This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
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)
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, [4], 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)
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 &L 12:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
[6] - Slàn,
Kathryn NicDhàna
♫♦
♫
23:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
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)
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, [4], 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)
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 &L 12:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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:
[6] - Slàn,
Kathryn NicDhàna
♫♦
♫
23:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)