Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Statement by Ched: proposal and question to Worm and Doc James.
Line 211: Line 211:


Now - I by no means mean this to be a condemnation of Doc James, in fact I find him to be an agreeable person and a highly valuable asset to the community. It is to the project's benefit to have experienced experts in all fields contributing to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate all the devoted work that Doc James has contributed to our medical articles (aka [[WP:MEDRS]]. Yet I am remembered of our projects scope in the sense that [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|we are not a medical consulting project]]. I would have further comments to make in regards to past editors who have been desysoped as a precedent; but given the current tone in the arb comment section below at this time, I'm not inclined to invest time and energy in futile efforts. Best to all. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Now - I by no means mean this to be a condemnation of Doc James, in fact I find him to be an agreeable person and a highly valuable asset to the community. It is to the project's benefit to have experienced experts in all fields contributing to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate all the devoted work that Doc James has contributed to our medical articles (aka [[WP:MEDRS]]. Yet I am remembered of our projects scope in the sense that [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|we are not a medical consulting project]]. I would have further comments to make in regards to past editors who have been desysoped as a precedent; but given the current tone in the arb comment section below at this time, I'm not inclined to invest time and energy in futile efforts. Best to all. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

* @Worm (and others) - I'm likely alienating some/many folks with this post; however, while I have no desire to "mentor" anyone, I am willing to work jointly with Doc James on a RfC. Perhaps an RfC on [[WP:INVOLVED]], [[WP:PROTECT]], and [[WP:BLOCK]] would be more acceptable than a RfC/U to Doc James; as the later does carry a certain stigma to it. I see 4 possible things at hand:
# Abuse of tools
# Misuse of tools
# Mistaken use of tools or poor judgement
# Nothing to see here - move along.
:My take on the current consensus is that most folks appear to fall into the #2 or #3 category. I make this offer because after talking with Doc James, to be honest? I get the impression he's a good person who honestly tries to do the right thing. With respect to TM issues, or "scientific and medical" items in general - I may disagree on many levels, but they are not areas I edit in. I also strongly feel that "NPOV" is a misnomer that we mistakenly strive for; when in reality we should be striving to provide ''ALL'' Points of View. I'm sorry - but we are human, and there's always going to ''be'' a POV. My question to the committee and Worm is this: Would a RfC carry the same weight with the committee in the future (if it was needed) as a RfC/U? — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


===Comment by MONGO===
===Comment by MONGO===

Revision as of 15:51, 24 June 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Jmh649   22 June 2013 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Jmh649

Initiated by PumpkinSky talk at 01:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by PumpkinSky

I have documented sixteen instances (26 if you count a set of page protections separately) since Jmh649 (AKA “Doc J/Doc James”) became an admin in Aug 2010 where he has abused his admin rights, made involved admin actions, and/or engaged in conduct unbecoming an admin. These include the Mar 2011 case of King97tut where he blocks said user, then protects the page in dispute and blocks an alleged sock of the user. In June 2011 he edit warred with Garycompugeek, he reported the editor and both of them got chastised and the page protected. In a Jul 2012 edit war with 32cllou he reports said user and no violation was found. In a Sep 2012 dispute with 7mike5000 Doc J is accused of admin abuse. Deception was pointed out by an arb in the attempted return of Will Beback in Mar 2013. Jmh648 apparently released an email by an arb in Mar 2013. He issued two 2-year blocks of IPs in May 2013 without any escalating blocks—one was a school IP he called vandalism only. He issued eleven protections just in 2013 where he was a main editor—six of them the primary editor. In one of those cases he said new users must use a talk page first. He was tag teaming in April 2013 to get Fgmoon353 blocked. In an edit war in Apr 2013 with Sthubbar he got said user blocked. In an edit war/dispute in Apr 2013 with user WoodSnake, he reported him but no one agreed with Doc J. There was a highly involved, (apparently) undiscussed, unblock of Fladrif in Apr 2013—the unblock was overturned and Doc J claimed blocking admin provided no reasons but said admin had done so. He told three users, Keithbob, Dreadstar, and Littleolive oil, not to post to his talk page, and threatened to block the last two himself if they posted on his talk again. And most recently, a highly involved block of myself in Jun 2013 for using a phrase that another admin had used in which no action was taken. Yet in my case Doc J gave no warning and blocked me. This block was unanimously opposed in two separate threads and overturned in slightly over 4 hours. By my count 22 of these actions are involved and most are in 2013. There seems to be a definite downward trend. PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • @all who have posted so far and want evidence, here it is:

Fladrif and Doc J are involved:

Still TM involvement 3 years later:

    • 23 May 2013 - [1]
    • 23 May 2013 - [2]
    • 23 May 2013 - [3]
    • 23 May 2013 - [4]
    • 23 May 2013 - [5]
    • 23 May 2013 - [6]
  • April 27, 2013
    • 5:27 UTC - Ched blocked Fladrif
    • 8:21 UTC - Doc James unblocked with accusation in block log of "involved" - but that is unsubstantiated and not true
    • Doc J made the claim here: Comment Strange how Ched who is involved would take it upon himself to block Fladrif. I oppose the indef block and have unblocked the user in question until consensus develops. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • 8:25 UTC - Doc James makes FIRST comment on Ched's talk /informing/ him of unblock .. never discussed it with Ched.
  • Littleolive oil threats:
    • Published email by Roger Davies
    • Threatens to block Dreadstar for posting to his talk, epitome of involved:
    • Tells Keithbob and Littleolive oil not to post on his talk page:
    • Deceptive in the WBB return
    • 2 year blocks:
    • Long series of page protections where is is a main contributor, a few from just 2013):
    • Edit war with Sthubbar over Osteoarthritis
  • 07-14 Jun 2011 - Doc J edit wars with Garycompugeek, reports him, review chastizes both users and protects page

Question for the arbs

If this case is not at least accepted, I'd like to know what is so different from the present RFAR and these cases, both recent and resulted in desyssops:
  1. Jul 2012 Carnildo desyssop for multiple actions including an unblock sounds similar especially vis a vis Fladrif
  2. Sep 2012 desyssop of EncycloPetey, went from ANI to RFAR, no RFCU, blocks and protections by EPetey -- sounds eerily similar
PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Brad, thanks for the quick response Brad. I'll think over any further comment. PumpkinSky talk 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Brad, I only see a commitment to use RFPP, nothing about not making unwarranted and/or involved blocks, nothing about not making new users and students use talk pages vice editing, nothing about staying away from users he has a history with (in some cases 4 years, see olive's stmt), nothing about not edit warring, nothing about not threatening to block people he told to stay off his talk page, and while he did admit he goofed in the Fladrif unblock, he didn't say he would avoid doing so again. PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Silky, an RFC would NOT be useful as it'd be the same result as here, his friends will defend him and everyone else sees issues to varying degrees. This is why an Arb case is needed. PumpkinSky talk 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmh649 (Doc James)

Any diffs to support these accusations to make them easier to respond to? Also isn't this a little early? No RfC/U has taken place, no dispute resolution.

Many comments made by PS are inappropriate and these issues go back a long time. They include among others:

  1. June 16th 2013 "You want professionals? Go hire some and pay them. I don't volunteer my time to put up with pompous asses like you."[7]
  2. June 5th 2013 "Sandy, how damned sanctimonious of you. The lessons you should have learned here have been totally lost on you. Have you checked your precious MEDRS stuff for compliance lately?"[8]
  3. June 5th 2013 "Karma will take care of the rest" is a strange comment [9] as is a comment to User:Nikkimaria [10] from May 7th 2013 ""Instant Karma's gonna get you", and the best part is I won't have to do a single thing. You can't escape karma"
  4. June 2nd 2013 "I can by to see what you were up to and saw you haven't edited in three months. Good riddance because the way you and Townlake behaved on my talk page in Oct 2012 was appalling. You should be ashamed on both a personal and admin level. But I'm sure you're not. But that is okay because karma will get you and I won't have to do a thing." [11] and [12]
  5. Other concerning comments include: [13] with issues occurring back in July 2011 as well [14]
  6. More stangeness, here he claims on July 9th of 2011 he does not know how to upload an image to commons [15] yet he is an admin on commons as of that date [16]?

Pumpkin was warned here [17] I was not previously involved with Pumpkinsky and we have as far as I am aware never edited the same content area.

Were is the evidence that I was in an edit war with User:WoodSnake? This user has not made a single content edit, ever. User:Fgmoon353 removed this review article [18] in edits like this [19] and this [20]. I posted a request for further input regarding this question on the talk page here [21] With respect to the 2 year IP blocks PS must be referring to this one [22] which was blocked for 2 month Jan 2013 and two weeks in June 2012. This was the users previous edits [23] and [24]. The other IP had been blocked 9 times previously [25] and the previous block had been for nearly two years. Vandalism included [26] and [27] among others. So I do not understand the statement that no shorter blocks had been given before these 2 year blocks as this is not what the block log shows.

With respect to User:Dreadstar here is the post were I asked that he not post on my talk page [28]. I did not state that I would block him myself, just that someone may. With respect to Olive, I crossed out my error here [29] and would have never blocked the user in question as I was involved. Yes I blocked User:King97tut for legal threats made here [30]. I have previously had a user on Wikipedia make similar legal threats against me and than proceed to carry them out per [31] This was more than two years ago and I agree I should have probably gone through ANI. I am unsure how reporting User:32cllou to 3RR is against the "rules" [32] as IMO it was closer to 5 or 6 reverts. The user was never blocked and has recently made some useful edits [33]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PS: I was never involved with your issues with WBB. If being involved with a user who has previous been involved with another user makes you involved than Ched would have been involved with Fladrif. However he was deemed not to be. By the way which arbcom cases are you referring to?
@PS: You state that I claimed Ched was "deceptive" and give this diff [34]. No were do I state or indicate that I consider Ched deceptive. To clarify matters I do not consider him deceptive. He did however hand out an indef block with no diffs of issues. I agree it was a mistake for me to unblock him. Thus reblocked him as per the diffs provided and apologized to him here [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS still makes claims of "no escalating blocks"? Am I confused regarding the definition? I am under the assumption that previous blocks of short duration followed by longer ones is the definition of escalating blocks? PS states that I was in an edit war with WoodSnake yet I have never reverted an edit that this user has made. How is this an edit war?15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The block of 7Mike5000 was supported by community consensus here [36]
I did not "released an email". I simple quoted a single sentence from the arbcom in question.
@Olive: Regarding the two concerns you raise I have apologized to Ched previously about my inappropriate un-block and did reblock Fladrif. I corrected my type-o on your talk page.
@Newyorkrad: Yes that was my understanding. One can protect pages on which there is significant long term IP vandalism. The issue is protection of pages during content disputes which is forbidden. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio: Yes if going to WP:RFPP for any page I have ever edited would make things less controversial would be happy to going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to receive advice from fellow admins. As PS and I would now be involved I will not be using further admin tools in my interactions with him. Also agree to not use admin tools with respect to TM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

There seems to be no reason to open an arbcom case on Jmh649. PumpkinSky was blocked for 48 hours by Jmh649 for incivility (he called another editor a "pompous ass") on 16 June. He was unblocked on 17 June after a posting by Dennis Brown at WP:ANI. 5 days later he produced this request. Arbitration is a last resort and is usually preceded by other forms of dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jmh649 is still a redlink. PumpkinSky has assembled a list of complaints, including claims of tag teaming, which, without supporting diffs or careful justification, arbitrators are expected to accept on trust. Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any attempt to re-examine issues connected with TM would seem to be counter-productive. During the last Timid Guy case, Jmh649, as a trained medical practitioner, offered his take on some of the medical claims of TM. Some of those commenting here have had significant involvement with TM articles. In my experience they have been completely neutral when commenting on issues unrelated to TM. Closer to TM, however, it's not clear whether that objective neutrality can be maintained.
  • PumpkinSky has meanwhile insisted that an RfC/U would not be helpful. But here he has produced a list of disparate minor complaints: such a miscellany is better dealt with in an RfC/U if it needs to be dealt with at all. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

I'm not familiar with most of the cases PumpkinSky refers to above, but I'm very familiar with the 7mike5000 case. I consider Mike a friend, but a troubled and very troublesome person at times. James's treatment of Mike was measured and patient in the face of very challenging behaviour on Mike's part. If PumpkinSky's characterisation of James's behaviour in that case is any measure, I would recommend very careful scrutiny of his other allegations. (I'm on the board of m:Wiki Project Med with James, and I'm unaware of having had any dealings with PumpkinSky). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRWolfie-

No diffs are offered, merely a string of allegations and vagueness. This arbitration request appears to be a tit-for-tat response by Pumpkin due to his being blocked. PumpkinSky has a high degree of emotional involvement [37] in the Will Beback case he mentions, could this arbitration filing be because James supported the unblock of Will? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

"He issued two 2-year blocks of IPs in May 2013 without any escalating blocks—one was a school IP he called vandalism only". Well, here's the block log for that IP - twelve previous blocks, including three of a year. The other IP had two previous blocks, the last of two months, but as usual with these accounts, practically no useful edits, so I don't think such a block was unusual. If this amount of accuracy is repeated in the rest of PumpkinSky's allegations, this report is clearly a tit-for-tat response to his blocking and as such, is disruptive in itself. And, as previous mentioned, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jmh649 is still a redlink. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We now have a list of diffs, which add up to a enormous pile of ... not a lot. If PS genuinely thinks there is an issue here, it needs to go to RFCU. It certainly isn't an ArbCom issue. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

That I didn't get blocked for calling someone a "pompous ass" is not evidence of much, certainly not of double standards. Whether someone gets blocked for something is probably much more dependent on how many people are watching, and who those people are. Having said that, I thought Doc James's block was over the top, but I cannot yet support sending this to arbitration since I also am not convinced of a pattern of administrative misconduct by Doc James. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update, and see notes below. I cannot say that I see enough evidence of abusive adminship here. Whether this is a case that ArbCom should take, I will leave that to others: I don't think all avenues are exhausted. What I have seen here is a bad block and a bad unblock, and a series of questionable protections. (I see nothing in the edit warring etc that causes me concern about Doc as an admin.) If this were an RfC/U I would have proposed that Doc no longer protect anything he has edited himself, for instance, but this isn't an RfC/U and therefore this is not the place for advice or recommendations.

    In general, there certainly are misjudgments here, yes, but I cannot say that Doc is an abusive admin--though, again, I have problems with the protections, which suggest a lack of awareness of INVOLVED, and the block and unblock, which evidence lack of judgment (whether occasional or habitual is not easy to say). Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on some of the diffs presented
  • "Tells Keithbob and Littleolive oil not to post on his talk page"--Doc James has the right to ask editors not to post. Removing a comment in itself is not against any policy, nor is it evidence of admin abuse (and no admin tool is involved).
  • "Deceptive in the WBB return"--one comments by one editor does not prove deception. "Involvement" and bad admin decisions require more than one such diff.
  • "Published email by Roger Davies"--PumpkinSky may well have a point, but it seems to me that WP:EMAILPOST ("There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence") and WP:EMAILABUSE ("You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission") are at odds.
  • "Littleolive oil threats"--Doc's "I will block you" (later corrected) is of course inappropriate.
  • The Fladrif affair--I thought Doc James's unblock was a very poor decision. The matter seemed to have been resolved with an apology; that Doc agreed with Fladrif on some TM proposals does not make them involved--not to the extent that it is necessarily an involved unblock. However, the unblock in itself, I repeat, was really poor.
  • 7Mike5000--there was a block, and the blockee protested, alleging abuse. Chris Cunningham drops by to say there was nothing controversial about it.
  • "Deceptive in the WBB return"--one comment by one person.
  • "2 year blocks"--perhaps a bit long for this one, but not abusive, and this is incorrectly marked as a VOA (but 2 years is not crazy).
  • "Edit war with Sthubbar over Osteoarthritis", "Edit war with 32cllou", "Edit war with Garycompugeek"--no use of the tools by Doc James.
  • Protection of articles Doc James has edited himself: that seems clear.

    Drmies (talk)

Statement by Ched

Awaiting further input from other committee members. I will of course respond to any questions from either the committee or the community. Further, if the remainder of the committee feels it is acceptable to protect due to new editors or School project and students need to discuss changes on talk, (even if they are a content editor [38]), then I think it would be preferable for the committee to make such a statement either by motion or at WP:AC/N. By extension of the comments made by committee members at this time, I would also greatly appreciate some sort of statement that it is not in violation of either WP:INVOLVED or WP:PROTECT for an administrator to indefinitely protect an article of which which we are content contributors, and that we are free to bypass WP:RFPP. I would also respectfully suggest that the committee refrain from the use of its "recidivism" clauses [39] in future findings.

Now - I by no means mean this to be a condemnation of Doc James, in fact I find him to be an agreeable person and a highly valuable asset to the community. It is to the project's benefit to have experienced experts in all fields contributing to Wikipedia, and I greatly appreciate all the devoted work that Doc James has contributed to our medical articles (aka WP:MEDRS. Yet I am remembered of our projects scope in the sense that we are not a medical consulting project. I would have further comments to make in regards to past editors who have been desysoped as a precedent; but given the current tone in the arb comment section below at this time, I'm not inclined to invest time and energy in futile efforts. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Worm (and others) - I'm likely alienating some/many folks with this post; however, while I have no desire to "mentor" anyone, I am willing to work jointly with Doc James on a RfC. Perhaps an RfC on WP:INVOLVED, WP:PROTECT, and WP:BLOCK would be more acceptable than a RfC/U to Doc James; as the later does carry a certain stigma to it. I see 4 possible things at hand:
  1. Abuse of tools
  2. Misuse of tools
  3. Mistaken use of tools or poor judgement
  4. Nothing to see here - move along.
My take on the current consensus is that most folks appear to fall into the #2 or #3 category. I make this offer because after talking with Doc James, to be honest? I get the impression he's a good person who honestly tries to do the right thing. With respect to TM issues, or "scientific and medical" items in general - I may disagree on many levels, but they are not areas I edit in. I also strongly feel that "NPOV" is a misnomer that we mistakenly strive for; when in reality we should be striving to provide ALL Points of View. I'm sorry - but we are human, and there's always going to be a POV. My question to the committee and Worm is this: Would a RfC carry the same weight with the committee in the future (if it was needed) as a RfC/U? — Ched :  ?  15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

The block on PumkinSky was extremely excessive (48 hours), unnecessary, created more drama and bad feelings, and in the worst case, as PumpkinSky seems to be indicating, may have been for revenge. Doc James needs to also be extremely cautious about threatening to block those that are posting to his talkpage as that sort of thing is best handled by a third party administrator. I don't know that there is enough here for a case, but we are bordering on an admonishment being needed on Doc James' administrative actions and/or threats of actions. We don't want administrators to misuse either their tools or their positions.--MONGO 14:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Admins should be well-apprised by now that using admin powers on any page where they have made substantive edits, or made substantive edits on related pages is likely to be viewed as improper, and Doc J should be on notice. Also that he is now reasonably considered an "involved admin" with regard to PS. Does this cover the entire problem? Collect (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

I have long had concerns about Jmh649's judgement and I expressed these concerns at his RfA. He has a long history of edit warring and has been sanctioned for this in the past (before his RfA). Since then, it appears he continues to edit war on medical related topics under the veil of Adminship as part of his war against new users who disagree with him on content issues. To me this appears to be a long standing mis-behavior and mis-use of tools against editors whom he is in disputes with. The Fladrif and Pumpkin Sky incidents are both recent and egregious and I would encourage ArbCom to consider taking this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

Our Admin policy states, "Administrators are expected to lead by example..."

Consistency: Either our admin are expected to lead by example or they aren't. I am aware of a situation where an arb/admin blocked an admin for a week for a single statement stating another editor was lying. The reason given was that admins are held to a higher standard than other editors. Are admins held to higher standards than other editors? The standard has to be in place for all editors with out discriminating.

Dismissing evidence: Further, the diffs posted by PSky deserve attention. There are enough diffs that show patterns of both less than exemplary admin behaviour and poor judgement in the use of admin tools to warrant investigation. As an point: Admins should not use their tools to threaten editors they are and have been highly involved with as James did here. [40]. Further, James did not redact his statement until he was threatened with a desysop proceedings. Is that poor judgement or a blatant misuse of admin power to threaten and harass.

Productive member of the community: Doc James is a highly productive and influential admin both on and off Wikipedia. He is an emergency room Doc, and such MD's must act quickly and unilaterally in many cases. He also edits through the night possibly suffering from fatigue while he edits as I've seen him admit (per his user page and his own comments) Many of Doc's contentious actions are unilateral, for example the use of his tools to threaten, and overturning blocks with out consulting the blocking admin., clear cases where he should have asked for other admin assistance. If a certain kind of behaviour is acceptable in RL, even necessary, but not here, and I know I'm making connections here that may not exist, just trying to be fair, well the community must say so from positions that an editor will be forced to listen to, which not only protects the encyclopedia but supports and educates James as an effective admin. There's a lot at stake here too much to ignore, in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I have had interactions with James on and off for about three-four years.(olive (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Frankly that James continues to try and implicate PSky rather than deal with the case against him with out any sense that he is taking anything to heart isn't exactly heartening.(olive (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I had no interactions that I remember with Doc James. I don't have time to investigate a long history but observed two recent actions that I found irritating:

  • the unblock of Fladrif without contacting the blocking admin before doing so
  • the block of PumpkinSky for a strong phrase, no more

I see "qualities" that I find undesirable in an admin, especially if they are only the tip of an iceberg, as it seems, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (adding:) the warning of blocking if an unwelcome editor would appear again on the user's talk page
Doc James modified his "I will block you", to "someone will block you", but even so: what attitude does such a warning show? Is appearing on a talk page blockable at all? If so, who would perform such a block? - I respect when I am not welcome (without a threat), and I invite everyone to my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

PumpkinSky, if this case had been presented when you were an Arbitrator here, would you have proposed to desysop Doc James? Count Iblis (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility that RFPP is not good enough for the particular pages that DoC James is active on. So, if we ask Doc James to work with RFPP, it may transpire that there is a problem and one then should discuss if we need some additional policies to deal with problems. I'm not saying that this will happen, just that we need to have an open mind about this possibility. It wasn't that long ago that we didn't have a BLP policy, also the policies for sourcing scientific articles have been tightened a lot in the last several years (we don't get these discussions at the RS noticeboard about that e.g. the BBC should be a reliable source on climate change anymore, when we did have those discussions, many editors would ignore the RS noticeboard leading to editing disputes). Count Iblis (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Diannaa

The problem is, he is protecting articles on his own that he should be listing at RFPP. He is jumping directly to indefinite semi when the usual way is to escalate, starting with a short protection. "Anyone can edit" is one of the pillars. Time and again the community has requested we require editors to create accounts, but the present rules do not call for it. Not only does this fly in the face of one of the pillars, he is setting himself up as a "supereditor" on the suite of medical articles. Don't get me wrong, I think we should semi-protect the entire encyclopedia. The medical articles are super important and it's important that we get it right. But as an admin I am bound to follow the rules as they currently exist. And so should he. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diannaa (talk • contribs) 15:57, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

The same goes for issuing blocks: when patrolling articles he has heavily edited, he should be reporting at AIV in all but the most egregious instances. In many cases other admins will agree that blocks or protection are warranted, but will often take a more minimalist view, like Kumioko says, of doing the minimum amount of admin action that will protect the encyclopedia from harm rather than immediately jumping to indef blocks and indef semi protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KumiokoCleanStart

I am completely uninvolved in this and although I saw a couple of the actions happen on my watchlist I didn't put anything together until this case appeared. I have looked through a lot of the actions presented as well as a review of actions by Doc James and it seems as though there is some evidence to support inappropriate action. One incident doesn't warrant a desysopping, but there are a lot of diffs and a lot of evidence supporting the potential that this admin acted inappropriately on several (but not all listed) occasions. The admins seems to act rashly and uses extreme measures frequently such as long blocks when short ones will do. Whether this has risen to the level of Arbcom action depends on whether the Admin could be desysopped outside this venue if they are deemed to be acting inappropriately. If the answer to that question is yes, then certainly another venue such as ANI or mediation could be appropriate. If however this is the only venue that supports a potential desysopping then this case should be handled here.

  • @Drmies or Arbcom, I attempted to remove it twice and was reverted twice but someone should really remove that pompous ass comment from within the header of Drmies post. It is wholly inappropriate.
  • @Silstork, then he can be asked to resign, what if he says no? There is no requirement for him to do so. I admit I am not completely convinced that its required but there does seem to be some strong argument for it. Kumioko (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Doc's block was likely fueled by PumpkinSky's June 2nd edits, which were not blockworthy by themselves but they were incivil and in extremely poor taste. PS had already been approached (warned?) by another editor two weeks before this block, so it was old news. I think Doc let his emotions get the best of him, a overreaction but one fueled by a desire to protect the two editors who received the blunt end of PS's stick. Actions like PumpkinSky's block, this confusion and the page protection issues convince me that Doc isn't fully in tune with community expectations for administrators. I don't think Doc is an evil guy or abusing the tools intentionally, but I do think he has made a number of mistakes with a common theme.

Education should be considered as a possible first solution. An RFC/U is one option, although at the risk of a lot of drama and time. Another option is if he considered a form of mentoring on tools, if he is willing defer to the mentor. We shouldn't forget that the vast majority of Doc's work here is exceedingly helpful and beneficial. It is in everyone's best interest if we find a way to help Doc to become a better admin, if he is willing. It is my opinion that mentoring offers the possibility of addressing the valid concerns in the least amount of time while creating the least amount of disruption to all concerned. I would prefer Doc James volunteer for mentoring rather than having it imposed in some other venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dirk Beetstra

This first should go through an RfC/U, however useless that may seem. If it turns out to be useless and problems persist, then further steps are logic.

@PumpkinSky: EncycloPetey was 'railroaded' by the community ánd also by the Arbitration Committee - it is a very bad example of how the Arbitration Committee should not be used, and I hope that that never happens again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Jmh649: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Based on what has been posted so far, I don't perceive the need for an arbitration case. Several of the administrator actions PumpkinSky describes were correct and others at least defensible. However, I do hope that after this week Doc James will be a little more cautious with civility-based blocks, and it mght be best for him to stay away from any administrator actions relating to editors active on the Transcendental meditation topic-area—I would appreciate comments on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to PumpkinSky: The desysopping of Carnildo resulted from circumstances so totally dissimilar to those at issue here that it would not be helpful to discuss that case any further. The case of EncycloPetey is a bit closer to the mark, but one key distinction is that EncycloPetey refused to address the issues that had been raised, whereas Doc James has actively responded to the request for arbitration and stated that he would not repeat several aspects of his behavior that you have challenged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Doc James' comments and commitments going forward (per above) confirm my view that there is no need for a case. I think a further commitment that he will not use administrator tools (1) in the TM topic-area or (2) with respect to PumpkinSky, would not be amiss, but I won't insist on them before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would decline this case request, but I will withhold my vote for a day or two until more statements are given and I have had the opportunity to review background for this matter. Given that Jmh649 has apparently committed no egregious administrator misconduct (and that the accusations relate to poor judgement rather than outright abuse), I would expect all other methods of resolving the present concerns to have been attempted before we allow arbitration. However, this case request seems to be the first attempt at DR – when it ought to have been the last resort. AGK [•] 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we can desysop (or impose other sysop-only sanctions on) someone for actions which don't involve the use of admin tools, except in particularly serious cases, such as harassment (though I concede that there is ample precedent against my opinion) and in the diffs which have been provided there is nothing really egregious. That said, at first glance, the evidence so far seems to show that Jmh649 sometimes has a peculiar interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, which is indeed troubling – I am referring, in particular, to the cases where he protected pages after heavily editing them. That's probably something that ArbCom should look at; then again, the previous attempts at dispute resolution have, so far, only involved the so-called drama boards. So, for the moment, I'll go with epoché, though I'll revisit my vote once more opinions have been expressed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a significant difference between an administrator semiprotecting a page he or she edits regularly because of a content dispute, which would be troublesome, and the administrator's semiprotecting the page because of persistent vandalism or spamming, which would not trouble me at all, especially on medical articles. I do not see evidence that any of the protection actions PumpkinSky has listed were taken for the forbidden purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree: except in cases of emergency (and, on Wikipedia, they are exceedingly rare), a user should strive not to use his sysop powers on articles which have seen his involvement as an editor, because to do otherwise blurs the distinction between the two roles: when a person has been editing an article, wrt to that article he's an editor like everyone else and, as such, if he wants to get the page protected, he needs to go to WP:RFPP. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Further dispute resolution ought to be sought before this reaches us. Arbitration remedies are heavy-handed and blunt, and I definitely don't think that desysopping is required at this time. What is really needed here is advice on best practices given in a non-antagonistic manner. RfCs are one way to go about this (I recall Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend as working fairly well), but there are other methods such as having trusted administrators sit down and talk about the matters of dispute. NW (Talk) 18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline It is sometimes unclear which route to take when a user has concerns about an admin's use of the tools. Our policy page has a useful section: WP:ADMINABUSE, which advises raising concerns directly with the admin, raising the matter on ANI, and starting a RFC. Sometimes these stages may be skipped, and it is a matter of judgement when they are. Usually, it would be for clear and obvious cases of excessive abuse, or where the admin sharply divides opinion and/or is very high profile, and it is felt that community discussions would generate drama and wouldn't reach an easy solution. I don't think that is the case here, so a RfC would be a useful stage - especially as from comments above, it is felt that the admin has erred, rather than been abusive. I've not looked deeply into the admin's conduct, though protecting Anencephaly was inappropriate. The article has had positive edits by six IP accounts this year, and minor vandalism by two. That is not grounds for protection, and the article should be unprotected. It is particularly concerning that the incident that led to the protection was an edit war between Jmh649 and a newly created user, over use of an image. That is not vandalism. That's a content dispute. A RfC would be useful, as the community may need to be reassured that Jmh649 is able to make appropriate decisions regarding page protection, to distinguish between content dispute and vandalism, and to understand what route to follow when involved. There may also be other reassurances required regarding use of the block tool. If the result of the RfC is that the community no longer have confidence in Jmh649's judgement, then he can be asked to resign without the need to come to ArbCom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about this for a few days, as I have been concerned by the fact that Doc James has appeared on my radar a number of times recently. However, looking in depth at the evidence provided, I don't see anything quite so egregious that we need to skip directly to arbitration, though we may well end up here in the future. I echo the suggestions of my colleagues, that this should be dealt with by other methods before arbitration - and those methods should be given a chance to work. An RfC has been suggested, I think that might be a good place to start. It might be, however, that this arbitration request is the wake up call Doc James needs to tread a little more carefully, specifically by not using his tools in relation to TM generally, or PumpkinSky specifically. For the time being, decline. WormTT(talk) 12:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=561376209"