Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts WP:ARC WP:A/R/C 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. File an arbitration request This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information). Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Initiated by RoseL2P (talk) at 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Doc James (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive251#User:Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29_reported_by_User:Technophant_.28Result:_No_action.29
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Edit_warring_on_Electronic_Cigarette_by_Doc_James
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive290#User:Doc_James_and_User:CorporateM_.28Result:_Protected.29
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#User:Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29_reported_by_User:Technophant_for_wikihounding_and_tendentious_editing
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Questionable_involvement_by_DocJames_on_Fladrif_dispute
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#Administrator_Doc_James_obstructing_improvements
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive908#User_Doc_James_is_removing_sourced_content_in_the_Management_section_of_Dengue_fever_article
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Doc_James
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_205#Concerning_the_dismissal_of_Doc_James_from_the_board
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/jmh649
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive81#Jmh649
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive229#User:_IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker_reported_by_User:Jmh649_.28Result:_IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker_blocked_for_24_hours.2C_Jmh649_warned.29

Statement by RoseL2P

User:Doc James, previously known as Jmh649, was

1. Subjected in 2009 to an Arbcom-imposed edit restriction of six months for incivility and edit-warring [2].

2. Blocked in 2009 for violating his Arbcom-imposed restriction [3]

3. Warned in 2013 and in 2014 for edit warring and being disruptive [4][5]

4. And has shown very poor judgement in the midst of the ongoing drama at Wikipedia:Harassment - making three controversial reverts within the space of two hours. [6][7][8]. A protracted pattern of aggressive edit-warring, especially on such a sensitive policy or guideline, is extremely disruptive, inexplicably unwise, and could ultimately lead to someone being seriously harmed.

Please do something to rein in his behavior because it is incompatible with the standards expected of an experienced administrator.

RoseL2P (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Casliber

@User:Casliber: I have no wish to treat this place as a battleground. If you think that's what I intended, you have misunderstood my entire posting.

Reply to Doc James

@User:Doc James: Speaking of battleground behavior, why do you say that people are getting "caught in the cross fire"? [9] Please clarify where this "cross fire" is coming from because the gunman needs to stop, immediately.

RoseL2P (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

What is the dispute between User:RoseL2P / User:A1candidate and I exactly? And what methods have been tried in the last year to address this? The evidence provided appears to be simply a random list of disputes I have been involved in over the last 8 years and 170,000 edits.

Our poor ability to address undisclosed paid editing results in ongoing real life harassment of long term editors. It decreases AGF as long term editors, who frequently have paid editors trying to mislead them, become more suspicious. Good faith editors are than sometimes caught in the cross fire. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent undisclosed paid editing and some of the dishonest techniques they employ make the editing community more suspicious of each other. Because the editing community is more suspicious generally they are more likely to bite new comers. Wishing that undisclosed paid editing stop is not going to make it happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

<scratching head> RoseL2P, what is your particular dispute with Doc James? You're a semi-retired editor who hasn't made a single edit to Wikipedia mainspace since September 2015. This so-called case against Doc James seems to be nothing more than a trumped-up collection of a handful of minor infractions spread over 7 years. Suggest you withdraw this before it boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Arbitration requests are not the Wikipedia equivalent of a free shot. We can be tolerant of inexperienced editors who file specious cases. But someone who has been here four years, with over 15,000 edits and extensive prior experience with dispute resolution in general and arbitration in particular (over 1000 edits to such venues) has no such excuse, and should be shown that there are consequences. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Last year I issued a stern warning to RoseL2P/A1Candidate about battleground behavior, and specifically about "focusing on contributors over content" and "abuse of Wikipedia processes to eliminate ideological opponents". (link) Since then only 3 of their (100) edits have been to article space, while 70 have been in Wikipedia space, including participation in 2 arbcom cases/requests involving former opponents. When this request closes I intend to enforce the "boomerang" Softlavender mentioned, unless someone beats me to it. ~Awilley (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris troutman

A cursory review of the so-called evidence doesn't show any wrong-doing on Doc James's part. While it's becoming clear ARBCOM won't accept this case I certainly hope there will be consequences for the original poster as we cannot have those who are not here to be contributors using these forums to harass our Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Doc James: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/11/0/0>

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

• decline - there has been some discussion concerning this issue as there is a disparity between the WMF and en.wiki positions. I note that HJ Mitchell has corrected it to something like the present situation, but remind RoseL2P that wikipedia is not a battleground. I agree that some clarification from the WMF is needed on this to address the disparity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. Note that HJ Mitchell's edit has been reversed. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This is an attempt to make an arbitration case out of ancient news plus a report that wouldn't get traction at WP:ANEW, much less here. I'd go beyond "premature" and say this has the appearance of opportunism. Per Cas, decline with reminder to the filer about battleground behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I don't think the problem is just "premature"-- that the dispute is not yet at the stage where arb is needed, but that this request is attempt to intensify a dispute, which is what we mean by "battleground" DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I think the "premature" part points out possible, hypothetical future problems but, in the meantime, you are absolutely correct. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. Keilana (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]