Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Philwelch

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Questions to the parties
4 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion to restrict evidence

1) I move to stipulate that my blocks on Cyberia23, Dionyseus, John Reid, Centrx, ThuranX, Aksi great, MatthewFenton, and Margana were all inappropriate, as I was in good faith editing disputes with these users when I blocked them. I also move to stipulate that I engaged in edit warring in some of the above cases. Concurrently, I move that evidence relating to those incidents be restricted to this stipulation, along with documentation from the block log and revision history that these blocks and reverts took place. Concurrently, I move that my means of managing my user and talk pages, as well as my opinion of RfC, be excluded from evidence, as they have no bearing on the case before the Committee. Philwelch 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Made, to keep the evidence page from turning into a forum for axegrinding, personal attacks, and other negative commentary. Philwelch 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I object! I do not believe he was in a good faith editing dispute with me. Blocking people you do not agree with cannot be considered "good faith" in any way whatsoever. Dionyseus 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "good faith" refers to the editing dispute, not the block. Please work on your reading comprehension. Philwelch 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I hesitantly accept these terms as apply to the 11 Dec, 2006 block; Phil could've EXPLAINED himself back then, but chose not to (this is outside the scope of his abuse of admin-powers, ANY editor should've talked.) I do NOT accept as relates to the recent harassments of myself, and the evidence tampering against Dionyseus. Further, I find it hard to find Good Faith in this very situation, given PhilWelch's comment right above insulting Dionyseus. How can we really take any of his recent acts seriously in Good Faith if phil's responses are laced with the very sorts of content we're debating here? (Finally, am I 'parties' or 'other'?) ThuranX 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The opinion of RfC doesn't really mean much, but your "archiving nonsense" type edit summaries go to incivility and inability to interact with other contributors, and I think the latter might be worth examining. Ral315 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On 20 August 2006, Philwelch blocked himself indefinitely for edit warring and incivility. Unless his view has changed, I would suggest that he has already acknowledged a serious incivility problem. Addhoc 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those sorts of blocks aren't acknowledgment of fault, they're drama-generating techniques and attention-getters. Milto LOL pia 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

True often enough, and I don't think such blocks should be made, but in fairness, Philwelch did not edit for several weeks after August 20, even though he was unblocked again almost immediately. More to the point is that Philwelch has acknowledged some of the issues in his initial statement in this case. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty of the thing. Philwelch blocked himself again, but before that he unblocked his own IP address, obviously for removing the autoblock, created a sockpuppet account and edited away. Block evasion, clean and simple. Otherwise, what was the need to unblock his own IP address? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Philwelch edited under another account during that period, and in any event, there was no valid block for him to be evading. There were real problems with Philwelch's performance as an administrator, as he's acknowledged; I don't see a reason to raise additional matters dating from months ago and of peripheral relevance. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to keep Philwelch from tampering with evidence

On February 9, 2007, Philwelch modified a user's evidence.
On February 13, 2007, Philwelch deleted an administrator's evidence.

Philwelch may not edit anyone's evidence. If Philwelch violates this injuction, he is to be blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to protect the evidence. Dionyseus 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already stopped, and this is redundant with the evidence rules anyway. Tit-for-tat. Philwelch 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you knew the rules, why did you do it to begin with?ThuranX 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not necessary. Picaroon 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary, Philwelch has just attempted to hide an administrator's evidence today. Dionyseus 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm moving Nick's statement to the evidence talk page for the reasons I state there. Thatcher131 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed 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 for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I like this. I like how it makes the whole case go away quickly; with this in place, there's nothing to arbitrate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree on that last point; admins don't generally ask to be desysopped out of the blue, and I think there are a number of other points we need to consider here. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the general gist of this, but the last sentence (the added portion) makes me a bit hesitant: it seems to imply that any request for arbitration filed, no matter how ridiculous, would force a user to go through RfA again. I would support a slight rewording of this to clarify that. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Perhaps just appending "unless ArbCom deems otherwise" would be a sufficient escape clause. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Jpgordon's determination that this proposal makes the entire Arbcom case go away quickly is disturbing. This decison effectively states that PhilWelch can continue with exactly the same behaviors and attitudes as before, the only difference is he can't block immediately anymore. I see NO solution in this. I might be more flexible and less frustrated if ANY of his actions during this Arbcom were directly addressed, but they've all been dismissed as 'he's not doing it anymore, so why address it?' Why? because he's not stopping, he's changing tactics. This needs to be resolved in a forceful, enforcable manner with clear cut conditions. I am incredibly frustrated by this entire situation, and by the fact that I am steadfast in my conviction that if allowed to walk out of this unscathed, PhilWelch will come after me again on here, and I will wind up leaving. ThuranX 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Section heading and first three sentences taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of access levels. Last sentence is a new proposal for this case and is intended to eliminate the need for ArbCom to accept cases that might otherwise be moot, simply to confirm the status of a desysopped user as having left under circumstances of controversy. Newyorkbrad 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's hard to word this without giving someone, somewhere, added responsibility. Leaving it to a Bureaucrats discretion opens them to the same sort of backlash from Carnildo's re-appointment (not the same reasons, just the same kind of backlash). Plus, it'd require some sort of bookkeeping to keep track of admins who gave up the bit and under what circumstances - if only to fulfill the second half of your proposal (leaving before or during an arbitration case).

These are just my misgivings...I'm not entirely opposed to this idea. Or rather, I'm also not comfortable saying, "Any admin who surrenders their bit must reapply through RFA." Not just for the mess RFA can be, but because I feel Bureaucrats ought to have a little leeway in special circumstances (and not be vote-tallying machines). Still, either in fairness or simply to find the path of least resistance, we might need to look at an alternate proposal of just that: Any admin who voluntarily surrenders their rights must reapply like everyone else. I hope to see much discussion on this. --InkSplotch 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal takes the basic framework from the "Giano" decision as a given. That is:

Truly voluntary relinquishment = get the tools back automatically upon request
Stepping down in the middle of a controversy = need a new RfA

This has been regarded as already established and applied a couple of times since October. It's arguable that the decision established a new "readminship policy" and went beyond ArbCom's purview, but no one's made that argument and I wasn't proposing to reopen the broader issue here. It's an appropriate issue for anyone to bring up on a policy page, of course, but I think the consensus would be that the current rule is about right.

The purpose of my proposal is to specifically clarify regarding the status of an admin who gives up the tools either while an ArbCom case or a request for arbitration is pending. In at least three instances (Konstable, Husnock, this case), arbitrators have commented that they felt they needed to continue and decide the cases of former admins who had voluntarily desysopped, to address the issue of whether these admins were eligible to resume adminship upon request or needed a new RfA. Even though the "Giano" decision provides that this is generally a bureaucrat's call, ArbCom has taken these cases largely to address this issue. ArbCom's time is limited and I don't think its members should feel obliged to take every case like this. Moreover, although the sample size is limited, I sense that the cases kept open for this purpose (Konstable and Husnock) have been unusually miserable for the participants while providing relatively little reward in the way of concrete dispute resolution or decisions of precedential value.

This case is another example. Everyone, including Philwelch, agrees that he made mistakes as an administrator. I think it is also agreed that his user account is in good standing and he is welcome to remain as an editor. Now, having been part of the discussion of several of the disputed blocks, the question is whether I should spend a couple of hours putting together evidence and workshopping the case. I would be glad to do so if would help the arbitrators, but I'm not sure that it would given the limited scope the case now seems to have. Hence my proposal for a rule that would eliminate the need for a long evidence presentation in such a case as this. Newyorkbrad 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start again, I don't think I spoke well before. I only raise a concern because, well, it sounds a bit like setting policy here...and I know arbcom tries to avoid doing so directly. Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing something codified into policy elsewhere. I agree with the principle, but I think it still needs to be tightened up more between involved parties (AC, Bureaucrats, RFA) before ArbCom stops having cases on this kind of issue. My fear, and I grant you it's a pessimistic view, is that, as-is, this might work for a couple of cases but eventually it'll blow up. Someone will slip through and a great hue and cry will be raised.

So, I guess I'm trying to say I wouldn't object to something like this becoming policy, and I don't think there's much question that Phil would expect an automatic "in" if he ever wants to readmin (based on his comments). But if this is going to be policy, it ought to be hashed out...fully hashed out...and not added to, bit by bit, every couple of arbcom cases. And that's my concern. Arbcom should help hash it out, so should the Bureaucrats...possibly all over in the RFA pages. Not necessarily here. But you're right, it would be very good to resolve this protocol and save the committee much time. --InkSplotch 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to parse what you said, but I can assure you that I do not expect an automatic "in". Philwelch 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. Or, tried to say. :) I'm just all sorts of confusing tonight. My apologies. --InkSplotch 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we're all failing to communicate effectively here. I asked Philwelch after the arbitrators voted to accept the case, but before it was actually opened, if he'd just confirm he wouldn't ask a bureaucrat to resysop him without going through RfA. My reading of his response was he wasn't sure what the policy was so he didn't want to commit to that. Please forgive me if I've misunderstood. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression too...and I wasn't trying to suggest Phil had committed to anything, just what I felt the common expectation seemed to be at this point. --InkSplotch 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a common sense proposal InkSlplotch, it is ridiculous that it is not in place already. How many more pointless Arbitration cases will we have where all the ArbCom does is, after months of nothing, state the obvious "gave up bit under controversial circumstances, must go through RfA" even in cases like this one (and my one) - where the admin acknowledges that this is what will happen anyway!--Konstable 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack sites

2) The addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basically summing up a few parts of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough; perhaps it's best not to try to make this into a general ruling regarding any site. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While this would seem to exonerate my actions in the Werdna RFA affair, that does not matter to me so much as to see the issue addressed in the first place. Even if the committee were to come to the exact opposite conclusion, I would still be glad to see the issue addressed. However, this still doesn't address the issue of unsourced attacks, which is the state the question was in by the time I became involved in it. Philwelch 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this intended to accomplish? Personal attacks and harassment defy Wikipedia policy, so it's a given that any such material is inappropriate. This proposal leaves to some unspecified entity the duty to determine that a site fits the above description, at which point any and all information from said site (regardless of its nature) would be automatically barred—not merely from being linked to, but from being alluded to. In this case, that applies to a chat log that the supposedly defamed party (Werdna, who disagrees with this proposal) has acknowledged to be 100% authentic. Why should such material be deemed off-limits on a technicality?

Whether something constitutes a personal attack or harassment should be judged by the community (or by Jimbo or the ArbCom) on an individual basis. In this case, various contributors (including me) were in disagreement on the matter, and there clearly was no consensus either way. Is it truly appropriate to block an established user for restoring another established user's post that was removed by a third party despite a clear lack of consensus for its removal? Is it really wise to replace common sense and community oversight with a blanket policy that's open to abuse?

I recognize the need, in extraordinary circumstances, to ban links to certain sites that are particularly problematic (e.g. Encyclopedia Dramatica) when it becomes clear that any hope of filtering out the inappropriate material is unrealistic. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this includes a certain degree of intervention on the part of the ArbCom that ordinarily would be perceived as overstepping its bounds. I see no such extraordinary circumstances here, and certainly no community consensus that the ArbCom should routinely enact policy (let alone policy that overrides consensus) as it deems fit. —David Levy 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Don't really agree with this. I think it's silly to ban all linking to such sites; I'm sure there are legitimate times to do this.. — Werdna talk 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Garrett. Wikipedia is not People's Republic of China. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The merits of this proposal are debatable, but that's an unnecessarily hostile and inflammatory analogy. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So if one of my profs warns his students on his course website not to use Wikipedia as a reference, and in the course of doing so mentions that, say, SlimVirgin comes across as arrogant and on a constant power-trip (which happens to be a pretty common impression amoung people encountering her for the first time), the entire Web site for Rice University is banned? Ridiculous. PurplePlatypus 06:41, 25 February 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More to-the-point version of the above. It's my belief that assisting ED's campaign against Wikipedia users by proxy is unacceptable regardless of the exact method used, and violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the MONGO ruling. Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We ought not to dignify the various allegations collected by ED by reproducing them here, in any form, regardless of whether or not they happen to be true. We can be quite sure that they're not publishing this material for any noble purpose; asking people to confirm or refute its accuracy strays rather too close to simply being a proxy for it, even if that's not the intent of the people asking. I am unconvinced that there's anything on that site that is so valuable to us as to warrant our weeding it out of the general miasma that covers it. Kirill Lokshin 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If "bringing it to the community's attention" is meant to be interpreted as "making an allegation based on ED material and asking the user to deny it", then it certainly is my intent to discourage such activity. The character and purpose of ED is such that the default assumption when dealing with any material they publish regarding a Wikipedia editor should be to regard it as an attempt at character assassination.

In other words: the "details of a scheme to somehow undermine Wikipedia's integrity" that ED would publish are likely to be not merely unsubstantiated, but explicitly constructed as an attempt at harassing those who are named as accomplices. If I were to discover "David Levy's Plot to Destroy Wikipedia" on ED, I think it would be quite inappropriate for me to publically ask you whether you had, in fact, plotted to destroy us, and why; it would give ED a level of credence it doesn't deserve. We should not be assuming the worst of our fellow Wikipedians, and searching for traitors and plotters in every shadow. Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm allowed to reply in this section, but I just want to point out that the assertion that ED has a "campaign against Wikipedia users" is completely false; searching for "traitors and plotters" based on ED crap is a wild goose chase. I'm not at all involved in this case and don't plan on becoming involved, but it would be foolish and embarrassing for arbcom to support this hysteria when anyone who has any actual knowledge of ED knows that they devote far, far more time and articles to mocking livejournal, youtube, 4chan, furries and several other topics than they do to Wikipedia. Instead of making this about "ED's credence" and "ED's destructive campaign", why not just acknowledge that Konstable was merely asking a question for Werdna to explain himself instead of saying he was aiding in ED's smear campaign against Werdna by making rash accusations? Milto LOL pia 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I still strongly disagree with this. Again, personal attacks and harassment violate policy regardless of the source. There's no need to enact a special rule against alluding to material simply because it happens to be hosted at Encyclopedia Dramatica. If text "[assists] ED's campaign against Wikipedia users," it's unquestionably inappropriate (even if it's derived from an entirely different site). It is not, however, reasonable to assume that anything found at Encyclopedia Dramatica automatically fits that description. In this case, the exact opposite was true; the text in question established that a Wikipedia user seeking adminship had sympathized and fraternized with the proprietors of Encyclopedia Dramatica and expressed anti-Wikipedia sentiment in their presence. Bringing this to the community's attention served to actively oppose ED's campaign, not to assist it. The above proposal literally prohibits users from collecting evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Encyclopedia Dramatica (and aid on the part of Wikipedia users) and informing the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But this wasn't an "accusation" along the lines of "X Wikipedia user did Y!". It was a log of comments made by a Wikipedia user and directly pertaining to his actions on Wikipedia. Of course it wasn't published by ED for any noble purpose, but what matters are the intentions of the Wikipedian citing said material.

Suppose, for example, that someone at ED were to announce the details of a scheme to somehow undermine Wikipedia's integrity (perhaps via the deliberate insertion of false information into articles). The above proposal would prohibit someone who found this information at the ED site from bringing it to the community's attention. It would assist their cause, not hinder it.

Again, if something constitutes a personal attack or harassment, it's already barred by existing policy. If something assists ED's campaign against Wikipedia users (even if it originates at a different website, which the above proposal doesn't address), it will be deemed inappropriate and removed by the community via the normal consensus-based process. There is no logic in replacing common sense with an arbitrary policy against mentioning material from a specific website (regardless of its nature or the situation's context). —David Levy 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, no allegation was made in this instance; Konstable merely reported finding a chat log and inquired as to whether it was authentic (while explicitly noting that it might have been an impersonation). I think that we can give the Wikipedia community enough credit to believe that its members will consider the source (and take any information obtained from ED with a grain of salt). I certainly didn't assume that the log was authentic, and had Wernda claimed otherwise, I wouldn't have questioned his honestly for a moment.

Secondly, if someone were to discover "David Levy's Plot to Destroy Wikipedia" on ED, I would want this to be brought to the Wikipedia community's attention. I would denounce it as fraudulent, people would take me at my word, and ED's defamation attempt would be foiled. Under the proposed policy, I wouldn't even be permitted to defend myself at Wikipedia.

Thirdly, you've described a specific scenario unlike many that could arise. What if messages appear at ED in which its members describe their own anti-Wikipedia efforts in the first person? Your proposal would prevent anyone from exposing their plans to the Wikipedia community. —David Levy 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Narrowing it down to ED seems incomplete. If the same question were posted without referring to any website at all, would it be appropriate? It would be nice for Arbcom to answer this question. Philwelch 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Interesting. If there is some past misdeed or embarrassment which you want to be totally and completely banned from mention on Wikipedia... post it on ED. Then you can get anyone who asks about it blocked. :] --CBD 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Has no one else realized the stupidity in allowing folks to call people "trolls" and demand their heads for editing ED, but then outlawing any mention of what someone says directly affecting their edits/attitude toward Wikipedia just because it's found on ED? I'd say ED's role in this is irrelevant, people need to stop bringing it up everywhere. The catfight over the "ED link" brought far more attention to the website than just leaving it would have, even if the link is inappropriate, and every time anyone suggests ED be thrown into an arbitration case, ED gets that much more recognition. If you all hate ED so much than maye you should stop talking about it. Milto LOL pia 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to ED is one thing, but are you now saying we have to deny its existence and not allowed to mention it at all? May I remind you that this ArbCom committee has desysoped User:Everyking in an "emergency", without even as much as a full arbitration, for a much more minor off-wiki issue than that, also involving a blacklisted website. So somehow in my case it is different? Someone please explain this logic to me. Also note, that at the time of my question, there was a direct link (not like mine) to ED present on AN/I, which was used as part of a justification to ban someone - the guy was stalking and harassing an administrator and was rightfully banned with a strong consensus from the community. But what now, the community should not be allowed to judge it for themselves?--Konstable 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with others that it would be foolish to include this clause in ArbCom's decision. Flcelloguy proposed a much more reasonable alternative at /proposed decision. The version listed here is open to abuse, draws more attention to ED, and ignores the possibility that there could be very sound, non-attacking reasons for linking to that website, e.g., in a matter related to Wikipedia's own security. Creating taboos is almost always a bad idea from a practical standpoint, and this case is no exception. It would be much better simply to reiterate that any harassing material or links may be removed, and that deliberate posting of harassing material, is grounds for blocking. Specifying the origin of the material is pointless, and possibly harmful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat discretion

4) If the arbitration committee does not wish to leave the determination of whether a user has been desysopped under controversial circumstances to a bureaucrat, the committee will explicitly state that a voluntarily desysopped admin shall not be resysopped except through the RfA process. It is not necessary to open a case for the arbitration committee to make such a determination, and may do so without prejudice as to the properness of the actions of the desysopped admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's a few too many negatives in that proposal to parse it easily. Perhaps it might be inverted? "Arbcom may determine independently (I imagine there's a legal term for this) that a voluntarily desysopped editor must go through an RfA. Otherwise, resysopping is up to the bureaucrats." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This principle would be used with a restatement of the Giano case principle (but without the newly added lines proposed above). The arbitration committee should be proactive in making decisions. Using the idea of "unless ArbCom deems otherwise" is a failure of ArbCom to make a decision, and will continue to cause unclear situations in the future. Do we want to apply restrictions on bureaucrats through the act of failing to make a decision? If ArbCom is unwilling to rule on a certain admin's resysopping, then it remains in the discretion of the bureaucrat to decide. Let's not forget that bureaucrats were selected by the community for their judgment too. I think a vote on accepting a case in the nature of "Reject this case but require RfA for adminX to be resysopped." would be completely reasonable, plus a vote can always be done as a separate motion after the case has been declined. Also, I would make it a practive for ArbCom to post a formal notice at WP:BN whenever it passes such a motion (this will make it clear to the community when a motion of this type has passed, avoiding ambiguity). A full blown case is not necessary for ArbCom to make a decision, but it should be in the business of making decisions, not having decisions made by an absence of ArbCom action. NoSeptember 13:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned that NoSeptember's comments here and on my talk page reveal a lack of confidence in the bureaucrats' ability to make wise decisions. I would like to think that the bureaucrats can tell the difference between someone who resigns under a reasonable threat of arbitration (for example Philwelch, where the request was supported by several respected admins citing multiple problems), someone who resigns in the midst of an unreasonable and spurious attempt at arbitration, and someone who resigns under other circumstances (for example Zoe, whose talk page is filled with encouragement, and who resigned over one issue that did not even involved admin tools). Some book I read once stated the principle that good leaders avoid making decisions for their subordinates, because having once taken away that authority, they have forever taken it away and must make all future decisions on the same topic. This is not quite the same, of course. But if the arbitration committee takes the position that they will determine when a voluntary resignation requires an RFA and when it doesn't, then they will always have to make that determination. The committee was moving in the direction of a basic principle that admins who resign "in controversial circumstances" must go through an RFA, but got I think they got sidetracked by others issues in the Konstable and Husnock cases. Only the committtee can decide how they want to handle re-sysopping, but if they specifically take the decision of what constitutes "controversy" away from the bureaucrats on one occasion, they may find themselves having to hear every case, regardless of the merits. Thatcher131 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a lack of confidence in the bureaucrats' ability to make a wise decision, but rather the exact opposite. We are setting bureaucrats up for unjustified criticism by using phrases such as "unless ArbCom deems otherwise" to apply to every voluntarily desysopped admin who happens to have a case, spurious or not, against them. The Principle in the Giano case already freely allows bureaucrat discretion in these cases, and I support that. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I support the unaltered Giano principle, which simply allows for bureaucrat discretion without trying to over-define the limits of that discretion as the first principle above tries to do. The new lines added in the first proposed principle above attempts to further limit bureaucrat discretion by trying to more finely define what those circumstances are, but doesn't do a good job of it. Either we should trust the bureaucrats' decision ability (the Giano principle) or ArbCom should make the decision itself. The added lines above do neither, and will come back to bite us when a bureaucrat gets criticised for violating the "unless ArbCom deems otherwise" standard, which is to say they violated a decision that ArbCom made by not taking any action to decide. NoSeptember 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Thatcher131 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One more point. One could argue that if ArbCom trusted the bureaucrats on resysopping, they would have rejected the case in full confidence that a bureaucrat would not screw up a few months from now when Phil requested to be resysopped. Wouldn't it have been better if they could simply have denied Phil the right to resysopping without having to open a full case? I wrote this principle to tell ArbCom "Yes, you can do that" (hint, hint) ;), but do it explicitly, because if you don't do it explicitly you really haven't clarified anytlhing and we are back to square one. NoSeptember 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also not sure why they wanted to open the case, unless it was to clarify that while some of Phil's blocks were inappropriate, Phil's actions on the Werdna RFA were a reasonable interpretation of RFAR/MONGO and are not a concern. (See my comments on Newyorkbrad's talk page). RFAR/Konstable was arguably needed to establish that he was not a banned user, just desysopped; RFAR/Husnock had some of the same concerns, although the arbs also warned him about his editing behavior, should he return. I don't think there are any concerns about Phil's editing in general. Thatcher131 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it had even occurred to anyone that Konstable might be a "banned user" until Fred Bauder made an ultimately unsuccessful proposal implying he was. As for the present case, some more of my thoughts are on my talkpage as well. This specific proposal I think comes to more-or-less the same thing as my original above. (I also question the grammatical properness of "properness.") Newyorkbrad 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can replace "properness" if you have a more better good word in mind ;). NoSeptember 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with jpgordon's comment above that a nice straightforward positive restatement of this principle would work well. NoSeptember 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement

4.1) The arbitration committee may determine independently, without a case being accepted, that circumstances surrounding an 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed as a replacement for 4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just as a consideration point, not that I've finished thinking this through, but there is a difference between ArbCom exercising jurisdiction to make this decision in the context of a pending request for arbitration, versus ArbCom reaching out and preempting the bureaucrats from addressing a resysopping application with no case having been filed or contemplated. The former application should not be controversial. The latter doesn't bother me so much (it's hard to argue in principle against a decision being made by a committee of 15 rather than a single individual), but it may bother others. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True. How can we fine-tune this? Really, we're just looking for the example set by this case -- someone has an arb case brought against them, they say "ok then, I'll just pre-emptively take action". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's try this ... are there any circumstances in which ArbCom would preempt the bureaucrats on such a decision other than when there is or was a case? If not, then I think we go back to trying to find a wording based on my proposal at the top of the page. If there are, let's figure out what they are and then we can write a principle to cover them, making sure to leave a little wiggle-room for emergencies or unanticipated circumstances. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems an odd place for this... shouldn't this be proposed as a change to the arbitration policy? Or maybe Jimbo can just step in and declare this by fiat. Anyway, I'm just musing... what I came here to comment on is this potential policy proposal which is related to this workshop idea. Milto LOL pia 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with preemption of bureaucrat jurisdiction here. Bureaucrats already have the obligation to promote only those who are deemed to have community consensus, whether through a new RfA or from a reinstatement of their admin rights previously given before voluntarily surrendered. ArbCom is merely acting in the place of the community here to let all know that certain individuals who gave up their rights no longer have that presumption of continued support. The restriction that is imposed is on the former admin, not on the bureaucrat. Just because someone can desysop themselves quicker than ArbCom can act doesn't mean that their loss of community support has changed, or they should be able to so easily dodge involuntary desysopping. It has occurred to me though, that if ArbCom is unwilling to act on the community's behalf, nothing is stopping the community from doing it themselves. The case of a desysopped admin could be taken to WP:CN if the community wants to make known whether it believes the former admin has lost the presumption of continued community support in getting tools back. That process would be very messy though, can we agree that it is much better that ArbCom does it? The filing of a case is a technicality, if an admin has any possibility of being denied automatic reinstatement, there will be no problem finding someone who is willing to file the case. Let a clerk file the case, let outside opinions be posted, and then let ArbCom decide, with one option being that of rejecting the case but at the same time restricting resysopping to the RfA process. The key is for ArbCom to be able to not have to open the case in full to make this decision. NoSeptember 09:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Sources in Wiki-space

5) Like in the main (project) space, verifiability is a cornerstone of the Wikipedia community. Information relating to Wikipedia editors from external sources (such as websites) should be used sparingly, and not at all within policy-driven projects such as Requests for Adminship, Articles (et. al.) for Deletion, and the Dispute Resolution process unless such information can be corroborated by Foundation representatives, by public means through reliable sources, or from the primary source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm proposing this as an alternative to some of the ED-specific comments above. It's meant to be drawn from a common-sense reading of the basic Wikipedia principles, namely that we should rely on information from outside Wiki unless we have really good evidence to back it up. I hope it's clearly written, and my intent is plain to see. In the case of Werdna's RFA, it means questions such as "is this chat log on ED yours?" would have been inappropriate in the RFA, and possibly somewhere like his talk. But if Werdna were to admit on-wiki (as he later did) that the log was of his words, it would be OK to discuss it.

As to how this applies in other situations, such as where user's have been blocked or banned for off-wiki actions, well, I think it follows clearly: accusations of off-wiki behavior shouldn't be brought on-wiki unless you've got a really good case to prove things. This doesn't mean if someone sees an offensive being mounted against Wikipedia from some website like EncycloDramatiReview they can't warn people. Just contact a Foundation rep (Jimbo, Danny, a Steward, or Arbcom) before sailing it through AN/I.

I suspect this can be better worded, so if anyone gets my meaning here and doesn't think I'm a total loon, please feel free to expand this thought with alternatives. --InkSplotch 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding in this section for the sake of convenience.)

Firstly, while the above is a legitimate policy proposal, this is not the proper forum in which to propose it. The ArbCom's job is to enforce existing policy, not to enact new policy and retroactively apply it to past situations. The above should be discussed/debated by the community and enacted if/when consensus is established (or via fiat by Jimbo or the Wikimedia Board).

Secondly, I don't believe that any such blanket policy is a suitable replacement for common-sense, case-by-case determinations.

Context is key. In this instance, had Konstable worded the question in an accusatory manner ("Why did you say these things?!"), there surely would have been consensus for its removal. Merely inquiring as to whether the chat log was authentic (and explicitly noting that it may have been an impersonation) made it abundantly clear that it was not reasonable to interpret the chat log as concrete evidence (until Werdna confirmed its authenticity). It's an insult to the Wikipedia community to declare that its members can't be trusted to take things at face value and therefore must be sheltered from material that they aren't intelligent enough to recognize as dubious in nature. —David Levy 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To your first point, I don't submit this a new policy, merely as interpretation of existing practice. I'm not comfortable with ArbCom "establishing" policy either, and I don't feel this pushes that line any more than the first proposal on returning access levels (that doesn't mean I'm entirely firm in my conviction, and of course, your mileage may vary).

I find your second point hard to answer, as my perspective isn't that "this is a blanket policy" but a description of the common sense, case-by-case determination you speak of. I can find it thus, because I disagree with you about Konstable and Werdna's RFA. No matter his intentions, I think it was harmful and disruptful to insert such a question in the middle of an RFA like that. That's not the same as saying Konstable should have overlooked what he found, because of where he found it...I think attempting to contact Werdna privately was the right way to go (I understand Konstable did this). He could also have tried to substantiate it through other methods. Or, he could have submitted his concerns privately to Jimbo, or the Bureacrats or ArbCom.

I just don't see anything about the situation, nor can I imagine a situation, where unsubstantiated off-wiki information would need to interrupt the normal policies or procedures of Wikipedia. We have plenty of policies and bodies in place to cope with disruption to the project...but not so much to protect individual editors. That's why, to me, the common sense approach is to apply the project's core principles to the community for the same reasons...protection. Everything we say and do on-wiki is recorded, and there for all to see. If we treat off-wiki sources the same for editors as we do for topics, I think the net effect will benefit all editors, and consequently the project. --InkSplotch 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If this were something widely agreed upon within the community, the above would be "merely as interpretation of existing practice." As evidenced by the lack of consensus at WP:AN/I regarding Werdna's RfA, this is not the case.

The access level issue, conversely, is based upon established consensus. Adminship is indicative of the community's trust, and I've seen overwhelming agreement that an editor who resigns his/her sysop bit amid major controversy should not be assumed to possess such trust. Most also seem to agree that the ArbCom shouldn't waste its time on cases for which the obvious outcome is to reaffirm this principle.

I honestly don't understand how a question along the lines of Konstable's could be inherently injurious to the subject's reputation. Is the community truly incapable of viewing such information with the necessary degree of skepticism?

Had Werdna denied that the chat log was authentic, I would have assumed that he was being honest (meaning that the log was a hoax). Wouldn't you have?

I certainly agree that it's best to raise such issues privately, but what if the person refuses to respond (which is what Konstable mistakenly believed had occurred in this instance)? I disagree that contacting Jimbo, the bureaucrats or the ArbCom is a viable solution. We need more transparency, not less.

I'll reiterate that actual accusations are unacceptable and need no new policy (or clarification, or whatever) to be removed via consensus. I simply don't perceive good-faith questions as accusations, and I see no community consensus on this matter (for your position or mine). This is not to say that consensus couldn't be reached, but we aren't there yet. —David Levy 07:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

6) "Trolling" refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Milto LOL pia 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP:TROLL definition is "trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia", not convinced the above version is an improvement. Addhoc 08:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was winging it, sorry. not trying to change it, so I've replaced it with your wording. Milto LOL pia 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "troll"

7) To characterize an editor's behavior as "trolling" is to say they are deliberately trying to cause trouble or disruption, and are showing bad faith. The use of this label can be insulting and offensive to editors acting in good faith. Users should be sure they have assumed good faith to an appropriate extent in these situations, or try to find another wording of their concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not prepared to establish an official policy about the use of a word, but I agree that "troll" is one of those words that pretty much stops useful conversation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This and the above proposal may be superseded by the more general principle I've proposed below. Philwelch 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Really, this is the only thing I'm vested in, since this word is thrown about to good-faith editors like candy at a parade. Maybe it's time the "arbcom-backed personal attack" stopped being such. Milto LOL pia 08:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that it is a childish personal attack and that anyone calling another established editor a troll can be immediately blocked per WP:NPA.--Konstable 08:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur that to describe a good faith editor, even if misguided, by the description of "troll" is uncivil, possibly even a personal attack. Addhoc 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been itching to overhaul this page for a long time. I would definitely know, after all. The page is pitiful, really. Maybe this would be better discussed on the actual guideline page. Milto LOL pia 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate use of rollback

8) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ho hum. Milto LOL pia 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of rollback

9) Use of the rollback tool on single edits implies characterization of those edits as vandalism or otherwise deliberately disruptive. Rollback, therefore, must not 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Before the advent of various scripts with revert capabilities, the admin rollback was unique and indeed needed to be restricted to vandalism. I'm not 100% convinced it should have the same connotation anymore. Why is it more shocking to see Reverted edits by 127.0.0.1 (talk) to last version by SomeoneElse than Revert to revision 107712384 dated 2007-02-13 01:30:14 by SomeoneElse using popups? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Any automated revert, or even a manual revert without a descriptive edit summary, presumes that no explanation is needed for the revert; in a content dispute, an explanation or a reference to some discussion is always needed. However, that does not mean that all uses of rollback, etc. necessarily imply vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Probably with an exception to user talk pages, I know admins wouldn't like having any implication that they can't rollback anyone they don't like :-\ Milto LOL pia 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to jpgordon above: Well, it seems like reverting via popup script or other revert tools would be just as harmful (if it is harmful at all). I don't think either should be used for content reverts myself - I just specified rollback because it's an admin issue. Like, it's not bad because it's "not fair because the other guy didn't have rollback" (in this case, the other editor DID have rollback, David Levy's a sysop), it was because of the implied assumption of vandalism. In my opinion, javascript reverts with no descriptive edit summary would have the same insulting effect on the reverted editor.

Though it's worth noting that the part regarding "intimidation" (if valid) is restricted to rollback only, since rollback implies admin authority and such. Milto LOL pia 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a terrible proposal. Admin rollback has never been restricted to vandalism, at least in the sense that it has for as long as I am aware of been used to revert test edits. More generally, it seems appropriate to use it anytime the reason for the reversion would be obvious to any reasonable person examining the edit. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrative rollbacks are automatically labeled "minor." "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that adopting the same rule for when rollback is appropriate would also be a good formulation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that all administrative rollbacks bear the "minor" label, these standards automatically apply under normal circumstances. (An exception that comes to mind is a situation in which it's necessary to revert a large number of similar controversial edits performed by an editor in rapid succession.) I agree that the "vandalism or otherwise deliberately disruptive" wording is inaccurately restrictive (and the Appropriate use of rollback section contains a much better description), but the crux of the complaint (the claim that Phil inappropriately used the administrative rollback function in good-faith content disputes) is valid. —David Levy 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of administrator tools

10) Administrators who abuse their tools may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. A previous arbitration case resulted in an administrator being desysopped due to abuse of rollback.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not necessary or even relevant, since we don't have such a case before us. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly useful in confirming Philwelch's formal desysop. Maybe not necessary, don't know if thoroughness is a big concern. Although maybe the second sentence should go under finding of fact? Bah. Milto LOL pia 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of rollback played a small role in the prior case cited. The suggestion that "an administrator was desysopped for misusing the rollback tool" is misleading. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations against other editors

11) Accusations of wrongdoing against other editors should not be made without specific and direct supporting evidence, in the interest of maintaining civility, keeping dispute resolution processes free of unnecessary rancor, and assuming good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I've been guilty of doing this, as have others in this case. Philwelch 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above remark:

As this comment indicates, I believe this applies to my accusation of "trolling" against David Levy, and I apologize for that. While I feel the effect of David's edits was to disrupt Werdna's RFA, it was unnecessary to directly accuse him of bad faith.
I also feel that my accusations of sockpuppetry towards ThuranX were unnecessary. I should have found other ways to express my suspicion than to directly accuse him.
I should not have accused Konstable, David, and others of "tampering" with Werdna's RFA, and I apologize for that. It would have been better for me to express that the effects of their edits were prejudicial and had the potential to unfairly affect the RFA process.
Nick's accusations of block evasion lack evidence and logic, and should never have been made. I feel this principle also gives the committee the latitude to admonish him for those specific accusations. (If you feel the "evidence" he has presented is, in fact, "specific and direct", then your problem is with the application of this principle to that issue and not with this principle in and of itself.)
This could also be applied to Werdna's RFA. The question originally placed by Konstable on the RFA merely stated a poorly-sourced (and ultimately unsourced) accusation against Werdna and invited him to confirm or deny it. The fact that Konstable himself expressed the possibility that the logs were the result of an imposter did little to eliminate the prejudicial effects of the accusation, although as we have seen, it did shield Konstable from criticism for making this accusation. Whatever Konstable's motives behind posing this question were (and I do not presume to say what they are), one can easily imagine other editors using similar tactics to poison the well against other prospective administrators, feigning skepticism towards their own accusations merely to appear innocent.
Much of the other content of this arbitration case (accusations of edit warring, improper blocking, and incivility) are, in fact, backed by direct and supporting evidence, and I have already admitted to most, if not all, of it.

Philwelch 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Object If you really were concerned about your own actions and admitting guilt, you would not be still accusing ThuranX of sockpuppetry without evidence on this very page! If you are acknowledging that this (just a day or two ago) was wrong, you should acknowledge it directly and apologise to him. If you are referring to your others actions, acknowledge them also. Here it looks to me that you are just trying to imply your false claim that I made a baseless accusation against Werdna, also trying to use this proposal to fight Sir Nic's accusations.--Konstable 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you against this principle, or against my apparent inconsistency in proposing it? Philwelch 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not against the principle, but principles proposed in Arbitration should be relavent to the case and proposed with clear intentions and in the right context. You have not apologized to anyone, have expressed no guilt and continue to make sockpuppetry accusations against ThuranX, and accusations that I "tempered with the process", etc. And you expect us to believe that you are making this statement in application to yourself?--Konstable 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have acknowledged guilt in my initial response to this request for arbitration, and acknowledge guilt in my comment on this principle as well. Do you believe this principle is not relevant to the case? Philwelch 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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 and took hundreds of administrator actions. Philwelch relinquished his sysop access on February 4, 2007, after this arbitration case was filed against him. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, background. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 6 February 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 WP:BLOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment - added Aksi great. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Spelling correction on "Dionyseus", the one linked was a different user. Milto LOL pia 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my error. Newyorkbrad 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. It is submitted that no useful purpose would be served by dwelling on the circumstances of each of these blocks. If the arbitrators would find additional evidence or proposals relating to the individual blocks useful I will supply them. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John's block wasn't overturned - he sat it out without being unblocked. I'm not sure about the others, seeing as I didn't follow those situations. Picaroon 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected my proposal per Picaroon9288's observation, as he's absolutely right. Newyorkbrad 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be said about the fact that the blocks were, while inappropriate per WP:BLOCK, made in good faith and were made as an attempt to follow policy (WP:POINT was a reasoning at one point, IIRC). I think it would be helpful for the arbcom to find this, because it shows he was under the impression that he was doing the right thing (regardless of the fact that it is widely accepted his reasoning was flawed) and backs up the #Philwelch's editor status remedy. Would it be right to propose this, or would it be delving into something that the committee doesn't normally focus on, ie, purpose behind behavior? Picaroon 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, but I think that a proposal along the lines Picaroon suggests could open up controversy about the merits of the individual blocks, which (unless someone disagrees) there seems to be a consensus need not be debated further any more since Philwelch is no longer an admin. While I don't doubt that all the blocks were in good faith in the sense that Philwelch didn't intentionally set out to hurt the project, some of the blocks were not even remotely in keeping with a rational interpretation of the blocking policy. The one-week block of Centrx, in particular, was just weird. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch has revert warred

3) Philwelch has been in numerous revert wars and has violated WP:3RR multiple times [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is clear. Dionyseus 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--Konstable 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch has been uncivil

4) Philwelch has been persistently uncivil in discussions, and has made personal attacks: [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dionyseus 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should be 'has been persistently uncivil'. Proto ► 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - modified wording. Addhoc 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch misused his admin tools

Philwelch has used the administrative rollback button in content disputes : [3], [4].
He also threatened to block anyone who restored the edit, despite being told that the edit was made in good faith.
He also has blocked editors that he has been in a content dispute with: [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dionyseus 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not relevent, he is not an admin right now.--Konstable 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not relevent per Konstable; he has given up the admin tools. Bring this up on his next RfA if you want, but please respect the nature of RfAr. It's not to grind axes. — Deckill er 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe this finding would be very relevant if Philwelch requests for admininship. Dionyseus 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the central point of the case, of course it's relevant. BUt it's kind of redundant, see #Blocks by Philwelch. Milto LOL pia 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch unblocked himself

6) Philwelch unblocked himself with a clandestine unblock of his IP address– [6], [7]. User was blocked for breach of WP:3RR on two articles by administrator Samir at 0636 hrs on 20 ~~May~~August 2006. Welch unblocked himself 0754 hrs with the summary to apply longer block. At the same time, he unblocked an IP address, which he has now admitted to be his own. It was to remove the account creation autoblock.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is pure libel. I never created a sockpuppet account, and I only removed the autoblock so I could delete my userspace prior to extending my block. I do have a second account, User:Sammy on Skids, that was created for an April Fool's Day joke on the RC patrollers. Special:Contributions/Sammy_on_Skids. It was only used on April Fools'. Unless you get a positive CheckUser on any account, or indeed find a single account that could possibly have been mine other than the aforementioned Sammy on Skids account, I demand you withdraw this allegation immediately. Philwelch 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Philwelch has accepted unblocking this IP and admits that it was his own IP – [8]. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the account creation option was live back in May 2006. Does anyone know? NoSeptember 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if true, appears marginally relevant at this time, nine months later. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Facts are always relevant. It is up to the Arbitration Committee to accept or reject them. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is any reason to unblock yourself, even if the only reason is to make one edit to your userpage.

However, the account creation bit didn't exist, iirc. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if Phil is using a sockpuppet currently, there is nothing wrong with that. Checkuser information does not go far enough back to check the August unblocking. Evidence to back up Nick's insinuation is nonexistant for technical reasons. Further pursuit of this charge can only discredit one or more valuable contributors. Please stop. Thatcher131 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you recuse yourself from making comments. I am not alone in producing evidence. Creating a sockpuppet to edit while being blocked from editing is not acceptable. Even if he is using a sockpuppet now is a moot point for this discussion. Actually, Welch did unblock his own account, so the point still stands. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence that I did any such thing. The clerk asked you to stop for a very good reason. Philwelch 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch, would you be willing to consent to a checkuser? Dionyseus 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that we don't have data from August 2006 to analyze, and that even if we did, Nick has failed to produce any single account that I would have used as a sockpuppet (although I have produced two accounts that could be linked to me and showed conclusively that they were not used as sockpuppets during my self-imposed block). So we have no data to run a checkuser, and no suspected accounts to run a checkuser on. I only point this out because I don't want to get undeserved credit for saying "Yes! I'll consent to a checkuser!" when it would be an empty gesture. That said, feel free to checkuser me all you want. My ISP history is as follows: Washington State University residential network from 2003 to December 2005, my apartment complex until April or May of 2006, ClearWire from May 2006 to either September or October, and Adelphia/Time Warner cable internet since then. (Adelphia and Time Warner were in the process of merging when I started my account.) There were intermittent breaks lasting up to three weeks where I went home—usually that'll either be OlyPen dialup in Port Angeles, Washington, or Qwest DSL in the same city. My main ISP always serves me in Pullman, Washington, although the geographically-directed ads I see on the internet seem to be for Overland Park, Kansas ever since I started with TimeWarner. Not sure why. I also access the internet from the WSU campus wireless network. Other than sundry coffee shops that should be about it. I also shared my internet connection and IP address with roommates consistently since mid-August, and inconsistently in the months prior to that. I do not know if these roommates edit or edited Wikipedia. Philwelch 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue remains irrelevant, and it's not raised in the Proposed Decision the arbitrators are working on, so I think we can drop the topic. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "trolling"

1) The use of the word "trolling" by Philwelch and others to describe editing by established administrators added heat to the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blah. Milto LOL pia 07:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this seems to be the main issue at hand. — Deckill er 09:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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) Because Philwelch gave up his status as an administrator only in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may only seek readminship, should he choose to do so, by a request for adminship at WP:RfA and attaining consensus in the normal manner. He is eligible to apply at any time. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Object. He should have to wait and demonstrate that he can edit civilly before anyone considers giving him back Admin status. I'd say 6 months of good faith work without conflict needs to be seen before he can even try for it agian.ThuranX 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the community, not the ArbCom, should be the judge of that.--Konstable 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. (May not be necessary if my principle proposal above is accepted, but here as an option.) Newyorkbrad 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch's editor status

2) Philwelch's user account is in good standing, no further action is taken against him, and he is welcome to continue editing at any time. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unnecessary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Jpgordon here; I think some kind of statement to clarify that de-adminned users are still welcome here, as long as they are not blocked or banned, would be appropriate. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm hoping that neither of these will be necessary; that NYB's proposal will get sufficient support, and that can be the sole content of the final decision. Just a declaration of principle, without any attention to the details of the case. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it sort of implicit that users are welcome to edit until it's decided otherwise? (In any case, the first part would be better worded as "Philwelch remains an editor in good standing", I think; throwing "user account" in there isn't useful.) Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I find this either patronizing, counterfactual (if certain aggrieved users continue their unwelcome contact with me), or both. Philwelch 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome a stronger proposal that protected me from further harassment. Philwelch 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to see him blocked. For a LONG time. Since the start of this very procedure he's engaged in harrassment of me, which no one has addressed, the changing of evidence given by Dionyseus, which no one has addressed, and now he's manipulating this proceeding by proposing solutions which other editors seem to be finding ridiculously harsh or self-evident, thus manipulating the arbcom into saying "oh, no no no, that's ok Phil." he's playing everyone involved. ThuranX 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I considered, but decided not to include, precatory language concerning WP:CIVIL. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole proposal is technically unnecessary, indeed, but I like to end these things with a word of encouragement. This can be a harsh process to those unfamiliar with it and too many people who are criticized in an ArbCom decision wind up leaving for good. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin is probably right about the words "user account"; I subconsciously borrowed this wording from a proposal I made in another case where specific accounts were relevant, but that's less so here. Newyorkbrad 11:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch barred from blocking

3) If returned to adminship, Philwelch is indefinitely barred from using the blocking tool. This applies to blocking, but not unblocking, of any user, for any reason. Reallowal of blocking privileges may be considered by the Committee 1 year from the date Philwelch regains adminship, or three years from the conclusion of this case, whichever is earlier.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't like this. Just come back when you are ready and the community feels confident that you won't abuse your discretion. Fred Bauder 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too neither. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Philwelch 12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fred Bauder. Wikipedia administrators, by definition, are users trusted by the community. If you regain the community's trust, there's no reason to enact such a restriction. —David Levy 14:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt a partially self-imposed restriction would help to establish good faith and trustworthiness should this ever come to pass. I only proposed it here so that it would be more binding than a mere promise. Of course, the entire matter is probably moot, especially if this isn't accepted or allowed. Philwelch 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, why not just agree to never go for admin powers again. I don't trust you with any capability to limit my work on wikipedia. I don't trust YOU. You are engaging in incivil harrassments, deceptions and manipulative behaviors throughout this procedure. Above you got them to say you can go right into Admin hearings after this, and this section states explicitly you can have all your powers back. All I see is you playing this whole thing into going right back to who you were when we first arrived here, no change of behavior or conscience. I oppose ANY reclamation of your Admin status, but since it's clear that a permaban on that won't occur, above I've posted a suggestion for a high enough bar that yyou'll effectively never be an admin again. ThuranX 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and I'm the one who should be banned for personal attacks? This has officially crossed the line into farce. Philwelch 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Orderinchaos78's comment about this proposal. Dionyseus 10:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When PhilWelch re-applies for adminship, he could answer the usual first question indicating that he intends to help out with WP:AIV when it gets busy. He could also, if he wanted, indicate that he would avoid blocking in other circumstances. Addhoc 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has taken the view in past cases that admins are admins and are trusted (or not) to perform all admin functions. Presumably this is a concern that Phil would address in a future RFA. Thatcher131 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Not commenting on the specific case, but this one seems odd - an administrator who is not allowed to block is like a policeman who's not allowed to arrest. The question, and one the community can answer at some later time at an RfA, is whether a person in this kind of situation should be an administrator. Orderinchaos78 10:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is only one of many powers entrusted to administrators, and it's more than possible to be a productive admin without ever blocking anyone. Philwelch 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch banned for personal attacks

4) Philwelch is banned for one week for personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have provided evidence of Philwelch's personal attacks. Dionyseus 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unwarranted at this time, but there should be no more of this sort of thing, and in general, Philwelch and his antagonists should be avoiding each other. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who's been trying to do that to no avail. Philwelch 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you all really want to disengage: Philwelch, find some articles to edit unrelated to the current areas of dispute, stop calling people names (however merited you believe them), and stop posting to the talkpages of people you've been in disagreement with. Other parties, let bygones be bygones, stop complaining of incivilities (however offensive you found them) from months ago, and let Phil do his best to find a new role for himself here. Arbitrators, give some indication of what you expect to accomplish with this case, whose scope is at best unclear, or better still vote and close the case soon, as its existence is itself feeding the bitterness. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil has made personal attacks, we all agree on this, but what good will a ban do? He know's he's made mistakes, and he seems to be committed to doing better (Phil: prove me right), so banning him for an arbitrary period is unnecessary and won't have a positive effect. Because of this, I think a ban is a bad idea. Picaroon 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NECESSARY! PhilWelch accused me of sockpuppetry. No response from the Admins. PhilWelch went right after me when he came back from that voluntary 'leaving the project'. Not addressed. PhilWelch tampered with Evidence by Dionyseus. NOT addressed. that's three reasons to block any other user. false accusations borne of bad faith and deliberate malice, harrassment, and interfering with Arbcom. None were addressed. Each of these should warrant the standard penalty applicable to each, regardless of time-delays imposed on decisions for the purposes of him fully participating in his own Arb-case. When the Arb-case is over, those accrued penalties, incurred DURING his Arb-case, while he full well KNOWS he's being examined, should take effect. ThuranX 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is not punitive, which means intended to punish. It is preventative, which means that is meant to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Picaroon 20:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So because (at best) we held off on dealing with these issues so that PhilWelch could participate in his own ongoing RfAr, they can no longer be instituted because as he's not currently doing it, and it would be punitive. But if we'd blocked him at the time for doing wrong, he'd cite the inability to participate in the RfAr as punitive. Catch-22. ThuranX 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until I actually make a personal attack before complaining about what may or may not happen. Philwelch 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RIGHT HERE. ThuranX 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Two or three anonymous IP's mysteriously show up to agree with you and it's a "personal attack" to assume they weren't just two people, other than you, who happened to log onto Wikipedia, not create user accounts, and agree with you on a talk page? But accusing me of "intimidation" and gratuitiously mentioning RfAr instead of actually discussing what to do with the page is perfectly reasonable behavior? Let's ban ThuranX for personal attacks too. Has the world suddenly fallen over on its axis? Philwelch 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ONE IP, Who has a significant Contrib history in music articles for the three days BEFORE that, probably a long-term IP editors on a dynamic IP, who reconnected on another IP the next day and could be found by watching the items in that particular IP history. You just can't ever admit you're wrong. And mentioning that you're involved in an RfAr isn't a personal attack, especially mentioning it on a page which is a PART of the evidence. The WORST that happens is that other editors who watch that page come and look, and maybe give evidence. ThuranX 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly does this prove it wasn't you? One IP is easier for you to fake than more than one. Philwelch 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then go to checkuser. Otherwise, drop the issue, and accept that it wasn't me. Thank you. ThuranX 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that blocks are never supposed to be punitive, but this block would be a preventative block. Danielpi was banned by the arbitrators for a week for calling me a child. Adraeus was banned for a month for calling editors insane, calling them stupid, etc, which is pretty much the same thing Philwelch has done. All that's being asked is a week, he can still come back and be a productive editor after that period. The arbitrators should show that WP:NPA is a serious policy that must not be taken lightly. Dionyseus 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The sick thing is, if I'm not blocked, certain aggrieved users will be unsatisfied with the results of this arbitration and will quite likely continue their unwelcome obsession with me. Some people's life goal is to see me get my supposed comeuppance. It's unsettling and a little bizarre. Philwelch 21:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that some users are using this page and /Evidence as a means to dig up dirt and take as many stabs at you as possible. Further comments from me are here. I can't see what relevance personal attacks from May last year have to do with this case. -- Steel 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is clear, my evidence shows that not only has Philwelch violated WP:NPA many times in the past, but recently as well. My evidence also shows that he doesn't care about the WP:NPA policy, and he will continue not caring for it if nothing is done about it. This ban would be a preventative ban rather than a punitive ban, Philwelch would finally understand that the policy is serious, and others who see his ban will likely refrain from attacking other people. Dionyseus 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't take the policy seriously, why have I gotten into bizarre controversies (most recently with people like David Levy) trying to remove them from Wikipedia and blocking people for repeatedly restoring them? Philwelch 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Newyorkbrad. I don't see what a one-week (or any other) block would actually achieve. The questions here are regarding controversial blocks made by the person while an admin. As the person is no longer an admin, any further action along this line has no preventative effect. Orderinchaos78 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch placed on personal attack parole

5) Philwelch is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is already a wikipedia rule, and one that isn't enforced on the Golden Child. I don't see what proposing that you enforce rules we're all already subject to will do, since it's not already happening.ThuranX 16:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be helpful. If it is passed, if he ever personally attacks someone we can point out to an administrator that Philwelch is in attack parole, and they can block him. A recent case in which this remedy was used was in the Seabhcan case, and apparently Seabhcan hasn't been uncivil ever since. Dionyseus 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Someone PLEASE replace this with the official wording. I can't remember it. But the idea is personal attack parole instead of bannage. Milto LOL pia 07:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-worded the statement as per Miltopia; I have no opinion on whether this particular remedy should be enacted. Ral315 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To ThuranX: though this is a Wikipedia rule, it is not truly enforced - a lot of people get away with it on a regular basis, Philwelch is not the only exception. Probation is just a way to make sure that it is enforced and without the unecessary time-wasting "discussion" at noticeboards that generally cause much more harm than good. I oppose punitive bans against established users - they accomplish nothing but create more bitterness, if he truly has a problem with personal attacks (I haven't looked on the evidence, so I'm not sure if he does or not) then probation is the way to go.--Konstable 23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No findings of fact to support this. Thatcher131 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A proposed finding of fact has been added related to personal attacks/incivility. Milto LOL pia 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philwelch placed on revert parole

6) Philwelch is placed on revert parole. If he reverts any page, for any reason other than obvious vandalism, more than once per 24 hour period he may be briefly blocked. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Philwelch#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Dionyseus 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In all honesty, I think limiting PhilWelch to 1RR would be of benefit to the project. Addhoc 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not really involved in that pitiful situation, but he had made absolutely no attempt to contact me to ask me to withdraw my question over which he was revert-warring. Instead of trying this simple peaceful method first (which probably would have worked), he straight out resorted to childish name calling, revert games and blocking people to get his edge. So yes, he should be limited to 1RR.--Konstable 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

At a minimum, you would need one or more findings of fact along the lines of "Philwelch has edit warred." Thatcher131 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contact you first because the RfA was ongoing, and the presence of the question alone significantly tampered with the process. It was a rare emergency situation that I felt warranted immediate action. Philwelch 04:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Claiming it was an emergency is ridiculous and not an excuse - at the time you were revert warring the question has been up for a while already and not a single "oppose" has been made due to it. Not counting myself, there were 4 other significant editors who opposed having this question removed, on the AN/I there was about 1 other person who wanted it removed, and yet you decided to declare it an emergency, overrule the will of 5 editors and resort to revert warring and name-calling. And now you're saying that this emergency was so great that you couldn't take 1 minute to drop me a note?--Konstable 06:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the wording should be adjusted to clarify that Phil should be restricted to 1RR even if he considers the situation to be unusual or an emergency. In my understanding, nearly all of the edit wars have involved circumstances he considered to be either unusual or an emergency. Addhoc 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Added "for any reason other than obvious vandalism"--Konstable 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, what prevents him from calling other people's edits "vandalism" that he doesn't agree with? He's already called it trolling... Milto LOL pia 06:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I agree with this one. Phil's main problem is that he thinks that everyone can enter revert wars. That is not the case, and I do believe this will be a constructive move. — Deckill er 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion to restrict evidence

[edit] Motion to keep Philwelch from tampering with evidence

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Return of access levels

[edit] Attack sites

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

[edit] Bureaucrat discretion

[edit] Reinstatement

[edit] External Sources in Wiki-space

[edit] Trolling

[edit] Use of the word "troll"

[edit] Appropriate use of rollback

[edit] Effects of rollback

[edit] Abuse of administrator tools

[edit] Accusations against other editors

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Philwelch

[edit] Blocks by Philwelch

[edit] Philwelch has revert warred

[edit] Philwelch has been uncivil

[edit] Philwelch misused his admin tools

[edit] Philwelch unblocked himself

[edit] Use of the word "trolling"

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Philwelch's administrator status

[edit] Philwelch's editor status

[edit] Philwelch barred from blocking

[edit] Philwelch banned for personal attacks

[edit] Philwelch placed on personal attack parole

[edit] Philwelch placed on revert parole

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Analysis of evidence

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] General discussion

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search