---

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Michael Hardy arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Michael Hardy reminded

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Michael Hardy
• diff of notification SarekOfVulcan
• diff of notification JzG
• diff of notification Ritchie333

Information about amendment request

• Michael Hardy reminded

• The committee should consider whether this warning had the desired effect and whether Michael Hardy should continue to be an administrator on this project.

Statement by Beeblebrox

The 2016 committee decided a “reminder” was a sufficient remedy in this case. That reminder has clearly failed to have the desired effect as disruption in this area has continued and taken much time and resources from the community. The remedy reminds Michael Hardy that “Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.” and the finding of fact upon wich this remedy was based, [1] reads, in part, that “(Michael Hardy) has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.” If he was failing to drop the stick two years ago, and is still causing disruption in this exact same area even after a full arbitration case by now it must at least be failure to drop a limb or a tree trunk. Here is the recent AN thread [2] a village pump thread [3] and a recent thread at Jimbotalk [4]. Hardy’s talk page and block log also contain relevant material showing that this is part of the same issue as the previous full case.

I would suggest that this sort of behavior is unbecoming of an administrator, and for failing to heed this warning, Michael Hardy be removed as an administrator. I would stress that I am not alleging tool misuse but rather a clear, prolonged unwillingness or inability to abide by expected standards of admin behavior, as outlined in the committee’s previous decision. I believe the community has failed itself by not bringing this forward sooner, allowing the committee to sit on it’s hands and do nothing while all this disruption has gone on in project space.

(To be clear, I am automatically listed as a party due to filing this request but I have had no involvement whatsoever in the current dispute and cycle of blocking and unblocking. I am including those admins as parties here as I’m sure they will each have their own opinions to proffer)

To those who seem to think I wish to re-litigate the recent AN thread and the assosciated blocks: I do not. Whether he shoud have been blocked for his behavior was addressed by the community, and it seems, finally, to have made up its mind. What I am looking to do is assess whether Hardy should still be an admin, which is the exclusive purview of the committee and it has already ruled once on his behavior in this specific topic area and how it reflects on his continued membership in the admin corps. I might have done this sooner but I was camping for the last week and when I came back and saw the drama had continued but it still hadn’t been brought here as it should’ve been. Arbcom doesn’t go looking for cases and requests even if it is well aware of the issues, somebody has to bring it to them, and nobody else seemed like they were going to do it.

I may be pressing the word limit now, but in answers to “why now” I would again suggest that this is what should’ve been done to begin with, as there was already a full case on this exact issue. I was unavailable at the time the AN thread was closed and the unblocking occured and looking at the closde thread I was surprised to find that seemingly it hadn’t occured to anyone that this was already Arbcom’s problem since they issued a ruling on this editor’s behavior in this specific topic area previously, and also the issue of conduct unbecoming an admin is not an issue the community is equipped to deal with, only the committee is. His fitness as an editor is not the topic here, only how his behavior reflects on his staus as an admin, which he was explicitly warned about by this committee.

Statement by Michael Hardy

If I had not been completely blindsided by learning of the existence of the corruption, dishonesty, and bullying that is the dominant behavior of the Administrators' Noticeboards, I would have conducted myself differently in the recent events. However, there is no reason for me to recant or apologize for allegations of dishonesty, corruption, and bullying. And those are accusations, not "personal attacks". There are accusations against me on this present page, and no one is calling those "personal attacks" or "insults". That discrepancy is in itself dishonest. It is a fact that on Administrators' Noticeboards and like venues, there are unstated unadmitted pecking orders, and those who rank high in that unacknowledged system, and their sycophants and other supporters, have de-facto licenses to accuse others without being accused of "personal attacks" or "insults", while others who make accusations of the same kinds, myself obviously included, are accused of "personal attacks" and when making assertions that are factually correct or factually incorrect and that are in fact accusations. And that situation does not scratch the surface of the deep corruption in such forums. I don't even have any idea how to collect sycophants and it has never occurred to me to wish to do so, but as we see, some are masters of that art.

One thing I find disturbing that I have not yet commented on is an exchange with Alex Shih. I said that nobody had attempted to explain why allegations are not libelous, that say that the only reason why professors at respected universities use the standard terminology of their fields in public is to create a false impression of legitimacy. Alex Shih responded that many people had explained that to me. When asked for diffs, he linked to the very page on which many had refused to explain that, plus a page on which another user, Guy Macon, had asserted that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are "unquestionably highly lucrative", at best an implausible statement, and therefore those professors are dishonest. I can only wonder if Alex Shih was paying attention to what he wrote.

(I actually suspect Guy Macon of honesty, which his followers seem to lack, since he was willing to attempt to give some comprehensible reason for his position. But he has not found out that meetings at which professors present their research findings to each other are not the same thing as marketing fad diets to the public, nor that such meetings are a standard practice among academics.)

Possibly I will file an ArbCom case, but that may be too expensive. I will probably want to be advise in the matter by counsel who is thoroughly familiar ArbCom proceedings. This is an important matter. If I do that, I may or may not include some mention of the

I asked "NewYorkBrad" in an email if there is some rational grounds for confidence in the integrity and competence of the Arbitration Committee. Some time later he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored)@Black Kite: I made accusations against others and others made accusations against me. Mine were characterized as "personal attacks"; theirs were not. There is much hypocrisy and dishonesty there. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored)@MPants at work: When I object to dishonesty and bullying, that is called "throwing a fit", but I wonder who will say that this user is "throwing a fit" by making allegations against me. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: That is false. I asked each ARB a different set of questions. That particular question I addressed ONLY to Newyorkbrad, in response to his email, and he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: For the record, he did _not_ reply to that question. He replied only to the earlier question that I sent to the other members. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Statement by JzG

Is this a "live case or controversy"? I thought it had finally died down? Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

My thoughts are as follows:

• Michael is a prolific and long-standing writer in the field of Mathematics and contributes hugely to the encyclopedia. A block on Michael prevents this work happening.
• Michael has had difficulty expressing his viewpoint in conflicts in a manner that other people understand easily. This has led to multiple noticeboard threads.
• Michael generally does not use the administrator tools.
• A substantial amount of conflict has arisen, not least the original arbitration case, because of Michael's perceived "status" as an admin, and demonstrating hostility and incivility towards editors that would not be tolerated in any candidate running for RfA today. Therefore the community considers Michael's adminship to be unfair.
• I believe the original blocks on Michael were within the bounds of administrator discretion. While blocking for civility should be a last resort, in this case I believe it could be considered appropriate to force an editing holiday on Michael in order that everybody else can stop talking about it and get back to working, and give us a net reduction in disruption.
• I unblocked Michael because I saw consensus to do so from multiple administrators and wanted disruption to decrease and for people to stop watching his talk page for evidence of it.
• A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone.

I don't have any strong opinions on what to happen next, but this is simply the current state of affairs as I see it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

Michael Hardy was indefinitely blocked for, essentially, repeatedly complaining about a group of editors who responded to a complaint he made here, and refusing to drop the stick about it. For reasons I explained in my assessment here and here, the treatment MH received was very unfair and problematic, so much so that I apologized to him on behalf of AN. Myself and a group of other admins eventually negotiated an unblock in which Michael agreed to not bring it up anymore. We let him have the last word, and he appears to have moved on since then, with no further issues. I have no idea why someone would try to rehash this all now, days after the situation had been reasonably resolved. There was no significant offense here, just some very human righteous indignation.

• Just want to re-emphasize a point that Ritchie made above, which is absolutely true: A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As for whether any of this is desysop-level misconduct in general, I think such sentiments are foolish. MH brought something to AN that nobody but he cared about. That was the big offense. For some reason, a bunch of people were unduly rude and dismissive about it, and while he should have just moved on and let it go like he was told to, we need to recognize the fact that he wasn't in the wrong for feeling mistreated or bullied. That's not a behavioral issue on his part. That was a situation that was provoked in the original AN thread. (Swarm ♠ talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

Beeblebrox, I’m only passing through, having seen the link elsewhere, so I can’t comment on the situation here, but I think I’m right in saying that little will happen without diffs to show the behaviour you outline. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

This seems like picking at a fresh scab, Beeb. I'd have waited to see what happens now that the recent troubles appear to have died down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

No. Michael Hardy validly complained about AN/ANI, refused to stop complaining about AN/ANI, and was blocked by AN/ANI. Perhaps instead AN/ANI ought to be "reminded". Paul August ☎ 22:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to add some slightly more thoughtful comments: There are a relatively small group of editors who spend a lot of time at AN/ANI. They know each other, often respect, and like each other. They are well-meaning and do a lot of good work there. But—and there are no better words for it—they operate as a clique, and often indulge in groupthink. And often, in fact, their cliqueish group-think is correct. But ... not always. And woe-betide the editor who disagrees, who refuses to Kowtow, who gets on their bad side, for they are soon got rid of. None of this is surprising, what would be surprising is if things were any other way, for this is simply human nature at work. This is a problem for Wikipedia, and I do not know what the solution is. But at least part of the solution needs to be some serious self-reflection by the participants at AN/ANI. Paul August ☎ 20:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

I absolutely agree Micheal should be desysopped for their behaviour but the drama's died down and they've finally dropped the stick so in my eyes the best course of action would be to leave them be and if they start again then Arb is (or should be) the first port of call. I just don't see the point in rehashing it all out again. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This is a model of poor AN behavior, and it is so because of the ad hominem of which Michael Hardy was the victim, in the form of 'Because it is you, Michael Hardy . . .'. So, it is AN that is in need of reminding that WP:CIV explicitly seeks to prevent bringing up the past in such a manner ("it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, it is irrelevant and off-topic to a blanking discussion whether Michael Hardy is/was bad, -- policy does not contain a 'Michael Hardy is/was bad' factor. The only thing that matters, by policy, is, "may cause harm to some person or organisation". So, by policy, it is not correct, nor justifiable, nor even just, to respond, 'you are bad, Micheal Hardy'; nor, 'you were bad, Micheal Hardy'. The faulty AN ad hominem, remains the proper focus of where correction and reminding is needed, and not just for MH's sake, for anyone who has the possible misfortune of going to Admin boards, and for the general purpose of DR and Admin process, it is the needed focus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Yes, Michael should have been desysopped during the period of chaos that resulted from his persistent personal attacks on other editors (his actions were clearly not in keeping with anyone who holds advanced permissions), but this seems like a strange time to be bringing a case now, when everything has died down and Michael has promised not to repeat his actions. Obviously, if such editing were to reoccur, a desysopping would be a slam dunk, but I'd like to think that we'd give someone a chance to show they can carry on with their (obviously positive) editing without such an issue happening again. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

Out of the blue, Michael Hardy blanked the AfD ([5]) that hasn't been edited since 2016 (the one that initiated the arbitration case in 2016), and re-litigated their argument from two years ago at M. A. Bruhn's talk page ([6]) who hasn't edited since December 2016, and also left a similar message to Orangemike ([7]), who started the AfD in question two years ago. The behaviours of some editors at the noticeboard was certainly hostile and troubling, but to completely ignore how the thread originated, the conduct of Michael Hardy, and the context of this entire situation is also not correct I think. In conclusion, the point that the issue would have gone away if people simply left Michael Hardy alone is not entirely correct when considering the subsequent development.While the AfD question has been resolved, what I think the points Beeblebrox are raising is that 1) The original remedies has proven to be inadequate, and should be updated with motion 2) Similar to the Andrevan case request, the fact there weren't misuse of tools is irrelevant as that is not the only aspect of adminship covered by the requirements of accountability. The fact that a case wasn't brought forward should not be a justification that there were no merits for a case, rather the lack of editors who are capable of bringing such a case, involving many bizarre and unusual aspects, correctly. While the timing has indeed passed and nothing can really be done anymore, the fact that ADMINACCT and some arbitration remedies are so inconsistently or selectively enforced (like in this case), and avoiding to tackle the core of a problem that would more than likely to re-surface, are not some of the principles that should be upheld. While regular editors should walk away from the timesink, this is the kind of job that Arbcom needs to do. Alex Shih (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Since the fuss, MH has edited 38 articles and one DYK and has made no mention of the excitement that I can see. Picking at the scab is most undesirable. There has been no suggestion that admin tools have been misused so removing them would be pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

As one who was trying to de-escalate the latest fracas, I simply want to offer my opinion that Ritchie333's statement is an accurate and fair account of what happened, and his opinion that "A significant amount of disruption and drama would go away if people just left Michael alone" is sound. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I think "staleness" can matter in some cases. The crucial distinction that I think exists here is that Michael Hardy is not accused of any misuse of the admin tools, nor is there any substantial cause for concern that he will abuse them going forward. This is, rather, just a "conduct unbecoming" case (and having looked at what happened, Michael Hardy is not the only one whose conduct was not the greatest). If Michael (and everyone else) really will drop the matter, then it's over with and nothing further is needed. If he doesn't intend to do that, desysopping won't prevent him from raising it again anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I was one of the parties in the case referenced. I'm of the opinion that the way MH was handled most recently was the best way to do it: When he throws a fit about something, block him until he agrees to stop throwing a fit about it, then unblock him so he can continue editing. This is, IMHO, an editor who's behavior needs managing, but who contributes quite usefully to the project. So let's just handle the behavior and let him keep contributing. Note that my value judgement of the behavior would read very differently, but since we're not here to teach adulting lessons, we should focus on what helps the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

I commend Michael Hardy for speaking the truth about the double-standards and other serious long-standing problems at Wikipedia at Jimbo's page, even if he goes overboard with hyperbole. The numerous attempts to silence him (via multiple A/N and ArbCom filings, warnings, and blocks) for raising legitimate concerns is sickening: It confirms exactly what he has been saying about bullying--bullying to silence him. His accusers can run circles around him with filings like this taunting him and and provoking him into restating his concerns about being bullied, but somehow that is okay.

He did, in fact, promise to stop talking about these problems--something he should never have been required to do. I see the opening of this ArbCom amendment as an open invitation for him to restate his concerns about the double-standards.

I agree with those who have stated that there are problems on "both sides". If we can agree on that, we might get somewhere.

What we need is more uniform application of civility rules, which I did see with a recent revert and block by Boing!_said_Zebedee.

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Michael Hardy: Clerk notes

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

Michael Hardy: Arbitrator views and discussion

• There have obviously been issues but like several of those commenting, I’m not sure why we are seeing this request at this moment. Excessive rhetoric and unnecessary drama were belatedly deescalated: why stir them again now? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t get it either. Michael has resumed normal activities for him and relative peace, AFAICT, once again reigns throughout his corner of the encyclopedia. He hasn’t edited in a couple of days. Why the need to bring a case action at this particular moment? Katie^talk 00:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. A desysop request should be handled as a full case. Katie^talk 02:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to decline at this time. As Brad and Katie have pointed out, the storm has subsided and the drama has ended for the time being. If it starts again, sure, but since it hasn't since the unblock, what's the point of this? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm conflicted on this request. On one hand, I don't think anything has changed in the past week regarding whether Michael's conduct was compatible with adminship (without comment on whether it was or not). I don't want to set precedent that a case must be filed immediately or else administrative misconduct goes stale. On the other hand, why kick off drama again when it's just been quelled? Either way, ARCA is not the place to handle this. We would need a full case if we are seriously considering desysopping as a potential remedy (and we would have to be to justify a case at this late hour). Decline to take action at ARCA without prejudice against a case request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The community is getting better and better at handling behaviours, Arbcom is becoming more and more redundant. So, as Michael has stated that he's going to move on or raise an Arb case, I think we're at the point that things have calmed down - which is what Wikipedian's normally want, to get on and beaver away. Per Rob, I don't want to discourage people from raising cases (or taking action) or imply that misconduct can go stale, but when a solution is put forward by the community (in this case an unblock with an agreement that he moves on), it should be given a chance to work. Also, procedurally, I wouldn't be happy removing tools by motion based on recent behaviour, there are too many factors over the period which would need to be looked at, as well as the possibility of alternative solutions, and that would need a full case. So, I'm a decline at the moment, without prejudice to a full case, or return if anything changes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Hardy: you asked each ARB that question individual by email. More than one of us responded, myself included. Worm^TT(talk) 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am of two minds here. On one hand, Michael's actions were one that I would not want to see an admin take in the least. On the other, Michael has seemed to walk away from the edge and moved on, thankfully. If a desysop truly is warranted, a case request should be made for that. Since the drama itself seems to have mellowed out, for now I decline. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per others. For the record, Newyorkbrad did reply to Michael Hardy's email despite the claim he did not respond. Mkdw ^talk 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Hardy: Please follow the instructions on the edit notice and post within your own section. Since you have raised and discussed the contents of the emails here, you are waiving their confidentiality. In the email you sent to every Arbitrator, you question the "honesty and general legitimacy of the Arbitration Committee", effectively the integrity of the Committee. Newyorkbrad responded to your email, as did others. For you to claim that Newyorkbrad did responded to your email about the integrity and competence, when in fact they had, but simply not to the last message in the discussion, is dubious and misleading. Considering your email inquired about our "credit ratings" and "tax returns", I may only assume that if you had responded back to Newyorkbrad, another response was not required, either as asked and answered, or that your requests were so inappropriate that deny applied. Mkdw ^talk 02:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Hardy: I read your comment. There are instructions at the top of the page, in the edit notice, I moved four of your other comments (on two separate occasions), and I informed you directly to reply in the correct place. You are either not reading things, which defeats the entire purpose of a discussion, or you are intentionally doing it, which also defeats the purpose of having a discussion. In either case, we are at an absolute majority to decline the ARCA and no further good will come from reviving discuss about an incident already past, or an issue that requires a full case reques. The ARCA should be closed at the earliest convenience. Mkdw ^talk 04:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline, largely per Ritchie. People might consider, where possible, leaving Michael alone so he can get on with his content work. Michael might consider, where appropriate, toning down the hyperbole. Either way, not much mileage to be had from this discussion. If there's a view a desysop is warranted, it'd need a case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, belated agreement with the above. I share Paul August's view that the dramaboards did themselves no particular credit here, but on the other hand, Michael Hardy's behavior has been poor in a strange and hard-to-follow way throughout this whole dustup, from the abrupt blanking to these latest emails flying around. I would say "everyone needs to chill out", except that that had pretty much already happened by the time this request came about, so... chill out more. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Doug Weller talk 05:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]