Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Dispute escalated beyond all sense

 * This is the root of the case, as far as I can tell: . Not a very civil remark but not a blatant attack either.  To have that bit of silliness escalate to ArbCom really is pretty lame, IMO.

Jim2sch and the email

 * The email was sent on September 6, nearly four months ago, and was intended to point out a potential problem. It's not clear, per policy, what other route Jim should have taken to bring the AUP issue to VO's attention.  Probably he should simply not have done it, but my past experience shows that Jim is a pretty straight up-and-down kind of guy and he probably felt obliged to point out something he knows is almost certainly not permitted by a Government employer.  No evidence has been presented of any comparable incidents, so this is not a serious, repeated or persistent issue with this user, just a single email that maybe got misinterpreted.
 * Jim2sch apologised for the offence caused, and explained (at least tried to) why he sent the email; this explanation appears to have been interpreted as truculence rather than simply taken at face value.
 * Jim62sch recognised that his attempts to explain were not productive

Videmus Omnia was in dispute with Jim62sch
Videmus Omnia (VO) appears to have a long-standing dispute with Jim62sch. VO's actions in bringing this from a complaint of minor incivility to an ArbCom case are perplexing to me:


 * I am struggling to find a charitable interpretation of this, note the personal comments about
 * is far from civil and indicates an ongoing dispute, one which I think may be more significant in VO's mind than in those against whom VO is protesting, speaking for myself anyway.
 * This was unhelpful at best.
 * This looks like a calculated attempt to escalate a dispute; the accusation is a non-sequitur of no obvious relevance to the debate at hand; were this a diff on Wikipedia it would be dismissed as hopelessly stale and unactionable.
 * This is just wildly inappropriate.  Extortion is a felony, guys, we do not accuse each other of felonies without really good evidence!

Overall VO gave a strong impression, which I really hope is wrong, of a vendetta against those promoting the scientific rationalist perspective in intelligent design related articles. I'm sure VO can explain this, because pursuing a vendetta like that would be wrong on so many levels.

No attempts at resolution
In as much as this is clearly a dispute dating back to early September if not before, it is not clear to me which other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. The case request at WP:RFAR contained no evidence of such, only a complaint of serious harassment which, if it really is only one email, does not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps there are others that ArbCom have and we have not seen.

The wrong end of the WP:STICK
I reckon that the two parties have grabbed the wrong ends of a stick and shaken vigorously. Incidentally, if VO is adamant that the computer use was within policy, how was this a threat to his livelihood? Seems to want it both ways, not that it matters much.

Wbfergus
Wbfergus is missing several points at once. Large organisations are more authoritarian than small ones, Government agencies more authoritarian still, and it's not easy to see when a user has been speeding or using the wrong screensaver, whereas it is easy to see when they have an active edit activity pattern that clearly overlaps the working day. Citations to the UCMJ have been provided which substantiate the statements made. I personally think that Orangemarlin should and Jim probably does consider the point made; if VO chooses to violate the AUP of her employer, and let us know who the employer is, and the employer is shared by others, and the others know that (a) the policy is violated and (b) they can be disciplined for failing to report this, clearly "do nothing" may not be an option. Let's see what the Arbitrators make of it.

Point of information
I believe Jim has very recently broken his dominant wrist, he may be slow to respond. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is less about the original email than the attempt to justify it on Wiki
The email is bad enough, asking a question like this is bound to cause alarm and distress, but the attempts to justify the sending of such an email made matters much worse.


 * here Jim62sch repeats the harrassment.

He states that at the time he sent the original email he was suffering from illness but he is not claiming to be ill at the moment.


 * and again It seems that he expected Videmus Omnia to have to answer to him for editing Wikipedia. It "irks" him to see poeple editing Wikipedia on what he supposed must be goverment computers.

At this point I chime in to say that it harassment and he must stop. His reply is ... Wikipedia is not its own universe.... ." But in my opinion at least Wikipedia is in it's own universe when it comes to this sort of thing. Editors should have the right to edit here without fear of somone reporting their editing to an employer.

Meanwhile Orangemarlin pipes up:
 * with an abusive quip Note that it is direct reply to another user who states that such behaviour is unacceptable.
 * and again

At this point User:MastCell tries to gently suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for such threats. 


 * and Orangemarlin repeats the threat even more enthusiatically on Mastcell's talk page.

Seeing this reply and noting the sheer number of times the threat has been repeated I leave a rather terse message on OrangeMarlins talk page Orange chooses to initially respond by slapping a NPA warning on my talk page but Jim62sch chooses to reply on OM's talk page for him (which is interesting)

At this point there followed a very long discussion on OM's talk page. I'm not going to post all the diffs here because it's easier to simply go an read the page. here the relavent sections are Contacting people's employers in real life and both sections below. My apologies for it being so long.

Response to JzG's point of information
I am pleased to see that his wrist isn't as bad as was first feared. He has been editing as usual today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Filll's Addendum II
It is not against the rules of wikipedia to post personal information about oneself on ones userpage. It is against wikipedia's civility and harrassment rules to send a threatening email. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This case resolves on ambiguity in No legal threats
The core of this matter is whether informing someone that they may be breaking the law (or UCMJ, a military subcategory thereof) and that they may be reported for doing so constitutes a legal threat.

Legal obligations
All societies encourage people to report criminal conduct to legal authorities. Some require reporting of some conduct, making failure to report certain crimes itself a crime (Misprision of felony) illegal.

Reasonable reporting
We already accept some reporting - there is no doubt that community consensus supports reporting of criminal violations such as credible death threats and child pornography.

Additionally, while it is "merely" an essay, WP:SUICIDE seems to have reached a functioning level of informal guideline within the experienced / admin communities, and it explicitly recommends reporting suicide threats.

All of these could potentially be seen as violating a strict interpretation of WP:NLT but are widely accepted.

On-wiki vs Off-wiki
In this specific case it is my understanding that the actual email made was sent directly to the editor in question, not on-wiki. WP:NLT is already slightly ambiguous about on versus off wiki threats (it says specifically " You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. "), though it does imply that merely making off-wiki contact is enough to trigger WP:NLT.

Criminal vs Civil legal threats
There is a significant difference between legal threats, depending on the asserted nature of the underlying threat - criminal violation versus civil law. The "typical" on-wiki legal threat is a threat to sue for perceived libel, which is a private tort between individuals. Criminal or administrative violations are issues between individuals and government or society as a whole.

Incivility
2 of the 3 rationales given for WP:NLT are " chilling effects " and " creates bad feelings ", which are significant civility issues for Wikipedia. These will arguably apply to any sort of legal threat, and based on peoples reactions in this case obviously do have traction.

Administrative powers and uninvolved admins
Within Wikipedia, we expect that users applying (for example) administrative tools to disputes do so in a fair and unbiased manner, and avoid abusing users they are in disputes with by use of admin tools. Some of these actions that Admins take have chilling effects and create bad feelings - we know that, and have set expectations that admins are to attempt to minimize those, but we accept that they happen. The community has judged that in some problem cases, chilling effects and bad feelings held by a few are less damage to the project as a whole than the underlying behavior.

Proportionate actions
As a general rule, we ask that admins responses be proportionate. This applies anywhere that policy leaves us implementation or decision judgement.

WP:NLT should be sharpened a bit
The policy should be focused a bit to avoid these ambiguities, hopefully in a manner which is consistent with other related policies and community standards within Wikipedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia made the case fully public before Jim62sch responded
Some editors seem to have the impression that Jim62sch introduced harassment at the AN/I. In fact, Videmus Omnia brought the issue up in a sudden change of subject of the AN/I at 20:16, 31 December 2007, with the statement that he had "been the victim of Jim62sch's off-wiki harassment techniques in the past; this is something that has even been called to Jimbo's attention. I'm willing to provide the evidence by e-mail to any established user that asks.

At 20:40 Videmus Omnia amended his post with the summary Jimbo promised a block of Jim62sch, but it didn't happen unfortunately, then between 20:49 and 21:34 he amended "block" to "ban" and made the detail of the case fully public with the statement that "Jim threatened to contact my employer on a suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network." I understand that at this stage Videmus Omnia's USAF rank, unit and base was clearly shown on his user page. Videmus Omnia stated at 21:59 that he had forwarded the evidence to the ArbCom mailing list, and expanded this comment at 23:29.

It was only at 23:35 that Jim62sch responded to this unexpected disclosure, stating his understanding that as a federal employee his duty was to try to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government including the military, as described by the OGE, and referring to federal government and the military having a limited personal use policy regarding PC's. At 23:44 Videmus Omnia responded, suggesting this was blackmail, and at 23:58 stated that he only edited while off-duty, and had double-checked to make sure that he was in the clear. Videmus Omnia's user page was deleted shortly afterwards, at 00:21 on 1 January he made it into a redirect to his talk page, and at 01:36 he stated at AN/I that he had opened this RfAr.

Thus, between 20:16 and 21:34, 31 December 2007, Videmus Omnia made it public that a question had been raised about his editing Wikipedia from his employer's network, his position and place of employment was publicly shown on his talk page, and the full record of the timing and dates of all his contributions remains open to public inspection. From his statement of 23:58 he has a full and proper answer to the question, but now anyone legally obliged to question such usage has been made aware of the facts, and Jim62sch may have to face questions as to why he did not report the issue earlier. . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good faith should be assumed
As stated above, the issue was originally presented as harassment, and when Jim62sch responded, indicating his understanding of his legal duty, Videmus Omnia suggested the response was blackmail. This may have coloured the views of readers, and led them to read between the lines rather than examining the statements with an open mind. I have no expertise in U.S. legal requirements for its employees, but perhaps a parallel from my own experience will help. If someone notices loose scaffolding they have the option of reporting it somewhere out of civic duty but have no real obligation. If I am on site I am required to use my knowledge with due diligence on seeing scaffolding, and if there are any obvious defects I must give the contractor written notice that he is to stop all other use of the scaffolding and have it made good, and certificated as safe. This may cause a delay, upsetting my employer, it might upset my good relations with the contractor, or if we're already in dispute he might take it as harassment. That is of no relevance. If someone dies in an accident I would be defending myself in a court case of manslaughter. Legal obligations can commonly take precedence over social rules. .. dave souza, talk 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Videmus Omina used private information to get rid of a fellow Wikipedian in a Wikipedia dispute
Intelligent design articles have been subject to repeated and continuing attacks, generally from creationists. When the main article was put up for FA, a request was made that images should be added. The most relevant images are book covers, and this introduced a new dispute, as to whether images well justifiable under fair use law contravened a new interpretation of image use policy. My recollection is that Videmus Omina was rigid and aggressive in opposing use of the images. He has been a prolific editor, and the date and time of every edit is public. Unless the information was added later, his user page showed his first name, rank, unit, base and the city at which the base is located. This information was sufficient to arouse reasonable suspicion that he was editing during duty hours, though of course such use might well be authorised.

Jim62sch was suffering at the time from illness which affected his judgement, and sent Videmus Omina a private email which, as well as expressing willingness to continue the on-wiki argument, asked about the policy regarding use of USAF computers or network. The wording is poor, and it can certainly be regarded as snarky in telling Videmus Omina of his obvious indiscretion, but there is no threat or hint of blackmail. Consistent with this interpretation, Jim62sch kept the matter private and took it no further, though I do not recall Videmus Omina conceding the argument in any way.

We now know that what Videmus Omina did do was to take the information to Jimbo in an effort to get rid of Jim62sch through an immediate ban. When this appeared to have no effect and an unrelated AN/I was raised on the civility of Jim62sch on a pseudoscience related article, Videmus Omina chose to make the whole affair public and quickly escalate it to RfAr to achieve the ban.

Videmus Omina published Jim62sch's private information
In focussing more on behaviour, we should not ignore the significant point that Videmus Omina published private information including Jim62sch's email address. This was a clear breach of Wikipedia rules, and while it may well have been a one off in the heat of the moment, the same can be said of the primary accusation against Jim .. dave souza, talk 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The military require reasonable suspicion, not proof
A. B. has stated that – Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch  includes he "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." That information about use timing was readily available from the User contributions link on Videmus Omnia's user page, which also showed his first name, rank, unit, base and the name of the city where the base is located. It's a judgement call as to whether that was enough to arouse reasonable suspicion, but Jim62sch obviously felt it was, and still feels it is, in good faith.

A.B. says "If a Wikipedia reports these allegations to military authorities, the resulting criminal investigation of such a non-crime might nevertheless end VO's long career as a senior NCO." A question was raised in private about USAF use policy, but no allegations were made. Videmus Omnia made public his assertion that the question inferred a "suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network", published the private email, and stated that "I've only edited while off-duty. I even double-checked following Jim62sch's earlier spurious allegation to make sure." If any readers are U.S. military personnel who hold the same understanding of the rules and regulations as Jim62sch, they are duty bound to examine the contributions record and decide whether that constitutes reasonable suspicion sufficient to require them to make such a report. Such readers need not be "Wikipedia", these pages where Videmus Omnia made the allegations public can be read by anyone. .. . dave souza, talk 14:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to A.B.'s response – Thanks, the point's well taken about good faith and I'm glad to accept VO's statement that there is no problem. The matter could readily have been cleared up earlier by the same information in answer to the question. If any readers do raise an official query with the CO, there should presumably be no difficulty in making that official. Sorry about the typo, do it myself and I knew what you meant – is there really any difference between "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedians"? :) . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Fut.Perf
Despite being ill and on medication that impaired his judgement, Jim noticed from information available to all at VO'S user page that VO as a self proclaimed USAF sergeant was editing at all sorts of hours over an extended period, and asked in a private email what the relevant policy was on PC and LAN use. As VO has stated, VO was completely innocent of wrong doing and was only editing when he was off-duty, and therefore should have had no difficulty in replying to that effect, or at the least informing his CO that the enquiry had been made so that his CO was fully prepared to dismiss any report that might arise. Instead VO evidently took it as a "threat to his livelihood". I'm puzzled. ... dave souza, talk 10:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Background to the dispute, discrepancy in time of opening RfAr

 * 1) On 27 July 2007, Raul654 asked that images be added to the intelligent design article, and there was detailed discussion about complying with fair use policy, and attempts to find free licensed images, but the most appropriate images were book covers of books central to the issue.
 * 00:03, 19 August, Abu badali began removing images with the edit summary (this non-free image is not necessary for the understanding of the topic), but no discussion on the talk page. After a period of edit warring, User:Kenosis gave Abu a 3RR warning and reported the issue on the talk page.
 * 1) By 22 August deletion debates at more that 8 locations were in progress, and at 16:46 VO gave an assurance that he didn't object to fair use in principle.
 * 01:30, 1 September 2007, VO with the comment (done with image patrolling - !nosine!) added to his user talk page the tag "Stop: Are you here to ask about a fair use issue? Be advised that I'm no longer participating in that aspect of the project due to constant personal attacks and incivility."
 * 23:10, 4 September, there was discussion on the ID talk page about the legitmacy of an IfD closure with restrictions, "The non-free book cover tag allows the image only to be used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Other then mentioning the books, there is no discussion. The books do not qualify for use in this article. -Nv8200p talk 00:35, 5 September" This was contested.
 * 03:09, 6 September 2007, RfAr on Non-free media at Intelligent design was Initiated by Videmus Omnia Talk at 01:19, 6 September 2007 – I have no explanation for this discrepancy, is this normal? The RfAr cited 14 parties, and VO's statement mixes a question about where consensus counts with reports of incivility.
 * 03:22, Jim62sch was notified of the RfAr.
 * 1) The email as shown by VO is dated Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:24 AM., unclear, but this could well mean 06:24 (UTC).
 * 11:37, Flonight rejected the case, 12:42 James F. said "Either way, I don't think that Arbitration is really the best place for this"
 * 15:33, VO added "Clarification - I should have been more clear that I am not asking the ArbCom to rule on the acceptability of this particular non-free content usage, but rather to hear arguments on the processes and actions taken in this case, which is typical of many other intractible disputes over implementation of WP:NFCC"
 * 18:33 Matthew Brown (Morven) "Reject, for now". (all above as shown in Revision as of 00:39,)
 * 01:20, 7 September 2007, VO removed allegations of incivility by Jim62sch.
 * 02:13, 7 September, VO edited the banner on his user talk page with the summary (off-wiki threats), adding "off-wiki threats against my livelihood, as well" to the other reasons for his earlier withdrawal from image patrolling.
 * 03:16 VO removed Jim from the list of parties.
 * 03:18 VO removed allegations of incivility by Jim62sch, with the comment (statement removed due to possible off-wiki consequences)
 * 15:40, 7 September 2007, VO (withdrawing request), note that no votes had been cast to accept the case.

Comment added. dave souza, talk 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC), timeline revised and comment removed in the light of new evidence .. dave souza, talk 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of background, scenario based on timeline
There appears to have been a widespread presumption that when Jim was notified by Videmus Omnia of the RfAr on Non-free media at Intelligent design, he responded by email harassment in an attempt to blackmail VO into dropping the case. This is completely out of character for Jim. Contrary to the assertions at below, in my experience Jim and Orangemarlin have too often been rather uncivil, and sometimes a bit rude, but it's always been cheeky rather than abusive, and they've always taken care to stop short of personal attacks. The regulars at image deletion similarly back each other up in demanding that their subjective views override local consensus, and there was an obvious clash of cultures. It's notable that in the RfAr Videmus Omnia singled Jim out as "A particularly egregious offender", citing offensive nickname and "excuse me, your highness, who the hell are you?", both of which to me show cheeky insubordination but are hardly harassment or personal attacks.

As shown at HappyCouple 2 and, the regulars at intelligent design are used to watching each other's pages and have large watchlists. An example already cited below shows insubordination and humour, but to me stops well short of harassment. Jim's email was obviously a stupid error, but then. It's clever in that reminding VO of computer use policy fulfilled Jim's workplace obligations and took VO down a peg in a typical piece of insubordination, but stupid in that it immediately gave VO a dangerous piece of ammunition. It's out of character for Jim to intend to report VO and cause him harm, but VO took it that way, and appears to have missed the hint to stop displaying personal information while editing for such unusual hours.

When Videmus Omnia submitted the RfAr, he included off-topic claims about Jim's behaviour (which had not gone through the normal dispute resolution process). The time at which Jim's email was sent is beyond my technical abilities to confirm, and should be determined by someone with expertise. The RfAr had no support, and VO amended the RfAr to remove the claims about Jim with edit summaries complaining about "off-wiki threats against my livelihood" and apparently took the matter to Jimbo. When that produced no results and four months later he noticed the current RfAr, he made the whole affair public in an effort to get Jim banned. I make no claims to be a mind reader, but it does fit the facts. . . . dave souza, talk 10:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC), amended per talk .. dave souza, talk 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to A.B.
Your description of the "off-duty" pattern of flight crew does indicate a probable explanation. The editing pattern certainly looks odd enough to have aroused Jim's reasonable suspicion, but to VO it would have seemed normal. The image deletionists appear to have had vocal opposition from many sources, and after the row over whether local consensus on subjective aspects of fair use policy should be overridden by the specialists at multiple venues of their choosing was under way, VO withdrew from image patrolling "due to constant personal attacks and incivility", while continuing to take part in that in that argument. He was obviously annoyed by Jim's cheeky insubordination, and primed to react strongly to the perceived threat. This strongly suggests mutual misunderstanding rather than bad faith. When VO brought up this apparently dead issue up at the AN/I, he exposed the whole thing to public examination and made repeated accusations of criminal activity against Jim and OM. Their subsequent responses were trying to explain that if VO's revelations aroused reasonable suspicions and his identity were known, they would have legal obligations. The whole thing is rife with mutual misunderstandings, escalated by old accusations representing arguable incivility as harassment or bullying. Perhaps that's the next aspect that needs careful examination. .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by wbfergus
First, let me reiterate my point from the original page. I am an uninvolved party in this particular dispute, but I think it should be pointed out that there is a pattern of behaviour in other areas of Wikipedia as well, besides just this dispute. First, I never removed this page from my watchlist after the COgden RfARB, which is the only reason this caught my attention.

'Abrasive' behaviour and 'Tag-team' harrassment
Jim62sch and others have a habit of supporting each other and vigorously harrassing others. A simple case in point is the following. During a series of 'discussions' on the NOR talk page, Badgerpatrol came by and left some comments. The name seemed familar, so I went to his talk page to see what kind of editor he is. I noticed the following excahnge from OrangeMarlin, thought it was a tad out of line, considering various Wikipedia policies, and left OrangeMarlin a note (see NOR section at bottom of page). This was followed by Orangemarlin's response on my talk page here. As you can see, without any exchanges between Jim62sch and myself, and with no comments or replies on Orangemarlin's talk page, Jim62sch comes out of the blue to harass me along with Orangemarlin.

At the time, I then checked a few other people's talk pages (mainly participants from the NOR discussions), and I thought I saw similar excahnges there as well, though I haven't attempted to research that aspect for this statement. It is interesting to note though that when one of the 'group' becomes involved in a 'discussion', others in the same 'group' usually show up soon after with the same 'attitude'. Viewing the comments here, on the archived NOR talk pages, and the above mentioned AN/I thread easily shows the same 'group of self-supporters', without even going into the other pages where these editors have been involved in other 'discussions' (like ). Many of them (though in all fairness, not all of them), seem to exhibit similar behaviour, though not as extreme as this case filing is about.

I also must admit that on the NOR talk page, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch and others were originally very 'rude' to say it politely (search for Jim62sch to see context of comments), but after a series of final exchanges there  (again, search for Jim62sch to see context), things settled down, became more civil, and Jim62sch actually did begin to participate in the discussions constructively.

Supposed misuse of government equipment
It seems the whole crux of Jim62sch and Orangemarlin's position is that they are somehow 'duty bound' (or otherwise obligated) to report this. I guess in order to substantiate this, then they should both be able to easily provide a ream of evidence of others that they have reported, speeders, drunk drivers, careless drivers, others in their office with a picture of a family member as their screen-saver, other office members who made a copy of a personal document for their own use on a government copier, others who used the office fax machine to send a personal document to like a mortgage company or something, people in their office who make or recieve personal phone calls during regular office hours, etc. This argument is about as bogus as anything I've heard.

Regarding Jim62sch's statement that even if VO did edit during his off-time, he impaired the network traffic of others in his organization is laughable. If he was downloading videos or something along those lines, then maybe there's a slight chance that his 25MB download might impair a few people for a few minutes, but simply editing Wikipedia, which is 'stateless' until the "Save" button is pressed, or a page is requested, isn't going to adversely impact anybody on his network.

As somebody else stated on the original filing page, in order to determine if VO actually did misuse a government computer is way beyond the capabilities of the ArbCom members. Due to the very nature of service member's work, a day by day comparison of VO's edits would need to be made against any official duty logs from his unit. Not all service members work a straight 8-5 job. They get days off for working the night before, they may be on shifts, in between breaks for guard duty, etc.

Anyway, unless VO's user page explictily stated that he actively edits during normal work hours, the mere mention of something like "Oh, BTW, does your employer know that you may be misusing government equipment, as a fellow government employee I feel duty bound to report such potential misuse." is way out of line without any proof. By the same sort of reckoning, since Jim62sch is a government employee, does that mean any daytime edits means we can report him to his employer, since there's a 'chance' that it would be done from a work computer? Do we then automatically extend this to all Wikipedia editors, requiring that everybody list not only there employer, but their normal work hours? wbfergus undefinedTalk 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jim62sch's statement below
Jim, when my son was in the military over in Iraq, they had a few common computers they could share. They had no restrictions on what they could access or download, as long as it did not violate U.S. laws, military regs on appropriate use (i.e., no porn, illegal movie or music downloads, etc). or Iraqi laws (primarily porn). They could access YouTube, start videoconferences with friends and family, or simply surf the net. Editing Wikipedia consumes no more bandwidth than surfing the net, and it doesn't take any space on your local hard drive, unless for some strange reason somebody wants to save a page, instead of just bookmarking it. YouTude and the videconferencing did consume lots of bandwidth (far more than simply surfing the web or editing Wikipedia do), yet that was still allowed.

I also work for a civilian government agency. I have extremely flexible hours and work arrangements. Around half the time, I work from home (officially). Unofficially, I work from home about 3/4ths of my time, as I work far more hours from home than I do in the office. When I'm in the office, I also get interrupted all the time with questions and problems, which I don't have happen here at home. When I work from home, I also can access my work network via VPN, effectively letting my home PC become part of my agencies network. Through this, I can also establish a remote desktop connection to several different computers in my agencies network, and effectively make my PC a remote terminal. An awful lot of my work involves some long-running processes. So, when I am home, when one of those processes is running (sometimes 3-4 hours long), I don't just sit here and watch the screen, I find other things to do. I'll read some of the documentation for what I'm doing, or write some documentation for what I'm doing, or start a few other process on other machines, etc. Sometimes I even forget to log off the VPN when I'm done for the day, so I still effectively have a government IP address, and get here on Wikipedia.

Now, my supervisor has admonished me (grinningly) numerous times about the various laws that state that I can only work a 40 hour week without explicit approval for overtime. However, he also acknowledges that I typically work around 90 hours or more per week and not claim any of it as payable. I simply do it because it needs to get done, and I can easily do it from home, but not if I was in the office (my wife would kill me spending that much time there). If I didn't do the work, I would be several years behind in what I'm doing, since I'm the only one doing it (FTE cutbacks). So, am I violating the law? Maybe. If it was reported to my supervisors, what would happen? Maybe I would get larger yearly bonuses than I have been getting, since then more supervisors would know besides the 6 or 7 already. If cahrges were brought, would I be convicted? Absolutely no way.

Regarding our office computers, they are basically the same as your home PC. The people can store stuff on their local machine or they can store in on the LAN. They can surf just about anywhere they want from work, except of course porn, gambling, and other inappropriate sites. Most of the people in my office spend most of the year surfing sites and gathering information which they then recompile, analyze, and then report on. Sometimes they go to sites where they can comment on something or ask questions (extremely similar to Wikipedia). That is their job. I realize it's different where you work (I tend to remember something like the IRS?). That's quite a bit different from my agency, as we don't have people's identification, financial information or anything like that, so our security isn't as stringent as yours.

I don't have anything against you, but quite often your 'comments' on here can be easily 'misconstrued', especially once you and Orange begin badgering someone. It would be a shame to lose you or Orange as constructive editors, but it also seems like at times the two of you have a tendency to get carried away, as this case shows. Orange's comments on the talk page here aren't exactly helping your case either, as they show the abrasiveness that most people find 'disruptive' at best.

Regarding Jim62sch's statement below (Addendum)
I don't think this is really pertinent here, but since it's related to your additional post below, I didn't want to continue this on your talk page where I think it would be more appropriate.

If you are as good at your IT duties as you seem to be at your general editing here, please do apply for a job at our agency (USGS, or other DOI agencies). With few exceptions (HR, financial, etc.), most of our agency is scientific, and is very different from yours, where you deal almost exclusively with people's personal and financial information. I would be very surprised and extremely upset if your agency's security practices were any less than you described. I am however surprised that your agency allows work at home. I could see allowing work from a tele-commuting center, where all PC's could be monitored for current patches, virus defs, etc., considering the type of the data you have, but working from home with 'uncontrolled' PC's seems to be stretching it quite a bit for what information would become available through a security breach. In our agency, a hacker could access data about some rock formations and their age, etc. In yours, they get access to people's addesses, SSN's, bank accounts, etc. Quite a bit of difference.

It's my understanding the military acknowledges these types of differences as well, and has a 'secure' network for all senstive data and a 'not so secure' network ("and never the twain shall meet"), for the regular day to day type stuff many military members regularly do, and allowing for the personal use of their members under appropriate circumstances (again, no porn or other potentially criminally oriented sites, etc.). wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal of wbfergus
Government systems are not sized the way private systems are. In fact, my agency has general repositories on the main server for each large installation. These "common servers" allow each user to save files to this repository (limited to the respository for that installation only). Due to server overload, the total size of these files is limited 500 Mb, and people are being required to delete loads of files in order that no one exceed 500 Mb (yes, megabyte, you read that correctly). In addition, substantial internet and e-mail traffic bogs down these servers with just official use. Non-official use merely exacerbates the problem. (BTW, this is why people must request internet access and must provide a business justification before the request will be approved). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional
Wb, can I get as job with your agency? Seriously, what you have described would never I repeat never happen in my agency. We cannot even attach personal cameras to our computers in order to upload pictures. Hell, we can't upload pictures, period. Forget about mapping to a home PC, that would get you fired. Bottom line is that a vast majority of our info is hyper-protected so that no unauthorised access or disclosure of sensitive data from the hundreds of millions of accounts we are responsible for can occur.

In fact, our security folks are so hyper that Active-X controls are disabled. Also, saving one's data to a server is limited to 500 Mb (yes, Mb) per person. Period. And that's a total per person.

BTW, we also have work at home employees, but there is a disk encryption to get through first, then two-factor authentication to get to the login screen, then you can login. We're quite secure, and I had thought all agencies were this secure. I guess not. Worries me a bit, though. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re evidence provided by Swatjester
Swatjester -- thank you for taking the time to finally get us an answer. However, I really have to wonder why VO could not simply have told me that. Quite honestly, the military rules are less restrictive than those in my agency. That surprises me, but hey, you learn something new everyday. :)

Of course, the key to the response lies in "browsing the internet" and "not 'excessive'" (I wonder how "excessive is desfined?). Anyway, there's a pretty big gulf between browsing and using the internet to edit web sites (or order products, or answer surveys or the like -- no, I'm not suggesting/implying/inferring that VO did either of the latter two things, so don't put words in my typing, folks). I know for a fact that editing wikipedia (or any other data transfer) uses more bandwidth than merely browsing the internet (as an IT Specialist, I should know that).  So, I suppose much lies on whether "browsing" is to be taken literally.  BTW: I an not Wikilawyering so please don't accuse me of doing so.  Asking a question based on logic &ne; wikilawyering.

Anyway, thanks again, Swatjester -- I just wish VO would have provided the info himself. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Question From AB
By looking at his editing history. It was nonstop 18 hours per day. Pretty easy to figure that he was doing so. In addition, he later admitted that he had been using his military computer, but had permission. Or, he might not have. His reply was more ambiguous than I thought.

I hope this answers your question and the one I posed to VO. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW
BTW, I'm not going to explain my use of BTW again, nor am I going to explain that no one can determine intent, especially when it's based on one e-mail. Which brings up ... &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Harassment
Maybe I really am crazy (with 6 kids, it's a distinct possibility), but my understanding of harassment is that it's a repetitive behaviour. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Finis pro tempore
Given that VO has not edited since 00:15, 1 January 2008, and given that this RfAr seems to be being carried out by proxy, I shan't post anything else until VO returns. Thank you. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to wbfergus regarding tag-teaming
Jim62sch and I are interested in mostly the same articles. As I do with a HUGE number of editors, I look at their contributions, and jump if I am interested. Whether you consider my comments as lacking civility or not, I'm not at all concerned. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe it is fair to make a subjective evaluation of what is or is not civil to the detriment of free speech. The NOR discussions were contentious, as you are aware. I do believe that the motives to change the policy were inappropriate. As you said, Jim and you (yes, both of you) settled down.

Rebuttal to wbfergus regarding Misuse of government equipment
Your statement regarding "supposed" misuse of government equipment is confusing at best. I am not duty-bound by law to do anything about a drunk driver. I am not duty-bound by law to reprimand someone from using the phone for personal use (although it is expressly forbidden in my company, which I own and run). Where your argument fails is in your lack of understanding of the military chain of command and those inherent obligations. I am not in a position to judge whether VO had explicit permission to be on Wikipedia editing to his heart's content. My duty is not to give good faith to anyone in the military that I observe doing something that is expressly not allowed by law. My duty, trained into my brain, is to report it, and let the officer in command deal with it. I am subject to the UCMJ if I observe activities that are not allowed. But if I knew the name of VO, nothing you say here would prevent me from reporting him to his superior officer. That is is my moral, ethical and legal duty and obligation as an officer of the United States Navy. That is not a threat, that is not negotiable, and that is not a complaint. It is simply what it is.

I am not going to engage in a discussion of when he did and when did not edit, whether his commander allowed it or not, or whether in fact he is violating a specific or general regulation. I am not allowed by my duty as an officer to make those judgment calls. If I observe what may be unapproved activity (misappropriation of government property), I report it to the superior officer. Not doing so, subjects me to arrest. Your analogies are perfectly adequate in the civilian world. They are not so here.

And you're right, it is not the responsibility of the ArbCom, wbfergus or Wikipedia to determine what is my LEGAL obligation. I appreciate your input, but it's irrelevant. I don't do it, and VO is specifically prohibited from using the internet, then I'm as culpable as he is. The military chain of command is not like Microsoft. It is an authoritarian command and control environment. Bringing your 1990's management philosophy to this argument is not logical.

Response to A.B.
You are correct, the UCMJ does not discuss the internet. As I mentioned to someone in an email, the UCMJ is essentially a code of criminal procedure. If a soldier or sailor disobeys a regulation, then he or she is subject to one of many articles of the UCMJ, which outlines how a soldier or sailor must be treated in a court of law, how the court is set up, etc. etc. Using or not using government property is established by regulation or orders of someone above the soldier or sailor in a chain of command.

You are also correct that I do not know for sure if VO has broken any regulation or direct order. However, I am specifically obligated by law to report him if I suspect that is so. A court, a superior officer, an MP, someone else can sort it out. If I were wrong, I'm an officer (well a reserve one at least), and I probably would be commended for mentioning, knowing the convoluted methods of the military. Probably get promoted too. The worse situation is that I do not act on my suspicions and VO is misappropriating government property. Then I'm pretty much in trouble.

Yes, the US Navy allows use of computers for personal use. Those are very select computers for very specific things (usually emails and video uploads). They contain no secure information. So you are partially correct. And do not expect that the US Navy will allow a sailor to bring his Xbox360 and play Halo over the internet onboard ship. :)

Further comments. It's interesting, as almost everyone has done to me in this "discussion", that pieces of information have been taken out of context. I read the thread with the foundation lawyer (I think his name is Mike Chad), and frankly, he supports my POV on this matter. The key point is that I don't get the luxury of the Wikipedia Democracy. I don't know what orders were given by VO's company commander. I do not know what orders are given in general to the USAF and to his Wing specifically. But what I understand that in all 5 branches of the United States Military, there are specific regulations that prohibit the personal use of computers except under very specific conditions. Yes Swatjester has pointed out that he has a few friends that deliberately disobey those orders. Most officers I know do not under any condition. And yes, there might be a junior officer somewhere whining because his flash plugin isn't working right. But if that officer was under my command, and I found out about it, I'd have him swabbing the hospital deck for the next year.

Oh, one last thing. Small problems matter in the military because it's so competitive. I don't care much anymore, because I won't be back in Navy Uniform unless I lost 30lbs and someone knocks off about 5000 Navy physicians. But if I were an active officer, and this BS we're discussing came to light, and I was reprimanded because I didn't jump on it, I'd never be promoted. I once yelled at an Admiral for smoking after heart surgery. I didn't get promoted in the next round because of it (yeah, I know, civility and all).

You want Wikipedia to be some utopia that supersedes the laws of our pathetic country. Well, I wish that it could, but it doesn't. Philosophically speaking, you all are right. Practically, I'm stuck. But this has been a really fun conversation with all of you. Bet you never though this would happen.

Oh by the way, might I remind all of you, this wouldn't be 0.1% the issue it currently is, if VO hadn't made the HUGE mistake of revealing a private email. Don't blame me for his problems.

Further response to AB
I had no proof, didn't know, didn't care and didn't ask until VO published Jim's email. I believe in that discussion, VO stated he had a superiors' permission to use the system to edit Wikipedia, which implied he was using Government Property. I have no further proof other than his own admission (and I do not accept at face value he actually had permission, since AGF is not a military concept that is familiar to me). You'll have to ask Jim how he figured it out.

Let me be blunt here. If I had known that VO was military, editing here, etc., I would have sent a private email saying that for his own well-being make sure to have a superior officer's permission to use it in the way he was. If he was wondering what authority I had, I might have sent him an email from my professional email address, so he knew I wasn't some anonymous troll. But knowing how he treats private emails, I'm glad I didn't, because he would have ratted me out publicly.

This is my humble opinion. People really should keep a high level of anonymity here. VO should have kept his identity private. He apparently had his name, pictures of him and his family, his duty station, everything on his user page up until 3 days ago. I would never find out what a person does on here. Maybe one of you is a flag officer. I'm glad I don't know. VO erred, and he's trying to place blame on others. I personally don't get it.

There's no indication VO even used a government computer
VO is in the American military. Somehow that has been interpreted to mean that he therefore is editing from government computers. No checkuser has been done to my knowledge. Why are we assuming he must therefore be abusing his service's equipment? If a Wikipedia reports these allegations to military authorities, the resulting criminal investigation of such a non-crime might nevertheless end VO's long career as a senior NCO. Why do such a thing without any probable cause to believe a crime has occurred?

So far neither of the parties insinuating criminal behaviour have addressed this very basic point in discussions here and elswhere. -- A. B. (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also worthy of note:
 * User talk:Swatjester
 * -- A. B. (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See also the extensive discussion on the foundation-l mailing list, in particular Durova's comments:
 * 1. The American Uniform Code of Military Justice is mute on Internet use (contrary to some previous comments)
 * 2. The American navy makes computers available for crew recreational use.


 * Also see:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Orangemarlin
Conspicuously, neither your nor Jim62sch have responded to my main point -- what basis do you have for believing VO was using government computers, other than the fact that he is in the military? -- A. B. (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to dave souza
You said that it was stated earlier that VO was editing during regular business hours and for long stretches. Business hours where?

From information formerly on VO's user page and in some of his other posts, his job was primarily in the air. Presumably he wasn't editing there. Flight crews keep odd hours. Nobody even knows where he was editing. Baghdad? Kabul? Missouri? Hawaii? One day in one of these, another day 5000 miles away?

You have stated that we must assume good faith with regards to Jim62sch and Orangemarlin. Shouldn't this dictum also apply to VO, who has stated that he has not made inappropriate use of his government's computer?

So, no, given these circumstances, it's still not been adequately addressed as to how anyone "knows" VO was editing on the job. Or even has reasonable cause for suspicion.

As for my comment that read, "If a Wikipedia reports these allegations to military authorities". I screwed up. I should have written "If a Wikipedian". Sorry for the confusion. Notwithstanding use of the "show preview" button, I remain the Typo King. -- A. B. (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Jim62sch has used his e-mail address in other Wikipedia contexts. Nevertheless, VO should have redacted it. In fact there was no need to post it if he sent it to Arbcom members. -- A. B. (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's actions are puzzling
Orangemarlin is a former Navy doctor (a staff corps officer, not an actual line officer) who did a tour of duty 20 to 25 years ago when he was presumably in his late 20s or early 30s. He hasn't been on active duty since that time. He is or was on the Inactive Reserve list (most officers go off the list after a few years). The Inactive Reserve is truly inactive for those members not immediately needed -- there have been people on the Inactive Reserve list that have gone without so much as a postcard from Uncle Sam during their time on the list. Based on his own self-description about the fit of his uniform and the lack of VCRs and computers when he was on active duty, he clearly has had little or no involvement with the military for a very long time. Now, after all this time as a civilian, through wars, disasters and crises, he suddenly hears the clarion call of duty to his country and intervenes in the Jim62sch case with comments to the effect that he has a pressing duty to report an active duty senior NCO to the military for supposed inappropriate editing of Wikipedia to the military.

And this rush to uphold military law and order has nothing to do with Orangemarlin's close relationship with Jim62sch or their earlier with VO over a fair use image. (Note for instance this ) -- A. B. (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wrong about some of the above and I have stricken incorrect assertions I made (based on these earlier comments by Orangemarlin). See Orangemarlins's later comments on my talk page (permanent link); Orangemarlin says he was called up for duty at various times through 9/11. -- A. B. (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Filll
Regarding your detailed analysis of VO's edits, if you spent 4 or 12 hours flying and got off duty in Qaanaaq, Shemya, Bishkek, Bagram or Ascension, how would you spend your time? When you're stuck kicking around the next day? It's been repeated over and over again that VO has a flying job. Are you assuming he's editing in the air? If he's off-duty, do we care about how he allocates his time? If the rest of the flight crew thinks he's doing a good job, that should be sufficient.

We could spend hours deconstructing your edit patterns, analyzing how you might or might not be spending the rest of your days. I'm sure you could do the same with me. We could do it with Orangemarlin, Jim62sch, even the arbitrators. We could speculate on who's meeting their family, school or work obligations and who's not (or as one Wikipedia critic put it, who's the underemployed slacker editing an amateur encyclopaedia in his briefs on a bean bag in his parents' basement, surrounded by empty soda cans).

Do we really want to go there? Maybe we just need to stick to our bean bags. You've been forceful (to say the least) in telling others to assume good faith. -- A. B. (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * VO stated somewhere that his job was primarily in the air. His unit is extensively involved in the Middle East and Central Asia.


 * Are we now questioning whether anything he said about himself was true? -- A. B. (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for VO bringing this all on himself by making an accusation of criminal activity, I thought it was the other way around.


 * Based on Filll's comments about the frequency of his edits before January 1, it looks like VO's left the project anyway.


 * I think this surreal exchange with Filll is veering into Absurdistan. Back to my bean bag. -- A. B. (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer usage by deployed military
Just a sample of the 100s of news articles ("reliable sources") turned up by Google News' archive search that mention routine use of computers by off-duty personnel in forward areas and war zones: -- A. B. (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin's position
The views expressed by Mike Godwin, the Foundation's attorney, should be viewed in the context of the entire thread on the Foundation's mailing list. His seems to me to be a general comment, not one based on a reading of the dispute between VO and Jim62sch, particularly just prior to the e-mail's dispatch.

I suggest asking Mike Godwin to participate here if we want him to express an opinion on this specific case. -- A. B. (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackmail

 * Please note the opening statement of Jim62sch's e-mail.


 * The issue here is not whether Jim was right in suspecting VO of illicit computer use, or whether he was justified in thinking it his civic duty to interfere. The issue is whether he did whatever he did in order to get rid of a fellow Wikipedian in a Wikipedia dispute. The tone and context of his mail leaves little room for doubt that this is exactly what he did. He was using a threat in an attempt to exploit a fellow Wikipedian's perceived real-life vulnerability in order to get the upper hand of him in a dispute. This is unforgivable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

V.O. retracted his RFAR in direct response to Jim's threats

 * V.O. clearly stated on wiki that the reason for his Arbcom retraction was off-wiki threats to his livelihood (,, in conjunction with ). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone may or may not have edited Wikipedia in violation of the UCMJ
It's possible that one or more users have edited Wikipedia in violation of the UCMJ, not have received authorisation to be using the computer systems for personal use. Nobody here has sufficient proof of this or who might have done it and are therefore absolved of any duty to report it. violet/riga (t) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin has noted that since he doesn't know exactly who VO is he cannot do anything:
 * ...as long as VO kept his identity secret (which, honestly, he did everything but post his last name and SSN on the user page), I'd not be able to do anything.
 * If he doesn't know who a person is then he cannot report it, it is therefore not his "duty". violet/riga (t) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Orangemarlin
Orangemarlin has violated WP:NPA and WP:CIV and has received warnings from several different users both before and during this episode. He denies that they are personal attacks but is quick to claim that he is on the receiving end of such abuse.
 * 1) Asked civilly about a revert he performed, to which he launched at User:UBeR calling him a "maroon" (edit summary) and accusing him of "abusing me over a bullshit charge"
 * 2) *Went on to say "I think we should execute a few of these trolls first, and if a couple of innocent bystanders get shot too, so be it."
 * 3) To User:The Evil Spartan: "No more anti-semitism from you."
 * 4) *Warned by me that it wasn't really intended as such and that what he said was possibly more offensive
 * 5) *That was then claimed by him to be a personal attack
 * 6) Told User:GusChiggins21 on his talk page that he wanted him to "rot in Wikipedia Hell for the full length of time" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GusChiggins21&diff=180810481&oldid=180773487
 * 7) *Template-warned by User:Sandstein about this
 * 8) *Responded with "What?????? How dare you." and "Oh by the way, since you don't like swearing, let me proceed. Fuck. Shit. Ass. Damn. Hell. What the fuck ever. Meh."

Dealing with trolls/socks/whatever is frustrating, but these comments and responses are not really appropriate. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Subtext likely
In response to Dave Souza's plea that we view Jim62sch and Orangemarlin as innocently concerned about their own civic duty, I think many people have seen their behavior (which they themselves understatedly describe as "sarcastic") too long to take them at face value. Here is one example of which I had prior knowledge; actual research would surely turn up much more. It's relatively light-hearted, but it shows Orangemarlin's ability to deny the obvious subtext that is the actual motivation for his words.

To me, Fut. Perf.'s explanation makes the most sense. But it is for ArbCom to judge. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Swatjester
Some of you may have seen this on foundation-l, but I will add it here as well as email the arbitration committee.

Answer from a JAG officer about computer use questions and the UCMJ
I emailed a JAG officer I know from back when I was in the military, asking him "Is there a ban on using military computers during duty hours for personal internet?" and "Is there any obligation to report a servicemember doing so?"

The response was twofold: First, there is no blanket ban on using military computers during duty hours for personal purposes under the UCMJ. Such restrictions are the domain of post/installation/unit commanders to create and enforce. The general rule is that during duty hours, SM (servicemembers) may use the internet for personal browsing when it is approved by the commander and it is not "excessive" (his word, not mine). The general rule about off-duty hours is that use is authorized by the installation commander, and is generally unlimited as long as standing orders are not violated (i.e. don't use it for porn, don't go to criminal websites, etc).

My personal experience with being in the military and using internet
When I was in the army, from 2001-2006, I had numerous occasions to use the internet on and off duty hours. Here are some examples.

Off-duty

 * In OSUT (basic training and infantry school), we were given a mid-cycle pass, and we got to go to the recreation center at Ft. Benning, which included an internet lab. The computers and lab were all owned and run by Army Signal Corps.


 * In Kuwait we had similar internet labs set up.


 * Most Army barracks have internet drops in the SM's rooms.

On-duty

 * My company commander and senior NCO's all had their issued laptops, logged onto the internet in the company headquarters, and regularly used it for browsing, online poker, youtube, etc, during lulls in the duty day. I remember one instance where I was told to go find our battalion commander, and bring him to the office so he could watch something on youtube.


 * In Iraq, I personally witnessed general officers, and division level command sergeant majors using military computers and internet for personal purposes during duty hours.


 * In fact, that was one of the ways we got our daily INTELSUM, was through the commander's email account.


 * When I was on quick reaction force duty (which is a 24 hour on duty period in which you are in the highest state of readiness), we would often hang out in the internet labs and use the computers there, while on duty, since our job consisted of waiting for an incident to occur, and then rushing out to the scene. If no incidents occurred, then we'd just hang out in the labs browsing. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking to my statement
I have little to add beyond my opening statement. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch for the evidence I would like to present. --B (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point
Argument over duty to report, military law, etc, is all missing the point. A friendly-worded reminder of civic obligations is not the same as a question preceded by a warning not to forward the email and the note "Are we ready to have some fun? I sure as hell am." The belated arguing about a duty to report on the talk page is really missing the point. --B (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regulations have changed over time
As I already have mentioned elsewhere, USA military regulations with regard to internet use seem to have grown more liberal over time. There was a major update of the UCMJ in 1998. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim was medicated at the time of the email
The private email presented in public by User:Videmus Omnia as evidence of harassment, blackmail and extortion is here. It shows a time stamp of September 6, 2007 1:24 AM. At this time Jim62sch has claimed he was ill and on medication and this affected his judgement. I have retrieved an email Jim62sch sent to me from this time period which substantiates this claim:

--

From: "Jim"  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile

Alert To: XXX@juno.com CC: Subject: RE: Sign of cluelessness Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 17:03:58 -0400 Nah, you I'd just tweak a bit.

BTW, Flexeril is pretty cool stuff, but since it's a muscle relaxer it really makes me lethargic. Is my brain a muscle? Hmm, it seems to effect that too. There ya go: I can plead the Adam Cuerndon (or whatever his name is) defense! "I'm very sorry my dear, but I've been stoned and my inhibitions just disappeared, and when I meant to say shit I accidentally said effluvium and drove some people to their dictionaries." At least I think that's what unknown or whatever got upset about.

Jim

-Original Message- From: XXX@juno.com [mailto:XXX@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:55 PM To: XXX@hotmail.com Cc: Subject: RE: Sign of cluelessness

LOL. Indeed, though, I almost made a comment on your talk page for ElinorD and Iamunknown to ignore the efflumium comment because you'd obviously forgotten to take your meds (with a smiley attached of course). Then I smacked myself and took my meds--I'm better now, thank you. Besides, you'd have verbally kicked my butt anyway ;-) --

Note: I have obtained permission to post this private email here, and have suitably altered it to remove information that might create privacy concerns.

Analysis:


 * Jim62sch plainly states he is not thinking clearly in the email and identifies one of the powerful medications he was on at the time that was contributing.


 * Jim62sch also uses the expression "BTW" to separate different disjoint ideas in an email. I am in possession of many other examples of emails from Jim62sch where he does the same thing. This is a characteristic of Jim62sch's emails; he separates very different ideas or discussions with the expression "BTW". I would be glad to provide more of these private emails on request, as long as Jim62sch and others agree to their release.

User:Videmus Omnia did not act threatened
Videmus Omnia's account usage also does not suggest that he felt threatened at the time, because:
 * VO's time per day spent editing increased after receiving Jim62sch's email
 * VO did not remove personal details from his Wikipedia user page for almost four months after.

In addition, an analysis of Videmus Omnia's editing pattern does suggest some irregularities that might lead Jim62sch or others to ask or caution VO.

These issues are studied further in the following section.

User:Videmus Omnia account usage analysis
User:Videmus Omnia's first edit was June 12 2007 at 19:00 and since then, VO has compiled an interesting editing record. From June 12th 2007 through January 7, 2007, he logged about 21168 edits, but only 2595 of these were to the mainspace, constituting about 12.25 % of his edits. Many of his efforts were directed towards removing free images, and the vast majority of his edits appear to involve arguing about these efforts in frequently contentious discussions on assorted talk pages. ''Note that since a lot of his activity involved deleting images, these estimates of his editing are underestimates. That is, a lot of his activity will no longer appear in his contribution log, and so he might have been substantially more active than this analysis below reveals''.

Looking a bit closer, VO edited many hours per day. Defining a period when VO was not editing as being a time longer than 2 hours, VO edited for long stretches of time.


 * In June 2007, 2939 edits over 18.21 days, for 14.74 hours per day at an average rate of one edit every 5.48 minutes


 * July 2007, 3483 edits over 27.99 days, for 12.65 hours per day at an average rate of one edit every 6.1 minutes


 * August 2007, 6544 edits over 29.89 days, for 12.64 hours per day at an average rate of one edit every 3.47 minutes


 * September 2007, 2716 edits over 29.41 days, for 8.78 hours per day at an average rate of one edit every 5.7 minutes.

After this, the editing level trended down, but it is not clear why:


 * October 2007, 2468 edits
 * November 2007, 1493 edits
 * December 2007, 1495 edits

Before Jim62sch contacted VO by email on September 6, 2007, VO spent 7.1 hours per day editing from September 1-5. After receiving the email from Jim62sch on September 6, 2007 and stating that he was afraid of consequences for his employment, VO edited for 7.37 hours per day from September 7 to 17. From September 18 through September 30, VO edited about 10.83 hours per day.

Therefore, it appears that in September 2007, even before receiving the email, VO was altering his editing pattern of the previous months. After receiving the email, the time VO spent editing per day actually increased. It does not appear that VO felt threatened by the email, even though messages VO placed on his user pages might have suggested this. He also did not remove the personal information from his user pages after receiving the email from Jim62sch. He clearly did not act as though the email constituted a threat at the time, no matter what he posted to the contrary on his user pages.

The raw data of "editing periods" are consistent with someone editing most days steadily except for a break or two of a couple of hours, and a few hours for sleep. The "nonediting periods" are listed here.

Bear in mind that according to VO, he is married and has a family and lives in the US and is on active duty in the US Air Force. He presumably has to spend time with his wife and children and working and sleeping and eating and exercising. He probably spends time watching television and going to parties and spending time with friends. He probably has to spend time completing assorted ablutions and shopping and doing errands.

Clearly, VO's editing pattern, particularly in June, July and August of 2007, might have raised questions from reasonable observers. This is especially true of an active duty US military person. The record could have invited scrutiny by people like
 * US government auditors
 * US military personnel
 * other government employees
 * US taxpayers
 * US and international media
 * parents with sons and daughters in the US military deployed in combat zones
 * assorted law enforcement personnel

In addition, VO advertised many of his purported personal details from June through December of 2007, including his alleged name, job description, location, employer, picture, family details, etc. This, coupled with his editing pattern might have constituted a substantial security breach and attracted attention not only from computer security and military security personnel, but antiwar activists, terrorists and other antiAmerican foreign elements. At a very minimum, it demonstrates very bad judgement and computer security awareness for a member of the US armed services. VO violated the simple precepts of sensible computer precautions that experts suggest parents advocate for preteens with accounts on Myspace and Facebook.

Under the circumstances, to be asked a question or even cautioned by someone involved with computer security and computer abuse prevention would be reasonably expected, and is completely appropriate. Jim62sch did not lecture VO or chastise VO or threaten him or report him; Jim62sch just asked a question since VO had clearly a strange computer usage pattern for someone in his claimed position.

VO acted worse
It is instructive to compare the behaviors and statements of the two subjects of this administrative action, User:Jim62sch and User:Orangemarlin, with the editor who brought this action, User:Videmus Omnia and the editor who brought the AN/I administrative action that lead to this, User:Thumperward.

User:Jim62sch

(1) Actions: Private off-wiki query email

(2) Stated Reason: None given at the time. Four months later, Jim62sch stated that Jim62sch was cautioning VO, and Jim62sch's understanding of government regulations is that government employees are required to report computer abuse.

This is part of Jim62sch's job function and he must answer questions, some while attached to a polygraph, about his knowledge of government computer abuse and if Jim62sch lies the consequences can be severe. Jim62sch also stated that he was ill and his judgement was affected by his illness and medication (see previous evidence I presented here).

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No

Jim62sch said this was not a threat. I do not read it as a threat. Mike Godwin does not suggest it is a threat:. Jimbo apparently did not view it as a clear threat, or Jim62sch would have been blocked or banned months ago: The previous Arbcomm members did not view it as a clear threat, or Jim62sch would have been blocked or banned months ago:. Even Videmus Omnia did not act in a manner that is consistent with him feeling threatened.

(4) Result: No subsequent report or complaint

User:Orangemarlin

(1) Actions: Announce his understanding of UCMJ

(2) Stated Reason: None given, but possibly trying to be informative

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No.

Orangemarlin stated several times he would go out of his way to avoid learning more information and so avoid any requirement to report anything.; numerous other examples available.

(4) Result: No subsequent report or complaint

Chris Cunningham/User:Thumperward

(1) Actions: Complain to AN/I

(2) Stated Reason: revenge for failed RfA

(3) Evidence of clear threat: No

(4) Result: AN/I complaint made

User:Videmus Omnia

(1) Actions: Several, including:
 * Bring RfAr complaint
 * charge Jim62sch with making threats
 * suggest Jim62sch committed the felony known as blackmail
 * allude to Jim62sch committing the felony known as extortion
 * release Jim62sch's private personal information in public after Jim62sch had explicitly asked him not to

(2) Stated Reason: Desire to get Jim62sch blocked

(3) Evidence of clear threat: Yes. Threatened to file RfAr and did Threatened to reveal Jim62sch's personal information  and did

(4) Result: RfAr complaint and administrative action, as well as the  violation of Jim62sch's privacy

Analysis of comparison
It is fairly obvious that the comparison and evidence suggests that editors Thumperward and Videmus Omnia engaged in troubling behavior and, according to their own statements, were motivated by revenge and wanted to "get even", sometimes for events that happened months earlier. The motivations of Jim62sch and Orangemarlin are not clear, although some have tried to assume bad faith, which contradict their statements and the evidence.

I humbly suggest that Thumperward and Videmus Omnia appear to be using the administrative mechanisms of Wikipedia such as AN/I and RfAr as weapons against those they have had conflicts with in the past.

Response to User:A._B.
I am of course assuming good faith here, thank you for your concern. But allow me to make a few things clearer.

You or I have no idea if User:Videmus Omnia is really in the US Air Force, or ever was in the US Air Force, or if any of the personal information that he had posted for about 6 months on Wikipedia was accurate or the result of complete fabrication. We do not know if VO has ever spent 4 or 12 hours flying and got off duty in Qaanaaq, Shemya, Bishkek, Bagram or Ascension. We do not know if VO has a flying job. I do not assume VO is editing from the air, and I am puzzled that you would think I am assuming that VO is editing from the air. I do not care how VO spends his time, and, at least as far as I can tell, no one has threatened VO, or reported VO, or done more than pose a question to VO in private email. And I am not threatening VO or making assumptions about VO. I am just presenting the available data. That is all.

All we have is a small handful of data to examine. And I examined it, as Jim62sch apparently did, or a computer security analyst would. And I presented my observations and analysis of the data here, with some conjectures.

Is there some problem with presenting my observations and analysis of the data here? I thought these were evidence pages. If I am mistaken, and this page is not the place for evidence, or this kind of evidence, I apologize. If I am informed by an Arbcomm clerk that this material is improper, I will gladly strike it out.

From the data, it appears that it is not unrealistic that VO's behavior might have raised questions from someone. I have considerable experience in computer security, particularly in the US Department of Defense; probably well in excess of the experience of anyone else here. VO's behavior might be perfectly innocent. VO might have no relation to the US Department of Defense. You do not know. I do not know. None of us here knows, except for VO. And VO is silent.

In any case, whether it was innocent or not, no one threatened VO. Orangemarlin stated several times that he has gone out of his way to avoid putting himself in a difficult situation where he might have to make such a decision. I notice that no one reported VO, or at least we have no evidence that anyone reported VO.

On the impropriety of analyzing VO's editing behavior and Wikipedia account usage pattern: I would not have done this if VO had not opened himself up to scrutiny by bringing this complaint, making accusations of criminal activity, and revealing personal information in public although he was requested not to.

Just as in a court case, discovery can be an unpleasant but revealing process, uncovering information about both the defendents and those bringing the complaint. Whether I made an analysis or not, VO had for 6 months been advertising who he supposedly was and where he was and what he was doing. Not just to me, not just to Jim62sch, not just to anyone on Wikipedia, but to the entire world.

I believe that what VO did was ill-advised, but I cannot be blamed because of VO's bad judgement in this and many of his other activities on Wikipedia. I did not force VO to do any of this; he did it all of his own free will. And continued to do so, against all advice and prudence.

Addendum
Where is the evidence that anything VO said was true? We do not even know if VO is one person or a group of people using the same account. For example, consider the Essjay controversy.

We do not know if VO is in the 55th Wing and involved in the Middle East and Central Asia. Were you aware that in polls and census surveys, several hundred percent more people report being Vietnam veterans than ever fought in Vietnam? There are all kinds of claims made.

All we have in this situation is the evidence. And I presented some evidence. What the evidence means is another matter. I offered what I suspect are the most likely interpretations of the evidence. I could be incorrect. All of us could be.

Addendum II
As for VO bringing this all on himself by making an accusation of criminal activity, I thought it was the other way around.

I respectfully suggest that this is the problem with this proceeding, as I have tried to argue on the talk pages. The evidence does not favor this rush to judgement against Orangemarlin and Jim62sch and this apparent forgone conclusion. The following is apparent from the evidence:


 * No one accused VO of criminal activity.
 * No one threatened VO
 * No one reported VO
 * No rules of Wikipedia were violated by Jim62sch or Orangemarlin, as near as I can tell.

On the other hand:


 * VO accused Jim62sch of criminal activity, several times
 * VO broke the rules of Wikipedia by releasing personal information.

So in fact, this Arbcomm case is almost completely backwards. Just look at the evidence and the statements.

Reply to User: Theresa Knott
Videmus Omnia violated the rules of Wikipedia by posting a private email in public from Jim62sch, against Jim62sch's express request, violating Jim62sch's privacy and revealing Jim62sch's identity in public.

The Sept 6 email was not a threat
There is no evidence that the September 6 email to Videmus Omnia was a threatening email.
 * I do not see it as threatening.
 * Jim62sch has stated repeatedly he did not intend it as threatening.
 * Several other editors and administrators on these pages have also stated that they did not see the email as threatening.
 * Mike Godwin suggests he does not see the text of the email as threatening.
 * Videmus Omnia claims he showed the email to Jimbo and Jimbo promised to block or ban Jim62sch because of the email, but Jimbo did not block or ban Jim62sch. If Jimbo had seen the email as clearly threatening, Jim62sch would have been blocked or banned 4 months ago.
 * Videmus Omnia claims he sent this email to several Arbcomm members over the last 4 months, but yet none of them did a thing about it. If any of the Arbcomm members that Videmus Omnia had approached had seen the email as threatening, Jim62sch would have been blocked or banned 4 months ago.

So if I do not see the email as threatening, agreeing with Mike Godwin, Jimbo, the previous Arbcomm members, other editors and administrators, and Jim62sch claims the email was not meant to be a threat, how is the email unequivocally threatening?

Admittedly, some who are reading the tea leaves and penumbrations of meaning might believe the email is threatening. But I respectfully suggest that the evidence that this email is threatening is not at all clear. And there is more evidence to suggest that this email is not threatening, and was not meant to be threatening.

Examining Videmus Omnia's response to the email, VO actually began editing more hours per day after the email, and did not remove his personal information from his Wikipedia profile for another 4 months. Videmus Omnia did make some posts around that time that he felt his livelihood was threatened, but it is not clear if these posts were because of the September 6 email, or if VO was trying to play the victim to get Jim62sch in trouble (as he continued to try to do for the next 4 months, presumably to get even), or some other reason (VO had already substantially reduced the amount of time VO spent editing Wikipedia per day well before Jim62sch's email on September 6, 2007).

So the strongest evidence that the September 6 email was threatening, which is from Videmus Omnia himself, is actually not particularly strong when examined carefully.

Response to User:Happy Couple2
Happy Couple appeared some months ago and vandalized a few articles. If I remember this incident correctly, I thought Happy Couple was behaving like one of the innumerable sock puppets we have had on intelligent design and related articles.

I indicated to Happy Couple that one of the editors who had behaved similarly had been editing from work, and when his IP address was blocked, the employees from this editor's company could not edit Wikipedia. This company contacted Wikipedia to get its IP address unblocked, leading to considerable embarassment for the employee who had been vandalizing Wikipedia.

I recounted this story for Happy Couple as a parable of why it was bad to engage in the kinds of activities that Happy Couple was pursuing. I did not personally contact the company. I did not personally block the editor. I did not personally block the IP address.

In fact, although I heard the story second or third hand, my understanding was that Wikipedia did not contact the company, nor did any editor from Wikipedia contact the company. The company contacted Wikipedia when it discovered its IP address had been blocked. Since I was not personally involved, I do not know how the situation was resolved, or even if the story I heard is correct in all the particulars, or is just a rumor. To avoid further embarassment to the editor and company involved, I will avoid disclosing their identities here.

And my statement of "Oh well" on Happy Couple's talk page can be read as, it is not very nice to have this kind of trouble, but this is the result of vandalizing Wikipedia, especially from work. I did not want to have to deal with continued vandalism from this editor. Several people contacted me in private because his claims and attacks were so blatant.

Thankfully, Happy Couple stopped vandalizing, at least under that account. In any case, this anecdote is irrelevant here and has little to no bearing on the present discussion.

may have contacted employers in the past
may have contacted employers in the past, as he indicates here: Happy Couple2 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last response by Filll, seems reasonable, and based on his recollection, I won't begrudge him too much, but I am not seeing any vandalism on the part of . No matter, based on the explaination of Filll, I retract, with apologies, the suggestion made above.  Happy Couple2 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.