:DRN, WP:DROPTHESTICK). Dane2007 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patient Zero

Having looked into the evidence as well as the AN/I threads and user talk pages involved, I have come to the conclusion that this "old school" administrator should have the tools revoked. This user has exhibited behaviours which fall significantly below the expectations for someone with these tools. I also highly suggest that Mr. Hardy read all of the policies and guidelines should he choose to edit again, as this revelation was indeed appalling in my opinion. Zero^talk 19:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarage

I was going to let this whole thing drop since it appeared that cooler heads were going to deal with it, but my name has been brought up, so I thought I would give my two cents. The issue is that User:Michael Hardy has a fundamental lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works, which is concerning given the fact that they have edited for so long and have administrative powers. He continues to misunderstand that User:MjolnirPants was trying to do him a favor by NOT immediately tagging the article in question, and instead, yes, instead, decided to argue with him instead of accepting this favor and trying to work with him. On top of that, he has a gross misunderstanding about what reliable sources mean. He seems to be running under the incorrect idea that "independent reliable sources" are "reliable sources that can think independently", as he stated on his own talk page. Given all of this behavior, including refusing to back down from making personal attacks that he has been told time and again are incorrect, I feel it would be inappropriate to just let this situation go. Letting a person keep a loaded gun they found on the street just because they haven't shot anyone is not a healthy idea. --Tarage (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael Hardy at any point in time before you escalated this to where it is did you say anything like "Well, I disagree with your points, but I am willing to work with you to fix this" or "I understand that you have concerns. Can you give me a few days to address them?" You gave no indication at all that you were going to do anything but argue, and quite frankly, you have done nothing but argue. Every word out of your mouth is blaming someone else. You have not once admitted any fault of your own. Multiple people have now told you that you are wrong, and you continue to ignore it. You should not have those keys. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, you have no idea what independent sources mean, and seem incapable of reading about the requirements. You must have independent sources for all articles. If you do not, then it should not be an article. And yes, independent means having no direct stake in the topic in question, which all of your sources have, since they are all the same damn source. --Tarage (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You... blocked an editor without trying to talk to them? Without so much as leaving a warning first? Are you serious? Take away his keys right now. --Tarage (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'organization' seems to have a direct stake in the topic of the article, in that they appear to be the only ones pushing it's existence at all. And since you can't find a single outside source independent source, it appears to be to be worth deleting. But then again, how many other editors have told you this at this point? Please, tell me, how many editors and administrators have to till you that you are wrong before you will admit that you are wrong? --Tarage (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miniapolis

As a clerk, this is my first trip to this side of ArbCom. After repeated requests by a number of editors I respect to drop the stick, Michael posted this in response to my concerns. Although it's well-known that the standards for adminship were different back in the day and this isolated diff seems benign enough, combined with what they've posted elsewhere this degree of WP:IDHT would be blockable in any editor (let alone an admin). I sympathize with MH to a degree; WP was a very different place when they got the mop, but I believe that they are temperamentally unsuited for adminship in the present climate (which is all we have to work with). Miniapolis 23:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And out of the blue, in the midst of what I considered civil discourse, MH accused me of having a role account. I know when I'm being baited, and told him I was done with him. IMO, MH is unfit for adminship at this time. Miniapolis 22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Omni Flames

Yes, please do accept this case. It's my personal view that Michael Hardy is unfit for the tools and should be desysopped. This whole incident has shown us his inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from conflicts, which is something I'd most definitely expect in an admin, and I believe the rest of the community would agree with that. After the original discussion was closed and he was instructed to use dispute resolution processes instead, he still continued to make personal attacks on his talk page, calling MjolnirPants a "hard-core bully". After being blocked and subsequently unblocked, once again stated that he believed MjolnirPants was bullying him, despite the fact that the issue was already well resolved and the community had expressed that they were not in support of his view. That's not all though. Later, he started another thread, basically just restating the same points he'd been using the entire time. The thread was speedily closed under WP:BOOMERANG.

Now, we all have out bad days, and I would be able to understand it if this was a one-off incident. However, from looking at M. A. Bruhn's evidence, and making a quick ANI search, it doesn't seem to be one. I've seen this happen before, where an admin who hasn't used the tools in some times comes along and causes a lot of drama because they're not up-to-date with current practices (example). That's one reason why our inactivity policy for sysops needs updating. That's another issue though. My point is that Michael Hardy clearly doesn't have a good enough knowledge of basic policies to have the admin tools, and since he's avoided answering the question of whether or not he'd be willing to request a voluntary desysop, ArbCom intervention is necessary here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callmemirela

I was the one to post a message on Michael Hardy's talk page here. I stand by what I have said. He has no knowledge of current policies and guidelines. He engages in "childish" behavior by consistently bringing the same argument about Mjoir (sp?) and pursuing the the issue continuously. The title of his ANI thread caught my attention. I followed the issue at hand and saw that Michael was not improving the situation. Then Boing mentioned he was an admin. I had to double-check myself. I was appalled. No admin should act this way. It's one thing to act like a jerk on Wikipedia, but it's another thing acting as if a teenager took over the keyboard. He refused to drop the stick, even after I warned him. It was determined that what Mjoir said was not bullying or a personal attack. I was even more appalled when he opened another ANI thread once his first one was settled. I agree with anyone that says he should be revoked of his admin rights. He is in no position to be an admin based on his behavior lately. He is not up-to-date with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Had he gone through the current RfA, he would not had made it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I came here planning to recommend against a desysop on the basis that a long term productive editor with expertise in mathematics had lost his temper once. But then I took the time to read the evidence presented by other editors including quite disturbing discussions at ANI going back many years that show that this administrator has an ongoing propensity to engage in personal attacks against editors who disagree with him. This administrator has repeatedly assumed bad faith without solid evidence and interpreted the comments of other editors in the worst possible way. Because these problems have been so persistent, I must conclude that he lacks the temperament and self control required to be an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

When I noticed this case at ANI, I posted a question[2] to User talk:Michael Hardy

At the time I posted that, I knew nothing about Michael Hardy except for the following claims at ANI:

• He is an admin, appointed in an era when there were no real requirements for admins.
• He doesn't use the tools much.
• Several people were gearing up for an arbcom desysop case.

As far as I could tell, nobody had ever asked Michael Hardy whether he actually wants to be a Wikipedia administrator. So I asked.

Note that I was very careful to not express any opinion about the behavior of Michael Hardy or the person he accused when he posted to ANI. All I wanted to do was to save everybody some time. Before starting a time-consuming arbcom case, shouldn't we at least ask him whether he wants to be an admin?

Michael Hardy assumed bad faith where there was none, refused to answer my reasonable question, asked "what purpose Guy Macon is attempting to serve" despite my having made my reason for asking clear when I posted the question, and countered with "And what have you to say about MjolnirPants's personal attack on me, against which I defended myself?" despite my crystal clear statement "I am not at this time expressing any opinion as to the merits of the arguments being made at ANI because I have not personally examined the editing history."

At this point I disengaged and unwatched his talk page, because it was becoming clear that Michael Hardy was far more interested in sucking me into his fight with MjolnirPants than he was in answering a good-faith question about whether we really need the time and effort of an arbcom case. That should have been the end of it.

Then he tried to restart the fight on my talk page.[3] This shows a battleground mentality and is, in my opinion, conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

The above by itself is a trivial incident, and I would normally simply ignore it and move on. However, before posting this I checked the evidence posted by others (focusing on diffs, and trying to ignore opinions) and it appears to me that this is a long-term pattern of behavior.

You can see the entire discussion at User talk:Michael Hardy#Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop? and at User talk:Guy Macon#Demanding answers to questions.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what he is talking about when he mentions anger. The only emotion I am experiencing is a mild bemusement about the many ways that we humans try to pick fights. "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Michael Hardy has also ignored a request by an arbitration clerk to trim his statement to the 500-word limit.[4] He has made 28 edits so far since that request, 2 of them to his own talk page. A minor thing by itself, but it fits in with the long-term pattern of behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GoldenRing

I didn't log on for the weekend and I cam back to find... well, this. What has happened to previously sane people in the past few days?

Frankly, I can see Michael Hardy's point. Here's a history-in-diffs of the early part of this dispute, as I see it:

• Following the PROD, Michael made a very civil request for some detail about what MjolnirPants thought was wrong with the article.
• MjolnirPants responded with a civil reference to specific sections of WP:ELNO and CSD A10. (For some reason this appears as part of the next diff - I'm not sure if we're seeing some obscure software defect, whether Michael copied a response from somewhere else or if he invented a reply on behalf of MjolnirPants - since no-one's shouted loudly yet, I assume the last explanation is not the correct one).
• Michael responded, again in a fairly civil way, asking, if A10 is met, which article it duplicates? He then followed up with queries on how the cited ELNO provisions applied to the article. So far, all fairly civil and reasonable.
• Something in MjolnirPants seemed to snap at this point. His response starts, "Listen, do you want me to just go ahead and nominate this for speedy deletion? Because if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do." He goes on, "This thing will get deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed. ... If you post back here without improving the article significantly, I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it, and we can happily go on arguing about an article that doesn't even exist anymore."
• Michael protested, again civily, that if it was suggested that the article might be deleted because it duplicated an existing article then which article might be a perfectly reasonable question, and pointed out the tone of MjolnirPants' reply as inappropriate in a collegial setting.
• MjolnirPants' response was to slap a db-a10 template on the article. He did at least indicate in the template which other article he thought it duplicated.

I'm not saying ANI was the right next step from there, but I'm having a pretty hard time seeing MjolnirPants' actions as reasonable and collegial. I'd have certainly been asking for help somewhere if it was me, and I'd have hoped that I'd have some sympathy wherever I did ask for help, not the rather snippy, "The editor was doing you a favour," that he got. It's perhaps worth noting that, contrary to MjolnirPants' threats, the article was not "deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed"; the CSD was declined by Dane2007 as "Clearly not A10".

User:EvergreenFir seems to have had the sanest voice in all this (at ANI, no less): "Looks like a content dispute. ... I don't think any admin action is needed." As far as admin action is concerned, that should have been that.

In my view, User:Boing! said Zebedee richly deserves a trouting for blowing this out of all proportion, first at ANI and now here. Perhaps when bedridden after surgery is not the best time to initiate a witch hunt? Having taken three days from a user telling him to stop asking questions or something bad might happen to his article, to being hauled in front of arbcom to have his mop snapped in half, this particular witch hunt is really only missing the pitch forks and the torches.

Summary: I suggest Arbcom decline this, and everyone else take a deep breath. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: My humble and sincere apologies for stupidly mistaking something said by M. A. Bruhn for something said by you. However, I still fell considerable sympathy for someone whose mop is being demanded of him largely because someone else refused to discuss matters and he objected to that. GoldenRing (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved EEng

Before going DEFCON1 and bringing the magnificent and expensive Arbcom apparatus to bear, why not wait a bit longer to see if M.H. can be personally persuaded to give up his adminship (as he probably should). EEng 12:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! says, "I am in rude health" -- is it a personal attack if an editor labels himself rude? EEng 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Not surprisingly, turns out I'm not the first to consider this possibility: WP:No self attacks. EEng 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I don't have much of an opinion on the benefits of a desysopping case, but please consider accepting in order to address the rampant misuse of the term "bullying" that has taken over the site. Or, in lieu of a case, perhaps forbid it by motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tigraan

I just watched the whole thing going on at ANI; as far as I remember, I have had no interactions with MH, and I remember having seen MP's signature around but not much more.

While I think that the second ANI thread constitutes desysoppable behaviour, there has been no abuse of the admin tools, and there is no urgent action to take, so this fails Wikipedia:Arbitration#Prior_dispute_resolution #1. It obviously fails #2 as well, since none is really taking MB's side. As such, ArbCom should be involved only if all other venues being exhausted.

I would argue this is not the case. The second ANI thread is now closed so what are exactly the issues left to be resolved? At that point, another rant with personal attacks will lead to blocking, which can be done by any non-involved admin, and the desysopping, which can be done by an RfC of the community. Actually, I see a non-zero probability that the whole thing could be handled with a desysop request made after the recent incident has cooled down, where MH admits to have overreacted, and the desysop fails thanks to that. Even in (what looks to me) the most probable case, where MH insists on having been right, and is desysopped by a landslide, I think the stop at ArbCom can be skipped. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

This is rather a shock development and one that I have been following for the past two days. On the one hand we have an editor (Michael Hardy) who has displayed WP:IDHT in the two threads that were made by them at AN/I and violated WP:NPA by making accusations that aren't entirely accurate, on the other hand, it's been what? 2 days and already this is being taken to ARBCOM. I think EEng made a good comment about DEFCON1, this case is a false alarm. There has been no indication that Michael Hardy will abuse their tools, if they were going to start abusing their tools they would have done so against MjolnirPants when challenged. That has not been the case. Rather than to try and resolve the issue by letting it sink in for a couple days and then go and try to communicate to Michael Hardy that they are unfit for the duty of administrator, this bandwagon has jumped from AN/I to ARBCOM for an immediate desysopping of an editor who, while they display problematic behaviour, hasn't actually done anything to warrant bringing them to ARBCOM. I have never (which is about 9 months) seen a case go from AN/I to ARBCOM this quickly. Much like Tigraan, I recommend that the arbitrators decline the request for review because; shall I repeat that this issue has been blown up to an immensely larger scale than it actually is. To illustrate; it has gone from peanut size, editor who's ticked off with another editor, to elephant size, requests for immediate desysopping as a threat to the Wikipedia community; threat to the community in that they may abuse their tools, I'd like to add, that any administrator may abuse admin tools, so why the presumption that they will be guilty (I note Wikipedia is not a court of law, but still). Michael Hardy does not appear to be about to go on an admin abuse rampage. Should they hand over the mop? yes, it seems so as they are out of touch with current policies. Is it necessary to drag them to ARBCOM to do it? it may be someday, but, not now. Especially, if this can be handled through RfC. This is far more disruption than it is worth, and while it was initiated by Michael Hardy it is being propagated by this bandwagon. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Yngvadottir

I'm going to support GoldenRing in urging the Committee not to take this case. my take on the exchange between the two editors is similar to theirs, with the addition that I'm reminded of the famous formula, "Nice little —— you have there; it'd be a pity if anything happened to it". I would urge MjolnirPants to keep criticism of new articles on a professional, unemotional level (that's why people sat down and developed templates for the purpose; your offering a "favor" instead of either nominating the article or querying the author didn't come off as a favor in practice), and remind them that a fun/silly user name (actually one of the very few on Wikipedia that grate on me) makes that all the more important. Michael Hardy is evidently one of our few and much needed mathematics experts, and presumably didn't realize that in offering us a new article outside his central area of competence, he was contravening WP:MEDRS; it happens to the best of us. He's also apparently developed a reputation for being unduly blunt. I would urge him to read with fresh eyes the information for new admins and to think about how best to deal with non-experts in his fields of expertise (there are a lot of scientific ignoramuses like me working here, but we are all colleagues) and in general with people who don't explain clearly what they mean the first time, and I also have a question or two. Michael Hardy, do you want to continue as an admin? If so, would you be willing to help out with some of the backlogs requiring administrative tools, and if that, which? Arbs: hold on a bit, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ThePlatypusofDoom

You should probably accept this case. I have read both of the ANI cases, and the user's conduct falls far below what is accepted for an admin, and has a disturbing lack of competence for an admin. This may be a slight overreaction, but an admin showing that he can edit disruptively is a big deal. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Michael Hardy clearly does not have a knack for dispute resolution, nor from comments like, "What in the world do you mean by 'independent reliable sources'? Are you saying the sources I cited cannot think independently?"[5] does it appear that he understands policy either. I do not think it would be helpful or necessary to his contributions to mathematical articles to be an administrator.

MjolnirPants here engaged in intimidation and ownership,[6] which I have not seen to be at all out of character for him. (I have in the past tried and failed to prompt some introspection and humility on his part.)

I believe this case should be accepted with the usual understanding that all parties are to be scrutinized. Rhoark (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 71.110.8.102

Would the Committee explain why they feel a full case is necessary? The only reason anyone is here is because ArbCom is the only body with the power to de-admin. This isn't some multifaceted dispute like the unrelenting mire of the various ethno-nationalist topics. Everyone knows this will end up in Michael Hardy being de-adminned. Just de-admin by motion and let the community discuss whether other sanctions are necessary. If the Committee feels that, short of someone going on a rampage with the tools, de-adminning requires a full case, I think we can officially declare "no big deal" dead and buried. (For those without long memories, ArbCom has previously de-adminned by motion.)

71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied after talk page edit request here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I have removed the wikilink in the request name. If the case is accepted and created, there cannot be a wikilink in the title. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If the case is accepted, since I commented here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health I must recuse myself. Miniapolis 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• accept I should clarify that review of admin tool use/behaviour is squarely in our remit, to the point that other avenues are just not. It doesn't mean that were are thinking a desysop is inevitable, just that we need to take a systematic and thorough look and there is no way around that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as a temporary-holding-pattern vote to get us out of net-four-ZOMG-full-speed-ahead!!! This request has moved faster than anything else we've done all year. There's no doubt there are some issues here, but they are not that urgent and it is not clear that a full case would be the best way to resolve them. I left Michael this note to please take the time to rethink his approach to this incident less than four hours ago, about a request filed less than 24 hours ago, about an incident that originated two days ago. This is not an emergency. If I were in Michael's shoes I'd feel more than a little defensive and more than a little pressured at this point, and I think we can more than afford to let this sit for a bit while he takes in the feedback he's received. Meanwhile, arbs who have some time on their hands, paging you all to ARCA... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept With the previous history around Michael as outlined above, a review is clearly in order, whether something comes out of it or not. I would encourage @Michael Hardy: to include diffs to back up his statements also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Accept Doug Weller talk 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Keilana (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]