Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

Case Opened on 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * added January 5, 2008
 * added January 5, 2008
 * added January 5, 2008

Statement by Videmus Omnia
Jim62sch has engaged in off-wiki harassment. The relevant evidence has been e-mailed to the ArbCom mailing list.

Statement by Jim62sch

 * Jim62sch has made several responses to other users, via statement on this case. These can be viewed here.

How long ago was that e-mail sent? I don't recall, but it was quite some time ago (during the period where I missed four-plus months of work due to severe illness, if I recall). It was also labeled private and confidential, and was taken off-wiki to spare VO embarassment. In any case, as a federal employee it is my duty to try to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, and this includes the military. That's not harrassment, that's known as doing one's duty as a civil servant as described by the OGE and ethics regs in the different executive branches. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government and the military have a limited personal use policy regarding PC's. I do not edit from work as doing so is beyond what is allowed by the Department of Treasury's personal use policies, and I'm pretty sure the same is true re the DoD. I will plead guilty to sarcasm though. I am, have been and always will be sarcastic -- I seem to have inherited that trait from my Dad. And that really is what most of the diffs unrelated to VO's charge show -- sarcasm. As for the harassment charge, as I said in the first and second paragraph, I was trying to get VO to stop using government computers to edit Wikipedia, especially as he appeared to be doing so throughout the day, rather than at lunch or break. As I said, it's my duty as a civil servant. (Heck, it's the duty of anyone here who is a US citizen.) Had VO simply responded to the e-mail I'm sure everything would have been ironed out amicably. In any case, I'm sorry that VO took the e-mail as harassment as that was not the goal. Was I mad when I sent the letter? Yes, (in both senses of the word). Could it have been better phrased? Undoubtedly. Was it harassment? No. As I said, I'm sorry that VO took it that way, and that it caused him any mental or emotional discomfort.
 * NOTE, I'll be sending an e-mail to an Arbcom member explaining what my illness was, as that will shed some light on the situation. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: for those who have seen the full-text of the e-mail, you'll note that there were two separate thoughts and that "BTW" is often how I separate unrelated thoughts. The "fun" to which I referred was on-wiki fun as I had every intention of stopping VO from willy-nilly deleting images, often against consensus (as has been shown at several DRV's).  My intent was to do this by following policy to the letter,  policy being where VO and I most strongly disagree.  That I did not follow through and contest every image deletion is simply indicative of a loss of interest in both the apparently unwinnable image-deletion battle and a general disgust at the neverending sniping and failure to undertand copyright law at wikipedia. Note that mentioning copyright law is not a legal threat, as some otters might propose, but a statement of the simple, incontroversial fact that wikipedia does not exist in a void.  More on this lack of a void, and the harassment I and other editors have received over the past two days will be provided at a later date.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Theresa Knott (at ==Evidence presented by Theresa Knott=) confuses an explantion based on law with a "justification" (which of course assumes that a justification is bad). I've already admitted to being sarcastic, and yes, the comment was sarcastic.  Nonetheles, Theresa seems to fail to comprehend that any internet page/site, no matter what its internal policies, is subject to the laws of the country from which it originates (and in many cases, in any county from which it is accessable).  To repeat: Wikipedia is not its own universe and does not exist in a void.  We file a 990. We report pedophila.  We willingly turn our records over to the authorities when a subpoena is provided.  Finis explanationis.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemarlin
As anyone who has read my edits would surmise, I'm a left-wing Jew who might appear to throw rocks at the ROTC building rather than actually attend class there. But I am bound to duty and honor, so let me try to explain this situation:


 * Article 78 of the UCMJ states that any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


 * Article 92 of the UCMJ states that 1) any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation, 2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order (so branch of service is irrelevant)


 * 5 C.F.R. 2635.704 of US Code states that all employees of the Department of Defense have a duty to protect and conserve Government property, and to refrain from using or allowing its use for purposes other than those for which it is made available to the public or those authorized in accordance with law or regulation.


 * This is the specific Air Force regulation on Internet use. It's in caps, because the Air Force does it that way:

4. INTERNET USE. GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC MAIL AND INTERNET SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, ARE FOR OFFICIAL AND AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE WHICH: DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS OF REASONABLE DURATION AND FREQUENCY; SERVES A LEGITIMATE AIR FORCE INTEREST, SUCH AS,ENHANCING PROFESSIONAL OR MILITARY EDUCATION; AND DOES NOT OVERBURDEN THE SYSTEM OR CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE AIR FORCE. A GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIPTION FOR COMMERCIAL INTERNET SERVICES OR FEE-FOR-USE SERVICES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO USING GOVERNMENT OWNED EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS THESE COMMERCIAL SERVICES. ACCESS TO AIR FORCE NETWORK TERMINAL SERVERS FROM HOME WILL BE LIMITED TO OFFICIAL USE.

I do not get the luxury of those of you who are not in uniform to interpret these matters. Article 78 obligates me to report any violations of service regulations or UCMJ to a superior officer. I have done that in the non-Wiki world, and I would do it here again. Article 92 clearly states that anyone who violates a lawful regulation is subject to the UCMJ. No, I do not know the specific circumstances under which VO may or may not be involved. It is irrelevant to me and my obligations, because frankly I don't know. My suspicion, as an Officer, is sufficient. I wouldn't even be required to apologize to VO if I suspected him of this issue, and he ultimately had permission.

Again, despite anecdotal stories about officers whining that their flash plugins aren't working, the real world has specific regulations about the use of government property. As an officer, it is irrelevant to me what others might or might not allow in the military, all I know is that the regulations from the DoD is very specific. If VO had specific permission to do utilize government property to edit Wikipedia, then he should be fine.

But let us remember the key point. I'm not an investigator, so what I don't know, doesn't exist. I didn't know anything about VO until the moment he printed Jim's email. Until that second, he was irrelevant to me. After that second, it became my duty, although I do not know his name, so I haven't done a thing about it. It is not a threat, but a warning. And trust me on this point, if I suspected a problem, I would have privately emailed him my concerns, giving him the benefit of the doubt. But because it was clear he would publish the email and classify it an off-wiki threat, I was going to be blunt AND public. VO was in the wrong, because he failed to maintain a level of privacy on himself, not because I am obligated to report him.

I do not have the luxury of interpreting legal rules that are several pay-grades above my ability to understand. I am not a lawyer, don't pretend to be one, and don't care to be one. I am subject to laws of the United States that are, to the best of my knowledge, not superseded by Wiki-rules. The military doesn't necessarily allow free-thinking.

If you state that I have to make a choice between following your rules and following regulations of the military, I will choose following the regulations of the military, because that is my training. Even though I am on inactive reserve, the Navy could activate me and ruin me for not following regulations. And once I make the choice to follow my duty and obligation, other military individuals will do the same, in effect causing an unintentional censoring of individuals here. Or the interpretation of rules will have created an atmosphere where any editor who identifies themselves as military will get reported anonymously for any suspicion of misdemeanour, without any attempt to give them an opportunity to explain their circumstances. Not a great atmosphere.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

 * Accept and consider on an expedited basis. Evidence or information not suited for publication on-wiki should be e-mailed directly to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I would have no objection to considering the entire matter privately if so desired by other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. --bainer (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept for private consideration. Kirill 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept for private determination. Issues of off-wiki harassment are for obvious reasons unsuited to openness. However I hope we can fully and openly explain the reasons for action (if any) even if the evidence remains confidential. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. The email evidence needs to be submitted privately to ArbCom. Not sure that having this case entirely off wiki is a good idea. We've handled other cases involving private correspondence and harassment on wiki. I think we need to have as much of this case as possible on wiki for transparency. FloNight (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Would prefer to keep as much of this as possible on-wiki, but this may not be totally feasable. --Deskana (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Harassment
1) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Perceived harassment
2) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Threats
3) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Conduct outside Wikipedia
4) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
 * Passed 9 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Raising good-faith concerns
5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Compliance with basic policy
6) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Circumstances
7) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

No legal advice
8) The Arbitration Committee cannot provide legal advice to users.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Conduct on Arbitration pages
9) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Jim62sch
1) During 2007, sent a communication to another user that could reasonably be construed as threatening or harassing. That user was involved in a content and policy dispute with Jim62sch at the time. Based on our review of the communication in question, including its tone, content, and timing, we conclude that it was intended to be taken as threatening or harassing, rather than as a good-faith attempt to alert a fellow editor to a legal or other concern. At a minimum, it was reasonably likely from the face of the communication that the recipient could construe it as a threat.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Subsequent conduct
2) When the matter of Jim62sch's conduct was raised on-wiki, several months after it first took place, Jim62sch made several comments that could reasonably be construed as continuing the harassment. However, he also apologized if his comments were interpreted in that fashion.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Additional factors
3) Jim62sch has advised the Arbitration Committee of certain circumstances that affected him when he sent the initial communication, which he requested be considered in mitigation.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Other editors
4) In recent discussion of this matter, certain editors have made comments that were unnecessarily hostile, strident, and that in some cases could also be construed as harassing or threatening.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Jim62sch instructed
1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Any further harassment, threats, or bullying will result in a block or ban per enforcement provisions of this case.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Editors reminded
2) All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Jim62sch
1) Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Harassment and threats
2) Any uninvolved administrator may address any incident of harassment or threats in accordance with applicable policy. Editors may report such incidents to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for appropriate discussion and follow-up. Where a threat is especially serious or it involves confidential information that should not be discussed on-wiki, the report may be made to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Grave real-world harassment
3) Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Please note that with all actions made relating to the Jim62sch instructed remedy, the Arbitration Committee has specified that they should be notified specifically, in addition to logging the action here.


 * 27 April 2008: See page history of User:Videmus Omnia, from 25 to 27 April 2008, regarding this departure essay posted by User:Videmus Omnia. The resulting edit war and other related edits led to this ANI thread, page protection, an arbitration enforcement thread (closed but not yet archived: permalink), and various sundry talk page threads (some still ongoing). Action from the arbitration enforcement thread was the following notes to User:Videmus Omnia and User:Jim62sch. Arbitration committee notified separately, per above, of two edits presumed to be relevant to the Jim62sch instructed remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)