Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted editors who are assigned additional user rights and responsibilities, which are to be used for the benefit of the encyclopedia and the community. Aspirationally, administrators should demonstrate and model collegial and collaborative behavior throughout all of their editing activities, whether or not they are acting as administrators or using administrator-specific tools at the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions against administrators

2) Administrators who seriously or repeatedly violate site policies or norms are subject to sanctions, including removal of administrator status (desysopping) by the Arbitration Committee where appropriate. Sanctions, including desysopping, may sometimes be warranted even where the administrator has not used or misused administrator tools. This is established by ample precedent as well as by common sense. If the rule were otherwise, an administrator would remain immune from desysopping even if he or she, for example, vandalized dozens of articles, deliberately introduced hundreds of copyright violations, repeatedly created unsourced negative BLPs, or criticized the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, mostly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct

3) In determining whether sanctions are warranted, the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant aspect of an administrator's behavior as background information. However, the following, individually and cumulatively, are generally not grounds for desysopping:

• The administrator's having passed RfA or its predecessor process at a time when standards were different from those found today;
• The admin's limited overt or visible use of administrator tools, so long as the community-established minimum editing requirements are satisfied;
• The admin's use of only a subset of administrator tools—no admin uses all the tools—and especially not if the admin spends most of his or her wiki-time working on content;
• Isolated instances of snappish or uncollegial behavior—which is not to say that this is a good thing;
• Isolated instances of incivility or personal attacks—which is not to say that these are good things;
• Isolated instances of pressing a point too far ("failing to drop the stick") or misinterpreting another editor's comments—though these are not good things either;
• Disputes as to whether the administrator has done any of the foregoing;
• Instances of actual or alleged misuse of administrator tools eight or more years ago; and/or
• Unfamiliarity with procedural nuances of Wikipedia arbitration (although editors should try not to make the arbitrators' and clerks' jobs harder than they already are)—an editor's avoiding the arbitration pages for 14 years deserves praise, or perhaps envy, rather than censure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er. As amusingly written as this is, it's not a "principle" but an ad hoc collection of basically unrelated things that may or may not exist in this particular case. So, my hope would be that something like this is not adopted. (For example: If somehow the way he passed into adminship matters (which I too doubt) then the way to handle that would be a finding of this is how he became admin, and two a finding that it's irrelevant, here (but probabely best to not mention it). Or, if something is "isolated" then there should be a finding it's in fact isolated, if that is the evidence, and a finding as to how that matters, here) But please don't adopt this collection of stuff as a "principle." I have no other interest in this case but I do think being careful with "principles" at Arbcom is particularly important - long after the case is forgotten.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any problem with an ad hoc collection of basically unrelated things making its way into a guideline about what does and does not constitute behaviour sufficient for desysopping, but I do agree that there are some problems with this list, particularly the vague wording: "Isolated instances" seems like it could be interpreted to fit, or exclude, a broad range of data sets. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker and Snuge purveyor: Not every line of every proposal posted on a workshop is meant to be suitable for explanting to the proposed decision page verbatim, even if the arbitrators agree with the content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So, yeah, it's not suitable, but Snug purveyor actually raises another point against it. Arbcom is not suppose to adopt "guidelines", and in an Arbcom "principle" it would be a really good practice to link to and follow an actual site policy or guideline (eg. I'm pretty sure, NO PA specifically forbids certain PA, and no matter how isolated, Arbcom should definitely reserve to decide on a case by case basis that even a singular atrocious PA is beyond the pale.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why one uses qualifiers like "generally." For every rule there can always be an extreme case or an exception. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this odd random (or in this case, apparently specifically designed to specifically exonerate one specific person) jumble of "proposals", particularly the "an editor's avoiding the arbitration pages for 14 years deserves praise, or perhaps envy, rather than censure", when in fact knowledge of our major policies, guidelines, and dispute-resolution measures is essential for any extremely long-term and extremely active editor, especially one wielding power tools, and when in fact the issue in question included the fact that the party had been directly notified of the clerk action on his talk page in the first place. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hole Truth

4) The First Law of Holes states, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In other words, "if several sensible people say that you should change some aspect of your behavior, then you should at least think about doing so, even you personally think you're doing nothing wrong." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corollary

4.1) The First Law of Holes remains good advice even if you think it is unfair that you are in the hole or you are unsure why you are there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second corollary

4.2) Being named as a party to a Wikipedia arbitration case does not necessarily mean that you have done anything wrong or that you should or will be sanctioned. Nonetheless, if an arbitration case is opened with your username as the casename, you may be in some sort of a hole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Skilled players rarely redouble. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Summary

1) What should have been a relatively minor dispute has escalated disproportionately. Because the dispute, taken in perspective, is still relatively minor, it is not necessary to allocate fault for this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This does not address MH's behavior post-initial dispute or during this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this in principle, and not just because I'm a party (I stand ready to accept a trout for the way I snapped at him). As I explained on the evidence talk page, I think Michael's initial reaction was quite understandable. It was the subsequent escalation which I think is not. That being said, the language here is vague enough that it might be read as opening the possibility that someone like NeilN, Guy Macon or Boing! said Zebedee could be at least partially at fault, and I could not disagree more with that. All of them behaved civilly and reasonably, and made efforts to defuse and/or end the situation. Note that this is a statement of verifiable fact, and is in direct contradiction to the unsupported opinions several editors have expressed at the evidence page and during the case request. Diffs have already been provided, but I'll happily make a dedicated, iron-clad defense of each of those editors' behavior. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Disagree. In my mind, we clearly have a case of repeated defiance of even minimal common sense, civility, guidelines, policies, collegial interaction, appeals to listen and respond accordingly, and several other important pillars of Wikipedia behavior -- enough to demonstrate an ongoing and obvious unsuitability for adminship. There seems to be an underlying or preemptive assumption in many of the above proposals and summary that a person who has withstood 14 active years here will wither up and die if the tools, which were handed to them almost informally 13 years ago and which they never requested, were removed from the person who rarely uses them and doesn't need or particularly care for them and who doesn't care about keeping up with Wikipedia policies in the first place. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, if a user who was not an administrator was acting the way Michael Hardy did, what action would you propose? You do realise that Michael Hardy is not going to change the way he behaves even if he is de-sysopped? Removing adminship doesn't actually resolve the problem here. The focus on his adminship is unhelpful. The focus should be on why a group of editors failed to communicate and resolve their differences, and why escalation to ArbCom was thought necessary. My view is that this is a case of an admin (User:Boing! said Zebedee, BsZ) blocking unnecessarily, focusing unnecessarily on the fact that Michael Hardy is an admin, and escalating unnecessarily to ArbCom because they (BsZ) have a view that the admin corps has a reputation that needs protecting. This is quite clear from the initial outrage BsZ expressed ("This is an admin!" and "Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name?"). Over in your evidence, you used the expression "two of the very best and most respected, circumspect and rational administrators on Wikipedia" [were you including BsZ in that?] - there are 1,292 administrators, how can it be possible to single out two admins like that? The best admins resolve disputes, they don't escalate them to ArbCom unnecessarily. One further point: think about who was actually in a position of power and using admin tools here. It wasn't Michael Hardy. It was the admin (BsZ) who carried out the block and escalated the matter to ArbCom. That needs examining at least as much as Michael Hardy's conduct. Should ArbCom really be used as a tool to get rid of admins who "give us all a bad name"? A relatively minor dispute has been escalated to make an example of someone, and that is leaving a bad taste in many people's mouths. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not because "the admin corps has a reputation that needs protecting" (despite my perhaps poor choice of words in that ANI comment). It was because I genuinely think admins should set better examples. But as I said on my talk page, I don't think it would be beneficial to spend a lot of time debating the details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Suggestion to parties

1) The parties to this case and other interested editors are each urged to introspect for not less than 15 nor more than 90 minutes regarding the principles set forth above and how this dispute could have been addressed in a more collegial way. No other action is taken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Since it's NYB's proposal, should we cite Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.? "The parties are advised to chill." ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I strongly disagree with the citing of In re Snyder as a precedent for two major reason.

First, the circumstances are vastly different. In that case, a lawyer with no other questionable behavior on record wrote one letter in which he declined to participate in what he felt was an unfair system, and refused to apologize for calling it an unfair system in relatively benign language. In this case, Michael posted fourty five times about this issue, in multiple different forums, in language which has been repeatedly criticized by multiple others, and with a history of questionable actions. The fact that Michael has also refused to apologize is really immaterial at this point.

Second, this is an arbitration committee, not a court of law. The gulf of differences between those two things is so vast that they are only comparable inside analogies and metaphors. The consequences of a poor decision by this arbitration committee are nothing compared to the consequences of a poor decision by a judge. No-one will be executed, spend time in jail, or even be ordered to pay a large sum of money in restitution or compensation because they lost an ArbCom case. Furthermore, it has always been my understanding that actions of the Arbitration Committee are intended to prevent and mitigate editing problems, not to punish those who break the rules. This vastly changes the gravity. In In re Snyder, with the rights of multiple defendants possibly resting on the outcome, it is not unreasonable for public defenders to complain about the funding of their cases, nor is it unreasonable for a judge to investigate such a lawyer at even a brief hint of suspicion. In this case, it's a pretty clear consensus that opening multiple ANI thread, posting accusations on the talk pages of anyone involved and accusing anyone who disagrees of persecution is quite unreasonable, and it is also unreasonable to subject Michael to weeks of people digging up dirt on him and flinging accusations at him (rightly or wrongly) in order to justify taking away a handful of user rights he rarely-to-never uses anyways. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also In re Snyder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: My citation of Snyder was just a response to O.r.'s citation of Mattel; the case wasn't meant to be taken as a 100% apposite analogy. In general, comparisons between ArbCom and real courts are vastly overblown, largely for the reasons you provide (if anyone wants to further explore the comparison, see here). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this as inadequate; see my two comments above. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: