Someone not using his real name (talk | contribs) |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) →Request for removal of adminship: Archiving request |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
**PumpkinSky, I disagree that RFC/U is necessarily a waste of time. It may be, when the admin in question does not take the concerns of the community into account and refuses to mend his ways; in such a case, arbcom's intervention becomes necessary {{endash}} and will probably lead to harsh sanctions even in the absence of previous cautions/admonishments/whatever. However, the fact that they can sometimes be useless does not mean that they always are. Skipping them is basically an assumption that the admin in question can't be trusted to pay heed to the community {{endash}} or, alternatively, it means that a RFAR is merely a way to get back at someone who an editor feels slighted him and not a way to insure that the sysop's behaviour will improve. I believe that just like we first warn an editor who's misbehaving, allowing him to change voluntarily before issuing blocks or other restrictions, we should extend the same courtesy to an admin. Start an RFC, allow him to improve and, if he doesn't, report him to us. <p>Heimstern Läufer, that case was heard by last year's committee, a committee I was not a member of, and elicited a very strong response from the community which vocally opposed the desysopping of the warring admins. As a member of this year's committee, my vote in this case is based on the way I interpret the relevant policies and on my convictions, both of which I have already articulated. <p>Count Iblis, that's a very good proposal. One that, as an editor, I'd be very glad to support. However, we may not make policy, so we cannot create such a body by fiat. It's up to the community to do so, if they think, as I do, that it would be a good idea. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
**PumpkinSky, I disagree that RFC/U is necessarily a waste of time. It may be, when the admin in question does not take the concerns of the community into account and refuses to mend his ways; in such a case, arbcom's intervention becomes necessary {{endash}} and will probably lead to harsh sanctions even in the absence of previous cautions/admonishments/whatever. However, the fact that they can sometimes be useless does not mean that they always are. Skipping them is basically an assumption that the admin in question can't be trusted to pay heed to the community {{endash}} or, alternatively, it means that a RFAR is merely a way to get back at someone who an editor feels slighted him and not a way to insure that the sysop's behaviour will improve. I believe that just like we first warn an editor who's misbehaving, allowing him to change voluntarily before issuing blocks or other restrictions, we should extend the same courtesy to an admin. Start an RFC, allow him to improve and, if he doesn't, report him to us. <p>Heimstern Läufer, that case was heard by last year's committee, a committee I was not a member of, and elicited a very strong response from the community which vocally opposed the desysopping of the warring admins. As a member of this year's committee, my vote in this case is based on the way I interpret the relevant policies and on my convictions, both of which I have already articulated. <p>Count Iblis, that's a very good proposal. One that, as an editor, I'd be very glad to support. However, we may not make policy, so we cannot create such a body by fiat. It's up to the community to do so, if they think, as I do, that it would be a good idea. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
*'''Accept.''' [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Accept.''' [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Request for removal of adminship == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:TheShadowCrow|TheShadowCrow]] ([[User talk:TheShadowCrow|talk]]) '''at''' 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|TheShadowCrow}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|GiantSnowman}} |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&diff=566638914&oldid=566624784 Diff. 1] |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheShadowCrow/Archive_3#Arsen_Beglaryan 1] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=563735217 2] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&diff=next&oldid=565800896 3] |
|||
=== Statement by TheShadowCrow === |
|||
[[User:GiantSnowman]] has abused his Admin privileges many times and I have come to request that he be stripped of these powers. |
|||
Although he may have very well likely abused his Administration many more times, I have been witness to three occasion, twice being the victim. |
|||
'''1.''' GiantSnowman was trying to remove information I but up on the [[Arsen Beglaryan]] article despite it being backed up by sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiantSnowman&diff=next&oldid=547112433 I pointed out the source] and he stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheShadowCrow/Archive_3#Arsen_Beglaryan "No, I ''have'' looked at the sources - as I have stated (far too) many times"]. When I asked what kind of sources he wanted, he said [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheShadowCrow/Archive_3#Arsen_Beglaryan "Something more than run-of-the-mill/transfer news - an in-depth piece(s) or interview in national media would suffice."]. After that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiantSnowman&diff=prev&oldid=547118320 I pointed out most links ''were'' interviews]. After that he let the page be. Thus, he showed that he has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability failure to communicate], which violates [[WP:ADMIN]]. |
|||
'''2.''' GiantSnowman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Older_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=563731220 deleted the opinion of another user on an article for deletion page]. Although the user's large comment was messy, it was still contributing to the discussion and the user was acting in good faith. The user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=563735217 voiced a complaint to ANI] over this. GiantSnowman had shown he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability Bad faith adminship] and again had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability failure to communicate]. |
|||
'''3.''' Most recently, GiantSnowman had blocked me for a month over supposedly violating a ban, which had actually expired over 2 weeks ago at the time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Second_arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TheShadowCrow The block was removed a few days later and there was instant general consensus to remove it]. The reason for the block was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&diff=prev&oldid=565786795 one other Admin's suspicion, who was unaware the ban was over]. The other Admin was better, and did not jump to a block without knowing full details. GiantSnowman, however, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&diff=next&oldid=565786795 instantly placed a block not even 5 minutes later] without even checking that the ban in question was over. The other Admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&diff=next&oldid=565791847 soon realized his mistake] and left the discussion. Despite the only small lead towards the block having recalled his claims, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&diff=next&oldid=565800896 GiantSnowman still refused to remove it], and so I applied it in [[WP:AE]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Second_arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TheShadowCrow a number of different Admins immedietly and unanimously agreed to remove the poorly placed block]. GiantSnowman had, for a third known time, violated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability Failure to communicate] and had now violated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability Repeated or consistent poor judgment] on [[WP:ADMIN]] |
|||
I call upon Wikipedia's superiors to strip this Admin of his powers, which he has demonstrated time and time again he can't be trusted with. [[User:TheShadowCrow|TheShadowCrow]] ([[User talk:TheShadowCrow|talk]]) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by uninvolved Sjones23 === |
|||
After taking a look at the recent threads provided by TheShadowCrow, I can absolutely say that Giant Snowman has not caused any misconduct. He is a well-respected administrator and encyclopedia editor. I think TheShadowCrow should consider being more cooperative towards other users, as Wikipedia is a collaborative project. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 01:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by GiantSnowman === |
|||
Firstly, please see [[User talk:TheShadowCrow#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow #2|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Second arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheShadowCrow|this]] for recent context, I think that should give enough background. This request is made entirely in bad faith following that, as shown by [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request for removal of adminship|this recent botched attampt to de-mop me]] (which TSC didn't even notify me about!). I am wholly confident in my ability and conduct as an administrator and editor and therefore feel no need to further 'defend' myself, though I will of course clarify anything should I be asked to do so. Finally I would [[WP:BOOMERANG|like to add]] that TSC is becoming an increasingly disruptive and problematic editor, and this is just the latest example of that. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 08:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 4} === |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
=== Request for removal of adminship: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0> === |
|||
{{anchor|1=Request for removal of adminship: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> |
|||
*'''Decline'''. I have carefully reviewed the three incidents cited and perceive no evidence of any misconduct. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' per NYB, and encourage filer to disengage before ending up being hit by a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' There's been some confusion in this process. The filer was appropriately blocked under a violation of an indefinite topic ban made on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheShadowCrow&oldid=520250635#WP:ARBAA2_sanctions_made_indefinite 28 October 2012]. Prior to that, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CT_Cooper/Archive_8#Archive 10 September 2012], there had been a discussion in which various questions had been asked regarding a previous short term ban, such as "when can I edit AA articles again?", and the sports question came up. Given that the indefinite ban came after this discussion, the answers to the questions in that discussion had become out of date. A new set of rules was in place, which had been violated. The filer should consider being more tolerant toward fellow users, including admins who are helping to protect the project. Tolerance and consideration for other users helps the project work more smoothly and efficiently. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' like NYB, I do not see evidence of misconduct on GiantSnowman's part. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''', but unlike NW, I believe a boomerang is already necessary... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 08:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' I've looked at the incidents in question and I do not agree that we should be looking further at Giant Snowman. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 09:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline'''. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 1 August 2013
Requests for arbitration
Bwilkins
Initiated by PumpkinSky talk at 23:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Involved parties
- PumpkinSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- here
- "admin phallus" comment
- Wikipedia:ANI#Bwilkins.27_response_to_my_unblock_of_Pudeo
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bwilkins_telling_an_editor_to_.22rot_in_hell.22_and_.22f-you.22
Statement by PumpkinSky
Going back to at least April 2012 admin Bwilkins has engaged in a long-running pattern of insults, degrading comments, conduct unbecoming an admin, and misuse of his tools. It has gotten to the point that in July 2012 Jimbo asked that he turn his tools in, see this. A while later the situation has only gotten worse and shows no sign of ending. Today, 31 July 2013, he was part of another ANI case that no doubt would have gotten non-admins blocked.
Examples of insults and profanity include: this, this, this, the "admin phallus" series: here, "admin phallus" comment here, here; more, User_talk:Hahc21/2012/3#Enough, the "grow the fuck up" thread, Comment made by GabeMc about BW behaviour, "Any more trophies to come?".
Some info on blocks and protections: The block that appears on this usertalk is completely inappropriate and poor judgment from an administrator. And it continues into June 2013. Info regarding me when I edited a thread on WT:RFA where he rv'd me twice and blocked me and protected that highly trafficked page, which all means he made a highly involved blocked plus protected a page he was in a dispute over, and don't forget there's no reason to both block me and protect the page, and block was unanimously overturned: User_talk:PumpkinSky/Archive_3#Another_unanimous_overturn_of_a_horrible_block block was only over one revert,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive802#Bwilkins_block_of_PumpkinSky Where Bwilkins claims he was doing PumpkinSky a favor and that he did nothing wrong, User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Courtesy_notice, User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_12#Block, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive250#Unblock_of_User:PumpkinSky, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive250#New_proposal_for_admins. And just today there's: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bwilkins_telling_an_editor_to_.22rot_in_hell.22_and_.22f-you.22. Do I really need to say more than in no way should an admin be tellilng an editor to rot in hell? I have LOTS more info available upon request or case acceptance.PumpkinSky talk 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Some of the timeline and diffs
April 2012
- In this exchange, Bwilkins responds to concerns about whether he was involved when he issued a block : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_8#April_2012
Bwilkins replies to the concerns with a dismissive attitude, deeming the objections “fucktarded” and the objector “fucking clueless”, along with additional remarks along the same lines.
June 2012
- Bwilkins posted a very negative comment on a user’s editor review, and another user came to his talk page to say that the comment was unfair. In the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_9#Editor_review_comment
Bwilkins describes a user as a “royal pain in the ass” and says when he posted on the editor’s review he was “pointing out just how fucking annoying he has been”. He concludes by telling the editors who disagreed with him to “grow up”.
July 2012
- In this exchange Bwilkins warns two editors for edit-warring on a noticeboard: here
He declines to block one editor by stating, “Grow the fuck up, or I will indeed block you both”. The comment was later raised on Jimbo Wales’ talk page, and in response he advised Bwilkins to take a break from being an admin. Bwilkins responded that he values civility and that he comments were an exception to his usual attitude.
February 2013
- Several users complained on Bwilkins’ talk page about a comment he left for another user and he dismissed their concerns: here
Bwilkins refers to the editors who complained as “hounds”, and concluded his remarks by saying “when a few people learn to actually read, you’ll actually kick yourselves in the ass”.
July 2013
- While discussing a arbitration appeal with a user, Bwilkins becomes frustrated with him: here After the user accuses Bwilkins of “ignoring [his] calls on [his] talk”, Bwilkins responds by saying “f-you (sic)” and “may you rot in the hell that is eternal block”.
- @Brad. This is a pattern over a year long. Do we have ZERO standards for admins these days? You know perfectly well a non admin would get smacked for acting like he has, plus his tool abuse is an issue. Why is what's good for the goose not good for the gander? Talk about DOUBLE STANDARDS.PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Now I see what you meant. Sorry Brad. PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Bwilkins...that is typical of you, not even seeing the problem, which IS a major problem in and of itself. How you can claim blocking someone you are involved with and then protecting the page in question is not misuse is simply mind boggling.
- @Salvio. The community has long proven dysfunctional in many regards and incapable solving the years long problem of wayward admins. As an example, the recent proposal by 28bytes for community de-adminship was the best ever and got lots of support but still isn't implemented. Yes, you can read all that as saying an RFCU for admin behavior is a total waste of time. That leaves us with AC solving the problem. Also see Cla68's comment below. This RFAR is a symptom of a huge problem and it won't go away on its own. AC needs to step up to the plate and set and enforce standards for acceptable admin behavior. It has not done so for some time because if it had we would not be in the mess we're in now. You may not like me filing this RFAR, but the non-admin editors are totally fed up with AC always circling wagons to protect admins and forgetting about the non-admin users. It's time for AC to step up to the plate.PumpkinSky talk 16:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- All exacerbated by the fact that Bwilkins rarely, if ever, sees anything wrong with what he does.PumpkinSky talk 18:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Bwilkins (and alternate account EatsShootsAndLeaves)
I do not have significant time to make comments here at this moment as I have 2 children to bathe before bedtime, however, I wanted to confirm that I have seen this filing.
I will clearly state from the outset that there is no "pattern of negative behaviour", and there has never EVER been a documented (or even undocumented) misuse of any of my admin tools - it has never happened. Someone disagreeing with the use (or even a 70/30 split in an AN/ANI discussion) and misuse are most certainly not the same thing.
I believe my comments regarding "today's issue" (where I most certainly did not tell an editor to rot in hell - see the thread that PS kindly linked to, and the consensus that the OP of that thread falsely filed that thread with a misleading title) do speak for themselves there. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Ks0stm - it may not have been your comment where the "admin phallus" comment came from, but you are 100% correct that it came directly out of someone's comment - I don't make things like that up on my own. I'll try and find the original discussion - but it's neither uncivil, nor abusive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Salvio I wholeheartedly and sincerely concur. I will be quite honest that I did not react kindly to a a situation where I put my personal reputation on the line, and not only did the editor stomp on it, they flat-out denied that I even had a hand in helping resolve their issue. I don't expect "thanks", but I do expect honesty. Yeah, I took such dishonest behaviour personally - but I never reacted to being challenged - and yes, something to work on. Indeed - if one looks at the TSC discussion, you'll note that I did NOT act on NPA's, etc due to being WP:INVOLVED, and have actually tried to talk TSC off the impending cliff (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- NOTE TO CLERKS: I will note: NONE of the entries under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" are steps in Dispute Resolution whatsoever, and would ask them to be removed/moved elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to this most recent comment by the OP, it's very clear that this is a "it's time for ArbComm to stop following the rules, draw a new line in the sand, and make an example out of one editor] - as such, I do not believe that I'll need to defend myself against the shotgun approach that includes false statements, twists of meaning, and even discussions where the community saw things differently. Even TheShadowCrow - who the most recent incident above is about says that although I have my faults, I'm still a good admin. An RFC/U allows one to FACE one's faults, and amend - we don't jump the queue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Count Iblis: you mean like this proposal of mine or something similar? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: If someone wants to @Echo me, please do not echo my Bwilkins account - until Nov 1, 2013, I will not be logging into that account (unless I need to modify something within my userspace that I can't for some reason). Indeed, if anyone sees the Bwilkins account edit outside of userspace, block it. I'm also taking ANI right off my watchlist - I recognize that being embroiled in that sometimes-cesspool can make one's judgement such that one always sees the ounce of bad instead of the pound of good. I recognize how beneficial my last multi-month break was for so many reasons. Note also: this is not an attempt to escape this RFArb - indeed, I have no fear of the findings - the majority of the examples provide have already been explained and accepted by the community as a whole. EatsShootsAndLeaves 22:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Ks0stm
I would just like to mention for clarity's sake that the admin phallus comments referred to were more than likely inspired by a highly infelicitous exchange between User:Joefromrandb and myself and not necessarily an invention of Bwilkins. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I should refrain from editing quickly from my iPhone. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Bbb23
This post is relevant only to AGK's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Joefromrandb
BWilkins is a long-term abuser and the removal of his self-proclaimed admin-phallus is long overdue. I'd like to add that after being censured by Jimbo for telling a user to "grow the fuck up", BWilkins pledged to voluntarily refrain from using his admin tools for 6 months, a promise which he quickly violated.Joefromrandb (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently where Ks0stm lives, November comes before July. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Mathsci
For a second time (the first was Jmh649) Pumpkinsky has started an RfAr about an administrator of whom he disapproves. No pattern of misuse of tools has been reported. As before he has deliberately chosen not to follow the usual path of WP:DR, including WP:RfC/U. That kind of escalation has a chilling effect and serves as a drama magnet. It seems inadvisable to allow this type of RfAr to be repeated.
It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that Pumpkinsky is using RfAr as a form of tit-for-tat. He was blocked by Jmh649: the result was an RfAr on Jmh649. He was blocked by Bwilkins: the result was an RfAr on Bwilkins. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please could Risker explain a little more carefully her detailed reasons for supporting a case. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Fram
Please see User talk:Bwilkins/Archive 12#Claim at ANI. After I discussed potential outing problems wrt a post made by Jimbo Wales on his user page (a topic which was then discussed on AN, picked up in some leading international media, and made it to the signpost, with many people agreeing that there was indeed a problem with Jimbo's statements), Bwilkins made some accusations about me at the AN discussions, claiming "Fram has time and again levelled unsubstantiated claims at/about Jimbo on his talkpage". Despite repeated polite requests to provide any examples of these, he refused to do so "Out of respect for you", and then proceeded to both topic ban me from Jimbo's talk page ("if you post on Jimbo's talkpage again, I will personally block you.") and from his own talk page (making any appeal or fuirther discussion of his single-handed ban impossible), with the summary "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly". I had no idea that we were here to help other editors "improve as a person" or that we were supposed to discuss our opinions of someone as a person, but apparently this doesn't apply to all admins. Threatening to block a user based on his own "unsubstantiated allegations", coupled with negative comments about the person involved and making it impossible to further discuss things and find a solution, is hardly the behaviour one expects from admins. Fram (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement from Anthonyhcole
I have real concerns about BWilkins's fitness for adminship. I'm worried about his inability to keep calm when an aggrieved editor vents in his direction and his disrespectful treatment of editors with whom he disagrees, but mainly I don't trust his diligence or judgement in even mildly complex cases. I feel he far too frequently chides, insults, or blocks editors when it's not warranted.
That's my impression. But I could be wrong. I may have been exposed only to an unrepresentative sample that bubbled up out of ANI or onto my watchlist. If nothing comes of this request, I'll analyse a swathe of his history and, if warranted, open an RFC/U based on the results.
Here, BWilkins and I discuss a case where I believe he exercised poor judgment and behaved badly towards the editor. I'm not aware of having been in any prior dispute with BWilkins other than regarding his performance as an admin involving third parties. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by MONGO
If the aforementioned diffs were presented at a Rfa I believe the community is wise enough to vote to not promote such an editor to administrator. I routinely look for evidence for the potential of misuse of tools and the position for admin hopefuls, and if I don't see any evidence to suggest either might happen, I tend to support promotion. If misuse of either happens after a successful Rfa and they are either singularily severe enough or repetitive enough then I tend to recommend that the admin take a break or they turn in their toolbelt. In Bwilkins defense, I know he is one of those admins that does deal with sometimes difficult blocks. It should be noted that in the most recent example of User:TheShadowCrow, Bwilkins originally came to the defense of said user but then got bit...nevertheless Bwilkins written response was over the top.--MONGO 11:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Cla68
Arbcom, how about you save yourself and ourselves some future issues and just go ahead and address the core issue, which is that Wikipedia's administration is poorly managed, structured, and regulated. Fix the RFA process. Fix the way that your admins operate. Make them more consistent in their decisions. Get rid of teen-age or immature admins. Make them (finally) enforce WP:NPOV. Help all the inactive admins to come back knowing that WP's corrupt culture has been repaired. Don't give your admin any rope to hang themselves. Help stop editor flight. Think big picture. Administrators fall under your purview, so fix it! Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Heim
This is not "no documented abuse of the tools". This was a case where the admin in question edit warred with the user, then blocked. If we want to force an RFC on this one, fine, but why on earth wasn't one forced in the Perth wheel war case? Does the committee seriously think that a move war on an article is worse than involved blocking? I would find that an appalling set of priorities, frankly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Count Iblis
I share to some degree what Cla68 is saying. While I can argue with some of what he says, you do want Admins to stick to strict standards. One can think about what this would require, I think we need a sort of a peer review system that everyone would fall under, not just when you do something that is so bad that sanctions such as desysopping are called for. So, if all Admins are periodically reviewed, Bwilkin's like quite a few other Admins would have been given suggestions for improving his conduct; because these suggestions would come from a neutral board that evaluates everyone according to the same standard, it would be less likely that you get into big arguments about these suggestions. But if the suggestions are not taken on board and the next time the board doesn't see any improvements, then that board could impose compulsory measures, or refer the case to ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@User:Bwilkins, yes the Administrator Review Board you mention on your proposal would have a crucial role in maintaining and improving standards, precisely because it would give contructive critcisms to Admins who are functioning quite well. Count Iblis (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Outside views by Resolute
Cla68 and Count Iblis' arguments are quite obviously irrelevant as they propose that Arbcom create policy by fiat, which is beyond the reach of your powers. It is interesting that Pumpkin Sky seems to be using RFAR as a means to strike back at admins who have blocked him in the past. That being said, Bwilkins would (like some others I could name) do well to tone back the inflammatory rhetoric. But these are arguments that belong in Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Bwilkins. And despite what Pumpkin Sky argues, this should go to RFCU before coming here. Resolute 16:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Kurtis
Sad to see this listed here, but I had a feeling it would end up at arbitration sooner or later. I've been directly involved in a few situations with Bwilkins myself, although most of these were back in 2012. Since then, I've made it clear to him that I think he's an overall asset to the project and an "admin's admin", even if I did find him to be altogether far too harsh at times. Nevertheless, I've questioned whether or not he still maintains the trust of the community, and in recent months I've noticed him lapse back into his previous patterns of incivility. I can list out several instances of poor judgment and needlessly uncivil behaviour, some of which date all the way back to 2011; I will do so if this case is accepted. As it stands, there hasn't even been an attempt at RfC/U yet, although it isn't always a necessary juncture, and I do think the committee should be more willing to accept cases in general. It would spare the community a lot of drama.
There is little doubt that a concern still exists, but Bwilkins has made a genuine effort to moderate his tone within the last year and it would be unfair to ignore that entirely. Kurtis (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just as a side note, I was the one pushing for an unblock in the incident PumpkinSky mentioned above. Kurtis (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I was somewhat involved in one of the incidents noted in the initial statement: this dispute regarding the unblock of a user who had mistakenly modified another editor's comment. Bwilkins had declined a previous unblock request, strongly suggesting the editor was lying about it being a mistake. When the unblocking admin notified Bwilkins of his decision, Bwilkins attacked the admin for expressing astonishment at how Bwilkins could have so easily assumed bad faith over an obvious mistake by an editor. My involvement was to take issue with the comments Bwilkins was making about the unblocking administrator and the implication that admins should adhere to some form of the "blue wall" when reviewing other admin actions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by GregJackP
Uninvolved. Why are we even here? This needs to go through the DR process first, which it doesn't appear to have done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Tarc
There's nothing at all here to accept, I'm rather surprised to see Risker jumping the gun a bit without even a comment as to why Arbcom should accept this absent actual steps taken in WP:DR. One cannot just draw up a laundry list of "things that Admin X has done that I don't like" over the a year and declare that it must now be "solved" by Arbcom.
The latest "Bwilkins telling an editor to "rot in hell" and "f-you"" AN filing the other day was found to be baseless, the filer misrepresenting and mis-characterizing what was said, eventually closed with a rationale of "The phrase "more heat than light" comes to mind. It's time to move: Bwilkins is human & while he could have used less exasperated language to TSC it's not a hanging offense. @Candleabracadabra: WP:Trout Bwilkins if you wish but don't misrepresent facts in order to attack another user".
If you won't indef a user for calling another user a cunt, then imposing sanctions for someone who said this (please read it in-context of the overall discussion there would be extremely absurd. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Someone not using his real name
The combined evidence of policy violations seems too much to let slide from an admin. While Bwilkins may not be the worst offender of misuse of tools I've seen, you can't pass ruling after ruling on decorum and then ignore this serial case of "conduct unbecoming". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Beeblebrox
I can't I've never seen B be a little testy with other users, maybe even more than a little rude, but the same could easily be said of me or any number of other admins. I believe the fact that this has not been subject to a user RFC and B has volunteered to take a three month break from adminship show that this request is premature. B can be harsh, but he is very approachable and willing to consider the possibility that he is wrong. I've looked at the "evidence" that other types of dispute resolution have been tried and saw no evidence whatsoever that they had. It's just a collection of diffs, mostly from ANI, which is explicitly not part of WP:DR. Jumping straight to ArbCom without any real attempt at dispute resolution is improper and unfair in such a case. RFC/U doesn't always work. Granted. That doesn't mean it should automatically be skipped.
I urge the committee to reject this request and to suggest that the filing party actually try lower forms of dispute resolution first. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recuse. Bwilkins and I have our history, and he closed the discussion that resulted in my now-lifted topic ban. — ΛΧΣ21 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Bwilkins: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/4>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Awaiting statements on the complaint against Bwilkins, but - as an observation that occurred to me while reviewing this request - I am deeply concerned to see that TheShadowCrow has involved himself in two tense inter-personal conflicts in a matter of days. AGK [•] 00:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Awaiting statements, especially from Bwilkins. Third-party statements should focus on whether there appears to be a pattern of misconduct by this administrator, rather than compiling every incident in which anyone disagreed with him about anything ever. (This is a general comment about this type of request, not unique to Bwilkins.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky: You are misreading my comment. I've said nothing yet about the merits of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do generally look for higher standards of conduct from administrators, as does the community - so I do certainly have concerns here, even if (as Bwilkins suggests) no actual tool misuse has occurred. Awaiting more statements for the moment, I'd like to hear if there has been misconduct above and beyond disagreements. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm awaiting more statements as well; however, there are already a couple of things I'd like to point out.
First, Bwilkins, some of your actions highlighted here do appear to be unwise indeed. Even if we end up dismissing this case, my request as a fellow editor to you would be to tone down some of your replies: even if you don't intend to offend or demean your interlocutor, you should take into consideration how your remarks may be taken by the other person and avoid those which are needlessly confrontational. For instance, the "and may you rot in the hell that is eternal block" comment is quite inappropriate. I agree that you're not telling the other editor to rot in Hell, but your words are unprofessional all the same and are below the level of civility expected of admins.
That said, PumpkinSky, this is second time you have skipped all previous steps in dispute resolution and have jumped straight to ArbCom. Personally, I don't like that: it's unnecessarily adversarial, deprives the community of their opportunity to offer their perspective and prevents the admin (or user) in question from knowing that the community may have reservations about his conduct (in such a case allowing him to mend his ways accordingly). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky, I disagree that RFC/U is necessarily a waste of time. It may be, when the admin in question does not take the concerns of the community into account and refuses to mend his ways; in such a case, arbcom's intervention becomes necessary – and will probably lead to harsh sanctions even in the absence of previous cautions/admonishments/whatever. However, the fact that they can sometimes be useless does not mean that they always are. Skipping them is basically an assumption that the admin in question can't be trusted to pay heed to the community – or, alternatively, it means that a RFAR is merely a way to get back at someone who an editor feels slighted him and not a way to insure that the sysop's behaviour will improve. I believe that just like we first warn an editor who's misbehaving, allowing him to change voluntarily before issuing blocks or other restrictions, we should extend the same courtesy to an admin. Start an RFC, allow him to improve and, if he doesn't, report him to us.
Heimstern Läufer, that case was heard by last year's committee, a committee I was not a member of, and elicited a very strong response from the community which vocally opposed the desysopping of the warring admins. As a member of this year's committee, my vote in this case is based on the way I interpret the relevant policies and on my convictions, both of which I have already articulated.
Count Iblis, that's a very good proposal. One that, as an editor, I'd be very glad to support. However, we may not make policy, so we cannot create such a body by fiat. It's up to the community to do so, if they think, as I do, that it would be a good idea. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky, I disagree that RFC/U is necessarily a waste of time. It may be, when the admin in question does not take the concerns of the community into account and refuses to mend his ways; in such a case, arbcom's intervention becomes necessary – and will probably lead to harsh sanctions even in the absence of previous cautions/admonishments/whatever. However, the fact that they can sometimes be useless does not mean that they always are. Skipping them is basically an assumption that the admin in question can't be trusted to pay heed to the community – or, alternatively, it means that a RFAR is merely a way to get back at someone who an editor feels slighted him and not a way to insure that the sysop's behaviour will improve. I believe that just like we first warn an editor who's misbehaving, allowing him to change voluntarily before issuing blocks or other restrictions, we should extend the same courtesy to an admin. Start an RFC, allow him to improve and, if he doesn't, report him to us.
- Accept. Risker (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)