Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Statements by non-parties

Statement by User:Heimstern

I observed Philwelch's handling of the contested comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 2. In addition to David Levy's summary, of the situation, I would like to add the following: He used admin rollback to undo David Levy's edits [1], [2]. The second of these rollbacks occured after Majorly had also reverted Philwelch's edits, including in the edit summary advice to use the talk page and not use rollback [3]. Shortly before his second rollback and subequent block of David Levy, he unilaterally threatened to block any user who restored Konstable's question [4], even though he knew two other established users (David Levy and Majorly) disagreed with this. I questioned what policy would make such an action appropriate. [5]. I received no reply. (Update, 06:34, 5 February 2007: Philwelch has explained that he did not reply because he was blocked at the time.) I believe that Philwelch's use of rollback, his threat of a block, and his carrying out of that threat on David Levy constitute abuse of administrator privilege. I also believe that his decision to edit war was unbecoming of an admin. In the interest of fairness, I wish to note that David Levy also edit warred, as Dmcdevit has observed [6], [7]. Heimstern Läufer 06:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Lostintherush

I first came to know of Philwelch during Aksi Great's RFA when Aksi mentioned him in the answer to Q3. After that I noticed him when he blocked John Reid during his RFarb nomination (which I opposed). Thereafter Centrx and now David Levy. Throw in the other blocks mentioned and there is a clear pattern here. Blocking new users and non admins doesn't get one's actions under scrutiny, especially if the users simply walk away and dont come back. Blocking admins makes lot more noise. In both the scenarios, if blocking is done wrongly, it causes much harm to the encyclopedia. Unlike many other RFARs, I dont see shades of gray here. The actions look wrong to me whichever way one looks at them. I'd urge the arbcom to take this case to prevent further harm to the encyclopedia.

User:Philwelch has gone after being informed of this case [8]. I hope that will not let the case to be rejected as he still has access to the buttons that can cause further harm. — Lost^(talk) 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his talk page he had surrendered his adminship. --Spartaz 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (meta log). Christopher Parham (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just saw it. What rule would apply to him getting the bit back? I am not sure if this is the place to be having this discussion. — Lost^(talk) 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by freakofnurture

I unblocked Philwelch for several reasons.

First, it was clear to me that both he and David Levy were behaving rather poorly: Phil for his excessive reverts and for blocking Mr. Levy with whom he was in a dispute, and David for restoring inflammatory content written by a user whose recent contributions have consisted mostly of disruption at RFA, for his self-serving interpretation of the three-revert rule rule as an entitlement, his howl for punitive blood, and his well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log, and his "I've never been blocked before" hubris, all found in this one diff.
I felt it less than ideal that the third involved admin unblocked one disputant two minutes after blocking the other.
I believed Phil was acting in good faith, and under a broader-than-usual interpretation of (the spirit, not the letter of) WP:LIVING and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks as he felt these guidelines pertained to the poorly-sourced negative material (pertaining to the non-pseudonymous editor and MediaWiki developer Andrew Garrett a.k.a. User:Werdna, who, additionally, is legally a minor) which he felt was intended primarily to sink an RFA. I agree with the majority of this assessment.
Phil expressed a desire to participate in the discussion at WP:AN/I, and a willingness to stop editing Werdna's RFA. He's made good on both counts.
I believed that blocking either party rather than discussion the points above would do more harm than good.
I believe that admins blocking admins make baby Jesus cry, particularly if it results in otherwise decent administrators quitting the project, which may be the action that Phil is now taking.

Some four hours before being desysopped, Mr. Welch blocked himself indefinitely, with the rationale "no longer welcome in the community". Disagreeing with his assessment of the situation, and seeing that this RFAR had been filed and that his self-block would render him unable to participate, I unblocked Philwelch a second time.

If other participants feel that I should be named as an involved party on account of my actions, or (as I more cynically suspect) on account my words, so be it.

—freak(talk) 20:30, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved badlydrawnjeff

Mostly due to the clerk statement below that existed as of my signing this statement, any removal of this case would be helpful if it included whether the action taken at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano case apply here, namely Phil voluntarily requesting desysopping "under a cloud." Might save a good deal of hassle later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Over the past few months, Philwelch made several highly problematic blocks, as discussed above. I was involved in the ANI discussion of three of them, and opined (I was not yet an administrator) that the users should be unblocked immediately and that Philwelch needed to be much less quick to press the "block" button and to make fewer uncivil remarks along the way. I was particularly unhappy after a long-time user left the project permanently, apparently in reaction to one of these blocks. I do not and cannot fault Philwelch for the departure, which no one anticipated, but his subsequent comment to the effect that Wikipedia was better off without the user in question, in effect taking credit for causing a contributor's departure, struck me as unbecoming.

In two of these instances, it was proposed that the matter of Philwelch's blocks be taken to arbitration. I urged the blocked users not to pursue arbitration and desysopping at that point, hoping that Philwelch would take to heart the strongly expressed sentiment that he was blocking without sufficient cause and in instances where he was engaged in content or other disputes with the other editor. Even after I saw this case filed, I was hoping that it would be accepted, but that the final remedy could include some sort of restriction on use of the block function, and that a sanction short of desysopping could be explored as an outcome as Philwelch did some good admin work in other areas.

The most recent events, this week's controversy concerning Werdna's RfA, involved a disputable issue as to how the question at issue should be dealt with. (I personally supported Werdna's RfA, for what it's worth, and would not have asked the question as it was posed.) Blocking was definitely not the way to resolve the issue, but I don't believe that anyone's behavior in that controversy, in and of itself, comes close to meriting an arbitration case. Nor would Philwelch's behavior potentially warrant any sanction other than removal or restriction of his administrator privileges, which he has now given up voluntarily. Accordingly I agree with Thatcher131 that the case is moot.

It should be emphasized that Philwelch's user account is in good standing and that he is welcome to contribute as an editor. Philwelch has self-blocked before when he thought he was leaving and has always returned, and self-blocks to enforce a departure are deprecated. Freak's action in undoing the self-block now to give Philwelch the option of returning again now was clearly correct and I would have done the same had I seen it first.

With regard to the possibility of resysopping, the precedent from the so-called "Giano" case is that someone who gives up admin status "under controversial circumstances" must go through a new RfA to regain adminship. I think it clear that resigning during the pendency of an arbitration filing counts as resigning in the midst of a controversy, and that the bureaucrats would not grant resysopping in those circumstances without a new RfA. However, another user on another page has disagreed and thinks that the situation is not as clear as I suggest. In lieu of a full-fledged arbitration case, or a potential dispute later as badlydrawnjeff says he fears, a comment from a couple of arbs confirming (or disagreeing with) my understanding might be helpful. Newyorkbrad 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I endorse the presentation of the history contained in Carcharoth's statement below. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental comment by Newyorkbrad

This section was written after Philwelch made his initial statement below and before he added his "follow-up statement." Newyorkbrad 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The introspective statement just posted by Philwelch, although there is much in it I do not agree with, confirms my strong impression that no useful purpose would now be served by proceeding with this matter as an arbitration case.

With respect for the concern that it might be unclear whether and how Philwelch might request re-adminship in the future, I ask him to confirm that he understands that he can seek to become an admin again only through the RfA process. Newyorkbrad 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

I first became aware of Philwelch's blocks when trying to leave a message on John Reid's talk page, and finding that it had been protected. That resulted in the WP:AN thread that Centrx linked to above, from November 2006. During that thread, Dionyseus mentioned a past dispute and provided links. I didn't like what I saw, so I looked further.
My conclusions at the time (in that thread), from looking at the dispute Dionyseus pointed out, were: "Together with Philwelch's block log where he blocks himself several times, this is not the sort of behaviour I'd expect to see in an admin. Do I really want to think, if I happen to run into Philwelch on a random talk page at some point in the future, that he is someone who could block me for no apparent reason?"
I also noticed that Phil seems to be in the habit of periodically deleting and restoring his own user page, which seemed fairly idiosyncratic to me.
The next time I noticed Philwelch was when a block of his (of ThuranX) came up again at WP:ANI. See here. In that thread, Dionyseus raised the previous incidents again, and Phil accused Dionyseus of wikistalking: "It appears I have a stalker. Whatever the Wikipedia equivalent of a retraining order is, I want one placed on this clown.". I responded to point out that the problem might be that there was a negative pattern in Phil's behaviour, and Phil responded by accusing me in turn of wikistalking.
I was taken aback by this, as had not been following his edits, but had been pointing out a consistent pattern of behaviour based on incidents reported at WP:AN and WP:ANI. After responding with a strong rejection of his accusation, I let the matter drop.
The next time I noticed Philwelch was when his block of Centrx came up at WP:ANI here. I didn't get involved in that discussion, but I did notice Philwelch again accusing Dionyseus of wikistalking: "I would like to take this opportunity to again point out that Dionyseus has wikistalked me, both here and on AFD, for some months now.". I didn't voice my concerns in that thread, but tried to gain an understanding of the background from the talk pages of the users involved in the dispute.
It proved difficult to read Philwelch's talk page, as he frequently archives his talk page to page history (by blanking the page) when he thinks a thread has ended. The example I found on this occassion was this. I then discussed my concerns with Centrx here, including my concerns about the accusations of wiki-stalking. Centrx pointed out that Philwelch had been removing his (Centrx's) comment from the ANI thread, and being incivil (see the link I provided above). Centrx suggested an RfC, but I eventually decided to let the matter drop.
I then recently discovered that this had all blown up again, and that an admin that I respect and have interacted with before (David Levy) was controversially blocked by Philwelch. I now regret not having taken the previous matters further before. I will be brutally frank on myself here and say that my 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.
In conclusion, while passing no comment on Philwelch's editing contributions (I have not looked at them) I would like to ask ArbCom to rule on whether his use of admin tools (blocking those he was in dispute with) and his response to criticism of said actions (accusations of wikistalking and demands to 'just move on', despite showing no signs of understanding what he did wrong), are acceptable. I would also like the ArbCom to address the possibly widely-felt feeling that RfC doesn't have teeth, and can just prolong discord (see especially UninvitedCompany's comment that this should have gone through an RfC first).

Apologies for the length of this statement. I can provide detailed diffs if needed. Carcharoth 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cyde Weys

Phil Welch has resigned his sysop bit and he has done so "under a cloud" as it were (to use the ArbCom's own rather imprecise language). Thus, if he wanted to regain his bit, he would have to go through RFA again, and I'm sure all of this would be brought up there. I don't think there's anything left to arbitrate over, and so in the interest of saving everyone some time, I would recommend the ArbCom to reject this case. --Cyde Weys 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Werdna

I am disappointed that posting a log had to come to what it did. I don't think it was necessary for somebody to post a six-month-old log of off-wiki actions, out-of-context, obviously found in a google "dirt-digging" search on my Request for Adminship on English Wikipedia (especially seeing as, at the point of time when it was posted, the RfA was as good as dead, and minimal attempts had been made to contact me privately about it, rather than posting it smack-bang on the top of RfA, for a great big lynch-mob to see). I think that the whole controversy could have been avoided had Konstable waited two more hours for my response on IRC or via email. Nor do I think it was necessary to get into a revert war over it, especially without waiting to see my own reaction first. For the record, I'm embarrassed by what I said in the log, and I think it's worth noting that it was a long time ago, at a point when I was exceptionally disillusioned with Wikipedia, that I told a great number of lies and partial truths in there, and that I said what I said in there under the understanding that those who would be offended by it would not see it. Most of the nasty or controversial stuff that I said in there was specifically tailored to the people I was speaking to, much of it wasn't meant, and much of it wasn't true either. — Werdna talk 05:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to statements

David Levy

First, it was clear to me that both he and David Levy were behaving rather poorly: Phil for his excessive reverts and for blocking Mr. Levy with whom he was in a dispute, and David for restoring inflammatory content written by a user whose recent contributions have consisted mostly of disruption at RFA, for his self-serving interpretation of the three-revert rule rule as an entitlement, his howl for punitive blood, and his well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log, and his "I've never been blocked before" hubris, all found in this one diff.

1. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of the question (and believe that it was inappropriate for a third party to remove it instead of permitting the community to assess its relevance). As you've acknowledged that I was acting in good faith (whether I was right or wrong), how is this evidence that I was "behaving rather poorly"?

2. I do not view the three-revert rule as an entitlement, but it exists for a reason. Quoth WP:3RR, "If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it – and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable." Another user performed the same reversion after I'd reverted only once. When Phil reverted for the third time, I'd still only reverted once. My third reversion undid his fourth (which never should have occurred).

3. When did I "howl for punitive blood"?! In the edit that you cited, I explicitly suggested that Phil's block be extended "not as a punitive measure, but to prevent him from causing further disruption at the RfA before it closes." This was before he promised not to edit the RfA page. When I saw that he'd done so, I withdrew my 3RR report [9]. I later defended your decision to unblock Phil, noting that "blocks should not be punitive" [10].

4. What "well-poisoning allusions to Phil's prior block log"?!

5. How was it inappropriate to note that I'd never been blocked before? I'm still upset that my block log is permanently blemished.

Some four hours before being desysopped, Mr. Welch blocked himself indefinitely, with the rationale "no longer welcome in the community". Disagreeing with his assessment of the situation, and seeing that this RFAR had been filed and that his self-block would render him unable to participate, I unblocked Philwelch a second time.
If other participants feel that I should be named as an involved party on account of my actions, or (as I more cynically suspect) on account my words, so be it.

In my opinion, both of your unblocks of Phil were appropriate. —David Levy 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reply here. Having endured many a discussion with you, I now know that if I reply anywhere else I know you'll just paste it back here anyway.

1. People acting in good faith can and do behave poorly. If I say you were behaving poorly, please understand that this is not a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith, but rather that I am confidant you could do a lot better. Edit warring is poor behavior, period.

2. Phil reverted five times and you reverted three times. You'll let no one make a mistake of that fact. Maybe if you had reverted twelve times, Phil would have reverted fourteen times. Or maybe if you had stayed out of the mess, Phil would have only reverted twice, and everybody would be as happy as they were at the end of January. There is no creation of goodwill anymore, only loss control.

3. You were still, and possibly are still, convinced that his actions were disruptive and yours weren't. I would ask why you are refuting my rationale for unblocking by pointing to things you said after the unblock, but after careful consideration, David, I really don't want to know.

4. You mentioned in the diff above, and in several others, that you had never been blocked before. If this was not your way of implying that participants' prior block records (or lack thereof) should be a factor in the new, unrelated dispute, I'm not sure what it was or why it was mentioned, though I have thought long and hard about this.

5. Shit happens. Get over it. Some people are just lucky that way I guess. I've never been blocked. That doesn't make me a better editor or admin. If you can understand this point you can safely ignore everything else I've said.

No need to reply here. Try the workshop page if/when the RFAR is opened. If it's rejected, please, be a good sport, drop the issue, and move on. Regards. —freak(talk) 00:01, Feb. 5, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do feel that it's necessary for me to reply.

1. When someone vandalizes a page multiple times, reverting multiple times isn't considered edit-warring. I'm not claiming that Phil was vandalizing the page (as I agree that he was acting in good faith), but I view (and continue to view) the removal of another editor's good-faith question as equivalent in effect.

2. I would not have reverted twelve times because I don't violate the three-revert rule. I'm not claiming that edit-warring is ever a good thing (and I seldom reach three reversions), but we have a numerical limit for a reason. Nonetheless, my point wasn't that reverting three times is fine and reverting five times is horrible; it was that:

A. I had no intention of reverting again when Phil blocked me.

B. Phil's block was especially inappropriate considering the fact that he had violated a policy.

3. I do believe that I was right and Phil was wrong (just as you believe that Phil was right and I was wrong). I am, however, well aware of the fact that any back-and-forth editing is disruptive.

But again, when did I "howl for punitive blood"? You claimed that I did so via an edit in which I explicitly stated that Phil should not be blocked as a punitive measure.

On a related note, what do you mean by "refuting [your] rationale for unblocking"?! I plainly stated that I agree with both of your unblocks. I defended your actions (clearly indicating that "blocks should not be punitive"), and you responded by accusing me of "howl[ing] for punitive blood." How can you say that?!

4. In no way was I alluding to Phil's block record (which I haven’t even examined closely). My only point was that my block log was forever blemished. This bothers me, and I feel that I have a right to say that.

5. I never claimed that I was better than anyone else. —David Levy 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you believed his edits were tantamount to vandalism, you probably would have felt yourself entitled to more than three reverts.

2. Circular reasoning, see 1.

3. You don't want to know what I really believe.

4. You could always start over with a new account, however I think it would probably be easily recognizable based on your talk page mannerisms.

5. So... case closed.

You probably think I'm trying to be a dick, but having spoken with you on a number of occasions, I know that conversations between us tend to slowly degenerate into the lowest possible form of discourse, and I don't have the patience for six more rounds of it, so let me just say this: Phil probably should not have blocked you, you probably should not have restored the material Phil was removing, Konstable probably should not have asked a question like that to begin with, Werdna probably should not have submitted his (actually fourth) RFA, and I definitely should not have gotten involved. Goodnight, David. —freak(talk) 01:42, Feb. 5, 2007 (UTC)

1. I believed that Phil's edits were as harmful as vandalism. I did not believe that they were tantamount to vandalism (because he was acting in good faith). I also realize that Phil viewed my edits as harmful (though I don't understand why he accused me of "trolling").

2. Could you please elaborate?

3. Yes, I do want to know what you really believe. It isn't often that anyone (let alone someone whose actions I've defended) inexplicably attributes comments to me that are the exact opposite of what I actually wrote. (I repeatedly said that Phil shouldn't be blocked punitively and that your unblocks of Phil were appropriate, and you've accused me of "howl[ing] for punitive blood" and "refuting [your] rationale for unblocking.") I'm truly baffled as to why to feel this way.

4. No, I won't be starting over with a new account. (Is that a joke?) Yes, my conversational style is distinctive (and I'm sorry that it annoys you).

5. No, case open. You were concerned about Werdna's reputation being adversely affected by Konstable's question (which, as it turned out, Werdna had already answered by confirming that the log was authentic). Now you've posted false statements about me in a high-profile forum. I assume that you did so accidentally (after misreading/misinterpreting some of my comments), but you should be acting to correct your errors by retracting the claims in question. (I'm referring strictly to the ones of a factual nature, not the opinions with which I've expressed disagreement.)

No, I don't think that you're trying to be a dick, but you certainly aren't making much of an effort to address my concerns in a polite or constructive manner. I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't believe that you're treating me fairly. —David Levy 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of the list of parties

Why is John Reid listed as a party? He left Wikipedia months ago. I think he should be removed unless he returns to participate in the case. Picaroon 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I saw that as well, and was surprised no-one picked up on it. Carcharoth 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this myself, but it's probably harmless for the notice to be there on his page, and this way he will have notice of the case if he chooses to read his userpage (there is evidence he does do that once in a blue moon). Plus, as it happens, he left the project very soon after the controversial block that Philwelch placed on him expired. Finally, no one is going to want to be making the decisions who's been gone for too long to be named or not. It's not as if John Reid is at any risk in this case or anyone is proposing sanctions against him. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'm curious as to what this "once in a blue moon" evidence is though... :-) Carcharoth 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the entry for January 1 here and Special:Contributions/Aqui venho de novo. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick listed John because he was the subject of an allegedly bad block, and I think leaving him listed as a party is the more conservative approach. Better to perform a pointless notification than to not notify and later find out that John would have wanted a chance to participate. Thatcher131 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]