| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
|
|
James, while I cannot speak openly because of my WMF staff position, I will say that I still, and as much as ever, have the utmost confidence, respect, faith, admiration, and trust for you. We're lucky to have you back, even as "just" a community member. I can't wait to continue working with you on improving medical content around the world in many underserved languages. Your outreach to the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Cochrane Collaboration, and so many others is invaluable to our movement. You are simply the most prolific medical editor in the world (by edits and pageviews), and an enormous asset to our projects. Be well and enjoy your transition back into the community. I hope you find freedom in it, and a renewed sense of drive and passion. Best, Jake Ocaasi t | c 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks User:Ocaasi. Your words of support mean a great deal to me.
- I am honored to work with this community of amazing people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been accused of three things by fellow board members:
- Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees. I would be interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I consider it unfounded.
- Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.
- Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself here. I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the purpose of producing such a statement.
I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the movement and the WMF.
P.S. This statement also on Wikimedia-l[1]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to make it more clear by whom you were accused – the first two could be construed as the reason for your removal. Prodego talk 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it went this way for you. (in my experience, substantive communicating with staff by board members - except executive(s)- is generally frowned on - there is a bit of respect chain of command rationale to it - bylaws usually warn against it.) At any rate, my best for the New Year. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern was not that I spoke with staff. It was done with the awareness and thus implicit consent of the chair or [explicit consent of an] executive. The claim is that I misled staff which I deny. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah this answers one of my questions below. You avoided the risk by seeking [implicit] consent of the executive, yes? Would the executive agree about 'implicit', to you knowledge?Peter Damian (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was implicit consent of the chair or explicit consent from an executive Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been on a couple boards myself and this is a common convention. But the scandal-ridden world of corporate America is not the best example to draw from. WMF is in San Francisco, and the bureaucratic model where all information flows down through a bottleneck and hits the peons slaving away who are unable to push any feedback up, is known as the waterfall model. It's a flawed model and discouraged for good reason. I have yet to find anything which codifies not speaking to staff in WMF's documents, although a staffer disclosed that staff communication was at one point forbidden, which may explain James' removal. In any case, fear-driven organizations without open communication will drive away the best software developers who can find more flexible and functional organizations to work for in the highly-competitive software job market. At least that's my two cents, as a software developer in San Francisco. II | (t - c) 09:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that anyone's asked my opinion, or invited me to this conversation, but I've long thought that moving the Wikimedia Foundation to San Francisco was a bad decision. II, your comment reminded me of that thought. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for you. A resignation would have been a tacit admittance. Now it is time the remaining board members, and their future appointees, are held to answer, and should that answer disparage you, me thinks a neutral magistrate should be moved to clear your name. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dariusz Jemielniak has also weighed in here. He says "I myself considered voting in favor of the resolution. I also believe that others reasonably considered their vote. James himself recognized his errors and admitted that he made mistakes and stepped out of process for a Board member. Our collective decision was carefully thought through. I also understand well the reasons of many Board members who voted as they did." Peter Damian (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- logic dictates that without "knowing the true reason", this is non-objective ....as stated below I support Doc James (and so do many others)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Many thanks for posting this James. Some questions, if that’s OK.
- Communicating with staff is not necessarily a problem, but there are two risks (1) you may be seen to be undermining the executive or C-level type roles (2) you may risk the jobs of staff members – they mention something to you, you raise it at board level or elsewhere, it gets back to some manager, staff gets it in the neck. How did you take care to avoid these risks?
- You mention the allegation about ‘releasing private board information’, which you deny. Were there any specific instances given to you in your discussions with the Board over the last few months? You don’t need to go into the specifics themselves, just confirm whether instances were given or not.
- You say “I have however pushed for greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities.” Again, I understand you can’t go into specifics, but why should transparency, properly understood, ever conflict with the principles of confidentiality?
- ”I have made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community members and used independent judgement.” What does ‘independent judgment’ mean? You mean you consulted other independent parties? Or that you used your own judgment?
Peter Damian (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- this[2] is a very good statement by Doc James, I support him 100%--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you will run again. (Otherwise, boycotting this board and its elections is better than giving them legitimatation through participating in the election). Sargoth (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is just one of many canaries in coalmines. An early sign of problems that should be noticed. In the interactions I have seen you do on articles I have edited, it was always at a very high level of integrity. In an over used expression, it was/is simply professional.
- I believe its just another aspect of Wikipedia that needs to be examined by Wikipedia. There are ample signs, and if all the signs are ignored the patient will get sicker. It is my view, that the processes of Wikipedia that were established and now being gamed by many long time editors. Literally like video game exploits, methods have been learned to push other editors, silence them. I don't know the extent or the facts of your matter, it is likely much different than my experiences to date, but I recognize you as Canary, that should be thriving. I can say that when it comes to the level of you needed to defend yourself from accusations of integrity....its a problem in the entire system. It's something that staff for Wales, or whoever is running the show, need to look at. Processes are failing, items are being gamed, warning signs are being rallied to for support of the actions, rather than examination of what and why its failing. Long way of saying, your obvious integrity is indelible by evidence and action. Mystery Wolff (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Mystery Wolff thank you for your support. I will comment further soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peter Damian with respect to your questions:
- With respect to protecting staff, other board members were having similar conversations.
- I have not been been given specifics regarding justification for my removal. While it has been claimed that I misled staff, whom these concerns came from or what they were specifically is unknown to me.
- Another justification put forth for my removal was my pushing for an open discussion of the long term strategy of the WMF. If some within our movement wish the long term strategy to remain a secret or obscur and do so in the name of confidentiality than yes confidentiality and transparency come into conflict.
- “Independent judgement” means that I used my own judgement.
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Doc. I am still puzzled by the contrast between what you say here, and what Jimmy and others said. Peter Damian (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Peter Damian We all agree that there was a lack of mutual trust. They state there was no specific issue that they based this on. I have provided their accusations and my rebuttal the best I understand them.
- Jimmy states it was with "cause". I guess if "lack of mutual trust" is "cause" sure. Otherwise he may have simply over spoke.
- If when they says they "lacked sufficient confidence in his discretion [and] judgment", they mean they did not have confidence I would agree with them in the future sure. The WMF is now beginning to release some details regarding the issues I pushed them on which is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hellow, Doc James.
Perhaps you can explain it to this user better than me: [3]
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum thanks. I have trimmed the primary sources and move to the causes section User:BallenaBlanca. Still need to verify that the remaining sources still support any of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
The Barnstar of Integrity
|
| You're simply a stand up guy.....keep doing right by Wikipedia...the rest of us are behind you en masse!!!! Moxy (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [fixed typos -- Klortho (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)][reply]
|
- Thank you for your vote of confidence User:Moxy. As I stated to the Signpost "Yes, there are definitely certain aspects that need to be kept confidential, but this should not extend to the overarching strategy at the WMF. In a movement like ours these discussions need to be public."[4] I will do my best to keep doing right by Wikipedia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc James - could you please take care of this minor edit which I have requested? I have written on the Abortion talk page the following:
- Currently the introduction says "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as good as surgery during the first trimester." Surely nobody thinks abortion drugs are "good". Can an editor please use the word "efficient", so: "The drugs mifepristone and prostaglandin are as efficient as surgery during the first trimester."
- I think that they are very good and if I were a young woman with several kids already and working at a minimum wage job in the US where I was getting a salary that hardly even covers child care for the ones I've already got, I'd say that they are very, VERY good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (Which is just a little statement on my part and not to say that the wording may need to be changed. :-)) At any rate, Doc is not in charge of the article and it is best to leave this sort of comment off of his page. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "works as well as" I prefer simpler language. Feel free to copy my comments to where ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Another editor has now suggested "effective", which I think is the best solution.
- Works as well as is even simplier Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doc James,
I want to share that I support you and want to help. Are there ways we as individuals could exert pressure through social media, blogs etc or any other way to help this board see the light of day. Frankly you are the best thing to happen for Wikipedia in terms of medicine, healthcare and research. You have developed a habitable climate and found resources so clinicians and all those with a interest in Health can participate and do this well. Cochrane would not have been able to share involvement had you not cleaned up the process, quality and Wikipedia editorial process. You have greatly increased and garnered respect for Wikipedia with publishers, educational institutions, clinicians, regulators and the public. Medical Wikipedia is sometimes the only resource those in developing nations have access to and you have made this available in multiple ways.
Please do not forget who you are and the incredible path you have paved in the face of this unwelcome and ill advised activity. Remember your greatness because it is within you and will produce again where ever it is planted. Also look after you, there are so many that respect you from a distance and life is a marathon not a sprint. The best solution for those who seize power to promote themselves and bring harm is to out produce them and to maintain your sanity and joy. Make them fight for every inch of ground it is not in any ones best interests that cares about health for you to give up ground.
Best
Amy
AmyEBHC (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks User:AmyEBHC I am indeed a marathon runner and am in this for the long haul. I appreciate your support and believe that as a community we can figure this out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr. Heilman! I am currently still using the older version with the wiki code, and I just finished up with some of the last articles for Cochrane Hypertension. Is the new version much easier to use?
Andrewparkmcdonald (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew McDonald[reply]
- I still like the old one better. I have provided you a link on your talk page to some helpful tools for ref formatting. Thanks for joining us by the way :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've been dabbling a little in Wikipedia and am aware that most of the dental information is really poor. I've edited a few pages but I think the whole thing could do with a makeover of the key pages: dental caries and dental trauma primarily (being a paediatric dentist I suppose I would pick them). I've tidied a few bits in both but what I'd really like to do is get the Dentistry WikiProject going. I'm still trying to find my way around the editing but plan to spend a bit more time on it so wondered if you could give a few words of advice. I've started reading but there's a lot out there.
Thanks,
Nicola Npt1 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We had one very active dentist User:Ian Furst
- There is WP:Dentistry
- The number of editors on Wikipedia however is fair small. We are happy to have allied health people join us at WP:MED aswell and are happy to comment on dental issues. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. I'm going through some of WMEDF's meta documentation. Did JMIR Wiki Medical Reviews go ahead and is it still a thing? If not, may I remove it from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Project_Med#Quality_control_and_peer_review ? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still a thing. You could submit an article to them if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. My next FA. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I asked for Dispute resolution here [5] best regards Jdontfight (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LINK
You clearly said something to somebody that got the majority faction riled enough to sack you. What, exactly or in very general terms, was the nature of the transgression? Also: do you have any thoughts about the connection between the WMF Board of Trustees and Google? "Interlocking directorates" might be overstating it, but are the areas of overlap between Google insider status and WMF Trustee insider status accidental, in your opinion? Is it problematic? Carrite (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey User:Carrite thanks for pointing this out. I will prepare a reply.
- I agree that their was no "specific action" on my part that resulted in my removal. It was however at least partly related to differences in opinion.
- They have not further commented on the claim that I mislead staff. Some staff replied here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doc James,
I had Mohs surgery last month and have added an image I took of my own ear to the article. Please let me know if, in your opinion, there is anything inappropriate about how I have used this image. Thank you.
(On the other matter, my support of you and your advocacy of WMF transparency remains firm.) Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good User:Cullen328 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8.
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
