| Revision as of 16:06, 1 August 2013 view sourcePumpkinSky (talk | contribs)20,866 editsm →Involved parties← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == Bwilkins == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 23:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|PumpkinSky}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bwilkins}} | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] 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 --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| === 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 . 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: , , , the "admin phallus" series: , | |||
| , ; , ], , , . | |||
| Some info on blocks and protections: The block that appears on is completely inappropriate and poor judgment from an administrator. And it continues into June 2013. Info regarding me when I edited a thread on ] 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: ] block was only over one revert,] Where Bwilkins claims he was doing PumpkinSky a favor and that he did nothing wrong, ], ], ], ]. And just today there's: ]. 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.] ] 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/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/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: | |||
| 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: | |||
| 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: After the user accuses Bwilkins of “ignoring calls on 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.] ] 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Ah, OK. Now I see what you meant. Sorry Brad. ] ] 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. | |||
| === Statement by Bwilkins === | |||
| 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. (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 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 (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 09:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Follow-up: I don't see where I ever said it myself ''until after'' <small>fixed</small> joefromrandb who stated it . That discussion will also put some context towards joe's odd comments and behaviour towards me directly since that date (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 09:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : @] 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 ], and have actually tried to talk TSC off the impending cliff (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 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 (]<span style="font-family:Forte, cursive, sans-serif;color:black">]</span>]) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Ks0stm=== | |||
| <s>I would just like to mention for clarity's sake that the admin phallus comments referred to were more than likely inspired by between ] and myself and not necessarily an invention of Bwilkins.</s> ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Joefromrandb}} Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I should refrain from editing quickly from my iPhone. ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 09:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Bbb23 === | |||
| This is relevant only to AGK's comment.--] (]) 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.] (]) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently where Ks0stm lives, November comes before July. ] (]) 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 ], including ]. 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. ] (]) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Fram=== | |||
| Please see ]. 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. ] (]) 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. | |||
| ], 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. --] (] · ] · ]) 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.--] 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 Misplaced Pages'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! ] (]) 13:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Heim=== | |||
| 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. ] ] 14:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Bwilkins: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/4> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Bwilkins: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *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. ] ]] 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.) ] (]) 00:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **PumpkinSky: You are misreading my comment. I've said nothing yet about the merits of this case. ] (]) 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. <p>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. <p>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). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for removal of adminship == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] 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 --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by TheShadowCrow === | |||
| ] 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 ] article despite it being backed up by sources. and he stated . When I asked what kind of sources he wanted, he said . After that . After that he let the page be. Thus, he showed that he has a , which violates ]. | |||
| '''2.''' GiantSnowman . 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 over this. GiantSnowman had shown he has and again had . | |||
| '''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. . The reason for the block was . The other Admin was better, and did not jump to a block without knowing full details. GiantSnowman, however, without even checking that the ban in question was over. The other Admin and left the discussion. Despite the only small lead towards the block having recalled his claims, , and so I applied it in ] and . GiantSnowman had, for a third known time, violated and had now violated on ] | |||
| I call upon Misplaced Pages's superiors to strip this Admin of his powers, which he has demonstrated time and time again he can't be trusted with. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. ] (] - ]) 01:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by GiantSnowman === | |||
| Firstly, please see ] and ] for recent context, I think that should give enough background. This request is made entirely in bad faith following that, as shown by ] (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 ] that TSC is becoming an increasingly disruptive and problematic editor, and this is just the latest example of that. ]] 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 <0/6/0/0> === | |||
| {{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. ] (]) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per NYB, and encourage filer to disengage before ending up being hit by a ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</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 . Prior to that, on , 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. ''']''' ''']''' 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' like NYB, I do not see evidence of misconduct on GiantSnowman's part. ] 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"> ''']'''</span> ] 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.