Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

Case Opened on 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Statement by Hesperian
On 30 November, I TfD'd the templates in catetories R-phrase templates and S-phrase templates, on grounds that they didn't do anything but print their title in colourful text; e.g. R1 produces. Although nominating a great many templates for deletion, I only tagged a single template, R-phrase, with the tfd notice, so as to reduce disruption. I notified the template creater, Bryan Derksen, and he pointed out that I had missed the point - the template produces a tooltip explaining the meanings of the codes. I then decided to proceed with the nomination on grounds that they exist only to violate Accessibility.

About 12 hours later, Beetstra removed the tfd notice from the R-phrase template claiming "this is disrupting a huge number of pages about chemicals". 17 hours after that, Physchim62 prematurely closed the nomination as "speedy keep", leaving an angry and insulting closure notice. Physchim62 was previously involved in rolling out the R-phrase templates, and it is clear from his angry closure that he was emotionally invested in them. This was a clear case of a biased closure by administrator misusing their administrative prerogative to summarily end a discussion about a template in which he was involved. I'll say that again: Physchim62 speedily closed an XfD discussion on a template in which he is involved.

Such behaviour must be challenged, and challenge it I did. I left a message at Physchim62's talk page saying that I wasn't objecting to the "keep" outcome, but his closure notice was provocative, and he was a biased party who should never have closed the discussion.

I then implemented a compromise version of the R-phrase template, adding links to the template in addition to tooltips, so that people with accessibility problems would have some prospect of finding out what phrases like "R1" mean. I explained what I had done to Bryan, and he later described it as "an excellent solution".

Some time later, Physchim62 came online, read my message, and blocked me for 24 hours for a personal attack. Let me clarify. Physchim62 blocked me, without warning, without discussion, without oversight by other administrators, while in dispute with me, citing a personal attack that didn't actually exist. An administrator who watches my talk page took the block to AN/I for review, and shortly afterwards WjBscribe unblocked me on the grounds that "In my opinion this was an absurd block and I have unblocked. The diff cited for the block does not contain any personal attacks. Criticism, even strongly worded criticism, is not an attack. Admins blocking others for criticising their decisions is unacceptable as it stifles discussion."

Discussion on AN/I has raged since then. I won't go through it all; you can read it yourself. There are two aspects that I would like to emphasise. Firstly, many editors have condemned Physchim62's block, but Physchim62 holds fast to the position that it was justified. Secondly, in attempting to defend the indefensible, Physchim62 has made numerous untrue and insulting claims about me, that in my opinion go beyond robust argument and into the realms of persistent baseless slander. These include claims that I am "trolling", "editing disruptively", that I haven't and won't discuss my edits, and that my edits "have quite a range of policy violations", none of which claims have any truth to them whatsoever.

Meanwhile, WjBscribe protected the template. At the suggestion of Random832, and after discussion with him and Bryan, I made one last, benign change to the protected template, improving the coding without altering the function - the template equivalent of changing dogs to dogs. A little while later, Physchim62 reverted the template to a version before all of my changes. That warrants repeating: amidst a personal and content dispute, Physchim62 reverted a protected page to his preferred version.

There are three serious problems in this mess that I think the ArbCom needs to look at:
 * The block: It is bad enough to block someone without warning or discussion. It was rather worse when said block is for a personal attack that doesn't exist. It is worse still when the block is on someone you're in dispute with. It is absolutely deplorable when the block is in retaliation for a legitimate criticism of one's administrative actions. And when one administrator blocks another in this way, it creates a gunfight environment, where whoever blocks first is automatically declared the victor, so heaven help anyone so stupid as to show restraint. A community that condones such behaviour amongst its administrators is seriously dysfunctional. To date, Physchim62 continues to insist that the block was appropriate, which implies that he would do it again.
 * The entrenched misuse of administrative rights: Within a few days, Physchim62 has speedily closed a discussion on a template in which he was involved; blocked an administrator who criticised his actions; and reverted a protected template to his preferred version. This is not a one-off misjudgment. This is entrenched abuse of adminstrative rights. As an unprivileged editor, I would be powerless in the face of these administrative actions. As a responsible administrator who chooses not to wheel-war, I am no less powerless.
 * The persistent slander: I'm aware that AN/I can be vitriolic, but this goes beyond the pale. When one administrator persistently posts baseless and false statements about another, we don't have an argument, we have a character assassination. If enough mud is flung, some of it sticks; people assume that I must have done something to bring this attack down upon myself. As a result, no-one is prepared to stand up and say "we've heard enough; this has gone too far, it must stop". The ArbCom now has the opportunity to do so: to play some part in defining the circumstances under which the parties should be left to slug it out, versus when when one or more parties have gone too far, and must be censured.

Statement by Physchim62
What anutter… waste of time. Physchim62 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This request should be rejected because the Initiating Party has refused mediation, and his actions suggest that ArbCom was the only solution that he sought for this supposed dispute . Physchim62 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that Hesperian deign to discuss his substantive objections in a forum which is accessible to other members of the Community—he has consistently refused. This refusal makes me wonder whether this dispute is for real at all—i.e., whether Hesperian ever really thought that his actions were for the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole—or whether everything has just been invented for less avowable reasons. Perhaps people would like to read this thread and this thread before deciding whether Gnagarra (who initiated the ANI thread here), Hesperian and Orderinchaos are really as uninvolved as they pretend to be. Sarah has also conveniently released Hesperian from an 8-month schoolblock recently—why should someone even suggest that such a "respected user" was engaging in infantile vandalism? The admin who placed that block certainly didn't receive the defamatory comments which have been addressed in my general direction, and on very public fora.

I still believe that this entire procedure would be a waste of ArbCom's time, but I shall not stand by and let myself be libelled in public in this way, especially by users who are certainly no angels themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone is really interested in the history of how these templates came about, this is the link. That's right, well over two years ago, and an authorship which nobody has acknowledged. Why the sudden urge to change them now, and to deny Eequor the maternity of the idea? I ask myself… Physchim62 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to note that my last attempt to save the time of this Committee has been labelled a "red herring". Let us get this straight once and for all: There is no substantive dispute That's right, this whole shenanigans has been invented from top to bottom. never had any real complaint against these templates. Had he such a complaint, he would never have engaged in the acts which he did. Everything from the initial TfD request onwards is designed to generate drama. Given the timing, I would suggest that this desire to generate drama is connected with the current ArbCom elections, although I may be wrong, that happens sometimes. The desire to generate heat over light, on the other hand, is clear. Congratulations, arbitrators, you've been well and truely trolled. Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * Yes.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Waiting to give all parties a chance to respond if they want to make a statement. FloNight (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Done...Accept. FloNight (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Administrators
1.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute
1.2) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.


 * Passed 8 to 0 at 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioning of administrative actions
3) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators: return of access levels
4) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection by Physchim62
1) On Template:PD-Australia, Physchim62 twice protected the page after reverting to his preferred version. The first instance occurred on July 23 and the second on July 26. The second instance came after he was notified that protection of a page by a party engaging in a dispute is forbidden by policy.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian blocked by Physchim62
2) On December 2, Physchim62 blocked Hesperian after a TfD on Template:R-phrase during the course of inquiries made by Hesperian regarding the early closure of the TfD. This contravenes blocking policy which prohibits blocks against parties in dispute with the blocking admin.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62's access levels
3) voluntarily gave up his sysop access.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 17:24, 20 December 2007 (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.

Physchim62's sysop access
2) Physchim62 gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.