Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62

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

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

message: Hesperian has characterized Physchim62's contributions by means of a crude, scatological   metaphor -- see the text immediately followingTherefore your suggestion that I "did not conduct the most simple research"in this diff. While this incivility does NOT imply that the block Physchim62 placed against Hesperian was justified, it does illustrate the context in which the block occurred. John254 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be plenty of opportunities to present this information in the evidence phase. You only need to present this stuff now if you think it relevant to whether or not this request should be accepted, in which case you should explain whether you are urging acceptance or rejection, and why. Hesperian 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My statement is relevant to the determination of whether Physchim62's misconduct is sufficiently serious as to warrant acceptance of this request for arbitration without prior formal dispute resolution, and without any showing of prior administrative misconduct. John254 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:John254|John254]] 

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

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

message: Nominating any template for deletion at TfD is procedurally correct. For the TfD notice to have been transcluded across every chemical article effectively broke . To delete the template would have had similar effects. Since the template is used only within chemicals pages, the first step should have been to contact WP:CHEMS. No attempt was made even after the template was nominated for deletion. If modifying the template was the desired outcome, there is absolutely no need to go to TfD.
Thus the nomination for deletion IMO was spurious. I agree with Beetstra's characterization of "I don't like it".
Hesperian asserted that Physchim62 had a COI since he was involved in "rolling out" this template. The template is not being rolled out. It already has been, and it is widely used by many editors Such an accusation is tantamount to labelling all editors who have ever edited the R and Sphrases fields in chembox (old or new) with COI. Should all the admins involved in WP:CHEMS be recused from this discussion/taking any normal actions such as closing a TfD?
There will be no winners for this matter to go to ArbCom. Best is for both parties to walk away from this issue. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Rifleman_82

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