Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence

message: As indicated in my comments on the /Workshop, I was involved in discussion on WP:ANI or on users' talkpages at the time of the blocks of users ThuranX, John Reid, Centrx, and to a lesser extent David Levy. If this case still involved the question whether Philwelch should be desysopped, I would present evidence here and workshop proposals relating to each of these blocks. Given Philwelch's voluntary desysopping and his acknowledgement of some misjudgments in his statement, and what appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the case, I am not sure whether compiling this evidence would be useful at this time. An indication from one or more arbitrators concerning whether they are looking for additional evidence (beyond what's already contained in the parties' pre-opening statements) concerning the specific individual blocks would be helpful. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of evidence that might be useful in this case?

message: This is quickly devolving into a forum for axe-grinding, libel, and personal attacks. If someone could handle this I would appreciate it. Philwelch 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The amount of attacking against Phil here is perhaps extremely greater than the sum of his damages to the project. It seems that people need to learn that Wikipedia is not a place to generate drama. — Deckiller 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also extremely concerned with the way people are inflating the situation. I've counted two cases where people have inflated Phil's offenses to be something extremely personal or criminal. To me, it seems to be a case of the football player nudging the quarterback slightly, so the quarterback makes a dramatic fall to get the flag called. — Deckiller 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In any case, it's not like arbcom are a bunch of clowns Jimbo hired off the streets, they know what they're doing.  Instead of arguing about increasing layers of metadrama, let's just present the evidence and see what the arbs have to say.  Milto LOL pia 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far they've had nothing to say about any of this, and they will have nothing to say if they wait for these axe-grinders to finish posting every single contribution and log entry under my account as "evidence", inventing false motives for each of them along the way. Philwelch 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have taken responsibility for my actions. If you had understood my initial statement on this matter, you would have known that. However, I refuse to take responsibility for things I have never done, and I refuse to take responsibility for your libel against me. Philwelch 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: Good. Welch agrees that he unblocked his own IP address – . Even a rookie admin would have the sense to know that while Samir's original 3RR block got your IP blocked automatically, as in an autoblock, you unblocked your IP address, specifically to remove the autoblock. The indefinite block which you applied on your own account, would have been possibly blocked without checking the autoblock functions on the Blockip page. In this way, your IP does not record any edits, the user gets away by creating a sockpuppet account and editing away. Block evasion, clean and simple. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is utter and complete libel and I demand this be removed immediately unless he is able to substantiate it with evidence. Philwelch 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is evidence; it looks more like commentary on evidence, so I've moved it to the talk page.  I am also concerned that the allegation that Phil unblocked himself in order to create and use sockpuppets represents an unfortunatel escalation in the rhetoric of this case.  All parties would do well to remember that everything they say and do here will be seen by the arbitrators. Thatcher131 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ArbCom has enough sense to understand under what circumstances does an administrator would unblock an IP address when they were blocked (Welch later admitted that IP address to be his own). I wouldn't be getting into any editwars with Welch, as I know how unproductive they can be. I will be posting on the talk page of an Arb member, so that they are aware of the issue. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already given a full explanation for this action. You're assuming bad faith in the absence of evidence, and making unsubstantiated accusations against me. Philwelch 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you unblocked your IP address is evidence itself. The community assumes bad faith when there *is* evidence of bad faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sir Nick, thanks for bringing this overall case. Regarding this possible block evasion, is there a way of browsing accounts created on a particular day? If there was, then we could obviously sift through them and present evidence of similar writing styles and so forth. Otherwise, I would suggest the evidence here is too circumstantial for a finding of fact along the lines of 'Philwelch evaded a block'. Addhoc 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I made an edit to my userpage (and possibly deleted it) between the point where I unblocked my username and the point where I reblocked my username indefinitely. I have posted a diff to this edit. (It's not visible I had my userpage re-deleted, but if you want to have the page restored so that diff is visible, we can do that.) To make that edit, I also had to unblock my IP, because the autoblock prevented me from making that edit. Since I've already given a good-faith explanation for why I unblocked my IP, you have no reason to believe I had *other*, unstated reasons for unblocking my IP. Philwelch 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I had next to no idea how any of that even worked until we decided to examine this very boring interlude in my history—hence the summary, "Philwelch is not very good at handling autoblocks" :) Philwelch 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence presented by Sir Nicholas