The Michael Hardy case
In this issue of the Arbitration report: A new case has been opened, and the arbitration committee has issued a reminder to administrators not to issue blocks based on private information.
- Unhealthy tension around ancestral health
Michael Hardy, a longtime administrator, started an article on ancestral health on 4 August. Its publication was met with some resistance from MjolnirPants, who twice moved for its deletion, by PROD and Speedy Deletion. Debate ensued, rapidly leading to the filing of an ArbCom case.
As of this writing, nine of the 14 arbitrators – a clear majority – have moved to accept the case. While only two have opposed taking on the case, one has strongly urged declining the case: "This request has moved faster than anything else we've done all year," observes Opabinia regalis. "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." Opabinia goes on to explore the merits of taking the case in some detail, and to reconsider their own position in light of nine colleagues' disagreement; but ultimately stands by the preference to handle the conflict through less formal channels. Accepting the case, though, does not imply a specific outcome; as arbitrator GorillaWarfare says, "... acceptance of a case is not an assertion that some wrongdoing has taken place."
The case is currently in its Evidence stage. The ancestral health article meanwhile has currently been merged into the Paleolithic lifestyle article.
- In brief
- The Committee reminds administrators about blocks: On 21 July, Opabinia regalia wrote for the committee to remind administrators of provisions on blocking policies involving private information:
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.