Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:25, 22 June 2013 view sourceDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,337 editsm Jmh649← 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>}}
== Jmh649 ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] ] '''at''' 01:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|PumpkinSky}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}}
<!-- 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 -->
*]
*]
*]
*And as usage of admin rights is in Arbcom's purview, this is the proper venue.] ] 01:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by PumpkinSky ===
I have documented sixteen instances (26 if you count a set of page protections separately) since ] (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 ] 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 ], he reported the editor and both of them got chastised and the page protected. In a Jul 2012 edit war with ] he reports said user and no violation was found. In a Sep 2012 dispute with ] Doc J is accused of admin abuse. Deception was pointed out by an arb in the attempted return of ] 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 ] blocked. In an edit war in Apr 2013 with ] he got said user blocked. In an edit war/dispute in Apr 2013 with user ], he reported him but no one agreed with Doc J. There was a highly involved, (apparently) undiscussed, unblock of ] 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, ], ], and ], 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. ] ] 01:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
**@all who have posted so far and want evidence, here it is:
:* 16 Jun 2013 - ] blocked 48h by Jmh649, unblocked by unanimous consensus in 4h23min, see ], ], this is involved because of 2 arb cases he and I were involved in where I was an arb and the WBB situation
:** ] 27-28 Apr 2013,
** 05:27, 27 Apr 2013 indef'd by Ched
** 08:21, 27 Apr 2013 unblocked by Jmh649, claiming "no consensus for action taken by involved user"
** 19:26, 27 Apr 2013 blocked 72h by Jmh649 see ]
** 14:23, 28 Apr 2013 block changed to indef by Jmh649
** 03:49, 16 Jun 20113 block tightened with talk page block, etc by Dennis Brown due to block evasion via IP
** Other evidence on the Fladrif case - ]
*** 27 Apr 2013 - ]
*** 27-28 Apr 2013 - ]
*** 27-28 Apr 2013 - ]
*** 27-28 Apr 2013 - ]
*** 27-28 Apr 2013 - ]
** 27 Apr 2013 -
** 28 Apr 2013 -
Fladrif and Doc J are involved:
* 20-24 Jan 2010 - Fladirf invites Doc ]
* 02 Feb 2010 - Doc asks Fladrif for email ]
* 20 Aug 2010 - Fladrif congratulates Doc ]
* Feb-Jun 2010 - Doc, WBB, and Fladrif are both named parties in the TM ArbCom case, making them involved with one another: ]
* Doc, WBB, and Fladrif support each other in many talk page threads:
** 03-11 Feb 2010 - ]
** 13-16 Feb 2010 - ]
** 01-03 Feb 2010 - ]
** 02-03 Feb 2010 - ]
** 02-05 Feb 2010 - ]
** 03-04 Feb 2010 - ]
** 03-04 Feb 2010 - ]
** 03-04 Feb 2010 - ]
** 04-13 Feb 2010 - ]
** 13-15 Feb 2010 - ]
Still TM involvement 3 years later:
** 23 May 2013 -
** 23 May 2013 -
** 23 May 2013 -
** 23 May 2013 -
** 23 May 2013 -
** 23 May 2013 -
:* April 27, 2013
:** 5:27 UTC - ] 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.
:* ] threats:
* 20 May 2013 -
* 20 May 2013 -
* 20 May 2013 -
* 23 May 2013 -
:** ]
* 19 Sep 2012 - blocked 1week by Jmh649
* 19-21 Sep 2012 - ]
* 21-22 Sep 2012 - ], wherein Jmh649 is accussed of abusing his tools
:** ]
* 09 Mar 2011 -
* 09 Mar 2011 -
* 09 Mar 2011 -
* 10 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 - Four minutes later, Doc J blocks King97tut indef: 01:18, 15 March 2011 Jmh649 (talk | contribs) blocked King97tut (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (Creating attack, nonsense or other inappropriate pages: Legal threats)
* 15 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 -
* 15 Mar 2011 - Later the same day he indefs an alleged sock of King97tut: 16:00, 15 March 2011 Jmh649 (talk | contribs) blocked DrChenLin (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)
* 15 Mar 2011 -
*
:** Published email by Roger Davies
* 25 Mar 2013 -
* 27 Mar 2013 -
:** Threatens to block ] for posting to his talk, epitome of involved:
* 19 May 2013 -
* 23 May 2013 - ]
:** Tells Keithbob and Littleolive oil not to post on his talk page:
* 19-23 May 2013 ]
* 19 May 2013 -
* 20 May 2013 -
* 20 May 2013 -
:** Deceptive in the WBB return
* 26 Mar 2013 -
:** 2 year blocks:
* 07 May 2013 -
* 24 May 2013 -
:** Long series of page protections where is is a main contributor, a few from just 2013):
* 03 Jan 2013 -
* 11 Jan 2013 -
* 11 Jan 2013 -
* 18 Jan 2013 -
* 10 Feb 2013 -
* 23 Feb 2013 -
* 25 Feb 2013 -
* 03 Mar 2013 -
* 24 Apr 2013 -
* 22 May 2013 -
* 22 May 2013 -
:** Doc J and ]
* 29 Mar 2013 -
* 03-04 Apr 2013 -
:** Edit war with ] over Osteoarthritis
* 19:41-23:33 07 Apr 2013
* 08 Apr 2013 -
:** Edit war with ]
* 06 Jul 2012 - ], Doc J edit wars with 32cllou, reports him, no violation found
:** Edit war with ] over Circumcision
* 07-14 Jun 2011 - Doc J edit wars with Garycompugeek, reports him, review chastizes both users and protects page
:** Tag team edit wars with ] to get ] blocked
* 22-23 Apr 2013 - ]
*@all, RFC on Doc J won't solve anything, as shown by history, only Arbcom can settle this as only they have remit over this. ] ]
*@DOC J, has edited. Edit wars/disputes are not only over content, look at your "pissed" comment. ] ] 11:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
*@All, proof there are double standards on wiki . ] ] 12:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
*@Brad, I have great respect for you, but that first comment of yours is incredibly naive. And how do you defend things like the King97tut and Fladrif actions? Not to mention mine and several others.] ] 12:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
*@BK, hardly, we have years of hounding new users, making involved actions, edit warring, involved protections, and blocks that get unanimously overturned. RFAR acceptance is more than warranted. And it's worth noting only Doc J's friends have posted so far. ] ] 13:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== 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:
#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."
#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?"
#June 5th 2013 "Karma will take care of the rest" is a strange comment
#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." and
#Other concerning comments include: with issues occurring back in July 2011 as well
Pumpkin was warned here I was not previously involved with Pumpkinsky.

Were is the evidence that I was in an edit war with ]? This user has not made a single content edit, ever. ] removed this review article in edits like this and this . I posted a request for further input regarding this question on the talk page here With respect to the 2 year IP blocks PS must be referring to this one which was blocked for 2 month Jan 2013 and two weeks in June 2012. This was the users previous edits and . The other IP had been blocked 9 times previously and the previous block had been for nearly two years. Vandalism included and 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 ] here is the post were I asked that he not post on my talk page . I did not state that I would block him myself, just that someone may. With respect to Olive, I crossed out my error here and would have never blocked the user in question as I was involved. Yes I blocked ] for legal threats made here . I have previously had a user on Misplaced Pages make similar legal threats against me and than proceed to carry them out per This was more than two years ago and I agree I should have probably gone through ANI. I am unsure how reporting ] to 3RR is against the "rules" as IMO it was closer to 5 or 6 reverts. The user was never blocked and has recently made some useful edits

] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== 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 ]. 5 days later he produced this request. Arbitration is a last resort and is usually preceded by other forms of dispute resolution: ] 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. ] (]) 06:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

===Statement by Anthonyhcole===
I'm not familiar with most of the cases PumpkinSky refers to above, but I'm very familiar with the ] 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 ] with James, and I'm unaware of having had any dealings with PumpkinSky). --] (] · ] · ]) 08:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

===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 in the Will Beback case he mentions, could this arbitration filing be because James supported the unblock of Will? ] (]) 08:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

===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, the block log for that IP - '''twelve''' previous blocks, including three of a year. The 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, ] is still a redlink. ] (]) 10:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
* 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. ] (]) 13:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Jmh649: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1> ===
{{anchor|1=Jmh649: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

*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&mdash;I would welcome comments on that. ] (]) 12:30, 22 June 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 Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


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.


File an arbitration request


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.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@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.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.