Maybe someone can help me out here. I'm looking at
the links someone posted as supporting evidence for why Phil got what he deserved, and I'm not seeing anything he did in his role as a wikipedia admin that had any effect outside wikipedia. It looks like he banned a bunch of users for what may be petty reasons, and did a bunch of stuff that violated wikipedia policy, but I'm not seeing what he did that affected anyone's non-wikipedia existence.
I agree that the problem of inaccurate (or inconveniently truthful) biographies being kept on wikipedia despite the objections of their subjects is a serious problem, and that there may be an entrenched group of wikipedians who enable this. I'll even grant for the sake of argument that Phil is a member of the clique which is causing the problem.
But can anyone point to a specific action he has taken which had an effect in the real world? Banning a user from wikipedia does not count, unless that user was banned for editing his or her own biography. Deleting an article or template does not count. Reverting changes to an article does not count. Being rude to someone in the course of a wikipedia-related argument does not count. Anything which took place on wikipedia does not count, unless that action led to an action which took place outside wikipedia. Him showing up on everyking's doorstep with a baseball bat, for example, would count.
What, specifically, has he done that warrants retaliation outside the framework of wikipedia?