Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Hesperian
I have laid out a narrative of the entire conflict at User:Hesperian/Evidence. It is very long, but it is very well organised, and if the ArbCom are to get to the bottom of this they cannot avoid reading a great deal. I urge the ArbCom to at least have a look at it, as I believe it will make your job much easier. I have confined my own editorial to a single column. (ArbCom members and clerks are welcome to edit the page as they see fit, and may extend this permission to others.)

I also feel that the longer narrative is the only way for me to effectively lay out the evidence for what I see as a week of virtually unceasing misconduct by Physchim62. This is not just about the biased TfD closure, the block, and the revert of a protected page. Since this dispute started, nearly every edit from Physchim62 related to this dispute has involved some form of misconduct: falsely accusing me of many and various policy violations, willfully misrepresenting my actions, willfully misrepresenting his own actions, making personal attacks, accusing me or others of acting in bad faith, reverting me with the rollback tool, and petty things like marking up my user name as.

The same applies by way of refutation. It is undoubtedly possible to find amongst my contributions edits that cast me in a bad light. I am certain, however, that in the context of the entire narrative, I will be found to have acted reasonably and in good faith at all times.

Physchim62 made an biased out-of-process closure of a deletion discussion

 * Physchim62's bias with respect to Template:R-phrase:
 * Physchim created many of the templates under discussion, e.g., and helped to roll them out. This is sufficient to establish a conflict of interest that should have prevented Physchim62 from closing the discussion. Add to that the fact that Physchim62 had never closed a TfD before this, and was sufficiently unfamiliar with the closure process as to muck it up. Take into account the angry closure notice. In the face of this evidence, it is impossible to credit that Physchim62 just happened to rock up to TfD looking to make his first ever TfD closure, only to find under discussion a group of templates that he authored. The only rational conclusion is that Physchim62 came to TfD specifically to deal with that particular discussion, having already formed a strongly negative bias against the nomination.
 * Out-of-process closure of discussion:

Physchim62 violated the blocking policy

 * Physchim62 blocks Hesperian without warning or discussion, without administrative oversight, while involved in a dispute with him, on a false premise:
 * Physchim62 blocks:
 * WjBscribe unblocks:
 * Comments on block:

Physchim62 violated the protection policy

 * Physchim62 reverts a protected template to his preferred version, while in a personal dispute with the editor he was reverting:
 * WjBscribe protects Template:R-phrase:
 * Physchim62 reverts to his preferred version:

Physchim62 violated the no personal attacks policy

 * Physchim62 falsely accuses Hesperian of trolling:
 * accusation:
 * That this accusation is false will be evidenced by Physchim62's inability to provide evidence to support it;


 * Physchim62 accuses Hesperian of disruption:
 * accusation:
 * That this accusation is false will be evidenced by Physchim62's inability to provide evidence for it;


 * Physchim62 drops a none-too-subtle hint that Hesperian has engaged in "infantile vandalism":
 * accusation:
 * That this accusation is false will be evidenced by Physchim62's inability to provide evidence for it;

Physchim62 edited disruptively

 * Physchim62 uses the rollback tool to revert Hesperian:
 * Physchim62 marks Hesperian's username up using the vandal template:

Physchim62 violated the policy on assuming good faith

 * Physchim62 accuses Gnangarra, Orderinchaos and Sarah of acting in bad faith:

Physchim62 has wilfully misrepresented Hesperian's actions

 * Physchim62 asserts that Hesperian's use of the tag on Template:R-phrase broke over 5000 mainspace pages:
 * The truth: 512 mainspace pages were affected, damage was confined to a single infobox field, and this was reverted 17 hours before Physchim62 became involved in this situation.
 * Physchim62 asserts that Hesperian edited disruptively:
 * The truth: There are no disruptive edits in Hesperian's contributions.
 * Physchim62 accuses Hesperian of violating WP:POINT:
 * The truth: No evidence of that, because it is false.
 * Physchim62 accuses Hesperian of a personal attack:
 * The truth: There is community consensus that there was no such attack.
 * Physchim62 accuses Hesperian of trolling:
 * The truth: There is no trolling in Hesperian's contributions.
 * Physchim62 accuses Hesperian of "quite a range of policy violations... not least the Protection Policy":
 * The truth: There was no violation by Hesperian of the protection policy, nor any other policies.
 * Evidence that Physchim62 succeeded in misleading others into thinking that I had violated the protection policy:
 * Physchim62 asserts that Hesperian manufactured and maintained this dispute in order to generate drama:
 * The truth: It is pretty obvious that I was dragged into this dispute by being the unfortunate victim of a terrible block.

As Abd has rightly observed, the above are evidence of misleading comments by Physchim62, but not evidence of willful misleading. The following diff demonstrates that Physchim62's misleading comments have been willful: Until deep into this arbitration, I was unaware that Physchim62 had authored many of the templates that were under discussion, and was able to present only this diff as evidence of his involvement. In this diff, Physchim62 takes advantage of my ignorance to try to dupe the ArbCom into thinking he was not involved. In order to credit that Physchim62 was not willfully misleading in that diff, one must assume that he forgot that he had authored many of the templates.

Physchim62 has become irrational
The evidence laid before the arbcom by Physchim62 lays out an argument that Hesperian - whose 32000 edits show no sign of disruption or trolling, who has never previously interacted with Physchim62, who has shown minimal interest in this and previous ArbCom elections, and who didn't himself bother to vote on Physchim62's candidacy - nominated a template for deletion for the express purpose of inducing Physchim62 to perform a biased out-of-process block, so that Hesperian would have grounds to goad Physchim62 into blocking him while in dispute with him, so that Hesperian would have material for the generation of drama, for the end purpose of derailing Physchim62's ArbCom candidacy.

This is so utterly bewilderingly unbelievably fantastic, that one can only conclude that Physchim62 has temporarily lapsed into irrationality. That a sitting Wikipedia administrator should suffer such lapses should be a matter of concern to the Arbitration Committee.

REFUTATION: Hesperian's template nomination was disruptive and/or made in bad faith
Template:R-phrase is the base template for all the other R-phrase templates. For example, it enables R1, which produces. That is, it marks up unlinked text in blue, and underlined, in such a way that it looks rather too much like a wikilink. In nominating it, my stated position was that the markup was confusing and completely unnecessary.

I was unaware at the time that the template also provided a tooltip. Arguments that my nomination was disruptive apparently rest in part on the opinion that I should have known. However, the fact that the template produces a tooltip cannot be deduced from its code:  The argument that I should have noticed the "class=abbr" bit and dug up what it signified has some merit, but I don't believe my failure to do so is a failure to show due diligence.

After being told that the template produced a tooltip, I changed my position from "these templates have no real purpose" to "the only purpose of these templates is a gimmick that breaks web accessibility". Arguments that my nomination was disruptive apparently rest in part on the notion that my decision to proceed with the nomination under a new rationale implies an "I don't like it" attitude to the template. No evidence or argument has been presented for the notion that my change of position implies an "I don't like it" attitude, and no evidence or argument has been presented for the notion that "I don't like it" nominations are disruptive.

Physchim62 asserts that 200 templates used the R-phrase templates at the time of nomination. Actually, only 126 templates used it at the time, as the S-phrase templates were independent of it. After the discussion was closed and I rolled out a compromise implementation of the R-phrase template, others liked that implementation enough to convert all the S-phrase templates to use it too, hence Physchim62's confusion on this point. The fact that I considered the tagging of R-phrase sufficient notification, and therefore did not tag any of the S-phrase templates, demolishes the argument that I deliberately set out to cause disruption by notification tagging.

Physchim62 asserts that my use of the tfd tag was disruptive because I failed to place it within noinclude tags. However the sole purpose of the tfd tag is to notify (direct and indirect) users of the template that the template is under discussion. Placing it within noinclude tags would defeat that purpose, so that there would be no point in tagging it in the first place. If I had done so, I would have been open to accusations that I had failed to notify interested parties. The irony is that Physchim62 appears to have himself become aware of the discussion via the tfd tag.

Physchim62 asserts that my nomination was disruptive because my use of the tfd tag "broke" over 5000 mainspace pages. In fact only 512 mainspace pages were affected, damage was confined to a single infobox field, and this was reverted 17 hours before Physchim62 closed the discussion!

Beetstra has argued that the nomination was disruptive because execution of a decision in favour of deletion would have disrupted a lot of pages. The ArbCom will recognise this as a novel and unusual understanding of what it means for a nomination to be disruptive. But even if this rather unusual definition is adopted, the final sentence of my nomination, "The templates should be altered to print their R-phrases in plain old vanilla text, then all occurrences should be substed, and the templates and category deleted." shows that I am sensitive to the difficulties of deleting widely used templates without causing disruption.

Finally, I should note that at the time Physchim62 prematurely closed the discussion, every contributor to the debate other than myself and Bryan, was a chemist! Clearly the discussion failed to reach a wider audience before it was prematurely closed. If I wanted to cause drama and disruption, I had a strong case to take to WP:DR. Instead, I accepted that there was consensus to keep, challenging only the manner and person by which the discussion was closed. I then went off to implemented a compromise, based on suggestions made by others during the discussion. This sequence of actions cannot be reconciled with the accusation that I set out to be disruptive.

REFUTATION: Hesperian's editing of Template:R-phrase was disruptive and/or made in bad faith
After Physchim62 prematurely closed the deletion discussion, I rolled out a compromise version of that template.

It has been asserted that I should not have edited the template, because the discussion indicated that there was nothing wrong with them. Leaving aside the fact that the discussion itself miscarried, it should be noted that in the course of the discussion, 71.76.230.103 said "I suggest that they be adjusted to function as proper links, which direct the user to a page like the proposed R1 but to still provide in tooltips...."; Dmacks said "Maybe they should link directly to their entries in the ListOf… pages"; and Itub said "Change the color or turn them into links if that makes them clearer." But even without such support for a change, I argue that nothing in that discussion precluded me from editing the template in good faith at its conclusion.

My creation of redirects has also been criticised, on the grounds that they are "superfluous". I considered this at the time; since I was primarily creating them as part of a template implementation, it was necessary for me to do a double-take and confirm to myself that these were reasonable redirects to create. My conclusion was and is that redirects such as R1: Explosive when dry are perfectly reasonable and useful. Bryan Derksen apparently agree, as he followed up be creating equivalent redirects for S-phrases, e.g. S22: Do not breathe dust.

Finally, it should be noted that I had argued against the presence of tooltips, yet when I unintentionally removed them, I attempted to restore them,, and then, when that didn't work, reverted myself altogether. This is quite clearly a responsible, good faith attempt at brokering a compromise, and cannot be reconciled with allegations that I was editing in bad faith.

Evidence presented by Physchim62
I'm working on refactoring this to be shorter.

TfD nomination
This is a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: the nominator has nominated the templates as pointless, been told that they actually have a legitimate purpose, and then goes looking for another reason to delete. The usual criteria for the deletion of templates are given at the top of the TfD page:
 * 30-11 03:38 Hesperian nominates all the templates for deletion, claiming that "and they all do nothing more than print an R- or S-phrase (e.g. "R1"), underlined and in blue."
 * 30-11 04:04 Hesperian updates his nomination: "It has been pointed out that these template add more than just visual styling; they also add a tooltip. My position, then, is that tooltips violate principles of web accessibility, and are therefore recommended against by the Accessibility guideline, so there is still no legitimate reason for these templates to exist." (emphasis added)

From Templates for deletion
 * 1) The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
 * 2) The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
 * 3) The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
 * 4) The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

I contend that Hesperian's nomination of these templates for deletion was made in bad faith, specifically in search of causing a dispute. Such behaviour is, of course, more commonly referred to as "trolling".

Template tagging
Of the 200 templates nominated for deletion, Hesperian tagged one, R-phrase. It should be noted that this template is transcluded into all the others—it is not used directly on any article pages.

Hesperian did not surround the tfd tag with &lt;noinclude> tags, ensuring that the tag itself was transcluded into all the templates and hence onto every page which used those templates. Subsequent comments by Hesperian show that this was a deliberate choice, not a mistake. 

I contend that Hesperian deliberately chose the most disruptive method available for informing users of the TfD discussion.

Once he had found R-phrase, Hesperian knew how the formatting of the other templates was acheived, that is, by a  tag. These templates are not the only uses of  on English Wikipedia: a quick MediaWiki search for "abbr" will bring up Template:Abbr, for example.

I contend that Hesperian knew from the beginning that the deletion he was proposing would not solve the problems he was alleging. Of course, I also contend that Hesperian didn't care, as he was only interested in causing a dispute.

TfD discussion
During the TfD discussion, no other user supported Hesperian's proposal to delete the templates. Two administrators who are also professional chemists— and —proposed a speedy keep: they were met, not with discussion, but with the phrase "Did you ever actually read Speedy keep?" from Hesperian (emphasis original). 01-12 04:00

Near the end of the discussion, announces that s/he was "changing the color as I speak" [01-12 13:47] in response to a suggestion from. [01-12 08:54] I'm sure that this was a good faith attempt to resolve the supposed problem, but it has two drawbacks: It would, of course, change the appearance of several thousand pages, and this with minimal discussion.
 * it wouldn't have solved any wider problem with the use of, such as in abbr;
 * it would have meant that the usages of this functionality on chemistry pages would appear different to equivalent usages elsewhere in Wikipedia.

I contend that the existance of the open TfD discussion was itself causing disruption to Wikipedia.

TfD closure
I closed the TfD discussion at 17:01 on 1 December. It is perhaps worthwhile quoting the last sentence from my 164-word closure rationale: "The speedy keep does not imply any judgment on the accessibility questions raised in the discussion, which should be addressed in more appropriate fora." We shall see below what Hesperian chose to do instead of discussing the alleged problems in "more appropriate fora".

In his statement to this Committee, Hesperian has said that my closure statement was "angry and insulting", the pot calling the kettle black if ever there were a case of it! The harshest words in there are that Hesperian "did not conduct the most simple research" and that he could have prevented the disruption "had he thought to use simple discussion". It accuses him of acting with unnecessary haste, nothing more.

Hesperian and others have also said that I shouldn't have closed the TfD discussion because I was somehow "involved" with the templates. I haven't edited these templates for more than two years, I am no more "involved" with them than any other editor who edits articles on chemical compounds. Administrators regularly deal with areas in which they have a personal intellectual interest, and sometimes professional knowledge—this is usually seen as a Good Thing. The corollary would be that no chemist-administrator could act on chemistry articles, and that no Australian administrator could act on Australia articles: obviously a ridiculous situation.

I contend that Hesperian's allegations of my excessive involvement in these templates are a red herring designed to justify his escalation of the dispute. I find it lamentable that these allegations have been repeated so vehemently by other editors, including many who should really know better.

Hesperian's response to the TfD closure
The obnoxious language in Hesperian's message on my talk page need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that it goes way beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia.

What most struck me about Hesperian's diatribe was that it was entirely direct at me ad hominem. There was no attempt to discuss any substantive issues. Let us remind ourselves of the possible fora which Hesperian could have used if he had been interested in resolving a real problem: Needless to say, Hesperian did not go to any of those fora, or make any attempt at wider discussion whatsoever.
 * Deletion review if he wished to contest the closure of the TfD discussion
 * Wikipedia talk:Accessibility if he wished to discuss accessibility issues
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry if he wished to discuss the templates in general
 * Dispute resolution if he felt that the problem was with me personally

I contend that Hesperian's message on User talk:Physchim62 was a deliberate attempt to escalate the issue. It cannot be excused, or even explained, as simple anger.

My block of Hesperian
At this point, I was faced with a very angry user who was reacting to a TfD close in a completely inappropriate way. It was reasonable to fear that he would take matters into his own hands and disruptively edit the templates which he had nominated for deletion. At the time, I did not realise that he had already done so, and I didn't consider that there was any larger dispute than my TfD closure. After verifying that he was indeed an established user and not just some passing troll—it is easy to see why I might think that he was just some passing troll—I blocked for 24 hours.

I contend that any editor would have been blocked for the behaviour Hesperian was showing in these circumstances. The suggestion that the behaviour did not breach WP:NPA is just another red herring—the message on my talk page is obviously an ad hominem attack in circumstances where it is reasonable to fear disruptive editing from the perpetrator.

During his brief stay on English Wikipedia tagged several images for speedy deletion citing copyright concerns which were, for the most part, not serious problems. He got involved in a brief edit war with over an attempt to tag Image:Latif Pedram 2002 for speedy deletion (the image is now deleted). Pegasus proceded to block Cabin Member for an indefinite period. Cabin Member appealed the block but the appeal was rejected.
 * A recent example of how ANI treats blocks by "involved" admins

I heard about the case through a third party, and left a message for Pegasus asking for the block to be lifted. I pointed out Pegasus's involvement in edit warring and the fact that Image:Latif Pedram 2002 was actually replaceable fair use which should be deleted. Pegasus took the issue to ANI, stating his objection to the block being lifted. Two comments came in supporting Pegasus's position and the indefinite block. I decided that the case really wasn't worth arguing over any further.

Hesperian's changes to the templates
Although I wasn't aware of the fact when blocking, Hesperian had already made a series of changes to R-phrase which obviously affected all the templates under discussion here. It is best explained by an example: In order to implement his changes, he had to create over a hundred separate redirects to individual lines of List of R-phrases. These redirects will only ever be used by these templates, and are completely superfluous. The only reason to use them—and something which could have been acheived with much less effort, it has to be said—is that the redirects preserve the tooltips, the very point which Hesperian was supposedly arguing about in the TfD debate.
 * previous version: yields R10, an   tag
 * Hesperian's version: yields R10, a link to R10: Flammable which is itself a redirect to List of R-phrases

In case anyone might think that Hesperian's actions were a good faith attempt to solve a problem, I should mention that the links to List of R-phrases are also superfluous, as there is already a link to this page right next to the templates in the infobox. Overlinking in itself can be a source of acessibility problems, and is discouraged by Accessibility.

I contend that Hesperian deliberately manipulated these widely used templates to perpetuate the dispute. There is simply no other logical explanation for his actions.

ANI thread
A thread at WP:ANI was opened by at 14:43 (UTC) on 2 December. The contributions of other editors to this "discussion" can be dealt with later, if necessary. Two points are noteworthy about the contributions made by Hesperian after he was unblocked by (less than seven minutes after the thread opened):
 * 1) the repeated accusations of that I was simply lying ;
 * 2) the repeated refusal to discuss any substantive reasons for the dispute, e.g..

I contend that Hesperian's language during the ANI discussion was unacceptable.

I further contend that Hesperian's behaviour during the ANI discussion was a deliberate attempt to aggrevate the dispute.

Dispute over copyright tags
One question remains: why would Hesperian, a respected editor and admin of long-standing, take the trouble to troll me? One explanation lies in a dispute I had with certain Australian editors this summer over Template:PD-Australia.

The timeline of the dispute, which very nearly came to an RfAr but was finally settled by discussion, can be found here. A few points should be emphasized among all these diffs:
 * the first revert made by, with reference to a thread at WP:AWNB which had only been started  29 minutes earlier by arbitrator
 * the civil and constructive nature of the early discussion at the template talk page, compared with the lack of good faith, petty personal insults and general self-congratulation at the AWNB thread
 * the speed at which Rebecca and resort to accusations  against myself once I act  to defend the changes made by

Hesperian was aware of the dispute, and commented at the AWNB thread.

I contend that Hesperian's trolling at the time that voting opened in the elections to the Arbitration Committee was a "punishment" for having dared to stand up to a small clique of administrators from AWNB. Revenge is said to be a dish which is best served cold.

Physchim62 has previously engaged in highly improper use of administrative tools
Physchim62 protected Template:PD-Australia twice while engaged in a revert war concerning it -- see the protection log for this template, and two reversions by Physchim62 in the concurrent edit war. This constitutes both wheel warring and the inappropriate use of administrative privileges in a content dispute. John254 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62 has made severe personal attacks against Hesperian
See this comment, in which Physchim62 insinuates that Hesperian has engaged in extensive "infantile vandalism", sufficient to warrant an 8 month block (the block placed against Hesperian by Arthur Rubin was clearly in error), and this comment and associated edit summary, in which Physchim62 characterizes Hesperian's contributions as trolling. John254 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian has characterized Physchim62's contributions by means of a crude, scatological metaphor
See the text immediately following"Therefore your suggestion that I 'did not conduct the most simple research'"in this diff. John254 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither party violated protection policy
I think this detail has been misconstrued by both parties:
 * WJBScribe's protection of the R-phrase template was marked as an anti-vandalism measure ("high-risk template"). It was ostensibly not related to the Hesperian-Physchim dispute and not intended to stop an edit war (there was none at that point).
 * Such anti-vandalism protections are not intended to stop normal maintenance editing on templates by admins.
 * Hesperian's editing of the template, both before the protection and in the one edit after, was a good-faith attempt at being bold and fixing a perceived problem with the template. It was done in a responsible and technically competent way and did not damage pages.
 * Physchim62's revert of Hesperians edits, while not technically a violation of protection policy either, nevertheless shows an unhealthy attitude of WP:OWNership, and a twofold misrepresentation of protection policy: first, in blaming Hesperian for having violated it; second, in believing that Hesperian's perceived violation justified another violation by Physchim himself.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Physchimp accusation of Bad Faith
When I noticed that Hesperian was blocked by Physchimp, I looked at the reason, the TfD closure and the response. After reviewing all of that I felt that the closure commentary was an inflammatory challenge to the nominator and the response was strongly worded but nothing that would warrant a block with out first warning, asking for a retraction/refactoring of the comment. I also recognised that if I was to unblock someone with whom I had collaborated with on many articles, who had been a co-nominator on my RfA and who I have met in person, it could be considered nothing but a COI. I thought that given Hesperians standing in the community as an editor/admin a block such as this would already be raised for review on AN/I especially given the comment on Physchimp's talk page indicating Hesperian's experience. When I got to AN/i there was no notice or discussion so I raised the issue diff(misspelling Hesperians name) giving a very brief explanation of events as I saw it then saying I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide whether this action was/is justifiable.. Immediately after raising the issue I notified Physchim first followed with a correction of the link  both with the same edit summary, I then followed up with a notice to Hesperian. My next edit to AN/I was 12 hours later responding to Physchim query if I was getting this dispute mixed up with the the PD-Australia template dispute about 5-6 months before hand, to shich I said "nope" and then clarified what I was raising and pointing out that its customary to request a review if you block an editor/admin of such experience even without an apparent COI.


 * That at the time of notifying AN/I I didnt recall the PD-Australia issue, though I did recognise Physchim username.

Physchim62 is aware of Admin Standards

 * On Template talk:PD-Australia my edit commenting about Physchim protecting that article where he was in dispute, I noted how pointless such an action was and also highlighted WP:PPOL quoting the text admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.. I also ceased participating in further discussion at this stage.


 * On Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop Physchim made a number proposals based about admin actions.
 * diff PC asks An the admion who block their opponent in an edit war, what do we do about that? -- there was no clarification nor answer to this question
 * diff proposals by PC in italics
 * point 13 Administrators are expected to promote Community discussion and the search for consensus solutions before taking administrative action wherever this is possible without risking undue disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * point 9 ...Much of this dispute could have been averted had users not been so quick to jettison WP:AGF... if applied when closing the TfD this dispute would also have been averted.
 * point 10 Administrative blocks from editing Wikipedia are intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, not to be a punishment for user conduct. Hesperian commented at 01:35(UTC) 2nd Dec 2007, Physchim blocked at 14:08(UTC) 2nd Dec 2007 12 hours after Hesperians comment. IMHO this wasnt a preventative action but punative. Physchim made no reversal of any edits by Hesperian during the intervening period. Physchim didnt revert any of Heserians until this edit at 16:48, 4 December 2007. I do note that Physchim made only edits to the AN/I discussion with three exceptions his sandbox, his talk page, another users sandbox in this period, including this assertion that Hesperian was editing disruptively, with the exception of Physchim reversal of two edits on the 4th Dec and other discussions occuring on talk pages none of the 200 odd edits Hesperian made between commenting on Physchims talk page and the block have been reverted.

Templates
Template:PD-Australia is a non issue, matter was resolved and no images were deleted.
 * diff Hesperians comment on PD images 22 October 2005, actually supports the stance of Phsychim from July 2007.
 * As already highlighted I withdrew from the ongoing civil discussion that I had been engaged with for two days after Physchim protected the article, which I felt was unnecessary, uncivil, offensive and in violation of WP:PPOL.

Template:R-phrase details
 * diff created by 12 November 2007.
 * diff nominated for deletion 18 days later 30th November 2007

Physchim62 violated WP:POINT and WP:AGF in reverting Hesperian's minor template change after the unblock
After Hesperian was unblocked, and after positive discussion with Bryan Derksen and Random832 (here, and which shows the amicable tone of the parties in the absence of Physchim62) he modified R-phrase with a trivial change and an edit summary of "span inside link, with explicit title attribute - this makes absolutely no difference to the current display, but decouples the tooltip text from the link.". Hesperian's change was a minor and good faith attempt to improve the coding.

Physchim reverted the change with an edit summary of "rv changes while awaiting conflict resolution as per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version". (the toungue-in-cheek meta page says: "There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version.")

So why did he revert? Because he felt some ownership and he wanted to make the point that Hesperian would not have the last say on this matter.

Hesperian does not have a history of, nor is there a pattern of incivility
I cannot add any diffs here because there's nothing to say except that he is widely respected as a quality and helpful contributor. That is a self-evident fact.

Physchim62's case is built largely on the assertion that Hesperian was uncivil. Unless there is evidence of a pattern of incivility ArbCom should dismiss this allegation.

Hesperian's TfD nomination
User:Hesperian nominates over 200 templates for deletion (diff). I want to note here that I will assume good faith in this action. Hesperian may not have known what the effect (the disruption) of the deletion of these 200+ templates would have been, and not have seen what the effect of the TfD notice on the template would have in mainspace (also taking into account some server-lag which results in changes in templates not being visible directly). I do note here, that the remark 'As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R-phrases look really cool.' was not necessary, as it assumes on the creator that it was made because the editor wanted to make things cool, and it suggests that there was no previous discussion for making these templates.

Notes:
 * The TfD-notice was transcluded onto the template, which is the preferred way. Though WP:TFD does give other options, which in this case could have been applied (inside noinclude-tags, or on the talkpage).  The transclusion of the TfD notice did disrupt the display of the templates (which may not have been visible right away),


 * It is stated in the nomination that the templates break web accessibility (per Accessibility). To clarify, these templates are almost exclusively used in two adjacent cells of a table, in the left column the link to R-phrases or S-phrases, in the right column the R and S templates.  For people without accessibility problems it displays e.g.: "R-phrases:,  "; for people who do not have accessibility problems this would result in "R-phrases: R1, R2".  So in the way these templates are generally used, the tooltip functionality adds something to the information kept on the page (without making the boxes ridicilously big), for people who can not access the tooltip the link to the explanation of the link is just left to it (as would be "Melting point: –97 °C", we don't link the "°C", a link is provided in the left column to explain what melting point is, without overcrowding the right column with excess links).

As this accessibility problem is the basis of the TfD, and of the edits afterwards, I do believe that the nomination was a (good faith) mistake because of a misinterpretation of the templates, and how they were used.

'speedy keep' votes
I voted on the TfD: speedy keep. In my opinion, the TfD did not need to be discussed any further, as deletion of the templates should simply not take place, making any discussion superfluous. Deletion would disrupt thousands of articles in mainspace (as could have been seen by the transclusion of the TfD notice on the template), and the the only reasonable solution would have been to recreate the templates with a new content. That result could also have been accomplished by simply editing the templates. Again I want to reitterate, I have no reason to think that Hesperian meant to disrupt, only that I strongly believe that that would be the result of the (good faith) action.

After my speedy keep vote, another user (Rifleman 82) also votes speedy keep.

Hesperian reacts to these two votes with this remark (quoting the same in the edit summary), stating "Did you ever actually read Speedy keep?". Please note that Hesperian emphasised the word 'read' in the response.

Hesperian may not have known, that both editors that voted speedy keep were administrators, and long term editors, who knew exactly what the templates did, how they were used, and what would happen when they were deleted. Though I must confess that I did not read Speedy keep, I believe my vote was in the spirit of Speedy keep. Hesperian's response was at the least irritated, and it did not invite to further discussion, as for example a response like 'Why do you think that Speedy keep should be applied here' would have. The remark at least set the trend for the rest of this discussion, strongly giving the feeling that Hesperian thought that the templates were useless or bad and should be deleted or changed, whatever was suggested by others.

I believe that I responded to Hesperian with a response (diff), assuming good faith on Hesperian re his remark, explaining why I think speedy keep should have been applied. I do also mention here contacting a wikiproject. All those options and discussion possibilities are hitherto completely ignored.

The speedy keep by PhysChim62
After the two speedy keep votes, PhysChim62 actually applies the speedy keep. As my vote already suggested, I do fully believe that that was a proper action. Physchim62 may have had a COI in performing the closure himself, but COI edits are not forbidden (per per our conflict of interest guideline), though strongly discouraged. I think the backup of two other administrators/happy users of the template should be sufficient to exempt Physchim62 from the COI.

Hesperian's response to the 'speedy keep'
Hesperian reacts to the closure of the TfD with this response. There are a couple of remarks there:


 * "Firstly, it seems you're yet another person who has never actually bothered to read Speedy keep, as your reasons for speedy keeping are at odds with what is written there."
 * As I stated in my explanation of my vote of speedy keep, discussion was superfluous, deletion would result in disruption (even if that was not Hesperian's reason to nominate the tempaltes for deletion; I mean, I am not saying that Hesperian meant to disrupt wikipedia). That is in complete line with Speedy keep


 * "Secondly, ... a gimmick that breaks web accessibility. "
 * No, see my response to the nomination.


 * "Thirdly, the whole point of the tfd template is for it to be transcluded with the template ... Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap."
 * Yes and no, see my response to the nomination. Calling this 'a great steaming load of crap', is hence strongly overreacted.  WP:TFD does give alternatives, which Hesperian did not consider, and he defends that here ferociously.


 * "It is pretty obvious from the hostile tone of your response, together with the fact that you're deeply involved in chemistry articles, that you didn't like the nomination, and decided to speedy close the discussion instead of just saying your piece and waiting for an unbiased closure. That is a misuse of your administrative privileges."
 * OK, so anyone involved in chemistry articles is not allowed to involve himself in this TfD. An interesting view.
 * Also, as I believe that the speedy keep was applied correctly, this is not an abuse of administrative privileges (note also that I, and another administrator suggested the same speedy keep; see also my above points about the application of the speedy keep). I therefor call the remark 'That is a misuse of your administrative privileges' an attack on PhysChim62's actions, not on the contents (see WP:NPA; containing:

Again, I conclude here, Hesperian did want the templates either deleted, or at least changed, whatever consensus, or outcome of discussion.

Hesperian's edits after the closure of the TfD
It was clear that there was no consensus on deletion of the template, there was even fierce resistance against any deletion, and only few discussed some small changes, though most did not suggest extensive editing. One small change was applied (change of colour). Still, Hesperian at this point performed a number of edits to the template, while at this point it should have been clear that:


 * The templates were heavily transcluded onto many pages, and that edits to them could result in disruption of mainspace articles.
 * There was no consensus whatsoever that there actually was something wrong with it. The edits were discussed with Bryan Derksen (who did some work on the templates), but not with the person who originally created them (Physchim62), let alone with an appropriate wikiproject (which I suggested that should have been done before even nominating the TfD.
 * The templates stood for 2 years, still Hesperian found it necessary to apply the changes now.

Altough it may not have been the purpose of Hesperian to disrupt with these edits, I do believe that they did disrupt, and were certainly not with community consensus. I could describe this as 'good faith persistent editing resulting in (probably) unintended disruption of wikipedia'.

The block
Physchim62 blocks Hesperian quoting the remarks on his talkpage, which Physchim62 apparently felt as a personal attack.

Seen the above points:
 * 1) A unnecesserily, though probably good faith, remark ('really cool') in the TfD notice;
 * 2) An irritated remark to the speedy close votes to two voters ('did you actually read Speedy keep');
 * 3) An irritated remark on User talk:Physchim62 ('great steaming load of crap', 'misuse of your administrative privileges');
 * 4) Continuing to edit the template, though not probably not meant to be disrupting, certainly persistent and without community consensus, based only on an interpretation of a guideline and an misconception of the use of the template (not mentioned in the block log, but still a risk after the remarks mentioned in 1-3; and the edits were actually performed).

Hence, I would describe the edits of Hesperian certainly careless, and persistent, and that is what should be stopped. That would be in line with our blocking policy.

WJBscribe's protection of the template
WJBscribe protected the template, quoting "High risk template". The reason for the protection is in line with High-risk templates, and has nothing to do with the dispute. The edits by Hesperian and Physchim62 should be seen unrelated to the protection.

PhysChim62 reversion of Hesperians edits
There was no consensus whatsoever for the new version of the template. There is no discussion with any involved editors, except for with User:Bryan Derksen, who said it looked good (but is not involved in the use of the templates; note: Hesperian may not have known this, as there is a quite late in the edits to the template where User:Bryan Derksen states "I'm not actually one of the "chem guys" ", with Hesperian responding "Oh, okay. Me neither ..."). Hesperians edits were based on a misinterpretation of the use of the template, and of the percieved problems with accessibility. The new version resulted in overlinking in the chemboxes, and did not add any information that was not already available.

Evidence presented by User:Rifleman_82
I'd like to confirm that I agree completely with Beetstra's characterization of my actions/statements. Just so there are no accusations that Beetstra's putting words in my mouth.

I reiterate: Hesperian spuriously nominated the template for deletion because deletion was not a logical or plausible outcome. He did not approach the wikiproject involved in the maintenance of these pages at any point (before, during, after the nomination). His nomination caused a great deal of disruption on almost *all* articles discussing chemicals.

As for the "speedy keep" vote &mdash; I personally found his question "Have you even read WP:SPEEDY KEEP rude, and unworthy of a response. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.