Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

Statement by Sarah
I have not been involved in this dispute other than suggesting arbitration at the ANI discussion, however, I have been watching this dispute unfold and have been deeply disturbed by Physchim62's behaviour and his ongoing abuse of admin tools. Blocking a fellow administrator who he was in a content dispute with and editing a protected page are unacceptable examples of misuse of tools that the community has entrusted with him. Unfortunately Physhim62 has been unable or unwilling to listen to the community which has roundly condemned his misuse of the tools, both at ANI and on his ArbCom vote page which currently stands at 9/90, in large part due to his behaviour towards Hesperian and his part in the Sadi Carnot case. I have also been very concerned by what Hesperian describes about as "persistent slander" and this public slanging match is unbecoming of administrators. I urge the committee to accept this case to examine the instances of abuse of administrator tools, to examine the behaviour of all parties and to end the ongoing community disruption. Sarah 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychim states that I "conveniently" unblocked Hesperian recently. On November 3 I saw this report on AN. I checked the block and Hesperian's account had in fact been blocked for eight months as a "school, library or institution's IP address". No block message had been posted to Hesperian's talk page and I felt it was an obvious error, so I unblocked it. If Physchim is trying to suggest my unblock is evidence of collusion or some other wrong doing, he is sadly mistaken. I also take exception to his claim that everything from the TFD on was geared to generate drama and his suggestion that this was all in an attempt to sink his ArbCom election. No one could have predicted his ridiculous response to the TfD, his abuse of adminship, his behaviour on ANI, his out-of-policy block and other policy violations. His suggestions and implications are astounding and offensive accusations of bad faith against his fellow administrators who bring this request and the wider community that has overwhelmingly condemned his actions and behaviour. Sarah 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry
8.5 hours ago, I still hoped the parties could engage in mediation or discussion. Apparently not. As an ongoing dispute between administrators, and with evidence that the parties are not going to reconcile with the gentle help of the community, I regretfully recommend that the committee take this case. GRBerry 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John254
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. While this incivility does NOT imply that the block Physchim62 placed against Hesperian was justified, it does illustrate the context in which the block occurred. John254 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There will be plenty of opportunities to present this information in the evidence phase. You only need to present this stuff now if you think it relevant to whether or not this request should be accepted, in which case you should explain whether you are urging acceptance or rejection, and why. Hesperian 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My statement is relevant to the determination of whether Physchim62's misconduct is sufficiently serious as to warrant acceptance of this request for arbitration without prior formal dispute resolution, and without any showing of prior administrative misconduct. John254 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos
I am also uninvolved in the dispute that led to the block - however I am of the opinion that these sorts of out-of-process blocks go against the entire spirit of Wikipedia, and that Hesperian's case is the straw which broke the camel's back in relation to PhysChim62's dealings on Wikipedia as an admin. I would argue that PhysChim62 is a valued contributor and editor, but does not comprehend the vital need for administrative tools to be used neutrally. In not only this case but in at least two other recent cases (as documented on AN/I) and several older ones, Physchim62 has enacted ill-advised blocks, often in situations where he is already involved as a party or is very close to the subject. Furthermore, he has threatened to block numerous established contributors in the past on similar grounds (I can supply diffs and evidence once the case is certified, as no doubt will others). In the recently concluded Durova case, ArbCom stated that "blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective." It harms the project for an editor/admin to wield his tools as a weapon in content disputes, and consensus on AN/I and at the Arbcom election page is that this block was beyond the pale. His failure or unwillingness to recognise this, as on previous occasions where he has come into conflict, is probably the most significant factor in ArbCom being required to rule on the circumstances and users involved.

I would add re Hesperian's conduct that while he did overreact in the days after the block, he has been quick to acknowledge that he did so, and to be fair, being unjustifiably blocked over a content dispute after over 3 years and a spotless and distinguished record on the project while questioning an out-of-process action (TfD close by involved party) without even the courtesy of a warning, and being subsequently accused of "trolling" and "disruption" (as Physchim62 levelled at him during the AN/I) would probably incite the most gentle of us to wrath. Orderinchaos 06:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Additions re Physchim's statement:
 * He has questioned whether I am "really as uninvolved as [I] pretend to be". I do not pretend to be uninvolved with Hesperian - that would be silly as anyone who checks WP:WA can clearly see otherwise - although I am uninvolved with the situation. Like many, I found out about this through the discussion on his talk page which I have watchlisted. We collaborate in article space on Western Australia related articles and are friends, although had no knowledge of each other's existence prior to Wikipedia (as is the case with most WA editors - we're a small group). I am of the opinion he is one of the better editors on Wikipedia (number of Featured Articles he's contributed to seems to back up my observation), and came to that conclusion early after watching him handling difficult situations which he handled with the utmost of good faith (I can post diffs during the evidence stage). In contrast, the only times I've had cause to watch Physchim's past behaviour (the Rebecca incident 5 months ago re copyrights and the Catalan disputes) gave me some cause for alarm.
 * Regarding the templates, I don't edit in that area and have no opinion - it's for consensus in that project to resolve. Matters relating to blocking have to be policy issues per WP:BLOCK, and my view is this was a content dispute.
 * Gnangarra said in opening the AN/I "I'll leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to decide" - meaning clearly that he didn't consider himself one and recused himself from resolving the matter - so Physchim's implication that Gnangarra is trying to conceal something is mistaken, and I think he should retract it. It should also be noted that Gnangarra has not edited the templates or matters relating to them.
 * The previous "schoolblock" on Hesperian was made in error, a fact acknowledged and apologised for by the blocking admin. The initial case was in fact brought to AN and discussed there, and the fact was it was so clearly a mistake (the type of block is almost always applied to IP addresses) meant it was simply a technical issue in need of addressing.
 * Regarding the rejected mediation, my opinion was that was a red herring to distract from the real issue - the templates were never really the issue, and Hesperian has demonstrated he will work with the creator and anyone else in good faith. What is really at issue is Physchim's repeated breaches of blocking policies - something well beyond mediation's purview - and those related to civility and personal attacks. Orderinchaos 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've edited in other people's sections so I'll edit in yours. Hesperian's actions indicate bad faith. The fact that he refused to accept mediation, then jumped over RfC to come here, only goes to confirm that. This entire farce is just a "red herring" to cover the fact that Hesperian had no justifiable reason for his various actions this last week. That you should choose to defend him in such circumstances is lamentable. Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit (on Beetstra) was only to ask a question in clarification, as I wasn't sure if what I was reading and what was being said were the same - however, I will respond to the above. Hesperian's actions did not warrant a block - much less one without warning of any kind. Your history of enacting blocks or threatening to do so against established contributors in cases in which you are clearly involved as a party and hence cannot operate within WP:BLOCK, and often in cases which amount to a basic content dispute, extends well beyond this incident - there are cases going back at least a year. My opinion on this was formed months before this incident, and I would venture to say the unusually strong vote against your ArbCom bid suggests I am not alone in my analysis. The RfM was about a very different issue to those being considered by this case - I concur with Thatcher's comments on that topic re suitability of mediation. Orderinchaos 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra
Altough I do feel that the block should not have been applied by Physchim62 himself, and though Hesperian is a long-standing editor, the way the TfD was handled did not reflect good on Hesperian, and it is not like the editor he is.

His TfD nomination was questioning a set of templates with some remarks which do not overly assume good faith on the creator (Physchim62), which have stood for 2 years without edit nor comment, which were transcluded onto thousands of pages (some of which have reached FA-status in that time) and which, at the time of creation were probably very well allowed (and now only mentioned in a guideline as something that is discouraged). The 2 votes for speedy keep were both countered with a bad-faith remark by User:Hesperian, without engaging in discussion with these editors. The TfD was closed prematurely, and I think that was correct; discussion whether deletion was appropriate was not necessary, as deletion would have caused disruption to many main-space pages, discussion on refactoring of the templates could have been done elsewhere. Hesperian did overreact to the closure, including an accusation of misuse of administrative privileges, and did perform edits to change the templates without discussion with people who actually use the templates (WP:POINT violation).

I therefore do not feel that this is a case for Arbitration; the sequence of events in this TfD would have earned a block for long-standing editors (one could have issued two warnings on WP:AGF, one on WP:NPA and one on WP:POINT) and I do not believe it is necessary to warn administrators, who should be well aware of these guidelines and policies. It was clear that Hesperian was persisting to change the templates, so the block is even to prevent Hesperian from damaging the templates even more. The only gain here would be that we know if Physchim62 should or should not have applied the block himself due to a possible conflict of interest, or that administrators are exempt of being blocked for persistently persuing an issue without discussion with involved editors. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:Moondyne's statement, below, quoting "The fact that Physchim62 has not yet responded to this listing yet seven uninvolved others have managed to find the time further suggests contempt of the process.". May I bring up the point that this request was filed at 00:30 GMT.  Physchim62 lives in France (see User:Physchim62), so at that moment it was 01:30 (am), and that not anwering directly does not suggest any contempt for the process?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if posting here is still appropriate (don't see it discouraged in the header; if so, please revert me):


 * Reply to User:Orderinchaos, points 2 and 5. The templates were the issue.  Deletion of the templates would have resulted in major disruption, with as only reasonable solution after deletion to recreate the templates with a new format (which still would have disrupted main-space for quite some time). The other solution would have resulted in thousands of pages to be disrupted until a bot or a number of editors performed the thousands of edits to repair the issues, and probably another edit to later turn them into templates again with a improved functionality.  When 2 admins vote speedy keep to prevent that disruption, and a third one actually applies it, the nominator starts editing the templates to his liking (so that they look as he suggested in the nomination), while discussing with an editor who did some template cleanup (but who is not an active user of the templates).  His response to Rifleman 82 and me regarding our 'speedy keep' vote and to Physchim62 is not a demonstration that 'he will work with the creator and anyone else in good faith', in fact, noone from the WikiProject that rolled out the templates was contacted (moreover, he hitherto has not engaged in any discussion about the display of tooltips altogether, except while he was editing); and though they do not own the templates, neither do User:Hesperian and User:Bryan Derksen.  The editing of the templates after his nomination was closed in disagreement with his nomination is a blockable offense in accordance with our blocking policy  (WP:BLOCK: "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia".  Yes, he was working together, but the remarks he posted to keep notices were clearly a notice that he wanted to choose with who he wanted to work harmoniously.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)  (slightly refactored --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)) (typo and more refactor  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
 * If what you're saying is right, editing anything while it's at TfD, AfD etc is incorrect and indeed a blockable offence? That's a very unusual interpretation of the disruptive editing policy, and one most deletion queue regulars would be in regular violation of (including myself and numerous other admins). Orderinchaos 11:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the case. Hesperian had a problem with the display of the template (which stood like this for 2 years), and wanted them either deleted, or changed (see nomination).  When several editors say it is fine and vote keep, and only suggest maybe a colour change (which was applied by another editor), and it is closed on that basis, then editing anyway to get it displaying in the way you want is a violation of WP:POINT, there was no consensus whatsoever that there a) was something wrong with the template, and b) that something actually should be changed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (add some.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
 * No, that is the way Wikipedia works. I am very disturbed that an admin would have this interpretation of disruptive editing. A deletion nomination is closed on the basis that the accessibility issues should be addressed somewhere other than a deletion nomination, so accepting that the templates have been kept, but continuing to discuss and edit the templates in other places is the most appropriate thing to do. The edits changesd the templates, but could hardly be called disruption. The accusation that he edited them to match his rejected nomination is simply untrue. Perhaps Hesperian did not correctly identify the best people to talk to about the template, but suggesting that it is deliberate or that he sought to exclude anyone from "harmoniously working together". The most we see is slightly brusque responses to users who by their own admission were saying that they didn't think discussion was worth having. Apart from anything else, the sort of wikilawyering required to spin this behaviour as a blockable offence is completely against the basic principle that blocking is a last resort.
 * Yes, the templates were an issue in the original actions, and must be considered when judging the reactions. Claims that the nomination was disruption are wrong: "The templates should be altered to print their phrases in plain old vanilla text, then all occurrences should be substed, and the templates and categories deleted." is a perfectly normal TfD suggestion when someone thinks that the templates are unnecessary/unhelpful, and the TfD discussion is there to suggest why or why not this is a good idea. However, as admirable as it is to continue to discuss that issue in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, to draw attention to an RfM about that content dispute, pretending that this RfAr is about templates, not inappropriate admin actions and civility/personal attacks in general, is completely wrong. It is even sillier to present the fact that Hesperian has stopped editing/discussing the templates as evidence of anything. Having been innappropriately blocked, I probably wouldn't want to be involved until the dodgy admin behaviour had been sorted out, either. JPD (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say it was meant to be disruptive. But the template has stood for 2 years, and now it had to be changed immediately.  I do feel that the response to my 'speedy keep' did not invite for an open discussion, it could have been stated in a different way.


 * I am sorry, but I am away for the weekend, and I don't have time to respond with a long answer. Have to run, sorry.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moondyne
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case. Physchim62's out of process blocking and behaviour has created a small firestorm in a number of fora across this wiki yet he still denies any wrong doing. Hesperian followed process wrt a concern with a template, he discussed and made his case in a robust but civil manner. In return he was, without discussion or warning, blocked by an admin who had an attachment to the template and now has a clean slate tarnished by this incident. From above comments, it seems that there is a past similar pattern of behaviour by this admin (eg. the wheel war at Template talk:PD-Australia which involved improper template protection). This matter needs be considered by you guys because to do nothing says to Physchim62 its OK to do this again, which IMO he will do. The fact that Physchim62 has not yet responded to this listing yet seven uninvolved others have managed to find the time further suggests contempt of the process. &mdash;Moondyne 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well he has now. I rest my case. &mdash;Moondyne 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is pointed out above that the delay was likely due to the late hour in France when this case was listed. I retract the suggestion and apologise to Physchim62 for my insinuation of contempt. &mdash;Moondyne 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Personally, I'm a human being with a paying job and a family life as well, but I still reponded as quickly as I could. Physchim62 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher131 on Mediation
Mediation handles content disputes. If there was an ongoing dispute about how to format the R-series templates, Mediation would be the place to take it. Mediation does not handle editor conduct problems, and most especially does not handle issues of misuse of administrative tools. The allegations made by Hesperian would normally be heard first in an RFC, followed by Arbitration if the RFC did not resolve the situation. Since there already has been a thorough discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, it is unlikely that an RFC would have a different result. Hence, Arbitration is the appropriate venue for this complaint. In any case, Mediation, no matter who requested it and who rejected it, was never the appropriate venue to handle Hesperian's allegations. Thatcher131 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rifleman_82
Nominating any template for deletion at TfD is procedurally correct. For the TfD notice to have been transcluded across every chemical article effectively broke Chembox new. To delete the template would have had similar effects. Since the template is used only within chemicals pages, the first step should have been to contact WP:CHEMS. No attempt was made even after the template was nominated for deletion. If modifying the template was the desired outcome, there is absolutely no need to go to TfD.

Thus the nomination for deletion IMO was spurious. I agree with Beetstra's characterization of "I don't like it".

Hesperian asserted that Physchim62 had a COI since he was involved in "rolling out" this template. The template is not being rolled out. It already has been, and it is widely used by many editors Such an accusation is tantamount to labelling all editors who have ever edited the R and Sphrases fields in chembox (old or new) with COI. Should all the admins involved in WP:CHEMS be recused from this discussion/taking any normal actions such as closing a TfD?

There will be no winners for this matter to go to ArbCom. Best is for both parties to walk away from this issue. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from unrelated Whiteandnerdy111
Really, no user has the right to be closing TfD's they have had involvement in. This is POV-Pushing. Then to revert a page to the earier version which the user preferred is again, not OK. And then, blocking people for trying to prevent them from fixing things is clearly wrong. Physchim62 has misused their Admin rights, and should lose them, for at least a year. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)