🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy

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

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

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

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

Case opened on 16:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

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.

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

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.

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

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

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]

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

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


Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

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

Michael Hardy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/2/0/0>

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]
    • Superficially there's not much similarity between Michael's situation and mine - he's an early admin who has been continuously active, primarily in content work; I was originally a 2006 admin who was inactive for almost 8 years before returning - but the arguments surrounding early admins who haven't kept up with policy details and long-term inactive ones who return tend to follow parallel tracks, so I do feel like I have some insight here. I continue to think that, while the adminship aspect does make this fall under arbcom's remit, this case request was filed prematurely; a two-day-old ANI thread closed specifically because the matter was at arbcom is hardly "prior dispute resolution". More importantly, a great deal of the intervening commentary has been individually well-meant but collectively off-putting. As much as I agree with Floq about the term, Michael clearly has experienced the whole incident as "bullying" and hasn't had the opportunity to step back from the situation or investigate what his options are besides continuing to post defenses to the continuing comments on the matter. And in any case he seems quite reasonably more interested in content work than in the picky details of arbcom-statement presentation. (I started writing this with "I'll be brief because Yngvadottir has already hit the key points", but then wrote a long post anyway. But I still essentially agree with her. Except for the username thing ;) That's an awfully long post to say I reaffirm my decline vote despite the fact that it's now moot, but I don't think anybody voted for me expecting brevity.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided to reread this again, thinking that if nine smart people disagree with me then I may well be wrong. (A very rare event, but still... ;) After all, I've said on-wiki before that I think the trend toward ANI or AE pseudo-resolutions of disputes and away from formal cases has gone a bit too far and we should be handling more things in a structured, moderated format, and yet I've voted to decline several of the more serious case requests we've seen this year. On re-evaluation, though, I still agree with myself; in fact I'm striking a bit of my comment above in light of EdChem's perceptive post above. This isn't Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Desysopping. Arbcom is in principle here to work through intractable disputes in order to dampen distracting drama, not to participate in the unnecessary escalation of minor matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 10 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]
  • Decline while I know it is moot per OR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While I appreciate Yngvadottir's and Opabinia regalis' points above, our acceptance of a case is not an assertion that some wrongdoing has taken place. There is clearly something to look into here; whether we act upon it can be decided in the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Arbitration in dispute resolution

1) A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Communication

2) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor conduct

3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

4) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

5) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

6) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

7) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes

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

  • 18:07 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy created the article [22]
  • 19:52 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy posted a note about his "stubby new article" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health and fitness [23]
  • 20:05 UTC, 4 August 2016: MjolnirPants prodded the article [24].
  • 20:32 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy removed the prod tag [25]
  • 20:43 UTC, 4 August 2016: Hardy queried the prod rationale on MjolnirPants' talk page, resulting in a contentious discussion [26]
  • 22:06 UTC, 5 August 2016: MjolnirPants tagged the article WP:A10 [27]
  • 04:56 UTC, 6 August 2016: Hardy posted an ANI thread titled "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!" [28]
  • 05:22 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 removed the speedy tag [29]
  • 05:35 UTC, 6 August 2016: Dane2007 added a number of cleanup tags [30]
  • 05:37 UTC, 6 August 2016: NeilN closed the ANI thread [31]
  • 06:34 UTC, 6 August 2016: Johnuniq started a thread at WT:MED requesting input on the article [32]
  • 08:28 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing! said Zebedee posted a subthread titled "This is an admin!" in the closed ANI thread [33]
  • 08:33 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing blocked Hardy for 31 hours for "personal attacks or harassment" [34]
  • 11:25 UTC, 6 August 2016: Boing unblocked Hardy with the summary "There's a growing consensus that my block was excessive, so I withdraw it unconditionally - please consider it a non-block" [35]
  • 13:56 UTC, 6 August 2016: Guy Macon posted to Hardy's talk page, asking "Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?" [36]
  • 15:32 UTC, 6 August 2016: OrangeMike started an AfD [37]
  • 04:25 UTC, 7 August 2016: Hardy posted a second ANI thread about MjolnirPants [38]
  • 04:54 UTC, 7 August 2016: Linguist111 closed the second ANI thread [39]
  • 10:19 UTC, 7 August 2016: Boing posted a case request [40]
  • 12:44 UTC, 7 August 2016: Kudpung closed Boing's subthread, commenting that the matter was already at arbcom [41]
  • 16:42 UTC, 11 August 2016: Kharkiv07 opened the case [42]
  • 06:44 UTC, 14 August 2016: Sandstein closed the AfD with the result that the title should be redirected to paleolithic lifestyle [43]
Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Case scope (Ancestral health)

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

Passed 5 to 4 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (Administrative Conduct)

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

No allegations of administrator abuse by Michael Hardy occurring after 2008 have been presented to the Arbitration Committee.
Passed 7 to 4 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User conduct

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

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (User conduct)

7a) Hardy interpreted MjolnirPants' comments about his deletion nominations as "ordering" him to "obey", or "forbidding" him to disagree ([44], [45]) and described MjolnirPants' conduct as "bullying" [46], [47]. He has persisted in this interpretation throughout the case [48]. Hardy has also persisted in posting to the talk pages of users who have asked him to cease doing so [49], [50], [51], has responded to criticism with sarcasm [52], and has perpetuated the dispute with his own actions [53]. Hardy has assumed bad faith of the editors criticizing his behavior and failed to drop the stick.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants

7b) MjolnirPants inflamed the dispute by ignoring requests for clarification on the problems with Ancestral health and threatening to nominate it for deletion. ([54])

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee

7c) Michael Hardy was blocked for 31 hours by Boing! said Zebedee. Boing unblocked after 3 hours stating "There's a growing consensus that my block was excessive, so I withdraw it unconditionally - please consider it a non-block". (Block Log). Boing then initiated a case request after Hardy's second ANI thread had been closed and after the article had been taken to AfD [55].

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Other community members

7e) Although not named parties to this case, a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case. Callmemirela [56] [57], Guy Macon [58] [59][60] [61] [62] [63], Softlavender [64], and Tarage [65], [66] in particular have made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute.

Passed 6 to 5 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Remedies

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

Michael Hardy (Reminded)

2) Michael Hardy is reminded that:

  1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
  2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
  3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
Passed 11 to 0 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants reminded

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

Passed 9 to 2 at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee reminded

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

Passed 5 to 3 with 2 abstentions at 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

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

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy&oldid=1088038909"