Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 12:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Statement by Sir Nicholas

Philwelch has been an editor since 2nd February 2004 and was conferred adminship status on 8th November 2005. Since then, Phil has made a handful of blocks – [1], and a good percentage of them are very controversial. Blocks were issued while being involved in [content] disputes with the above-named users.

  • Aksi great was blocked because he warned the administrators to cease making personal attacks against two other users (User:Nathanrdotcom and User:Samir (The Scope) – [2], [3], [4], [5]. The block was overturned.
  • MatthewFenton was blocked while Philwelch was in content dispute with the user. Usage of rollback tool to revert other users' edits and doling out multiple blocks against those (Dionyseus, Cyberia23) who disagreed with him at that time.[6]. The blocks were overturned.
  • Margana was blocked while the administrator was in [content] dispute with them.[7] (see edits on 17th August 2006), [8] (user blocked while in content dispute).
  • John Reid was blocked by Phil while being in dispute. [9].
  • Centrx was blocked by Phil while being in dispute. The discussion on the administrator notice-board is here – [10].
  • ThuranX was blocked by Phil while in content dispute – [11]. [12]. There is use of rollback tool as well.
  • Steel recently issued a block on Philwelch so as to prevent further abuse of admin tools. This happened after Philwelch and David Levy were revert-warring with each other on Werdna's recent RfA. David had reverted three times, Phil reverted more than five times and used admin rollback as well. Freakofnurture removed the block after Phil's assurances that he would not edit – [13], [14].
  • There is clandestine unblock as well. Administrator User:Samir (The Scope) issued a block on Phil's account for breach of WP:3RR on multiple articles on 20th August 2006. [15]. Phil unblocked himself and while blocking himself again for a longer duration (indefinitely), he unblocked an IP address – [16], the IP resolves to the United States – [17].
  • Many administrators have asked him to put an end to such unilateral blocking of other users while being in dispute – [18], [19], [20]
  • I feel that per the long history of inappropriate usage of his status as sysop and potential admin abuse, ArbCom should mete out a strict resolution to this problem. My main contention is not about the validity of the blocks meted out, some of which were fair, some were not. However, they were all out of process. User has not shown self-corrective behaviour. Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Philwelch requested removal of his English Wikipedia sysop access on Meta, and the request has been granted. – [21]. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Matthew

I met Phil Welch while he was making several “bold” merges to pages, my self and two other users did not agree with these merges and asked him to discuss this instead, all three of us make reverts to Phil’s edits (he also violated 3RR during this, no less then five times) – during the dispute Phil blocked us all (in contravention of the blocking policy) to gain an upper hand in the dispute.

Phil also stated on AN/I ([22]) in reply to his edits: “If you want to start a confrontation with me, you're going to lose, one way or another. If you want to talk to me, we can talk and work something out.” – Phil gave no warnings with his blocks and as they where not within blocking policy all were quickly over turned. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:David Levy

I am deeply troubled by Phil's conduct. In the incident involving me, he removed a good-faith question from an RfA page five times, including two administrative rollbacks: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].

The question pertained to an IRC log posted at a site of dubious credibility. Konstable merely inquired as to whether the log was accurate (explicitly noting the possibility that it was an impersonation). There certainly was a very real possibility that the log had been forged (though it later turned out to be authentic), but no claim to the contrary was made. (The question asked wasn't "Why did you say these things?". It was "Did you say these things?".)

Nonetheless, some editors believed that the question was unfairly prejudicial. Phil took this a step further by assuming bad faith on the part of Konstable; in two of the reversions for which he provided edit summaries (as opposed to the two for which he used the administrative rollback function), he described Konstable's question as "trolling." As it clearly wasn't (and I believed that Phil had no right to remove a good-faith question), I reverted Phil's edits (with summaries) three times. (Majorly expressed agreement with me and reverted Phil's edit once.)

As I was in the process of reporting Phil's three-revert rule violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Phil blocked me (the first time that I've been blocked in the two years since I began editing Wikipedia) for 24 hours (citing "trolling" as the justification) [28]. (Steel359 unblocked me three minutes later.)

The validity (or lack thereof) of this block has nothing to do with which of us was "right," as both of us believed that our edits served to preserve the RfA's integrity. This was an honest content dispute (and one in which only Phil violated the 3RR), so for him to claim that I was acting in bad faith (and block an editor with whom he was engaged in a content dispute) is patently inappropriate and contrary to policy.

Steel359 blocked Phil for three hours, and Phil requested on his talk page that he be unblocked because we wanted "an opportunity to explain [him]self [at WP:AN/I] before this [went] any further out of control" [29]. This seemed reasonable (and he subsequently promised not to edit the RfA or issue any blocks related to it), so Freakofnurture unblocked Phil. Phil's first post-block message (indeed posted at WP:AN/I) was not the promised explanation intended to calm the situation, but quite the opposite: a sarcastic, inflammatory remark [30]. Only after I brought this fact to his attention [31] did Phil actually attempt to explain himself, and these are the posts that I find most troubling of all.

Phil asserted that this was not a good-faith editing dispute and that his actions constituted "a justifiable use of administrative privileges" [32]. He stated that he viewed his conduct as "necessary and proper" (and that he would not apologize) [33]. He indicated that he "blocked [me] for disrupting and tampering with the RFA process" (which is precisely how I viewed his actions, though I never would have exceeded three reversions, ascribed malice, or blocked an editor with whom I was engaged in a content dispute) and that it was "inconceivable to [him] that intelligent people would not understand [that the question was highly inappropriate]" [34]. (In other words, the editors who disagreed with him are unintelligent.)

I realize that people make mistakes (especially in the heat of the moment), and I would have considered the matter resolved if Phil had simply acknowledged his errors and apologized. Instead, he's unwavering in his claim that he did absolutely nothing wrong. That, combined with the fact that this appears to be the latest of several such incidents, leads be to believe that he intends to continue engaging in such misconduct in the future (to the project's detriment). —David Levy 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: On his talk page, Phil maintains that I was acting in bad faith and that his block of me for "trolling" was entirely justified. —David Levy 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Dionyseus

I am yet another user who is deeply troubled by User:Philwelch's conduct. On August 19, 2006, Philwelch was blocking anyone he disagreed with on the Battlestar Galactica dispute. He did not issue a warning to me, he simply blocked me for my revert to the version of the article that was agreed upon by the regular contributors to that article. I asked him why he did not issue a warning to me, and his excuse was "Boldness is encouraged on Wikipedia".

The block he issued to me was punitive, that was unacceptable, one of the first things clearly stated in WP:Block is that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." He was bullying editors, forcing them to agree with his version of the article, if they didn't agree he would block them. Finally when I was almost immediately unblocked I managed to get User:Philwelch blocked for violating WP:3RR twice that night, I and a few others managed to convince the other editors that they don't have to accept User:Philwelch's bullying tactics, and the community soon agreed that User:Philwelch's version was unacceptable.

Ever since this incident, I have seen many complaints about User:Philwelch's conduct in ANi. I strongly believe his adminship status should be removed to prevent further damage to Wikipedia. Dionyseus 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Cyberia23

Honestly, I thought this was a done deal. Last I knew was after the bans and the complaints that followed, Phil decided to leave Wikipedia as he was blocked for violating the 3RR and I assumed he had his sysop privileges removed already. Although I was annoyed about being banned by him without him hearing me out first, I myself felt bad that he decided to leave and thought that something else could be worked out, perhaps a "cool down" period instead of folding up his tent and leaving. I haven't kept tabs on him, so anything Phil is involved with since the multi-ban issue, I am not aware of. Cyberia23 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:ThuranX

Since people won't let me disappear from this proceeding, I'm only going to say that although editors on the Rush (band) Page continue to refer people to the pop culture page, and to remove pop culture info from the main article page, and though the Pop culture page was created after suggestions by the review group for getting articles to FA status, it remains now as PhilWelch has edited it, and NO ONE will touch it. Make of that what you will. I certainly won't ever touch it again. ThuranX 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Following PhilWelch's declaration that he was done with Wikipedia, I actually contradicted myself, and DID restore the Rush in Pop Culture(RIPC hereafter) page. Within FOUR hours, PhilWelch was reverting it. It was re-restored by an IP. PhilWelch's response, accuse me of sockpuppetry[35] and [36]. PhilWelch has NO grounds for this accusation, and thus it is BOTH Incivil and a PERSONAL ATTACK. The consensus of the page which PhilWlech refers to was that the page should not be deleted (No consensus on AfD, default to Keep). Phil summarizes the AfD as 'keep AND merge', which is made MUCH more difficult by PhilWelch's redirect actions. Unless you already know that the RIPC article existed, all you can find is in the Rush article. Contradicting PhilWelch is that during the Rush page's FA review, it was the recommendation to split the RIPC into it's own page, and this was done. Now Phil suggests that it's plagarised form a website, (the website may well have cribbed from wikipedia), and should be merged. This is self-contradictory. If the content is demonstrably plagarism, Wikipedia should delete all versions which are the plagarised material, and if not, then given that AfD was No consensus/Keep, and the FA Review was 'create', then create +Keep means it should stay.
TO Summarize: PhilWelch is avoiding established consensus of specific review of the article, consensus of involved editors[37], and resorting to WP:PA and WP:CIVIL Violations to get his way. This is extremely disconcerting, especially given his previously stated intent to take a LONG wikibreak, as a means of 'cooperating' with this RfA. This RfA needs closure and a decision. PhilWelch has not demonstrated the ability to live up to his own volunteered behaviors.
Finally, I asked to be totally removed from this procedure, believing that PhilWelch would come after me vindictively. This has been shown to be true[38] (Note only the one theme of contribs, Rush, the VERY pages referenced in this RfA and which I gave a statement about?). I am not happy about that. ThuranX 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Centrx

Not listed in Sir Nicholas's original summary are the recent blocks of administrators User:Centrx and User:David Levy. His block of User:David Levy, with whom he was edit warring and involved in a dispute, with a bogus reason, is summarized accurately above. His block of my user account User:Centrx for 1 week under a bogus reason was sudden and without warning after I deleted several odd redirects which unbeknownst to me had a prior RfD (under which Philwelch had an open threat against anyone who deleted the redirects). See example deletion log for what he means by "wheel warring". The subsequent ANI discussion, where there is a more detailed summary, a unanimous censure of the block, much incivility from Philwelch, etc., can be found at [39]. Other noticeboard discussions of Philwelch's use of admin tools not listed above are May 2006 ("Go ahead and file an RfC. In fact, print it out and mail me a copy—I'm running low on toilet paper."),November 2006, December 2006. Also, note Philwelch's blocking log: the blocks listed above constitute every user account Philwelch has blocked in the past six months. He really does use the blocking tool just to block people he disagrees with. The major reason this has not been escalated earlier are that for some users, some people thought the users "deserved", in a vague general way, to be blocked, even though the block itself was wrong; for others, some of the users blocked were relatively unknown in the "community". A quote from ANI/130 characterizes it well: "Great idea Phil! Let's talk about it. Too bad you've BLOCKED EVERYONE who seems to have a problem with this issue today. So how are they supposed to retort?" At the very best, the behavior is heavy-handed and incorrigible, and rude, with deleterious effects on the users creating the encyclopedia. At worst, he is using admin tools as a threat and punishment to get his way in disputes. In any case, if it were to continue it would show just how easy it apparently is to be openly abusive of admin tools without consequence. —Centrx→talk • 06:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Phil Welch

I don't know if it's usual for the subject of an RfAr to comment on it, but I would like to make a few remarks.

First, I wholly concede that I abused blocking privileges repeatedly in most of the cases listed here, and in the others, I was at the very least intemperate in my actions. There is obviously too little delay between thought and action for me, and that has always been one of my greatest personal flaws. I own up to it fully. While I feel some of the users I wrongfully blocked should have been blocked, I was not the admin to do it.

Secondly, I do feel that Dionyseus and Centrx were, if not wikistalking me, than at least taking an unusual interest in my contribution history at one point in time. The last time I left Wikipedia, Dionyseus took the liberty to go back and nominate all of my poorly-tagged or orphaned images for deletion. While on the surface there was nothing wrong with this, it felt like he was vengefully piling on. It seemed petty. After I came back, he had an uncanny way of following me around on AFD.

Thirdly, if the Arbitration Committee takes this opportunity to review the entire debacle revolving around Werdna's request for adminship, I would be interested to see their findings. I regret the fact that David Levy takes this as a personal attack, but it's impossible for me to see good faith in posting that question. That's as unfathomable to me as mistaking Mooninites for bombs. If I wanted to be the Machiavelli of Wikipedia, I don't think I could do it any better than that. The tactic seems that transparent to me. I would like the Arbitration Committee to at least review the matter for themselves. I want Arbcom to state once and for all whether you can refer to IRC logs in adminship candidacies, or in fact refer to any incident without substantiating it with admissible evidence. (Were I to go to RFA again, I understand that asking me questions about this RfAr and the blocks therein would be fair, but I don't believe referring to comments I've made in #wikipedia would be.)

After the fact, I realized that the best use of admin powers would have been to move Werdna's questions to a subpage, transclude that subpage in the RFA itself, and then protect the subpage in a state where the questions were absent, until consensus was reached to include them. This solution too would be controversial, and may have led to great wheel-warring, but it would have been less personal than the blocks appeared to be. It would have more effectively addressed the actual issue, and unlike protecting the RFA itself, it would not have disrupted voting. Nonetheless, I don't think my actions over Werdna's RFA were even remotely in the wrong. David's angry at me for being unapologetic about it, but David's pretty damn unapologetic about taking part in active mudslinging and character assassination against someone who has done more for Wikipedia than almost everyone here.

As for RfC, I was heavily involved in Kelly Martin's infamous RfC, and I came away with the conclusion that RfC was an inherently broken and useless process. If I had ambition and time, I would have put the entire user conduct RFC page up for MfD, the same way we shut down Esperanza and PAIN. In my experience, Esperanza was a non-issue and PAIN was close to useless, but RFC was actively damaging to Wikipedia, and served no useful function.

I don't want to belabor this process and waste the committee's time, so I did inflict upon myself the maximum punishment possible. I didn't want to go through weeks and months of deliberations over this, so I picked a punishment which I thought would be satisfactory—desysoping and indefinite banning—and carried it out myself. I wasn't blocking myself to enforce a wikibreak (which is mysteriously disallowed), I was simply accepting the maximum sentence that was coming to me. The Arbcom surely wouldn't do more than that. And maybe once all was said and done, I would have been desysopped and banned anyway, so let's not waste any more of the project's time.

But since the Arbitration Committee is going to review this anyway, I might as well help to focus their efforts on interesting questions. Whether or not I get to be an admin, I honestly don't know what to think right now. If I am restored, I would welcome an indefinite probationary period where I don't use the blocking tool. But I've been deadmined, and I don't think anyone will clamor to readmin me. (I was skeptical that anyone would unblock me either, for that matter.)

But I do concede that I've done some dumb things with the blocking tool. If people have grudges with me over that and want to use this RfAr to pile on, there's nothing I can do about it. But they did get me deadmined, they got me indefinitely blocked, they got me to concede I was wrong, and they'll probably get an official Arbcom ruling to that effect as well. What more do they want? Some of these users have shown a bizarre fascination with me in the past, and that baffles me most of all.

Anyway, keep me posted on whatever happens here. And keep my user page deleted for the time being. If I'm sure I want to return, I'll have it undeleted…until then, I would like to disappear for a bit, except for this RfAr of course. Philwelch 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up comment

Brad asks me "to confirm that he understands that he can seek to become an admin again only through the RfA process". As I understand, that question is somewhat unclear, and I wouldn't presume to speak for the Arbitration Committee. I don't follow Arbcom so the precedents on this issue are largely unknown to me. I'm reluctant to take Newyorkbrad's word for it.

Carcharoth "noticed that Phil seems to be in the habit of periodically deleting and restoring his own user page, which seemed fairly idiosyncratic to me." Many people can attest to the feeling of wanting to leave Wikipedia, followed days, weeks, or months later by the desire to return. It's common practice to delete people's userpages on request if they want to leave, and I don't think these actions were out of line. I said something about "piling on" above—I don't think pointing out my idiosyncrasies accomplishes anything here.

I may have been unduly rude to Centrx when he inquired about previous blocks I had placed, but they were none of his business, and at that point I had no more dispute or business with him. Again—harassment and piling on. If there was some desire for a mea culpa behind this, I think my response to this request for arbitration satisfies it. I don't dig around in other people's histories and demand them to explain to me personally why they made the mistakes they did, and it was wholly unnecessary for Centrx to do so.

(If Centrx's attitudes on this matter are consistent, than, due to my removing User:Konstable's question from Werdna's RFA, Centrx should have no problem with me demanding a personal explanation about Konstable's deadminning. Fortunately, I am not so petty and personal as to sink to that, and it was only by chance that I even found out about it.)

Carcharoth also notes that his "decision not to open an RfC was heavily influenced by Philwelch's past behaviour: (a) I was concerned that he might (even if unjustifiably) try and accuse people of wikistalking him; (b) I was concerned that he might lash out with a block; (c) I was concerned that he would try and end the dispute with aggressive demands to "just drop it". I fear I was influenced by Philwelch's behaviour to "let the matter drop", when it shouldn't have been." If he had been better at investigating my history on Wikipedia (which was a fulfilling pastime for Centrx and Dionyseus for quite some time), he would have discovered not only my dismissive attitude toward RfC that Centrx notes, but even my reasons for feeling that way. I would have more or less ignored an RfC because I don't find it a useful means of resolving conflict.

Helmstern notes that "I questioned what policy would make such an action appropriate. [57]. I received no reply." He received no reply because I was blocked. After my unblocking, I fully explained my actions.

Upon further reflection, I have made too many enemies on this project, with too much of an established tendency to follow me around and second-guess everything I do. In light of this, I am even a little disappointed that Freakofnurture unblocked me. Philwelch 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)

  • Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) There has been no RFC, and this is exactly the sort of matter where RFC can resolve the problem, or minimally, provide the Committee with a means to ascertain community views.
  • Accept. There seems to be a pattern of controversial actions here, including administrative abuse involving blocking and threats of blocking. Given the recent lengthy discussion on AN/I regarding the controversy at Werdna's RfA and the repeated discussions and requests for him to stop already, I don't see how a RfC would be either fruitful or productive. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept, per Flcelloguy. Kirill Lokshin 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Since the named party is a well established we need to get involved to clarify to the community and Phil, what his status is after his recent self request to desyop and self block prior to leaving the community. And put in place remedies to prevent future highly confrontational incidences upon his return to editing and possible request for return of tools. FloNight 20:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept per Flo and Flcelloguy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept per Flo and Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept for clarification. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Return of access levels

1) 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.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

3) The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Passed 6-2 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reinstatement

4.1) If a request for arbitration involving a voluntarily de-sysopped editor is made, the Arbitration Committee may determine independently, without the case being accepted, that the circumstances surrounding that editor's voluntary de-sysopping are sufficiently controversial that admin rights may not be regained without an RfA. In the absence of such a determination, reinstatement remains the responsibility and privilege of the bureaucrats.

Passed 6-2 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate use of rollback

5) The rollback tool, restricted to administrators, is used to perform quick reverts of vandalism and test edits with a passive edit summary, and is especially useful for quickly reverting large-scale vandalism. There are cases where use of rollback on non-vandalism edits is acceptable, such as circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. Rollback may also be used to revert edits made by banned users while they are banned, since they are not allowed to make those edits.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of rollback

6) Use of the rollback tool on single edits implies characterization of those edits as vandalism or otherwise deliberately disruptive. Rollback, therefore, must never be used to revert edits made in content disputes. It is also inappropriate to use rollback to intimidate a disagreeing editor. Administrators should use caution when rolling back edits made by established contributors, since it assumes ill will on their part, and should assume good faith appropriately. Established contributors whose edits are rolled back are often insulted or angered as a result.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Philwelch

1) Philwelch (talk · contribs) has edited for more than three years and has almost 10,000 edits. He has been an administrator since November 8, 2005 [40] and has taken hundreds of administrator actions. Philwelch voluntarily relinquished his sysop access on February 4, 2007, after this arbitration case was filed against him.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks by Philwelch

2) During his tenure as an administrator, Philwelch blocked several established contributors, including Aksi great, Dionyseus, John Reid, ThuranX, Centrx, and David Levy. Several of these blocks were quickly overturned by another administrator after an unblock request was posted and/or discussion took place on the administrators' noticeboard. In at least some of these instances, there was a strong consensus that the blocks were inappropriate, should not have been imposed, and violated the blocking policy.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch has revert warred

3) Philwelch has been in numerous revert wars, has violated WP:3RR multiple times, and has been blocked at least three times since April 2005 for violating 3RR. [41] [42]

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch has been uncivil

4) Philwelch has been uncivil in discussions, and has made personal attacks: [43].

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of administrative powers

5) Philwelch, by blocking and threatening to block users whom he was currently engaged in disputes with, misused his administrative powers.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werdna's RfA

6) Werdna (talk · contribs) underwent a fourth RfA, which was extremely heated and controversial, in late January 2007. The request was closed as unsuccessful.

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over question regarding IRC logs prior to Philwelch's involvement

7) Konstable (talk · contribs) added a question to Werdna's RfA on February 1, 2007, pertaining to IRC logs published in Encyclopedia Dramatica. [44] Cyde (talk · contribs) then removed the question [45], citing a previous Arbitration Committee decision that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica were inappropriate. Yandman (talk · contribs) then restored the question, removing the link to the log. [46] Cyde then reverted again, removing the whole question and calling it "defamation" and "clearly not acceptable." [47] The question was then restored by Majorly (talk · contribs), who stated that the question was "perfectly acceptable." [48]

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring continued at Werdna's RfA

8) The question was then removed after approximately five hours by Philwelch, who cited that "off-wiki IRC conversations are never cause for action on the wiki". [49] A series of reverts between Philwelch and Majorly and David Levy (talk · contribs) then occured. Philwelch twice used the administrative rollback tool to remove the question and also called the question "trolling".

Passed 8-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of David Levy

9) Philwelch then inappropriately blocked David Levy for 24 hours for "trolling" at Werdna's RfA [50]; the block was overturned very quickly, within three minutes, by Steel359 (talk · contribs). [51]

Passed 6-1 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

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.

[edit] Philwelch's administrator status

1.1) Because Philwelch gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA.

Passed 6-0 at 12:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.