This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
1) Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Taken from the Sadi Carnot case, and general practice. It is not, of course, a blanket power, and has never seriously been interpreted as such. Physchim62(talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose - prefer wording in 1.1 Orderinchaos 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - also prefer wording in 1.1. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.1) Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they reasonably believe are a danger to the project.
Comment by Arbitrators:
It might be beyond the scope of the present case to define a default heuristic framework for an administrator. See also bounded rationality. Mackensen(talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Accept. I had reasonable belief that Hesperian was going to act disruptively if not blocked, as I have explained in my evidence. Physchim62(talk) 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed, as a modification of 1.1, qualified to reflect the fact that an unreasonable belief that a user presents a danger to the project does not furnish an adequate basis for administrative action. John254 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be read in context with a very-recently-concluded case, "8.1 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." In this case, no other options were exhausted, so this is an important distinction to make. Orderinchaos 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On consideration and after considering Fut Perf and Sarah's points, this is not and was never the actual issue in this case - no amount of discretion should have resulted in this case with a block on the basis of a long-term administrator acting in good faith being a "danger to the project". Orderinchaos 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to the case. Nobody could "reasonably" have believed Hesperian was posing a "danger to the project". Fut.Perf.☼ 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fut. I don't see how anyone could reasonably feel that Hesp, a longterm administrator with no history of being a "danger to the project" would suddenly become one. Sarah 01:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed wording, if there is a reasonable believe that an editor/administrator is persistent in performing edits, without or against consensus, and the editor/administrator does not show an incentive to bring his edits to a broader forum or discuss with editors who show interest in the dispute, that would constitute a reason to block. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The application of this principle to this case hinges on what is "reasonable." It appears that Hesperian was blocked ("last straw") because of his alleged "personal attack" against Physchim. It is highly inappropriate for an administrator to block based on a perceived personal attack against him, and this case shows that up clearly. A personal attack against a single individual does not normally establish any *immediate* hazard to Wikipedia, there are leisurely procedures for dealing with it. The other possible reasonable grounds for a block would be some immediate hazard, perceived by Physchim, that Hesperian was about to totally break a huge number of articles. Now, in hindsight, it is obvious that this view was an error, and that this could have been seen with only a little research on the part of Physchim, yet we have seen not one note of apology from Physchim, only continued assumptions of bad faith, such as the claim that this could be related to his Arbcomm candidacy. I conclude that Physchim was so thoroughly offended by the "steaming pile" comment that he acted out of anger, and he has remained angry. If a police officer breaks the head of a suspect because the suspect insults him, what should properly happen? I can tell you: the officer should be relieved of duty. A thick skin is essential for professional conduct.
I'd say that any administrator who is angry should think long and hard before using the block button. That anger is what can lead to so many egregious errors, it clouds the mind, we end up breaking things. Let someone else do it, let someone else read the evidence, someone else who has the same buttons. Further, when an admin blocks in anger, the justification for blocking can get exaggerated. I've been claiming that admins should always apologize when blocking. "I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but it appears to me that there is a hazard from edits through your account, and so I'm taking action to protect the project as well as your reputation. Here is how you can clear this matter up, and thanks for your kind understanding." Hard to do that when you are angry!
Use of administrative tools in content or personal disputes[edit]
2) The use of administrative tools by direct participants in content or personal disputes in relation to such disputes is unacceptable. This prohibition is justified, in part, by the difficulty that an administrator directly involved in a dispute would experience in fairly evaluating what administrative action, if any, would be appropriate in the dispute. Moreover, the use of administrative tools in a manner that would reasonably suggest the intent to gain an advantage in a dispute creates the appearance of impropriety, thereby bringing Wikipedia's administration into disrepute.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. John254 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this resolution in effect confirms both the letter and spirit of WP:BLOCK which reads in part: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Orderinchaos 07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fully agree. Unacceptable is too strong. our conflict of interest guideline gives the possibility to edit with a conflict of interest, I would also apply that to this. When edits of an editor, even if it is an administrator, are disruptive, or expected to be disruptive, then applying the block yourself is an option to protect from further damage, though it should be preferred to bring this to another forum first to review the intention to block. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as worded. "Unacceptable" is too strong. Administrators must have discretion, but should also expect that if they use their tools when personally involved, they can expect to be challenged and should be prepared to justify those actions as not only reasonable but *necessary* for the protection of the project and users. In reality, though, it would almost always be unacceptable.
Applicability to the present case is clear, but needs to be more clearly delimited as any decision will be cited in the future. Is a single talk page comment six months ago a "personal dispute"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult. As I have said below, the conflict of interest guideline is about completely different actions, and WP:BLOCK in particular definitely rules out action by involved admins. This principle also applies to deletion debates and protection, but it is hard to delimit. Speaking of disruption is irrelevant to this case, as the block was for a personal attack, and the so-called disruption that had already occurred was not even noticed for another two days. However, even in cases where disruption is the issue, the point is that an involved editor may be less qualified to judge what is actually disruptive. The question is: when does an admin become "involved"? JPD (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) 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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Accept. What other means would have been effective, given that Hesperian was refusing to discuss any substantive issues? Physchim62(talk) 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed - copied from Durova case. Orderinchaos 07:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, I would like to remind Physchim that we aren't (or I don't think we are) discussing Hesperian here, rather the statement at hand. I would like to propose that Physchim62 'proposes' a finding of fact below. Auroranorth (!) 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the exception encapsulates the possibility of blocking admins who edit persistently, or show that intention. --Dirk BeetstraTC 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4) 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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Accept, as I accuse Hesperian of having engaged in pretty much all of the enunciated types of behaviour. Physchim62(talk) 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed - copied from several recent decisions including Macedonia and Durova, and relevant to this case. Orderinchaos 07:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful as to the relevance to this case. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant. The most spectacular failure here has been of WP:AGF. Both parties have failed to be steadfast in it; but the response of Physchim62 to the RFA [1] is one example after another of this editor being unable to understand any legitimate purpose behind an action, and, from that, inferring bad faith and malice. The alleged personal "attack" on Physchim62 by Hesperian was a needlessly uncivil criticism of the *statements* of Physchim62, not of Physchim62 himself. When "attack" and other spurious arguments were advanced against him, Hesperian began crying "lies," which is the specific failure of WP:AGF that can be pinned on him. I find nothing, so far, that shows intentional deception by anyone; "lie" is inflammatory, rightfully reserved for clear deceptive intention *and* necessity. "False statements" does the legitimate work, almost always. However, Hesperian's error here was relatively minor and too commonly made. On the other hand, the consistent assumption of Bad Faith that I find in Physchim62's response is very troubling, and the possession of administrative tools by one in that condition is dangerous. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Abd here. Firstly, I think Physchim has been in violation of every point on it except trolling and harassment - the evidence of that is documented amply so I won't go through it. For Hesperian, I can understand the phenomenon involved - you (hypothetical "you") have someone making baseless accusations against you and it seems noone (other than your immediate colleagues) is willing to stand up and defend you or say "this is wrong", when it clearly is, and not just that could strike anyone else at any time. The reason for public non-comment, however, is more quietness than acquiescence - an acceptance by the majority that any criticism would reflect a point of view so obvious it doesn't bear expression, or even a sentiment of "kicking a man while down", or simply a wish not to escalate drama (especially as we've had so much of it recently in a range of cases). Unfortunately, such a feeling of helpless indignation at being slighted repeatedly can give rise to actions which on consideration would best have not been taken. I agree with Abd's characterisation of these oversteps as being "relatively minor and too commonly made". Orderinchaos 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5) 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.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Submitted for consideration. Hesperian 03:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I agree entirely with this statement. WP:ADMIN says that an admin 'is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community'. However, we must remember that 'becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.' (Jimbo Wales, February 2003). Also, administrators shouldn't be involved in their own AfDs, etc: '(Administrators) do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.' (see WP:ADMIN). Auroranorth (!) 10:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this is in line with both common sense and past ArbCom decisions. Orderinchaos 11:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - also common sense. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
Agreed. This community should support the administrators, which involves forgiving errors; but, at the same time, it should insure that administrators continue to be trusted. To remove or suspend access to the tools may represent only some concern, and this project should not depend on any particular individual. It should not be a punitive action. If status is removed, it should not prejudice any future application. There is no reason to assume Physchim's bad faith; indeed, only a sincere conviction that he was right would be likely to lead to his behavior as seen in this arbitration, where much he writes confirms the concern. I don't want someone who thinks that way (i.e., what I can infer) holding the tools; what if I protest an action of his and he thinks I have insulted him? Even if I had utterly no intention of doing so, but some accidental possible interpretation of my words pushed *his* buttons? What about this very comment? Have I called him "stupid"? Have I insulted him by claiming that he is "certain that he was right"? Would I feel safe challenging his interpretation of events in some content dispute? Not at this point. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6) It is acceptable to criticise an admin's actions. This can be done validly in many ways, including directly to the admin on their user talk page. It is important that this not be confused with content issues or vice versa.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Support this thinking. Policy suggests contacting the closing administrator first, before a deletion review. An Afd closed outside of usual policy will often be challenged, and unfortunately often in less friendly words. If an administrator makes a bold action, they can expect bold responses. FloNight (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
This may seem obvious, but is relevant to the heart of this dispute's escalation. It is important not to use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for continued editing and discussion focussed on content, but there is also a place for addressing behaviour - otherwise we would not have blocks, which are the ultimate ad hominem action. Physchim has objected to the fact that Hesperian has dealt with the content issues and personal issues separately, and has also suggested that a user talk message was an inappropriate way to deal with his actions, suggesting Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.[2] Apart from the fact that that page is mainly focussed on content disputes, it also suggests that the issue should be discussed with the other party, possibly on their talk page, before any more formal forums be sought. I suggest that was an entirely appropriate forum for a message focussed solely on a purported abuse of admin privileges. This proposed principle does not address whether or not a message including scatological references can be said to criticise validly, but the description of the problem with the criticism as a personal attack rather than incivility suggests to me that this was not the issue. JPD (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - makes sense and encourages ways of doing things that don't have to rely on formal process (formal process should be basically for when "talks break down", to borrow a news cliche). Orderinchaos 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7) Protection is used to cool down edit wars. Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version, and should not be used to enforce a particular version, except in cases of simple vandalism or legal issues.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
WP:PROT. If the PD-Au incident is considered within the scope of this arbitration, the legal issues aspect may need some clarification. As I understand it, this exception applies when parties are clearly flouting WP's policies which are based on legal concerns, not when the dispute is a discussion trying to ascertain what the legal status of something is. However, this is a minor point. The basic intention of the protection policy should be clear. JPD (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) The language used by Hesperian in this post is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Is anyone seriously going to argue the opposite? Physchim62(talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose - no offensive language present. Colourful expression, certainly, but it was not directed at an individual but at an argument. Orderinchaos 06:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed with wording - I'm making an appearance here because I feel that the language wasn't really appropriate but could have been accepted in other circumstances. I would say that in touchy circumstances such as that one I wouldn't have used that language, but it wasn't 'completely unacceptable', as Physchim has suggested. Auroranorth (!) 10:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as worded, confirming Auroranorth. --Abd (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as with OIC, no "offensive language" in that post. Crude, perhaps, but not offensive. Sarah 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, or agree with the statement after deletion of the word 'completely'. The remark 'Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap.' is offensive; as pointed out in the Evidence, the application of the TfD could have been done differently, and, though disruption was (probably) not intended, the actual deletion of the 200+ templates as proposed in the TfD would have disrupted thousands of pages. I would call that at least careless application of a TfD, and therefore that remark that the whole point of {{tfd}} is to be transcluded with the template is not true ([WP:TFD]] gives suggestions otherwise), and critisism of that is certainly not a lie/'great steaming load of crap'. Also, closing a TfD with speedy keep with the back up of two other administrators is also not a 'misuse of your administrative privileges', I feel that such remarks should be used with much care, especially between administrators. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most one could say about the language is that it was "intemperate." "Completely unacceptable" is a non-starter. I'd delete this altogether, as it makes too big a deal of one passing comment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly. you're yet another person who has never actually bothered to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep is an impertinent remark. a great steaming load of crap is another offensive expression. Not to mention an unthoughtful accusation of a misuse of your administrative privileges against Physchim is completely lack of good faith. @pplecomplain 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't see how accusing someone of misusing their administrative privileges when it indeed appears they may have done so, is offensive. Certainly, it may offend the person, but it's not unjustified or inappropriate to question a bad judgement call. Orderinchaos 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62 has engaged in extensive misuse of administrative tools[edit]
2) Physchim62 has repeatedly performed highly improper administrative actions in the course of at least two separate disputes, one concerning template:PD-Australia, and the other relating to Template:R-phrase and associated templates.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Oppose. We are seeing what the real motivations are. I disagreed with an Australian admin last summer, now I must be punished for my sins against OzCab. Physchim62(talk) 13:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - uncontroversial The emergence of points 11-14 has probably made this one redundant, especially as it avoids the language which others have questioned below by keeping to the facts. Orderinchaos 06:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as per above. Auroranorth (!) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, without judging about the previous case (reTemplate:PD-Australia), in this case I believe that there was reason to suspect that Hesperian was going to edit the template himself after the closure of the TfD (as evidenced by the history of {{R-phrase}}), without or against any community consensus, and before/while discussing the changes (preferable with a broader audience). Closure of the TfD (backed up by two administrators) nor a block on Hesperian is 'highly improper', though for the latter I must advocate that that could better have been performed by an uninvolved editor. I might agree with a strongly weakened statement like "Physchim62 has repeatedly performed administrative actions which he could better have left to a third party in the course of at least two separate disputes, one concerning template:PD-Australia, and the other relating to Template:R-phrase and associated templates" (might need rewording as I am not familiar with the template:PD-Australia case). --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While fast closure of the R-phrase TfD and the Australia affair showed improper behavior, it was minor, not "highly improper." With R-phrase, he was concerned about possible widespread damage; while he was in error as to the actual risk, it was not the cause of this arbitration. Wikitrout stuff, unless it truly became a pattern. This arbitration is for me about massive AGF failure, which we see in Physchim's response to this very proposed statement. No "punishment" would have followed from those affairs, in themselves, unless some reproof or warning in an RfC is considered a punishment. Wikitrout, if we digest them, are seriously good for our health. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PD issue last winter is an example of protection by an involved admin who happened to be insisting on the correct content, although it does raise some questions about Physchim's understanding of protection. The Hesperian block (and to a lesser extent the early TfD close) is a case of involved admin action that is simply wrong. I did not remember the PD-Au incident until it was brought up at AN/I, and am not sure that the two incidents should to be lumped together for arbitration, but it is true that comparing the two incidents, makes it clear why uninvolved admins should make these decisions, and that barging in yourself is improper. JPD (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a threat to block another administrator on that occasion, made on two separate fora, but the threat did not manifest as action. Orderinchaos 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Beetstra and Abd. I have no more comments about the terrible misuse of the phrase "repeatedly performed highly improper" applied to Physchim's actions. He might make mistake with template:PD-Australia, but I see no problems with R-phrase case. A 'speedy keep' closure is warrantable, as stated in Physchim's statement. A revert against hesperian's non-consensual edits was a proper action that prevented disruption to Wikipedia articles. @pplecomplain 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You are assuming that my accusations are groundless. Physchim62(talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed, per my evidence. While actual vandalism and trolling may legitimately be characterized as such, deliberately making completely baseless, frivolous accusations of vandalism and trolling against good faith users may be construed as a rather significant personal attack. John254 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The assertion in Physchim's statement for this case that Hesperian engineered this situation to somehow sabotage Physchim's election chances is one of the worst examples of bad faith I've ever seen. Orderinchaos 06:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I agree with Orderinchaos - Physchim is making Hesperian look like some sort of devil. Auroranorth (!) 10:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No assumption of error in *truth* of accusations is necessary. If Hesperian wanted to sabotage the Arbcomm election of Physchim62, he may have succeeded spectacularly, through Physchim62's cooperation. An accusation of trolling and bad faith is a "personal attack;" if proven *and necessary*, it can be legitimate. Neither is the case here.--Abd (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian has characterized Physchim62's contributions by means of a crude, scatological metaphor[edit]
4) Hesperian has characterized Physchim62's contributions by means of a crude, scatological metaphor.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support if ArbCom cannot bring itself to accept PFOF1. Physchim62(talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the "steaming load of crap" referred to his opinion of the argument given, not to his opinion of the user's contributions. That I'd have to say seems pretty clear. Orderinchaos 06:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - disagreeing with wording. I think that Hesperian characterised Physchim's comments with a crude metaphor. However, I would hope that Hesperian is not punished for making that comment because it's not that inappropriate. I am proposing that below. Auroranorth (!) 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I really don't like this proposal or the term "crude scatological metaphors". It also seems quite inaccurate as I see no evidence to suggest that Hesperian has characterised Physchim's contributions in such a way. The evidence shows that Hesp said, "Therefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research" is a great steaming load of crap." This is not a characterisation of Physchim's contributions; it is a reaction to one allegation Physchim made. Sarah 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't know exactly when something becomes "crude", but as others have said, it was not a characterisation of Physchim's contributions, but one argument. Even calling it an argument serves to cover up some of the context of Physchim's response and later allegations. It would be fair to say "Hesperian characterised Physchim's allegation by means of a scatological metaphor." JPD (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian characterised Physchim62's comment with a metaphor that was crude but not crude enough to be considered inappropriate.[edit]
5) Hesperian characterised Physchim62's comment with a metaphor that was crude but not crude enough to be considered inappropriate.
Comment by Arbitrators:
People will say things they might regret later, or at least ought to regret later. Absent a demonstrable pattern of incivility the Committee generally doesn't even make a finding. Mackensen(talk) 02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a range of options for dealing with users that are complaining to an administrator about their administrative actions. The administrator blocking the complaining user is not one; irrespective of how unpleasantly the user delivers the complaint. FloNight (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Why not cut to the chase and try "Hesperian has been uncivil"? Either what I said crosses the line into incivility or it doesn't. I presume that is what is at issue here. Hesperian 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Mackensen: So the committee will not even make a finding as to whether the comments in the circumstances justified a block? that I can't believe. Physchim62(talk) 12:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed as per evidence given by John254 here. Auroranorth (!) 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. If it's "not crude enough" to be considered inappropriate (and I agree with that), then it's not important enough to have any Arbcom finding at all related to it. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The language was inappropriate. A defective argument is not a "steaming load of crap;" and such comments inflame. Such language may be routinely accepted in conversations among peers who enjoy a level of rapport, but outside of that, it is offensive. --Abd (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer that references of this nature not be made on Wikipedia. However, people's writing styles differ, especially when they desire to express great emphasis. A single instance of a strong metaphor does not rise to the level of requiring comment by the Arbitration Committee. A long pattern of that sort of thing might possibly be different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Newyorkbrad on this one - I think colourful/dramatic rather than offensive characterised the expression - one sees far worse at AfDs all the time. Orderinchaos 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Hesperian's comment, I do not believe he was unreasonably uncivil. Auroranorth (!) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third case involving a current candidate. It's a troubling pattern. On the other hand, even if we accept that Hesperian trolled Physchim, for the sake of the argument, arbitrators get trolled all the time. It comes with the territory. Mackensen(talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
The gorilla in the room. The timing of this slur campaign was by no means coincidental. Physchim62(talk) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Mackensen: the fact that arbitrators get trolled all the time is meant to excuse Hesperian's behaviour? Is meant to excuse a deliberate disruption to the encyclopedia? Is ArbCom more important that our project goal? Or are we really just a MMORPG? Physchim62(talk) 12:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would like to see the ArbCom deal with this allegation. Hesperian 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - I'll trust the ArbCom to decide if this warrants their deliberation. Hesperian 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As the process triggers for this dispute were subjective, requiring Physchim taking certain actions closing a TfD, blocking Hesperian, protection of the template, reverting of Hesperians edits and also requiring Physchim to make written comments to facilitate dispute. If its not coincidental such combinations of actions over an extended time period must be considered an indicator of a compromised account. Gnangarra 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion lacks credibility. As per Gnangarra, the sequence of events would have to require Hesperian knowing that Physchim was the sort of admin who would make an out-of-process TfD close, followed by this kind of block, and for that matter, even knowing Physchim to begin with. I have seen no evidence that they ever interacted before this incident. The bad faith evident here leaves me gobsmacked. Orderinchaos 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true, but irrelevant, a decision can show that. However, let's assume Bad Faith. If it was trolling, yes, that could be a mark against the troll. But the alleged troll also revealed something about Physchim. Arbitrators are going to be trolled. How will they respond? I see, however, no credible evidence that trolling was involved. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first vote cast at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Physchim62 was on 3 December. Hesperian opened the discussion on {{R-phrase}}atUser talk:Bryan Derksen on 30 November, three days prior. I submit that it is far more likely that Hesperian didn't even know of the impending ArbCom elections at that time - there's no evidence of him being involved in that area of the project or interaction with Physchim62 previously. The assertion that this was premeditated to disrupt Physchim62's Arbcom candidacy by predicting that he would suffer an out-of-process block is fantasy and in the absence of supporting evidence is cause for concern about his judgement. Besides, all of the drama was brought about by Physchim62 himself. —Moondyne 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Are we implying that admins who are running for arbcom may not have their actions challenged until the elections are over, lest their election prospects be diminished? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There's such a thing as being WP:BOLD. The TFD discussion ([3]) certainly did not result in a consensus that the templates must remain unchanged (and even if it had, a TfD is not the place to make such a decision.) There are several contributions to the TfD discussion clearly indicating that they would welcome further development ("Keep or rework"; "Whatever is done, it's a normal editorial matter ..."). Hesperian was just constructively trying out alternative solutions. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I have not seen anyone actually saying that Hesperians version was an improvement, except for the reworker (original credits go to User:Eequor and User:Physchim62) of the templates (User:Bryan Derksen). I dispute that the edits were constructive (their use was next to a link, so more links are not necessary, per WP:MOS). The "keep or rework" was accompanied by a "I'm not sure having them as actual links to the List of R-phrases or List of S-phrases pages is useful here" (although there is a『Maybe they should link directly to their entries in the ListOf… pages』there as well) and "Maybe what's really needed is broader than this TfD: a clearer way for the WP skins to indicate text that has a tooltip, or some other kind of link besides "open a new wikipage" (like a cartoon dialog or other pop-up transient window)", but that suggestion was not followed. "Change the color or turn them into links if that makes them clearer. Whatever is done, it's a normal editorial matter rather than a matter for deletion." gives a choice, still Hesperian performed his preferred edits now (after two years of stable, undiscussed working), not awaiting discussion after the other choice was already boldly implemented. --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Making edits that some people then find to not have been improvements is not the same things as being disruptive. You may have the best of reasons for preferring the other versions, that still doesn't bring Hesperian's behaviour anywhere close to where one would reasonably even start operating with the word "disruption", let alone consider blocks. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we use the word 'disruptive'? The sentence we are discussing here is "Hesperian made major edits affecting more than one hundred templates when he knew that there was no consensus for the changes." .. and yes, I agree to that, there is no discussion, though the TfD strongly suggests that it should be discussed, or that it was fine, or suggested more than one option. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not play semantic games, the sentence we are discussing here is presented as evidence by an admin to justify a block made for "disruption". If this claim isn't meant as evidence of blockable disruption, what's it doing here? Fut.Perf.☼ 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an "other", but I'm not interested in being segregated from this thread. Let us remember that the assertion that I was blocked for disruption is post hoc revisionism. I was actually blocked for a non-existent personal attack. Hesperian 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - editing (consensus or otherwise) goes on all the time at the Wiki, I deal as an admin every day with cases far more fraught than this one and I'm sure most admins are in the same boat. Also I'm of the opinion that false claims of ownership tend to hold up the encyclopaedia's growth and development (let's not forget Physchim authoredmost of the templates to begin with), and sometimes it takes a fresh head (or pair, group etc) to see what is wrong and fix it. I've rewritten entire articles I haven't liked in the past. I don't believe it's within ArbCom's remit to rule on this issue. Orderinchaos 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to this diff of Hesperians contributions' Hesperian edited 3 templates not "hundreds" Gnangarra 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it is true that Hesperian did not "know that there was consensus for his changes", there was no reason for him to "know there was no consensus". WP:BOLD is all about being able to make suggested changes and then discuss them if someone disagrees. Hesperian's changes were actually in line with at least two suggestions from the TfD - "I'm not sure having them as actual links to the List of R-phrases or List of S-phrases pages is useful here" was followed by "Maybe they should link directly to their entries in the ListOf… pages (via named anchors or somesuch)", which is exactly what Hesperian's changes aimed to do. It is also the part of "Change the color or turn them into links if that makes them clearer" that hadn't already been done. Hesperian was careful to add functionality to the templates without removing any of the existing funcionality or causing other disruption, to address his concerns in line with the discussion that had already occurred. This may not be the best solution, but it is the way that a wiki moves towards better solutions. Noone objected to these changes until after other events had escalated the personal situation, otherwise it could have proceeded to a sensible discussion. ArbCom should encourage this sort of editing followed by discussion, not increase the hurdles in the way of making undisruptive edits.
Fut. Perf., Hesperian and OIC's comments regarding disruption, the block reason and ownership are also extremely pertinent, although Gnangarra has missed the point that one of the templates was used by more than one hundred others. JPD (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see two comments below referring to the word "liar". I never used that word; I used the word "lies", and also "tripe". I wouldn't normally quibble over word stems, but this is the ArbCom, so let's get it right. Hesperian 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Agree. Per my evidence, deletion as proposed in the TfD would result in major disruption of mainspace, and the application of the TfD could have been done differently. Calling Physchim62 a liar is inflammatory and diffamatory language. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Physchim's behaviour, which includes inflammatory and at times defamatory language and which extended to attacks on parties uninvolved in the dispute and gross assumptions of bad faith, makes this irrelevant. (The word of choice from Hesperian was "liar lies", for the record - I would not have used it, but I have described elsewhere on this page the phenomenon I believe was in play). Orderinchaos 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk's initial sentence above about the TfD is simply untrue, and not relevant to this particular proposal. I would agree that the word "lies" is inflammatory, and possibly defamatory if untrue. I would caution against inflammatory language and even the defamatory potential was avoidable here, but in the context is that of progressively more defamatory allegations being made against Hesperian, so focussing on this would be inappropriate. JPD (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to persue other means of dispute resolution[edit]
9) Hesperian has made no attempt to resolve the issues he originally raised at WP:TFD, either through discussion at appropriate fora or by dispute resolution.
Oppose. I would prefer this be worded as "Once Physchim62 escalated the dispute by blocking Hesperian, Hesperian recognised that his further involvement in the content aspects of the dispute would likely cause disruption, and desisted. Hesperian 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Agree. Per above, there is no discussion on the template (Template talk:R-phrase did not exist until far after this situation, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals were contacted, nor any of the opposing voters in the TfD (except with User:Bryan Derksen, though Hesperian may, at the moment of the actual edits, not have known that User:Bryan Derksen was not involved in the use of the templates). Other means of resolving the dispute on the (RfM/RfC) were not performed. --Dirk BeetstraTC 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. User:JPD put it very well: [4]"There's caring enough about something to make a routine effort to improve it, and caring enough to keep fighting after other parties have reacted completely inappropriately." Hesperian worked on the template, in a totally constructive collaborative spirit together with its original creator, then (understandably) walked away from the issue when it turned out that a group of WP:OWNers violently rejected his efforts. The content dispute over the templates was never more than a minor issue that was evidently not worth fighting over. Let's clearly distinguish here between the content question, which never rose to a level that would have required formal dispute resolution, and the admin conduct issue. The latter is the only one that is at stake here at Arbcom. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if other parties have reacted "completely inappropriately". As above, Hesperian did not work together with the original creator, User:Bryan Derksen was a reworker, the original credits go to User:Eequor and User:Physchim62. I have already defended that there was no reason to change, except for maybe the colour, and that I mention above first Template talk:R-phrase as a forum, does show that I do not think that the wikiprojects on chemistry and chemicals own the templates. Hesperian may have been bold in editing the templates, he also fenced of discussion with others who opposed to the nomination. --Dirk BeetstraTC 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disagree see point 10, the template R-phrase was created by User:Bryan Derksen in November 2007 all parties acknowledge that Hesperian discussed changes with Bryan, there was no other edits to the template prior to the nomination. Gnangarra 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - in the spirit and most of the letter of Fut Perf's comments. There's simply no need to go to DR every time two people disagree - it's a waste of the project's time and way too much drama. The abuse of the tools occurred *way* before Hesperian could have known that things were going to end up here. Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that the issue of the templates is and always was resolvable between the parties - the problem here is one that only ArbCom can solve, as Physchim has refused to acknowledge his actions were incorrect. Orderinchaos 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hesperian's rewording. The intent of Hesperian before being blocked is fairly clearly constructive, whatever one thinks of his proposed solutions, aims, or understanding of who the original creator was. There is absolutely no evidence that Hesperian would not have reacted positively and constructively to anyone making comments about his edits to the template, either on user talk pages or the relevant template talk page. There is also no evidence in the TfD that any of the keep voters would object to the specific changes he made (as noted above, two people actually suggested something similar), so they should not need advance notification. In fact, there was no indication from anyone that any dispute (concerning the post-TfD edits) even existed until a whole two days after the inappropriate block. It was only then that the content issue, which should be easily resolvable, was dragged into the issue of inappropriate admin actions. JPD (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in entirety with JPD. Orderinchaos 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed since thats the edit history of the Template:R-phrase it was the one that Hesperian tagged with the TfD template. Gnangarra 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Bryan Derksen created the core template and thus Hesperian was led to believe he had created all of them and negotiated accordingly. It turns out some were created by Eequor (who has been inactive since February 2006) while others were created by Physchim. Orderinchaos 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62 speedily closed a discussion with which he had a conflict of interest[edit]
11) Physchim62 made an out-of-process closure of a discussion on templates many of which he authored, a clear conflict of interest.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Submitted for consideration. Hesperian 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Disagree. The result 'speedy keep' was suggested by two other administrators who did not have a direct conflict of interest. Also, seen our guideline, having a conflict of interest does not forbid you to edit a page where you are involved in, it only strongly discourages that. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - pretty clear. I have already observed (egTemplate:R8) that Physchim authored many of the templates, and with 1,500+ administrators on Wikipedia, he should have left the call on this to any other one of them in line with emerging consensus. To vigorously defend your own work in an XfD (I use "your" in a generic sense here) is not conflict of interest (in fact that's pretty much expected, and will help others understand the context in which you made the effort and why it was/is necessary), but to close the debate yourself is. Orderinchaos 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a true statement. Confusing admin actions such as closing deletion debates with editing a page does not help at all - apart from anything else, this sort of action in a deletion debate has been described as a conflict of interest and discouraged for longer than WP:COI has been title "Conflict of Interest"! I tend to think there may be some exceptions, but they would have involve nominations very clearly made in bad faith and even then, it wouldn't hurt to wait for an uninvolved admin. JPD (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12) Physchim62 blocked Hesperian without warning or discussion, without oversight, while in a dispute with him, on a false pretext, in violation of the blocking policy.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Submitted for consideration. Hesperian 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Agreed on all points. The block log entry reads: "personal attacks [5] after the closure of a TfD debate [6])" So an attempt was made to justify the block as a response to "personal attacks". The relevant section of WP:BLOCK reads:
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: [...] persistently making personal attacks;
Several key elements here. First of all an element of protection of Wikipedia's users, and secondly the word "persistently". Even Physchim has never alleged that Hesperian made "persistent" personal attacks, nor has he explained what he believed he was protecting Wikipedia from. He cited a single diff and, by any common interpretation, used it as the only justification for the block, so let's look at the diff. In part, it was a complaint about Physchim writing a "provocative and insulting closure notice", and making an allegation of "misuse of (Physchim's) administrative privileges". This creates, in my view, a clear and absolute conflict of interest, and a need to involve others in the process. It was hardly an attack but a seemingly justified complaint that Physchim had acted improperly - does this mean anyone who questions one's actions is in breach of WP:NPA? I'd hate to think of a Wikipedia where that was the case. One final note - from WP:BLOCK "When blocking should not be used":
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute
(Note that says "must not", not "should not") Physchim and Hesperian had disagreed strongly over the inclusion or otherwise of templates. It had actually gone slightly beyond this at the point with Hesperian questioning Physchim's administrative judgment. The immediate reaction to this allegation was to block. This seems both disproportionate, and unnecessarily vengeful. If I was to do that to anyone who queried my administrative judgement I'd be hauled over the coals at AN/I, and rightly so. I'm not surprised that an admin of WJBscribe's standing saw the same independently. Orderinchaos 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per WJB (as cited by Dirk above) and per Fut. Perf.'s observations here. Note the emerging narrative from these also contradicts allegations made by Physchim against Hesperian. Orderinchaos 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physchim62's edits would have violated protection policy if his understanding of the reason for protection were correct.[edit]
14) Physchim62 believed {{R-phrase}} was protected due to a content dispute he was involved in, but reverted to his preferred version anyway, which would be in violation of the policy if his belief were correct.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
It is correct that no edits to the template violated protection policy, as it was not protected due to the content dispute. However, both Physchim's edit summary[7] and his comment on AN/I[8] indicate that he thought the template was protected "awaiting conflict resolution". His edits could therefore be viewed as massively hypocritical, but I find it more believable that he has completely misunderstood the point of the protection policy and thinks that protection can be used to enforce the "correct" version. In particular, he seems to have utterly failed to comprehend the sarcasm utilised in m:The Wrong Version. This misunderstanding of policy is disturbing in an admin with the ability to protect pages and edit protected pages as well as accuse others of violating the policy. JPD (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian's nomination and initial responses[edit]
12) Hesperian's nomination and initial responses to User:Bryan Derksen (while the nomination was open) show that he did not understand the use of the template.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Hesperians nomination, stating "As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R-phrases look really cool. My position is that there is absolutely no reason to give R-phrases their own special markup." shows clearly that he did not see the use of the template, and/or did not understand what they were doing. When that was explained by User:Bryan Derksen ("They do one other thing that's actually the core purpose of the templates; they provide a "title" attribute for the text that on most web browsers produces a tooltip explaining what the R-phrase means."). His response was "Wikipedia:Accessibility (a guideline, part of the Manual of Style) recommends against the use of tooltips as violating principles of web accessibility.". That response shows that he did not see that the templates were used next to a link to the document that explained their meaning. After some explanation, Hesperian is "still not seeing it", showing that he did not know what the templates were actually meant to do, and how they were used. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want to propose a revolutionary novel interpretation of WP:BLOCK according to which "not understanding" something is an act of disruption punishable with a block, this finding (while possibly true) is utterly irrelevant to these proceedings. I'm not excluding the possibility that you might actually mean that, because earlier contributions have indicated your knowledge of the blocking policy really is that sketchy. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to discuss interpretations of what happened (including the involved parties themselves to explain this. In my interpretation, Hesperian insisted to edit, without discussing with third parties, of something he did not understand the working or the function, which could have resulted in disruption (the TfD notice, preferred, but not necesserily transcluded with the template, showed that edits to the template would disrupt mainspace). I may interpret WP:BLOCK wrongly, but we should use block to prevent possible disruption (even if the disruption is unintended). Am I wrong here if I want to show that there may be reasonable doubt that persistent editing here could have resulted in disruption? --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong. "Insisted"? "Reason to doubt"? "Persistent"? "Could have"? We don't block for "could have"'s. Hesperian never did anything to the template that couldn't have been solved by simply reverting it if you didn't like it, with a single mouseclick, and by politely pointing out to him why you thought his changes were not such a good idea. Exactly what we do with editors whose edits we don't like, everywhere on Wiki, all the time. Was Hesperian edit-warring over his changes? No. Was there any indication he would do so? No. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect has put it very well. May I also point out that the "disruption" discussed by WP:BLOCK and WP:DE involves persistent editing "despite opposition", "reject[ing] community input" and "interfer[ing] with the process of editors working together harmoniously". None of these is in evidence here, as Hesperian reacted to any input he received, looking for "compromise" solutions, seeking third party input (not necessarily from the best people, but it is the intention that is relevant here) and definitely not rejecting input from anyone else, but trying to work harmoniously, being very careful about how the edits affected the mainspace. Since his edits were reverted (two days after the block), he has not touched the issue at all, so where is the "persistent" editing? This is a key point in this case, as the continued defence of Hesperian's block (incidentally using reasons that weren't given, or probably even thought of, at the time) is at least as worrying as the block itself. If we could block anyone simply because we thought they had unhelpful opinions about the format of articles and were likely to act on them, most editors would be blocked! Someone inserting a extra links may not be necessary or ideal, but it definitely isn't disruption! JPD (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If this were accepted, we'd have to block every newbie on the site who wishes to edit anything. I don't need to say much as the others have said it much better than I'm capable of wording at this hour. :) Orderinchaos 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12) Hesperian's reaction to speedy keep votes fenced off further discussion with involved editors.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The Community has established policies and practices for dealing with matters related to the deletion of content. Starting a xfd is usually not considered controversial while stopping an xfd early may well be considered controversial. Users involved with content undergoing a xfd discussion often react strongly to their work being considered for deletion. I feel that happened here. This is understandable since people do not like to see their good work deleted or changed in ways that they believe are unhelpful. Still almost always it is best to let a xfd run its course or be open long enough as to gain a strong consensus from the community. That did not happen here and is part of the reason for the strong reaction by the nom. FloNight (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've state elsewhere, a strong reaction can be expected when an administrator takes a bold action such as closing a discussion as a speedy keep since this goes against community expectations that a decision will be made after following usual practices. Any administrator doing this needs to be prepared to calmly explain the reason for the close in order to lower the heat in the discussion. FloNight (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, per Rifleman_82's and my evidence. The response to the speedy keep votes ("did you actually readWikipedia:Speedy keep"), did not invite these editors to explain why there was opposition against the deletion of the templates, but in stead fenced off any further discussion with these editors. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, wrong. Hesperian's objection to the "speedy keep"s was exactly an objection against them fencing off further discussion. He was right on procedural grounds: Just because to some voters on an AfD it may seem totally obvious why something should not be deleted doesn't mean, according to policy, that the discussion should be closed early. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I now also have to start a thread here, asking if our voting of speedy keep was appropriate or not? In my interpretation, deletion should never take place as that would result in (from Hesperians point-of-view, unintentional) disruption of mainspace (though discussion somewhere else was appropriate). I still believe that my vote for 'speedy keep' was procedurial correct (Wikipedia:Speedy keep: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it"; although disruption was not intended (and we are certainly not talking about vandalism)). --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As said above, Hesperian wanted the discussion to continue and objected to it being closed early. "Unquestionably vandalism or disruption" has always referred to the extreme cases, which almost always deliberate disruption. Anything else is best dealt with by further discussion, and in any case it is very hard to see how a discussion simply remaining open would be disruptive in any way (you have already proved that the notice could be removed from the template without closing the discussion). Most of all, even if the "speedy keep" comments were at all within normal procedure, questioning whether they actually meant what it looked like hardly fences off discussion of any sort. JPD (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:User:FloNight. I meant here to discuss whether or not the response to the speedy keep was proper in terms of discussing the deletion, not whether or not the speedy keep should actually have been applied. I want to note here, that my vote was accompanied by an alternative to deletion, in hope that other options could be discussed. --Dirk BeetstraTC 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian believed that deletion should be discussed as well as the other options. What is the problem with that? When you said "speedy keep" without understanding how most of us would apply "speedy keep", and repeated it without understanding the (revised) rationale for nomination, the most that happened is that someone questioned your understanding. At the same time, Hesperian's purported lack of understanding is being used in an attempt to justify a block! Maybe the questioning could have been more polite, but it hardly stopped you from responding in any forum. JPD (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Oppose.) - Incidentally a delete would have been possible - Hesperian was quite clear about what could happen at that point, and I don't doubt he'd even have volunteered to undertake the task. There would have been no "disruption of mainspace", unintentional or otherwise, even if one considers that the deletion request may have for other reasons not been the best course of action. That being said, I've proposed many things for deletion that have been kept on consensus, and likewise felt strongly to keep something that the community has decided to delete - it happens. I believe the speedy keep and especially the tone in which it was delivered did far more to "fence off any discussion", as it's clear that the creator of the templates and supporters thereof may not have wanted a discussion at that point, but simply to end the debate in their own favour. Orderinchaos 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing without understanding function or use[edit]
12) Hesperian edited templates of which he did not understand the function and/or use.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Per finding of fact 10, Hesperian clearly shows that he did not understand what the templates did, and how they were used. Still he performed edits which changed their working and function. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Even if we were to accept the fact that Hesperian still did not understand the function or use of the templates when he edited them, not just when he first nominated them (which I doubt), it wouldn't matter at all. The question here is not whether or not the changes to the template were appropriate, but how such changes can be made or opposed. Editing in good faith, even if mistaken, should always be met by discussion, not blocks or any other form of punishment. Of course, this is also doubly irrelevant, as Hesperian was blocked for a "personal attack", not his editing. There was no negative reaction to his editing until two days later. JPD (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond ArbCom's scope to determine or resolve. If it was accepted, it would inhibit improvement of the encyclopaedia by people far removed from this case, especially those new to the site who are acting in good faith. I've edited {{coord}} before and I still to this day have no idea how it works, I just know that it does. Orderinchaos 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1) Physchim62's administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely, and may not be restored except by further action of the Arbitration Committee, upon good cause shown.
Difficult one. The above reflects the remedy at the Alkivar case, but the Hkelkar 2 case and others contain wording such that the user can apply through RfA and get it back that way, perhaps after an initial injunction period. My vote is neither support nor oppose for this particular wording, although I support the user being desysopped on the basis of the evidence. Orderinchaos 06:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Hours after the case opens this gets proposed? Reminds me of a line from Lewis Carroll: Sentence first, verdict afterward. Off with his head! Alkivar knowingly misused his tools in the service of a banned long term vandal. I seriously suggest that this proposal be withdrawn for a respectful period of time while the named parties present their evidence. DurovaCharge!
Agree with this remedy, however I would still support revoking his editing privileges for say, one year. Auroranorth (!) 10:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the desysopping, but I don't see a reason why re-access should be restricted like this. To Durova: I'm afraid the facts are all on the table already, everybody who's been following the case has had time enough to form a picture of the situation. It's not a complex case. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version support point 1.1 community should decide when/if Physchim is given the tools again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by gnangarra (talk • contribs) sorry folks my bad missed the sign last night Gnangarra 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Simple revocation is quite enough. If this administrator continues to insist he did nothing wrong, that is worrisome, but presumably all this would come up in any re-up application. Durova's suggestion is procedurally correct, but, as another stated, this is not a complex case; in regular court we would see motion for summary judgement now, since the "defendant's" evidence proves the case.--Abd (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gnang. Sarah 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Without prejudging the ArbCom's remedy, if PC62 was to be desysopped, it should be the community who determines when he is reinstated as an admin. —Moondyne 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, simple revocation is already a strong measure, seen the unfolding of the events in the TfD. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFAs for editors who have previously been desysopped by the Arbitration Committee have never lead to favorable outcomes. Almost all such RFAs fail in view of the user's prior desysopping. Of the two RFAs for previously desysopped editors that have resulted in promotion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco4 let to Guanaco being desysopped again per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al, while the promotion in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 created a significant disruptive controversy, as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. It is my belief that far less controversy would have resulted had Carnildo's administrative privileges been restored by the Committee that revoked them. In evaluating a potential request for restoration of administrative privileges by Physchim62, the Arbitration Committee is best suited to determine whether Physchim62 has met the substantial burden of demonstrating that he would probably use administrative tools in a more acceptable manner in the future. John254 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has ArbComm ever restored admin rights that it previously took away? Regardless, it would seem that it *could*. I don't know that any process has been established, but any party subject to an ArbComm sanction could presumably request reconsideration. What ArbComm can take away, I'd assume it could restore. The question is whether or not this is to be *required*. If this remedy passes, it would be required, a normal RfA would not be acceptable. If the other desysopping alternative passes, both RfA and a reconsideration by ArbComm would be possible in theory. So this alternative is more restrictive.
Yes, we have (for example, Darwinek). Kirill 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it always better to leave the option of an RfA open? If he can pass an RfA (no easy feat after being desysopped), I can't see why Arbcom would have a problem reinstating his adminship. -Amarkovmoo! 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfAs can be quirky, they are decided in a manner different than an ArbComm decision, and there can be severe participation bias. So ArbComm, if it decides that a certain person really shouldn't be an admin, to prevent some inappropriate RfA decision, may decide to make it more difficult, to require ArbComm action before allowing it. I don't think that necessary, here. The argument above that ArbComm restoral could be easier and less divisive is an interesting one, though. The case of Darwinek is actually quite similar to this one. Restoral was through an appeal to ArbComm, the possibility of which was stated in the original decision, and which decided the matter privately, on its mailing list. No fuss. No new case was opened. I'm not sure I'm thrilled about the private decision, though. I'd guess that Darwinek apologized and gave substantial assurances that he understood the problem, why he was desysopped, and would not repeat the behavior. I'd suggest that ArbComm give more explanation in a case like that, there is really none at all. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek and restoral request.
Note the current remedy being voted on at proposed decision seems to allow for both possibilities as options rather than restricting to one or the other as we kind of have here. While I think it's pointless at this stage copying the PD one over here and talking about it, I'm happy to support their version over these two. Orderinchaos 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.1) Physchim62's administrative privileges are revoked. He is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, and copied from Hkelkar 2 in part - a reasonable alternative without limitation that removes adminship, then allows the community to decide at the appropriate time if and when his access should be restored. Orderinchaos 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree return of the tools should be at the communities discretion not Arbcoms as proposed in 1.0. Gnangarra 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as it stands. Blocking someone due to taking personal offense over even uncivil criticism of one's own arguments is serious, and failure to understand that is worrisome. With contrition, the balance of other contributions by this administrator might outweigh. Removing admin tools without prejudice is not punitive, it is protective. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A statement of contrition early in the peace would have gone a long way in defusing this sorry saga, but that didn't happen and as of now PC62 still maintains he acted appropriately. I see no other workable sanction. —Moondyne 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad to support but given Physchim still refuses to accept his block of Hesperian was wrong and continues to make outrageous accusations about his fellow administrators, it is hard to see any other outcome. Sarah 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've been quiet during this discussion, but I have to chime in just a little. PC62 repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't grasp that there are times that he must not use his admin tools, no matter how tempting they are. If Arbcom had taken the identical proposal seriously during the Sadi Carnot case, we wouldn't be here today. Hopefully, real action will be taken this time.Kww (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite harse, so tending to oppose. The actions as they unfolded in the TfD did request Administrator attention as to stop the ongoing persistent edits. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the idea that ArbComm sanctions might be designed to punish and deter. That's not the way to build a community that depends on voluntary participation. Administrators are volunteers who devote long hours to often tedious service; we must protect ourselves from admin abuse, but this does not extent to punishing administrators for errors. If we assume good faith -- and I see no reason not to do so with Physchim62 -- punishment is punishing good faith efforts. Physchim's error exposed a dangerous attitude, and we must protect the community, hence desysopping, but this does not extend to humiliating him or punishing him "as an example," nor do we wish to threaten other administrators with punishment if they make a mistake. They will experience necessary consequences, and that is quite enough.--Abd (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - all remedies should be preventative. This one doesn't prevent anything, as the particular types of behaviour Physchim has engaged in would not be possible without admin tools, and there's no evidence that he's engaged in bad editing. Orderinchaos 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Physchim62 could continue to make personal attacks against Hesperian, as described in the Physchim62 has made severe personal attacks against Hesperian finding, with editorial tools alone. If there is some more acceptable remedy to prevent further misconduct of this nature, such a remedy should be proposed. John254 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that an admin could be desysopped and then continue violating civil and npa, however, we don't know ahead of time what someone will do and we don't sanction on possibilities. If what you describe did happen, the editor would be dealt with as usual by the community. It isn't a reason to assume bad faith and preemptively ban someone for a month. This is just unnecessarily punitive. We don't use sanctions to "punish people" or to "deter others"; we only use sanctions preventively. Sarah 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No specific opinion but (on reflection, this really is an oppose) seems draconian - the matter concerns misuse of admin tools, Physchim62 is otherwise a good editor who contributes positively to the project, with no better or worse behaviour in disputes than many other unblocked contributors. (See also here where I expressed it more clearly) However I do not disagree with John254's key contention above. Orderinchaos 07:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing - it seems a little too harsh, I don't want to see this, I'd just like to see some sort of administrator privilege revoking. Auroranorth (!) 10:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly unnecessary. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Physchim62's block of Hesperian is the primary issue, but AGF failure is common, and it is not clear to me that any edit block is necessary. If so, any uninvolved administrator could so conclude and act, as he himself acted.--Abd (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An edit block would serve no purpose to the community as the questions are in regards to admin actions, desysopping is a more appropriate response to such actions. Gnangarra 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of WP:CABAL[9] and conspiracies to derail his ARBCOM nomination as revenge for a template discussion show that even now WP:AGF is still being ignored, a little agf in closing statement would have prevented any of this. I have yet to see any indication during this case that Physchim wont continue with such behavior in future. Gnangarra 09:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. PC62's edits and access to the project are not in question here. The major issues here were his abuse of admin tools and his failure to assume good faith, an undesirable combination. —Moondyne 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. The issue is alleged abuse of administrative tools. Blocking him from editing would be punitive, not preventative. Sarah 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. We are discussing abuse administrator rights, not his edits to a.o. the wikiprojects and template space. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, you're right that personal attacks and civility violations are an editor issue, rather than an administrator one, however, I think you would find the community would consider a 30 day ban for those civility and NPA issues horrifically punitive. Also, John, I disagree with your comment above, "...the prospect of sanctions more severe than mere desysopping." I think you are severely under-estimating the severity of a desysop to an administrator. There is nothing "mere" about it. Sarah 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3) Hesperian is cautioned to refrain from further characterizations of other editors' contributions by means of crude scatological metaphors or other severe incivility.
Oppose wording, but a more generally worded admonition that excludes reference to "severe incivility" and does not imply Hesperian regularly engages in incivil conduct through use of the words "refrain" and "other editors'" (due to the complete absence of evidence to that effect) may be appropriate. Orderinchaos 06:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this wording, but I agree with Orderinchaos's. Auroranorth (!) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this. I think cautioning editors to be mindful of civility is sufficient. Sarah 02:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I believe that Hesperian's edits were in good faith, and I think that the following discussion should be enough to have reminded Hesperian now that even good faith, persistent editing can be damaging/disrupting to the wikipedia, and that over-use of 'scatological metaphors' can in the end result in other editors losing confidence in the nature his intentions. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian and Physchim slapped with Wikitrout[edit]
4) Hesperian and Physchim are slapped with the Wikitrout, required to shake hands and apologise to each other and enjoined not to be so silly in future, since both clearly know better.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Appropriate to the importance of the dispute, I think? Guy (Help!) 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I like Wikitrouts, personally, but the whole point here is, Physchim apparently does not know better. He has repeated, right into these Arbcom proceedings, that his block was appropriate (see his section in the evidence page), which means he's severely out of contact with normal standards of admin behaviour. This means he might block you or me, out of the blue, tomorrow. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did the poor trout ever do to anyone? :) Seriously, agree with Fut Perf in entirety. Orderinchaos 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Some have argued that this dispute is not important, thus the wikitrout. The issue is a COI block by an administrator, based on an erroneous or marginal claim of an incivility offense *against that admin.* Future Perfect has it right. I worry about who is next. If I use more polite language, "those arguments are completely specious," is this uncivil? It could be argued to be so, and, in fact, I'd agree! It's rude to claim that someone has no point *as a conclusion*, "steaming pile" being merely a crude expression of that. --Abd (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the need for (or benefit of) trout slapping, Hesperians block log is already a trophy size trout slapping, and Physchim actions are sufficiently outside accepted community standards for admins which Physchim has himself previously expressed to Arbcom. Gnangarra 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There is no reason to believe that PC62 will not be applying blocks in the future based solely on disagreements with editors over an issue he's personally involved with. This really bothers me and whatever remedy the committee decides upon should, IMO send a strong signal to PC62 and others that such behaviour is just not on. It was my understanding that not using admin tools (block, protect) in an area you're involved in was basic tenet of adminship. PC62 has a history of stretching the policy envelope. No, this issue needs to be dealt with seriously. —Moondyne 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as long as we can get to an agreement on the amount of slapping. I believe that both editors have been a careless in their contributions in relation to the TfD, Hesperian with his remarks and persistent editing, and Physchim62 in performing the block himself. Can I suggest a starting number of 5 slaps each (I am assuming here the wikitrout actually withstands that much abuse)? --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are real issues perceived here otherwise we would not be commenting in an accepted arbcom case. However, 4.1 would be a slapping with a Wikituna (provided parties could lift it in the first place, and I would then question if the parties would hold up under slapping). spryde | talk 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian has acknowledged that the less helpful of his actions were not the best option. As for Physchim62, I would agree that this si the best response as soon as he has acknowledged the more serious errors. The biggest problem here is the fact that he is still defending inappropriate actions and interpretations of policy, therefore looking likely to repeat them. JPD (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
