Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/Bwilkins

Bwilkins
Though I appreciate Bwilkins's tireless contributions, I don't think this editor has the temperament for this job. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC) On reflection, and taking into account MrX's sage comments below: You're definitely well-meaning, ethical and intelligent. That's plenty. I'll be voting for you Bwilkins. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Bwilkins takes a stand to uphold our policies, when others are reticent. Like myself, he is sometimes too passionate which can lead to hasty judgements, misinterpretation of policy, and actions that might actually cause some collateral damage. I'm not certain if those are important concerns for arbitrators though since the committee is, by design, a deliberating body, and unlikely to make hasty decisions.- MrX 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This user is campaigning on the fact that people are "scared of him becoming an arbitrator"? When he involves himself with an issue, he does not always leave it better than he found it. This user has issues with temperament, neutrality, baiting and civility, , . As such, this user has just recently had his admin privileges ( edit :) suspended temporarily placed in disuse. If and when he resumes those duties, he should perhaps focus on improving as an admin first, before trying to take on position of such importance with this committee. I cannot support this user's bid. (Yes, I have been involved with this user, but his history speaks for itself) -  the WOLF  child  18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My admin privileges have never, ever been suspended and yes, your actions do indeed speak for themselves ES  &#38;L  19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. I struck that word. But just same, you want to be an ArbCom member, surely you can see that that your record and status as an admin are a factor, here... no? So, please, feel free to set the record straight and tell us why you're not admin'ing right now. There is already a lot of info on the record surrounding this, but this is you opportunity to tell your side of the story. Who knows... maybe this will help you. (and yes, our actions often do...) - the WOLF  child  23:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was accused of making a block while involved. The person who was blocked declined to listen to my side of the story.  Many people insisted that I had some ulterior motives and put words in my mouth.  It made me angry - an emotion I rarely feel.  I personally decided to take time off of admin work.  Even today, both sides on the situation say it was "murky" from both perspectives and the intelligent people among the community have left it at that.  Simple as that.  ES  &#38;L  00:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. Despite the differences we have had (and may hopefully yet put behind us), I wish you luck. - the WOLF  child  02:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A bit of hypocrisy from Thewolfchild here. Eight minutes after posting the above, wishing Bwilkins "luck" and hoping that they can put their differences behind them, TWC posted the three diffs you can now see in his first comment,, supposedly supporting his negative comments about Bwilkins. That's not the kind of behavior one sees from someone who's honestly interested in burying the hatchet, it's the kind of behavior one sees from people who have difficulty being straight-forward, and who resort to being sneaky when they're called on their behavior. Clearly, TWC isn't letting go of his "differences" with Bwilkins, rather he's twisting the knife while he smiles an alligator smile. Anyone who is here seeking insight into Bwiklins' candidacy should keep in mind Thewolfchild's two-faced behavior when considering whether to give his comments any weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I had already posted my concerns, it's only proper I actually support them. Do I support his candidacy? No. Do I hope that in the future, he and I and can find common ground, and collaborate, instead of fight? Of course I do. What mature adult wouldn't? Now, speaking of maturity... why are you here? Weren't you just severely warned at ANI about your grossly inappropriate and offensive behavior? Now you're hounding me all way to the ArbCom elections? Bringing your off-topic nonsense here, which I'm sure is the last thing ESL wants on his candidacy page. Grow up. Strike your comments. Apologize to both of us, and move on. - the WOLF  child  00:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hounding" Right - pot, kettle, black.  See you at your next community indef discussion, which at this rate will be here real soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For those concerned about a lack of answers to reponses
Just a heads-up. I had not originally intended to run for ArbCom, and as such, I had not prepared my responses in advance like some candidates might have.

When I decided to run rather late in the nomination period, there was also significant family and work-related issues that kept my Wikipedia time somewhat limited - and that can be seen from my editing history during the past week.

As such, my first goal was to respond to at least one question from everyone who requested a response - whether the "standard questions" or the "optional questions". Out of fairness to ALL who asked something, I believe that showing I was not ignoring their questions was important.

I have been focusing this weekend on the "general questions" - and will still be trying to answer more of the others.

This has nothing to do with "laziness", "ignoring", "not bothering", "obviously doesn't have enough time to ever work on ArbCom cases" or any such ridiculous accusations I've seen out there.

If there are specific questions that I have yet had a chance to answer, but it's a "vital" one towards your decision-making process, please let me know. ES &#38;L  12:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"EatsShootsAndLeaves"
Bwilkins' shaky answers to Bielle's questions about his strange "EatsShootsAndLeaves" account were enough on their own to earn an oppose vote from me. —  Scott  •  talk  12:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it shaky? It's pretty straightforward, and has been discussed many times.  Yeah, I assume people I have dealt with using both usernames are aware of those discussions in the past, and am surprised when someone brings it up again.   ES  &#38;L  13:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if I understand the 'User:BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves' duality correctly.


 * It's my understanding—after reading the question responses—that 'User:BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves' made a personal decision to voluntarily take a break from his administrative duties/privileges and to instead use his alternate non-admin account for a self determined arbitrary length of time (I believe 'until January' was mentioned). A sort of partial Wikibreak. At some point after having so decided he then chose to make an exception and enter 'User:BWilkins' into the running for ArbCom. Then rather than continuing to make an exception to his self imposed Wikibreak for the purposes of following through with the election process as 'BWilkins' on pages/threads relating to his candidacy 'User:BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves' then instead chose to (re)prioritize his personal commitment to only interacting as 'User:EatsShootsAndLeaves'. Thus leaving it to the electorate themselves to investigate further to figure out why 'User:EatsShootsAndLeaves' is speaking for ArbCom candidate 'BWilkins' if they should initially happen across a post not directly addressing the duality issue and have no previous knowledge of a link between the accounts—as was the case for myself.


 * Is this a fair (i.e. accurate) assessment or is there perhaps some 'mechanism' in place which is actively preventing 'User:BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves' from responding to these ArbCom nomination posts as 'BWilkins' which I may have overlooked?


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How will people be confused about the supposed duality? It's right there in my candidate statement...along with all other alternate accounts  ES  &#38;L  12:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as for myself—as mentioned above—I initially happened across a post not directly addressing the actual duality—two user accounts representing one individual—and had no previous knowledge of a link between the accounts. I then on the ES  &#38;L  link which disclosed 'User:EatsShootsAndLeaves' to be an alternate account but failed to confirm specifically whose alternate account. Further action was then required on my part to clarify that 'User:BWilkins' and 'User:EatsShootsAndLeaves' were indeed speaking from the same source—as had been implied by context. Further research was then required to find rationales as to why the candidate had chosen to communicate in this manner. I found this process somewhat strange and convoluted. I assume others might as well. I hope I've succeeded in directly addressing your inquiry as to how people might be confused about the duality. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Perhaps—as 'the cat's already out of the bag', the connection between accounts has been posted to publicly viewed pages—it might ease the burden of discovery for the electorate if you ['User:BWilkins/EatsShootsAndLeaves'] were to make the connections and explanations more explicit by amending your signatures and/or user pages to reflect the association in more detail. At least for the duration of the vetting process. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Kevjonesin. The user is still active and completing administrative actions.  Leaky  Caldron  21:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaky, since Aug 1, I have acted on 3 "emergency" situations. Indeed, the first set of actions I specifically raised at AN after doing.  All other edits by my User:Bwilkins account have been to this ArbCom filing.  There's nothing nefarious here.  ES  &#38;L  12:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh, well that's weird. Leaves me even more befuddled as to why the added complexity of nominating one alias and campaigning via another? ArbCom's not limited to admin accounts, right? So the user could have just nominated 'EatsShootsAndLeaves' if that was the account they really wanted to interact from? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have quite clearly explained things - nothing should be "befuddling" to anyone - I mean really, I could have said "I was in a SECURE location when I filed my ArbCom nomination, but have been editing from unsecured locations such as the library since, so I've been logged into my ESL account" ... but I chose the open and transparent route. Again, nothing remotely nefarious  ES  &#38;L  12:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are the first to introduce the idea that there's something "nefarious" about how dual accounts are being used in this context. Personally—if I were to sum it up in a word—I'd choose "awkward". --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns
Part of Wikipedia culture is an assumption that users change for the better over time. I understand this view, but in general I do not agree with it. I first encountered BWilkins when he was protecting a disruptive SPA, misrepresenting policy, and being insulting and aggressive towards longstanding, productive members of the project. He was inserting himself into situations where he did not take the time to investigate even the basics of the conflict, refused to back up his views accusations with diffs, and never apologized for the harm he did. I know he puts a lot of time into the 'pedia. If he has been doing better lately, I am relieved. Because his behaviour when I interacted with him was something we should never, ever see on arbcomm. I will not be surprised if he retaliates against me for posting this, and I ask other users to watch out for this from him. (BWilkins, do not email me.) Diff: - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would I retaliate? You misread a situation more than 4 years ago, I tried to politely engage you in discussion. You threatened me and I disengaged. I have always been sorry that we could not resolve it back then, but you personally chose not to resolve, and you clearly had my apologies in that exchange - I cannot single-handedly solve everything. I cannot even imagine that you would think I have any desire to e-mail you now - water well under a bridge, and I hope all's gone well for you since that misunderstanding  ES  &#38;L  23:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)