Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Respectful request for time
Since early voting can skew the community's perceptions, I request that the Committee wait the standard 1 week before embarking on a proposed decision. If someone decides to start composing a proposed decision sooner than that, please inform the involved parties 24 hours in advance so they have a fair chance to complete their evidence. Durova Charge! 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the proposed remedy, but what difference does the time period have with this case? The evidence is all to see on the template page, block log, and AN/I discussion so can be dealt with quickly by the committee.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think at this particular point it's gotten to a stage where this shouldn't be a problem - most evidence and ideas have already been tossed around. (Just my opinion, and I am one step short of a party, so take as such) Orderinchaos 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "questioning of administrator actions"
Would it be worth adding a caveat similar to the one seen at Requests for arbitration/Durova for this principle?  Daniel  04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resignation
It appears that has resigned. - Jehochman Talk 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * deletedKww (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This must be difficult for him. Please be gracious.  Physchim62 has made many valuable contributions to the project. - Jehochman  Talk 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is ... rude to kick a man when he is down. However, he has posted on his user page, a commentary on Wikipedia. The whole affair is truly unfortunate, sad. What is really shocking to me is that we could have an administrator who, though a valuable contributor to the project, has apparently been unable to understand the basics of our process. Perhaps number of edits isn't such a great standard to use! A great editor might well make a poor administrator. And vice versa! --Abd (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Definately this highlights the biggest issue facing Wikipedia and thats plain simple emotional burnout of the people that it relies the most on the admins. No-one disputes that PC has been a valuable contributor to the project, hopefully he'll take a break recharge his enthusiasm come back better for the experience. Gnangarra 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"While I shall endeavour to complete the projects which I've already started with users who retain my respect, I shall not be taking on any new projects for Wikipedia. None of these collaborations require sysop tools, and so I ask that by +sysop bit be flipped."

That is not a resignation. It is a resignation of his sysop bit, and an undertaking to wind down his involvement in editing. I don't know if Physchim62 has followed this through so far as to request a rights change on meta, but if so, the ArbCom might consider softening the blow by changing the "is desysopped" remedy to a "has resigned sysop rights under controversial circumstances" remedy.

Hesperian 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense as an alternative proposition. The puzzling bit through all of this is that we're dealing with someone who is an exceptional editor, but for a considerable time now has had issues of judgement relating primarily to his use of the sysop bit in areas in which he is involved as an editor. Had that not been the case we wouldn't even be here. Orderinchaos 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He's still on List_of_administrators/P-Z for the moment. If he does in fact resign the case ought to be dropped altogether. Rubbing someone's nose in it while they're down is the type of needless bloodletting that is tearing this place apart. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a message for steward attention at at Requests for permissions. &mdash;Moondyne 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They've responded. - Jehochman  Talk 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That reply indicates that it will be turned back on upon request. Is that true?Kww (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously that is subject to this proceeding - unless/until a finding is made against him he is still in good standing as an admin. Orderinchaos 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If he requests re-sysopping, it's likely that people will raise the "resigned under controversy" exception and that he'll have to go through RfA. We can address that when the time comes, but please, let's move beyond all that and end at least one part of the acrimony that's now engulfing Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Problem: that comment from the Steward seems to imply that the sysop bit can be set again on simple request, no RfA, no nothing. How is the steward to know that "resigned under controversy" applies? Something formal, I'd suggest, should exist, i.e, some formal finding that controversy existed, something like that. Or simply completing the arbitration, which might be pretty easy now; there are some principles that might be worth validating more clearly. As to "acrimony," I haven't seen much here. Hesperian was apparently angry, as was Physchim62, but the comment here did not indicate a seriously divided community, but one which was largely in agreement, and it was not the "screaming mob" that Physchim portrayed in his comment on his user page. --Abd (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ArbCom can find that someone gave up their tools in controversial circumstances - I suspect they will do so here. They can also formally desysop an admin who resigned first (e.g. Rama's Arrow). Also, it is generally not appropriate for stewards to return admin rights - these should be restored by local bureaucrats where possible. There are two reason for this (1) so that the resysopping shows up in our local log and (2) because deciding whether there were "controversial circumstances" is an act of discretion unless ArbCom makes a finding about it. Stewards are not empowered to exercise such discretion. I think the tense in M7's comment is significant: "if you've changed your mind, please just contact me" - I suspect that as the meta request was made by a 3rd party, M7 was concerned that Physchim may have changed his mind between posting the notice on his userpage and M7 removing the rights. I don't think he was volunteering to restore the rights at any point in the future. WjBscribe 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is useless
ArbCom has reopened a dispute which was (just) resolved without its precious intervention. It has reopened it it a particulrly partial fashion, without any hint of sanctions for the other adiminstrators involved.

It is obvious from the current case that any attempt at discussion will leave an adminstrator open to chrages of "involvement in a dispute": we can only expect a more "shotgun" approach to administration. Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is useless
Hesperian has systematically refused any form of dispute resolution, deciding instead to bring the case directly here. ArbCom, to its shame, accepted to hear it dispite this lacuna.

This committee will be eternally responsible for its disgraceful treatment of editors who dedicate their time to resolving disputes without passing by WP:RFAR. Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This Committee is worse than useless
It is obviously incapable of standing up to the cabals which exist within Wikipedia, let alone the so-called "outside threat". Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has so far refused to punish the obvious and grave deficiencies in Hesperian's actions (Hesperian is also an administrator, let it not be forgotten, and subject to the same principles as I am, in theory).
 * It allows one arbitrator to vote dispite having been named in evidence (I asked him privately to recuse himself, stating that his recusal would have little effect on the progress of the case, I am still waiting for the reply after nearly two weeks).
 * It allows another arbitrator to make repeated prejudicial comments in this and other cases.


 * WP:POINT. WP:AGF. I wrote a comment on this case on my Talk page, intending to point [Physchim62]] to it, hoping that he might somehow "hear" it. But I never did supply him with the pointer, because of the "don't kick a man when he is down" concept promoted here. It still applies. Unfortunately, what Physchim62 seems to be, so far, unable to process, is the quite obvious fact that it is the *community*, not some cabal, which has rejected, unambiguously, the his action of blocking an editor based on a perceived insult against him. This cuts to the core of the trust in administrators that is essential to the function of Wikipedia. The *only* support Physchim62 has found in this Arbitration is support for his original concern about the template he protected. Indeed, he has found some support in that from me as well, even though it is certainly arguable that it was improper, it is also arguable that it was, at worst, an error, and, had Hesperian thought it something critical, he had the tools to unprotect, which he did not use. But blocking someone because they strongly criticize an *argument,* without warning, is beyond the pale. Again, had Physchim62 apologized immediately, this arbitration would probably never have been filed. I'm not an administrator, and if I'm associated with some cabal, it's news to me. Instead, instead of at least listening to what the community is saying to him, he accuses the entire community of bad faith; and he expects ArbComm to "punish," showing a complete misunderstanding of what ArbComm properly does, which is protective. *This case is not about an editor protecting an important template.* I'd suggest this to Physchim62: if he believes that his position is cogent, does he believe that *anyone* active in this community supports it? If so, where is the Talk, where is the support? User:Beetstra has expressed support for the article protection action, but not for the *block*, which he likewise criticizes. Is there anyone else? The Wikipedia community is huge, but the core community interested in this case would be administrators. If ArbComm is about to make a decision that will harm the ability of administrators to protect articles from damage, where is the massive protest? If the "cabal" is that large, it's hopeless!


 * (But there is no cabal, in my opinion. There are, instead, the natural "caucuses," freely and sometimes privately communicating, which form in peer associations. The theory of this is, in fact, my specialty. It is normal, expected, and usually functional. If a caucus makes decisions secretly and enforces them through coordinated action without open explanation, it gets dicey. But I've seen no evidence of that; the case of User:Durova, in fact, showed the opposite.)
 * --Abd (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen your comment, but I haven't read it: for me it's too dense and large. When I did see that amount of words, filling your talk page, the conclusion I got is that you like writing. That's nice. And that motivation is essential for an editor. But sometimes editors don't know to find an inspirational theme for writing, and they write for themselves instead improve the Wikipedia. And this might violate WP:SOAP. Please, if sometime this happens to you (I can't asseverate if this is your case now and here), remember this article and try to improve it: ¿Por qué no te callas?. Best regards (and Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year, for all of you): --Owdki talk 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you... telling him to shut up? I think what he wrote is well stated, and I'm surprised that you disparage it without having read it. Avruch Talk 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, amigo mío! That would be rude. And I prefer the fine-spun way of the "metaphor".
 * I just found a scandalous paradox (that's why I didn't need to read the loooong and dense comment, just with his words here is enough):


 * "I wrote a comment on this case on my Talk page, intending to point [Physchim62]] to it, hoping that he might somehow "hear" it. But I never did supply him with the pointer, because of the "don't kick a man when he is down" concept promoted here. It still applies"


 * Dude, *now* and *here* he's pointing Physchim62 to his comment (plus his comments here). Ergo (using his reasoning) he's currently kicking a man when he is down. *Now* and *here*, the more he mashes the unexisting admin, the more he drives off the existing editor. And Physchim62 is a big contributor. So let's improve the Wikipedia. --Owdki talk 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to arbitrators re mootness
In Requests for arbitration/Philwelch, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following principle:
 * 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. An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.

I have italicized the last sentence of this principle because it is what was new in the Philwelch case (added to the original rule that was enunciated in the so-called Giano case and reaffirmed in Konstable and Husnuck).

I see that UninvitedCompany has moved to dismiss the case as moot and trust to the bureaucrats in the event of a reapplication for adminship by Physchim62, but FloNight has opposed the motion on the ground that a finding must still be made. However, it occurs to me that if the committee wants to close the case, a motion could be made based on a simple citation to the Philwelch decision. In fact, this was the original reason that this principle was adopted in the first place&mdash;to eliminate the need to keep admin-conduct cases open after the administrator resigns just to vote on a "controversial circumstances" finding.

This is a process point and I am not commenting on the merits of the underlying disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification (before case closure)
Physchim62 voluntarily resigned his administrative tools while a pending arbitration motion would have desysopped him, although he was not open to recall. I resigned my tools when no arbitration motion would have desysopped me, and I was open to recall. I then specifically requested that no arbitration provision permit bureaucrat discretion to restore my ops, since I considered it to be in the best interests of Wikipedia to face the challenge of regaining the community's trust, if that's possible.

Could the Committee define the meaning of the current motion? Is the meaning of the dismissal motion is that it would be redundant to vote controversial resignation means you go through RFA again, since policy already dictates that outcome? It would be good to have a clear expression on that point because, if that isn't the case, then the Committee appears to be creating a loophole for controversial administrators. That would be, by avoiding the recall category and resigning the sysop bit before the Committee can enact a remedy, an administrator who behaved controversially might circumvent normal dispute resolution. Durova Charge! 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Committee has consistently ruled in numerous cases (using various language), that admins that return their tools under controversial circumstances may not get them back by asking a 'crat to re-instate them. There is no loop hole. FloNight (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Paul August &#9742; 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the replies. Durova  Charge! 02:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)