Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Proposed decision

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Respectful request for time 

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

message: It appears that  has resigned. - Jehochman  Talk 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: deletedKww (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I left a message for steward attention at at m:Requests for permissions#Removal of access. —Moondyne 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've responded.  - Jehochman  Talk 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reply indicates that it will be turned back on upon request. Is that true?Kww (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Resignation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion is useless 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution is useless 

message: In Wikipedia: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—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)
thread_title:  Note to arbitrators re mootness 

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed. Paul August ☎ 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the replies. DurovaCharge! 02:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification (before case closure)