This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

This case be dismissed

1) This case is founded on the misguided belief that there is an obligation for a federal employee to report the misuse of a military computer under the UCMJ. There is no such obligation, as responded to by a military JAG officer. Therefore one of the major grounds for this case is moot, and it should be dismissed for lack of controversy. Other questions of behavior can be addressed through other means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my section in evidence for reasoning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I read it, the case is about whether Jim's question ("do you have permission...") constituted a "legal threat", and thus a violation of NLT. Since Mike Godwin has already opined that it was not a legal threat, I think Swat is right - the case should be dismissed, but for an entirely different reason. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case has two aspects, one behavioral and one procedural. Swatjester is addressing the procedural aspect. If his analysis is right, then perhaps it would be good for ArbCom to issue it as a finding of fact. Guettarda has correctly stated the behavioral issue, though I disagree with his position on it. The issue is whether a legal threat was intended, not whether it was valid. I have no position on whether the case should be dismissed, but this is not the right reason. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather difficult to read Jim's email as a intended threat - especially given his habit of using "BTW" to connect unrelated issues. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it almost impossible to read it as anything other than a threat. What else would the first sentence mean? And, maybe even more importantly, Jim knew, a day later, that his mail had been received as such (because VO very clearly indicated this when he retracted his Arbcom case at the time), and Jim did nothing to change that impression. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many threats have been made. For example, Videmus Omnia clearly threatened Jim at ANI, whihc resulted in him droppiung out of at least one discussion. Whether these were credible legal threats is another matter. Obviously both Jim and Orangemarlin should have realised much sooner that their line of explanation was unproductive, but equally Videmus Omnia should never have brought up a months-old dispute in this way, and it is that action, more than anything else, that brought us here. It's a bit like trying the bear for attacking the person baiting him. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I agree with your timeliness concern but I notice you are mute on the content of Jim's e-mail. Do you think it was OK for him to send it to VO? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was ill-judged, but no more. The two were clearly in a heated dispute at the time. If Jim had pursued this, sent other emails, or tried to escalate it at the time, then it would be serious; as it is? One bad call. Had it been debated up at the time I would recommend a slap with the WP:TROUT. But it wasn't. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What else would the first sentence mean?" When someone brings an RFAR on a case where they have been clearly disruptive, I'd respond the same way. VO et al. were being disruptive. While arbcomm cases invariably suck since they are an incredible drain of time and energy, VO's complaint was pretty amusing - they were so convinced that they were right that they didn't even bother with things like policy or the underlying mission of Wikipedia. I found the idea of them making a fool of themselves on this stage quite amusing. As for the rest - how do you come to the conclusion that Jim "knew" anything? VO's bluff was called on the WP:RFAR, and he folded - he tried to bully the lot of us into letting him have his way, and since it was obvious that his bullying had failed, he withdrew the RFAR.

"maybe even more importantly, Jim knew, a day later, that his mail had been received as such (because VO very clearly indicated this when he retracted his Arbcom case at the time)" - really? Where was this? I was unaware of any such goings-on.

"and Jim did nothing to change that impression" - VO clearly withdrew his RFAR because his attempt at bullying had failed. That Jim failed to read the situation in the way that you have is evidence of nothing but the fact that you and Jim process information differently. (As my wife always tells me) not everyone is aware of what goes on in your head. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VO stated very clearly what was happening, under the eyes of Arbcom and the whole Wikipedia community [1], [2], in conjunction with [3]. I struggle to believe that people actually involved in that Arbcom dispute failed to have a look why the case had suddenly disappeared. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is evidence and as such really needs to go in the evidence page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stipulate the point that "BTW" denoted a complete change of subject. Given the underlying history between the two editors, if the email had contained nothing other than the postscript, my opinion of it would be no different. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make the harassment into non-harassment. It simply means that Jim was ignorant. Cool Hand Luke 08:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it simply means that despite being ill and on medication that impaired his judgement, Jim noticed that VO as a self proclaimed USAF sergeant was editing at all sorts of hours over an extended period, and asked what the policy was on PC and LAN use. I fully accept that VO was completely innocent of wrong doing and was only editing when he was off-duty, as he has stated, 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 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin added as a party

2) Based on the thread located here OrangeMarlin has made substantially the same legal warning/threat that Jim62sch has made (albeit more recently, and on-wiki). If this is the only subject filed for review here, then it should be addressed in each instance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee may review the conduct of any editor involved in a dispute who has notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, as Orangemarlin has. Adding him formally as a party is probably not necessary. However, in order that the situation be clear, I have added Orangemarlin as a party to the case, a step that precedent reflects can be taken by an individual arbitrator. The Clerk will kindly give notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Avruch.

Makes sense to add him in but I don't understand what you mean by "If this is the only subject filed for review here, then it should be addressed in each instance." Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this? OM has simply advised of his understanding of his legal position, while emphasising that he does not want to be put in the position of having to file a report. VO has made public all the information that would go in such a report. .... dave souza, talk 10:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. He is clearly very involved in the debate and may have acted inappropriately - this is something for the arbcom to decide. violet/riga (t) 12:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Theresa Knott about OM and "If this is the only subject..." Care to clarify? Cool Hand Luke 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the motion is accepted, its irrelevant - but if the basis of the filing of the case was the threat or implied threat, then other editors who made the same threat should be added. ^Avruchtalk 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the other link supplied above, other than to see it went to Orangemarlin's talk page. So, since would appear to be different from the Evidence talk page, and in case ArbCom members don't look at that page), let me augment this proposal with Orangemarlin's own statements from there:

- ...is lacking in the knowledge of criminal behavior, which I am obligated by law to report
- A sergeant in the United States Air Force who knowingly utilizes the internet for personal use in direct violation of the Air Force Regulation, and as a result, I am made aware of said violation, I could be charged for an offense equally as bad as VO.
- I'm obligated to report VO, because I do not know what is expressly or not expressly forbidden. If he was not given permission, and I ignore this, I have issues.
- I have discussed this situation with other US Navy and Marine Corps officers, and they agree that I am now obligated to contact his commander. In doing so, my anonymity here would be completely destroyed, but that's how upset I am about you civilians, who have no understanding of the military chain of command, who think there is some wiggle room in regulations that do not in fact exist, who do not understand the legal obligations under which I am responsible.

To properly view these statements in context however, I would urge any ArbCom member to read the entire "Me" section (first one on the page), at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. It 'seems' like Orangemarlin has explictly stated that since he brought this particular issue up to other military officers who personally knew him, that he himself is now obligated by law to report this. On the other hand, if he had not gone out of his way to communicate personally with other military officers, nobody would know that he would have possibly violated any military rule or regulation, and his anonymity could have remained intact. I will leave this for the ArbCom to decide of course. wbfergus^Talk 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you aren't in the military or never have been. Whether I spoke or not is irrelevant, since I would make the choice, not them. Besides, I cannot report someone whom I don't know. And again, given VO's lack of respect for privacy, I would never send a private warning, I would do it publicly here. You are enjoying the vendetta against myself and Jim, however, VO is completely at fault here. He released a private email, which started this kerfuffle. I would never have engaged him, if he hadn't put his personal issues above duty and country. And you have no clue how much I despise saying these things, as an avowed leftie. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside to clarify your opening assertion above. I have stated in numerous place that I indeed have a military background, in both the Active duty and active Reserve components. My entire family line in each generation, going back to before the Revolutionary War has a military background. Some made it a career, others did not. I am therefore very well acquainted with military customs, courtesies, rules, and regulations. wbfergus^Talk 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you're not. Nuff said. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate please? I would assert that I am probably about as familar with military customs, courtesies, rules, and regulations as you are, with neither of us being a JAG officer. wbfergus^Talk 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion in this section is not needed - the motion is accepted and OM is added as a party. ^Avruchtalk 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wear your Wikipedia hat

1) Regardless of personal beliefs, professional obligations, or other outside concerns, editors are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Note particularly that assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er yes, but we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum. People have to do deal with real laws that have serious implications. Wikipedia policy cannot override laws in the State of Florida or US laws no matter how much we'd like it to. I wouldn't mind at some point moving all the servers to somewhere like Sealand but until we do this needs to be kept in mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with JoshuaZ and Dave souza. I see many people who want to imagine that Wikipedia and its editors can be immune from legal and ethical responsibilities, and that Wikipedia rules will always take precedence over all other requirements in the "real world". This is a fantasy and highly irresponsible at best. Pursuing this line of reasoning will end in disaster for Wikipedia; I guarantee it.

In instance after instance, such as abiding by legal restrictions of China or France, surrendering of IP addresses in response to legal subpoenas associated with lawsuits of companies that feel they were negatively portrayed by editors on Wikipedia, dealing with terrorism and suicide threats, removal of well-sourced BLP material to avoid legal challenges, and so on, Wikipedia has had to respond to the outside world. Wikipedia has had to make accommodations, over and over, in response to what the rules and principles of the world are. We might not like it, but this is reality.

Anyone who suggests otherwise, as I have seen repeatedly by assorted editors on the talk pages and evidence pages, is playing a very dangerous game and behaving in a highly imprudent fashion. I think that this would play extremely poorly in a true legal setting, or in the court of public opinion.

Wikipedia is integrated into a framework of national and international laws. Wikipedia has to appear ethical and reasonable, and not in the business of flouting laws, or discouraging editors to shirk or ignore their legal and ethical duties. The firestorms that erupted from editors lying about their credentials or from the Siegenthaler controversy are nothing compared to what might result here.

Lets not follow some of the extremely ill-advised paths and try to think ahead of potential consequences. How might this play in the media? What sort of precedent will this set? What sort of message do you want to send? Think carefully before you accept some claim that Wikipedia rules are more important than all other rules, regulations and laws of companies and governments. Do you really think that the governments of the world will take kindly to that claim? The consequences could be severe.--Filll (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting the rest of what you have said here (I haven't read it) will you please stop banging on about the media? Every other comment you make seems to ask about what the redtop headlines might be. It's really not that important or significant. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the arbiters are fully capable of considering this appropriately, and would just point out that I've seen similarly trivial things about Wikipedia covered in The Guardian which does not fall int the "redtop" category. .. dave souza, talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with "redtop": see the Red tops article. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Not enough to mention every other comment made. violet/riga (t) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Regardless of race, nationalism, gender, religion, ad naseum, all Wikipedians should consider themselves (while on here), as a Wikipedian and treat others with the same common courtesy and respect that expect from others. If anybody wants to give or recieve abuse, there are plenty of other outlets readily available in the 'real world'. wbfergus^Talk 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wear only your Wikipedia hat

2) Editors are not entitled to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if they believe such policies and guidelines violate personal beliefs or professional obligations. Editors who believe it is necessary to violate policy in order to edit in accordance with their personal beliefs or professional obligations are reminded that editing is a privilege, not a right, and are invited to find other hobbies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need to shut down the idea that it is ok to violate a policy because "it's the right thing to do" or because "I'll lose my job if I don't." There will be editors who edit from places like China where it might be illegal to edit certain topics and we certainly won't inform on them. Nor do we care if people edit on company time. Assuming that Jim62sch had a sincerely held belief that he had to report other military editors or risk punishment himself for complicity, he had the choice of retiring rather than harassing and making legal threat against another user. Thatcher 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established that he did not make a legal threat. He warned VO that he could get himself into trouble. And "retiring" does not remove your obligation to act; if you suspect that a crime being committed and you are obligated to report it, continuing to be a Wikipedia editor or ceasing to be a Wikipedia editor makes no difference. If someone posted kiddie porn, the foundation would be obliged to act, an awful lot of Wikipedia editors would be obliged to act, and casual readers who are not Wikipedia editors would be obliged to act. That's a reality we can't change just because we don't like it. Guettarda (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I know that you are editing in violation of your company's IT policy" is an implied threat. "I have a legal obligation to report waste fraud and abuse by other government employees" is also an implied threat. The purpose was to frighten VO or curtail his editing. Whether it is actionable harassment is for Arbcom to decide. And this is not kiddie porn for heaven's sake. Thatcher 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not kiddie porn - it's no different. If you can lose your job or security clearance (or worse, I'm sure, in a case like OM's) for not reporting that you suspect a crime is being committed, it doesn't matter if the matter is kiddie porn or abuse of government resources. Jim kept the matter off Wikipedia, which is the correct thing to do, since it avoided drawing unwanted attention to VO. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal shows a massive misunderstanding of real life responsibilities. As a teacher I would have to report child neglect or abuse to the relevant authorities (even if I only suspect it). Can you imagine the press stories if I had been warned on wikipedia for doing that? Sophia 09:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a teacher too I cannot imagine a circumstance where you would need to report a wikipedia editor. Can you give an example of what you are thinking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say you live in Key West, and you know another editor in Key West. That editor hints at some illegal activity with/towards a minor, seriously or as a joke. You either warn the editor that such hints are very serious and you are forced to report them if they become more specific, or you wait until they become more specific and then actually make a report to Florida authorities. There is an example, for a teacher. ^Avruchtalk 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know them in real life then clearly no wikipedia remedy is involved. It is implicit that all remedies here apply to wikipedia related conduct. If you don't know them in real life but find out about thier conduct via Wikipedia, then you simply report their activities to the nearest admin who will promptly block them under our strict pedophile rules. |They would no longer be a wikipedia editor. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we ban them from wikipedia then calmly look the other way? Sophia 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we ban them from Wikipedia and the teacher reports them to the authorities. ( banned user's are not wikipedia editors) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely relieved to see that I misunderstood what you were saying previously. This does show that this proposal is open to such misinterpretations and is therefore not a good idea. Also I really don't like the implication that a WP editor is somehow different to anyone else and we must somehow strip them of their editorship before we can address illegal activity properly. Sophia 08:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To go from the kiddie porn to this situation, Theresa Knott seems to be suggesting that Jim should have reported his suspicions to an admin who would have blocked VO so that the investigation could proceed. Doesn't seem to me to work very well. Perhaps we should institute a guideline that such suspicions should be reported to the foundation, who could then take them up with the editor in question before any formal report is made, and the suspicious party would not be named and so would not be intimidating anyone. Hmmm, not sure if that would work very well, and it's instruction creep that most users will never find out about . .. dave souza, talk 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that at all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just trying to visualise how it work in this situation, and have to conclude that it's not very workable. The aim must be to ensure that policies and legal / workplace obligations are compatible with reasonable care. .. dave souza, talk 10:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This finding ignores a fundamental point. Wikipedia is subject to the laws of Florida and the relevant United States laws (since we have the servers there). That's a major reason we have to be very careful about copyright and libel issues (aside from the moral concerns) The notion that Wikipedia can exist in a vacuum is simply not true. And if we start declaring that we're going to block editors because they have legitimate obligations under federal law then we're going to understandably be shooting ourselves in the foot. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position TK is advocating above will end in terrible trouble for Wikipedia in many legal circumstances, in many countries, and will make Wikipedia subject to derision in the court of public opinion. This looks terrible, and is completely unrealistic.--Filll (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Thatcher and TK are saying Wikipedia should exist in a vacuum. Rather, if someone saw evidence on WP of an actually serious crime (pedophilia, child abuse, bank robbery), immediately reporting it would (or at least should) be consistent with WP policy as well as the law. If it's not, then we need to change policy. Even reporting a violation of UCMJ should be fine per WP policy, as long as it is done for a legitimate reason and not to further one's position in a content dispute.

This principle seems to me to be applicable to only a small subset of editors, if any, but I think it's still worth saying. We should say, with President Kennedy, that if the time should ever come when WP policy would require me to violate my conscience, then I would resign from WP. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? This whole argument appears to be about how to implement a particular guideline, and how editors should fulfil their legal or employment related duties in a way that complies with that guideline, and with policies in general. An editor has made a good faith effort to comply by using a private off-Wiki communication, and while it achieved the aim of getting the other editor to ensure that he was complying fully with his workspace policies, the other editor took it as a threat and escalated it into this RfAr, for motives which remain unknown. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this proposal also. If editing Wikipedia violates your personal beliefs or obligations or whatever, then don't do it. Editing Wikipedia in accordance with your personal beliefs, etc. may introduce unintended POV in any articles worked on. Edit in a clear conscience with no agenda and simply try to get along with your fellow Wikipedians. 'Newbies' or younger editors, need guidance, not abuse. These editors could very well turn out to be productive editors given the proper guidance and support, but if they are subjected to abuse or other forms of harrassment, they will probably either leave or become vandals. wbfergus^Talk 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Threats and harassment

3) Wikipedia:No legal threats, a policy, states "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Harassment, a guideline, states that harassment may be intended "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Editors who make legal threats may be blocked until the threat is rescinded. Editors who harass other editors may be blocked, or in egregious cases, banned from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It has been established that there was no legal threat. A "word to the wise" is not harassment. And "harassment" is a pattern of behaviour, not a single email. Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing has been established. That is for the arbitrators to decide.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about, "A word to the wise, Mr. Guettarda. You are editing the article of my company in a way that depresses it's stock price and I have a fiduciary responsibility to my company and its shareholders to report this." Thatcher 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a threat at all? ^Avruchtalk 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Guettarda (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me, and apparently to Mike Godwin, that there was no legal threat. No legal remedy was suggested or implied. If a report to an employer could have been taken as being implied, and that would be a stretch, any legal action would be up to the employer. I've also looked carefully at Wikipedia:Harassment and can find no guidance that meets this situation. The request for information about USAF policy directly implied, at the most, that VO should examine that policy and make sure that he was complying with it. He did. How is that harassment? ... dave souza, talk 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this proposal. Also I would note (at least temporarily), my disagreement with Guettarda's statement above (pending further clarification). It is my understanding that Mike Godwin's statement was in regards to to a more 'generic' question, not about this particular case or email. If so, then Guettarda's statement appears false, but I do not know all of the particulars about why Mike Godwin made that particular posting. wbfergus^Talk 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings of affirmative legal obligations are not legal threats

4) A polite warning of a legal obligation to report information or conduct observed in any setting is not a legal threat; there is no implied threat to sue. Many professions in the United States and elsewhere require reporting as a condition of licensure, and other professions (such as the military) make failing to report a criminal offense. A warning of this type should absolutely not be used as a tool in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Avruch.

Disagree completely, Intent to sue has nothing to do with it. No one who is required to report criminal offenses is also required to edit Wikipedia. "I know where you work and I know you are violating company policy on computer use with your editing" is a clear implied threat, intended to frighten the person with the prospect of disciplinary action at work and to thereby restrict their ability to edit. Such conduct is unacceptable, whether or not it results in provable harm. The question then becomes, if User:Smith can not edit in good conscience without issuing such a warning to User:Jones, should User:Smith be allowed to violate policy and issue the warning in order to edit with a clear conscience? Be careful of supporting such a policy, because conscience is flexible. Today it is a government employee who does not like other government employees wasting taxpayer money. Tomorrow it might be an executive who thinks that User:Jones' edits harm his company's stock price. Thatcher 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "I know where you work and that your company policy is against editing" - its "I have a reason to believe you editing is a violation of the law, and it could be a criminal offense against me if I don't report it." There is a big difference between the two. Mike Godwin has stated on Foundation-l to the effect that a warning like the above is not, in his mind, a legal threat - and I agree. ^Avruchtalk 03:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when Mike runs for Arbcom. Thatcher 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You don't think the corporation counsel's view on the nature of legal threats is relevant or of use in on-wiki proceedings? ^Avruchtalk 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. WP:NLT is an en-wiki policy, not a foundation-level policy. Whether that's the way things should be, is of course, another question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcomm does not make policy. The NLT policy forbids legal threats. Mike Godwin clearly stated that this was not a legal threat. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and en. does not exist in a vacuum separate from the rest of the project. If our lawyer says "this is not a legal threat", we should listen to him unless there is some reason to doubt his competence. The arbcomm can't simply declare reality to be null and void - it would be a huge miscarriage of justice to arbitrarily throw aside legal opinion and declare a new reality by fiat. Guettarda (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To phrase it more simply - arbitration is not Calvinball. Guettarda (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think, huh? Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any wording relating to a "polite warning" is evidently irrelevant to the case. Whatever it was that Jim sent to VO, a "polite warning" it was not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a figure of speech. It doesn't have to be excessively polite. Jim's comment may not have been a "warning that was politely phrased" it was a "polite warning". There's a difference between literal and idiomatic usage in English. German is a far more precise language, but as a consequence it's far more prosaic. Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning could be phrased perfectely politely and still be an implied threat, a warning could be downrightly rudely phrased and not. The point is that this warning was a not polite in any sense of the word because it was an implied threat. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Regardless of what the email was, it was not a notification of a legal obligation. Nowhere in there did it state such an obligation. ~~Thatcher, please change your examples to people who don't exist.~~ --B (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was using A and B as algebraic placeholders. And on-wiki Jim62sch clearly said he had a "duty" to stop waste fraud and abuse by government employees [4]. I don't know of a rational way to interpret that as anything but a statement that he will notify some authority in charge of VO's editing; in other words, a threat. I don't think the commentators here (except for Theresa) have any idea what they are getting ready to condone. For example, corporate executives have a fiduciary duty to their company and their stockholders; they can be fined or go to jail for failing to take action to protect the stock price of their company. You are opening the door to executive coming here and making such "non-threats" and "words to the wise" at any editor whom they feel is writing negative things about their company. Thatcher 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, the email was either a threat/harassment or a question/reminder. "what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?" does not include anywhere in there the statement, "I have a duty to report misuse." That's my only point the email did not contain a warning of an affirmative legal obligation. --B (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We only know the part of the email that was quoted publicly. Only the Committee knows what the full email said and if there were additional emails, and I trust they will take that into account in writing the decision. This is merely a workshop proposal. And the "duty to report" was made explicit on-wiki. Thatcher 15:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, you're going way out on a limb here I think. The idea (and maybe the principle isn't worded tightly enough) is that some people are legally obligated, to the point where violating the obligation is a crime, to report certain evidence of activities. A military officer reporting illegal or possibly illegal activity to another military officer is wholly different from a company executive threatening to sue for critical information on the company article. This is something we get already anyway, and it is treated appropriately through a block. If, as you wrote above, a company executive states that they are required to report critical information on the article to the board (a rare occurrence, I'd guess...) then how is that a threat of any stripe? Who is being threatened? "Your edit name might be mentioned in a board meeting at my company, be warned!!" I don't see it. My point is - a warning like what OM articulated on his talk page is not a legal threat. There is no threat of legal action on the part of one editor against another. If you want to prohibit such non-threat warnings, then it should be added to the policy (maybe rename it No Anything That Can Be Misconstrued As A Legal Threat). But at that point you should be aware that you are removing the ability of obligated editors to warn other editors of their obligations - if VO hadn't been notified that other editors felt obligated to report his conduct, he might have ultimately released more personal information on-wiki. This would have incurred the report to his CO, and is that really a better outcome? ^Avruchtalk 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we don't know what legal obligation, if any, Jim62sch (a treasury department employee) had under the UCMJ. Second, editors are responsible for their own behavior. If VO called enough attention to himself to have career implications, that's his problem, as it was for another military editor last year. But the "reminder of your obligation" line is obviously a veiled threat and an attempt to curtail someone else's editing. My work IP has been published by a Wikipedia critic. If I received an email saying, "From your contributions, it looks like you spend a lot of time editing during working hours. May I remind you that your employer has a policy on personal use of company computers," should I not interpret that as a threat and an attempt to curtail my editing? Especially if it comes from someone who I am in a conflict with? Third, are we in a position to finely discriminate between different levels of obligation? Corporate executives have been fined and have been sent to jail for failing to use "due diligence" to protect their company. I admit that it is quite a stretch to think that a corporate executive would be thrown in jail for failing to sue the Wikipedia editors who have harmed his company's reputation, but it is also (let's be realistic here) quite a stretch to think that a LTCDR in the Naval Reserve would be disciplined for failing to report that an Air Force Sergeant was editing from the base PCs. Thatcher 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, you keep comparing the military to a private corporation. They aren't the same in any way. The legal rights conferred, at least in the US, to employees of private companies is substantially different than those of the military. But the biggest fallacy of your argument is that my duty and obligation is rather ingrained into my mentality (surprisingly so, since I'm a left-winger), so the threat of discipline to me is not relevant. What is relevant is that I have a sense of duty and obligation to the United States. But yes, I don't even want to risk the 0.1% chance that some investigator gets a little obsessive and goes after everyone. By the way, it's LCDR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I received an email saying, "From your contributions, it looks like you spend a lot of time editing during working hours. May I remind you that your employer has a policy on personal use of company computers,"

What part of "legal obligation to report" is unclear? ^Avruchtalk 16:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you better start back at the top of this section at Wear your Wikipedia hat where it says "Regardless of personal beliefs, professional obligations, or other outside concerns, editors are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while editing." and start objecting there, too. Regardless of the exact wording of the NLT and Harassment policies, the intent is to prevent editors from trying to influence other editors through intimidation, harassment or threats, because actions are contrary to the community spirit and collaborative editing. I say that editing is voluntary and a privilege and if someone can't edit while following the rules, and their choice is to break the rules or leave, they should leave. You want to allow them to break the rules as long as they have a really good reason. I think this is a horrible idea. Thatcher 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, you say above "From your contributions, it looks like you spend a lot of time editing during working hours. May I remind you that your employer has a policy on personal use of company computers," should I not interpret that as a threat and an attempt to curtail my editing? Especially if it comes from someone who I am in a conflict with? May I remind you that no such statement was made in this case. The original email was effectively "does your employer have a policy on personal use of company computers?" You might regard that as a reminder to check if there is such a policy, but any threat is in your imagination. ... dave souza, talk 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Do you really contend there is a material difference between what you quote and this alternative, "From your contributions, it looks like you spend a lot of time editing during working hours. I wonder if your employer has a policy about personal use of workplace computers." Thatcher 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: you're shifting the goalposts to make explicit one possible interpretation, and regrettably appear to be assuming bad faith. .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Thatcher appears to be going out of his way to paint the worst possible picture and advocate for the worst possible interpretation. I am sorry, this looks terrible, especially from someone in his position. This is very disappointing and quite unfortunate.--Filll (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this proposal. First it makes the erroneous assumption that the alleged 'warning' was polite. The alleged 'warning' was made by one party in a content dispute to the other party, and started with something like "Are we ready to have some fun? I sure as hell am." Since these two parties were in a heated content dispute, that can hardly be construed as polite. That statement was then followed by only one other statement, something like "BTW, what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?" Regardless of the 'BTW', as a communication from one party to another in a heated content dispute, the second statement 'seems' like a thinly veiled threat. To appear otherwise, the 'BTW' should have been expanded to something like "On a completely different note other than out apparent dispute, it is my impressions that...". Jim62sch is obviously old enough to realize that, and it is also apparent from his edit history that he is also experienced enough to realize that, with or without medication. wbfergus^Talk 17:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no assumptions of fact underlying this proposal - it is a proposal for a principle, and makes no assertions about what happened or did not happen in this case. If the proposal were worded differently and in the finding of fact section your opposition would make a great deal more sense. ^Avruchtalk 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, warning needed before ban

5) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. Criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not be banned on the assumption of possible bad motives when there is no specific evidence, and should be given an opportunity to explain their actions without being prejudged. A warning should be given before banning, setting the condition that any repetition of the same behaviour will result in a ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by dave souza

Note that there are some circumstances where a ban without warning is appropriate, but such cases require specific evidence and not just assumption of possible bad motives. .. dave souza, talk 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this proposal per my comment in the preceeding section. wbfergus^Talk 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

6) Incivility, or a failure to adhere to community standards of decorum, can exacerbate situations that otherwise could be resolved amicably. It is incumbent upon all editors of Wikipedia to attempt to resolve disputes in a civil manner and without raising the level of rancor or contentiousness.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed ^Avruchtalk 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. It might be worthwhile examining the conduct of all parties to the ID image dust-up that formed the background to this dispute. .. dave souza, talk 11:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. All parties in this case, and their record of communications or other 'discussions', should be looked at, not only in regards to the apparent 'conflict' over the images or the ID article, but their civility and decorum on other talk pages as well. This expansion though would require a bit of time for the ArbCom members to conduct and 'may' be beyond the scope of the ArbCom case filing, but it would help give a lot more context to pre-existing behaviour of the involved parties, both before, during and after. I have no idea if this happened or not, but it is not beyond the realm of plausibility that after becomming engaged in a protractted dispute with Jim62sch and Orangemarlin, that VO then checked their talk pages and edit histories to see who they were and what kind of Wiki-history they had. Their 'dispute resolution process' would hardly have given VO a very favorable opinion. wbfergus^Talk 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threat can be construed where legal action is not threatened

7) The Wikimedia Foundation general counsel has expressed his opinion that a notice or warning of an affirmative obligation to report activity under the UCMJ is not a legal threat [5]. In the absence of a threat of legal action communication between editors cannot be deemed a legal threat subject to the NLT policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. ^Avruchtalk 03:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is like saying that a gangster who remarks on how easily your store could be robbed is not making a threat, because he didn't say "give me $X or I'll rob your store". Context is all-important in this case, and it has been noted that Godwin was not taking into account the specific context that we're dealing with. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't grant you the comparison and Theresa's intemperate comment is irrelevant - she says he was commenting in a discussion about general principles, and that would be what I am proposing here (a general principle). ^Avruchtalk 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously ArbCom will give due consideration to Godwin's opinion and put it in its proper context. I still think it makes no sense to say that intent must be explicitly stated in order for a statement to be a threat. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not see evidence of Godwin's post being irrelevant and not about this situation, as has often been claimed. How do we know this?--Filll (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. As titled, this proposal appears incorrect (though I am not a lawyer). Secondly, the opening paragraph I think may be erroneous, at least that is not my impression of why Mike Godwin made his statement. As my impression of the statement was relayed by another party though, I could be wrong, but it still doesn't make the title of this proposal any more correct. wbfergus^Talk 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect in what way? ^Avruchtalk 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object for now -- until someone can actually get Mike Godwin to look at this. He made a general comment in an informal e-mail exchange and I'm not sure he intended that his comments be taken as a formal opinion or quoted here. I suggest running this by him before incorporating this in any ArbCom proceeding as the Wikimedia Foundation general counsel's official opinion. Doing this is also a courtesy to him.

Once Mike Godwin is fully informed, if he's happy with the above then I'm happy with it and I withdraw my objection. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more concisely, never write about legal stuff without having your lawyer check it. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A threat can easily be made without threatening lagal action. If party threatens to disclose embarrasing information about another party, there is no legal action being threatned. If one party threatens to harm another, there is no legal action being threatened. Thes are just two simple examples of how this is worded improperly. wbfergus^Talk 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a threat can be made without the threat of legal action. However, how do you make a legal threat without a threat of legal action? ^Avruchtalk 19:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's in the wording. Currently it says "No legal threat can be construed where legal action is not threatened". This is ambiguous as to what is actually meant. Do you mean "Legally, no threat is made unless there is a threat of legal action", or do you mean something more along the lines of "Threats can only be considered a threat when some sort of action, legal, physical or otherwise are implied, dircetly or indirectly". There's such a possibility of word-play here, it's hard to tell exactly what is meant. I realize conciseness is important is a section title though, and really complicates it. wbfergus^Talk 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I mean legal threat as in "threat, of the type legal" rather than "threat as legally defined". I suppose it could be considered unclear based on that difference, but in the context of the NLT policy I think it is sufficient for our purposes. ^Avruchtalk 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be advised about unauthorised use of computers

8) In the proposed revised guidelines taking account of this case, editors should be advised that unauthorised use of computing facilities is not encouraged and can lead to difficulties if they make their identity known. Guidance should then be given for editors who suspect such unauthorised use. They should take care in bringing it up with the editor concerned lest it be taken as intimidation, and guidance should be given as to what they should do. If other users suspect such use, they should not contact the suspect on-wiki or by wiki-mail .... or other such guidance as is considered appropriate. [revised 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by dave souza

Not within the scope of the arbitration committee to determine. Also, strongly encourages Durova style sleuthing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can accept that it's not within the committee's scope, but there has been mention of revised guidelines and I think this is an aspect that should be considered. Of course WP:BEANS applies, but we should not be encouraging users to break the law or employment contracts. .. dave souza, talk 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised it a bit – does that meet your objection? .. dave souza, talk 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disgree with this proposal. This is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and most employers already make these 'actions' know to their employees anyway. In quite a few organizations (civilian, military or government), computer training is mandatory, and these issues are almost always included in the basic instructions. As such, it is beyond the scope Wikipedia or any of it's policies or guidelines. The second part of this proposal though may have some merit for assisting with future, similar cases. Maybe ArbCom can suggest a 'place' where instructions or guidance on such issues would be appropriate, so editors in the future can be reminded that extreme care should be excercised when broaching these subjects with parties in which they may be having a current dispute. Unless there is a severe criminal 'breech' occuring (like kiddie porn, threats, etc.), it is usually not considered proper to worry about where an editor is editing from or if they are even doing it during working hours on their employers time. Most employers already have network monitoring systems in place, and if this does take place, chances are usually pretty good that the employer will find out about all on their own, without any input from the Wikipedia community. wbfergus^Talk 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little closer to agreeing with this now that part of it has been struck out, but I still have problems with the first sentence. I still feel that it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. Some employers may allow it, others may not. It is not within Wikipedia's (or even Wikipedians) purvue to even attempt to make those distinctions. Employers usually have network monitoring systems in place to make these determinations themselves, and most employees receive such admonitions as part of their intial 'in-processing' or other mandatory training. wbfergus^Talk 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Videmus Omnia appears to have altered his arbitration request after receiving threats [9] [10] [11] and ultimately withdrew the request. Thatcher 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can draw conclusions from the withdrawn RFAR, but it's a no-brainer that these statements were made to deter editing. As the proposal correctly says, it's harassment. Cool Hand Luke 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VO filed the RFAr with the intention of bullying other editors into letting him win a content dispute. Jim's inclusion in the RFAr was spurious even under those circumstances. The only fact that can be established here is that about two hours before VO rescinded an RFAr meant only to bully other editors in a content dispute, he withdrew the most far-fetched of his allegations. To conclude that Jim's heads-up lead to VO's withdrawal of the RFA (after it had received two rejections and one "other") is most definitely not a logical conclusion to draw from these actions. No. VO withdrew an RFAr once it was obvious that it was going to be rejected. Blaming that on Jim is ridiculous. Guettarda (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be dense, and maybe I've missed something, but how do we know that the intent of the messages was "to discourage [him] from editing"? Did Jim say that somewhere? If not, doesn't WP:AGF exist precisely to discourage misunderstandings like this? If you cannot establish that Jim intended to threaten VO as opposed to notify him, there is no case. --Jim Butler^(talk) 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't mean to be dense but I can't see Jim's name on the withdrawn Rfar - Arbcom would never have accepted a content dispute anyway. Sophia 09:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim was originally named as a party and had also entered a statement. VO removed him from the list in a separate edit, in his first reaction to the blackmail, before he finally retracted the whole RFAR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation but I wish you wouldn't prejudge the intent of Jim - blackmail is a very strong word. Sophia 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use it in the full sense of its meaning, having seen the e-mail and having witnessed the effect it had at the time. "Judging intent"? But of course. We all do that all the time. Jim doesn't get to engage in the human game called communication and not invite others to try to figure out what the intent is behind what he says. That's what communication is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like the exact opposite of WP:AGF. Above, Thatcher proposes that Jim's intent was "to discourage [VO] from editing". Again, is there any evidence for this (I may well have missed it)? --Jim Butler^(talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith? Assuming rationality. There was exactly one reading under which the two parts of the e-mail (before and after the infamous "BTW") made any sense at all, taken together. That is what the passage means. Jim isn't a babbling idiot who doesn't know what he's saying, so we must assume he meant what his writings meant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taken together" - yes, that disclaimer is essential for your claim, especially in light of Jim's statement to the contrary that the statements were not meant to be taken together. I agree with you that Jim knows what he is saying. I don't agree that you do. I await evidence to the contrary. Thatcher, would you mind answering my question? Jim Butler^(talk) 09:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The given interpretation of the evidence is entirely dependent on a failure to assume good faith. The email suggests that Jim62sch does not know what the private use policy is for use of USAF computers and LAN lines, and would like to be advised of the policy, but says nothing about violation of the law and does not imply that VO has been using such computers. The diff which is mischaracterised as a "threat" explicitly says that had VO responded that he was not making such use, it would have ended the matter. The next diff is earler, and gives Jim's response to VO having made the whole issue public. Jim states his understanding of the situation, and accurately says "Do you really want to take this further? Feel free to, if you wish, but I doubt it'll prove satisfactory to anyone. Why you felt the need to bring this up here is beyond me". Note that Jim does not assume that it has been brought up in bad faith to harass Jim. Saying that the intent of the messages was "to discourage [him] from editing" is pure speculation as to motive behind the email, and is plainly incorrect in the other two examples where VO had already chosen to make the situation public at a time and place of his own choosing. Subsequent actions by VO might suggest that the effect of the statements was to discourage him from editing, but that is no indication of the intent, and had it been me the effect would have been to increase my determination to edit. We have no way of knowing why VO acted in the way he did. . .. dave souza, talk 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch has threatened to report Videmus Omnia

2.1) In the context of a hostile exchange between the two editors, Jim62sch made a remark in a private email that implied Videmus Omnia's Wikipedia activity might be in violation of military law.[12] Videmus Omnia interpreted this as a threat to report him to his superiors; he made some on-wiki statements characterizing Jim62sch's remark as a threat,[13][14][15] and Jim62sch did nothing to dispel the notion (though it is possible he did not see Videmus Omnia's statements). More recently, Jim62sch has affirmed a civic duty to report Videmus Omnia.[16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Trying to state the facts as fairly as possible. Judgments about harassment or legal threats can be dealt with separately. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed up to the last diff which is mischaracterised as "a civic duty to report Videmus Omnia". What Jim actually wrote was "that 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, sarge, that's known as doing one's duty as a civil servant as described by the OGE." His duty as part of his employment (not "civic duty") was to stop such activities, and he achieved this by sending VO an email effectively reminding VO to check that his use complied with USAF use policy. VO did so, and Jim's duty was fulfilled. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin has threatened to report Videmus Omnia

3) OrangeMarlin has threatened to report Videmus Omnia to his superiors for misuse of military computers [17] [18] Even after acknowledging Swatjester's evidence that such computer use may have been permissible, and is up to individual company commanders, OrangeMarlin states that he is obligated to report his suspicions, and might even be commended for doing so [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - the fact that you are including the words "threat" or "threatened" in each principle or finding of fact is a judgment against reality. Perhaps first you need to write a principle that says a warning of a legal obligation to report is in fact a legal threat - that would need to be the basis of this finding of fact. If you remove "threatened" then I think that this finding would be fine. (Plus the "Even after" expression of incredulity.) ^Avruchtalk 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have discussed this situation with other US Navy and Marine Corps officers, and they agree that I am now obligated to contact his commander." What is that then, if not an attempt to intimidate another editor? Also, please explain how "I will order you to stop editing and you will be obligated to comply" is an acceptable way for Wikipedia editors to treat each other. I repeat my comments above in Wear only your Wikipedia hat. If you can not edit without violating policies prohibiting threatening, harassing and intimidating other editors, then don't edit. Thatcher 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats like saying a police officer telling you that you are breaking the law is inappropriately 'intimidating' you. Sure, maybe you are intimidated by someone telling you that you are doing something illegal if you are. Maybe you even stop doing it - the solution isn't to report that person for informing you that you may be breaking the law and they are required to report you, the solution is to stop breaking the law or inform them that you have permission. ^Avruchtalk 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who has been making comments that could in any fashion be considered has harassing or threatening should cease this behavior immediately. Further guidance regarding acceptable conduct may be available from the decision in this case, when issued, which should hopefully be in the reasonably near future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A typical construction here would be "could reasonably be interpreted as harassing or threatening" not "could in any fashion be considered" since that leaves open the door for someone to broadly interpret seemingly benign interaction as "harassing or threatening." I'm not saying that Jim's e-mail was benign, or that some of OM's comments weren't inappropriate - but the fact remains that you should be able to be informed of a legal obligation to report without that being construed as harassment or threatening. ^Avruchtalk 17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the distinctions you are drawing. The decision in this case may reflect some of them. I would suggest that people take things easy for a couple more days while the arbitrators are reviewing the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A ruling here would have absolutely no bearing on the real world--I am obligated by law, I doubt the legal world would say, "oh my, yup we wouldn't want you violating some obscure provision of the Wikipedia law." Sorry guys, I know you all think Wikipedia rules the world, but in fact it doesn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin, only you are saying you're obligated by law. Everyone else, including JAG officers, are saying you're not. I know it may be hard for an officer, but try using some common sense. Nothing happens from you making an unfounded accusation against another editor to DoD, except you look bad, it wastes DoD resources, and gets you blocked from Wikipedia. Sit back and think about is this REALLY the best use of a LCDR's time? This is junior enlisted behavior. Not only that, but AFAICT this you're a reserve officer attempting to dictate some sort of obligation regarding an active duty soldier in a different branch. That's not the way it works, and you KNOW that. Seriously stop this behavior right now. Either report him, or don't, but stop claiming you have an obligation. If you REALLY had an obligation, you would have done it already. So put up, or shut up. All due respect. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, your anecdotes are interesting, but I don't know that you or your friends are what you say you are, and I don't even know if VO had anything to do with the USAF. I certainly assume good faith for the purposes of editing, but would not extend that to accepting your legal advice for use in real life. All due respect, dave souza, talk 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave souza, my identity has been long confirmed around here, by the board and the office. For the record, I'm on the board of the Iraq War Veterans Organization. If you'd like, you can compare pictures of me in Iraq, to pictures of me at the recent DC Wikimeeting, if that will help. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, that was rude, but whatever. How can I report someone whose name is unknown to me???? The rest of what you write is irrelevant, anecdotal, and not deserving of a civil reply, and since someone is attacking me for civility, I'll keep my real response shoved up my butt. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was rude. But look what it got us: you stating that you physically cannot report anyone. So why are you harping on some perceived obligation for something you can't actually do?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was something he couldn't do in future? VO has made copious information public, and I could tell OrangeMarlin how to find it with no use of admin tools, to be clear. Obviously I'm not going to do so. . . dave souza, talk 10:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave not you as well! Look at what you have just written and think how VO might feel if he read that. I'm glad you put in the "obviously I'm not going to do that" but going around saying you could could easily be perceived as threatening. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, I appreciate your concern at this time of heightened sensitivities. What I'm clumsily trying to convey is that even a complete computer duffer like myself could find it – things on the internet don't disappear, and we're hiding our heads in the sand if we think otherwise. It would be completely unethical for me to disclose the information, and I'm not going to do so. .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be taken in context with what Mike Godwin has said. See [20]. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, don't forget that OrangeMarlin was only made aware by VO of the situation leas than a week ago, and he was trying to explain his understanding at the same time as going through available documentation to check that his interpretation was correct. This suggests to me that OrangeMarlin's duty would be appropriately filled by seeking official confirmation of just what his duty is, asking an appropriate USAF officer for guidance, giving out no information about VO's identity. If the guidance is that no report is needed, job done, and if it is otherwise, a report should be made without any further announcement or discussion here. Any comments before I propose this formally in the workshop? .. dave souza, talk 09:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some supporters of Orangemarlin continue to defer to his reported military status, experience (20-25 years ago), limited officer training and perceived obligations, even as they are dismissive of others with conflicting, probably more accurate views of contemporary American military life and legal obligations. Beyond VO himself, a career senior NCO, this has included Swatjester, a recent combat veteran (2001-2006), respected admin and now a Foundation legal intern; the JAG officer Swatjester consulted about this issue; wbfergus, father of a soldier in Iraq who made extensive use of officially-provided computers to stay in touch; Durova, who served much more recently as an actual line officer in the American Navy. This has even included questioning whether they are who they've stated they are.

I think this inconsistent behaviour undercuts the case they have been trying to build on Orangemarlin's behalf. I know I find it offputting as I read everything on this and the other pages. Taken too far and it begins to reinforce the views of some of Jim62sch and Orangemarlin's longtime critics. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer totally to the honourable gentlemen's expertise, but there are a few issues here. A minor one is that I automatically do not treat Wikipedia as a reliable source, perhaps it's a bad habit. The second is that in considering what someone's saying, it's important to assume good faith and try to understand their viewpoint. Orangemarlin's statements indicate a particular experience, with viewpoints and understandings which may well differ in today's military, but are none the less sincerely held. While statements here give considerable hope that his understanding of his duties is too pessimistic, if I want legal advice I'm going to go to my own lawyer, and if I want to be sure someone doesn't hold me liable I want it in writing in a document that will stand up in court. My training as an architect and hence quasi-arbiter is to take an open but critical view of all information, and be cautious about trusting anything that isn't well nailed down. I have no doubt that there has been incivility on both sides, but we seem to me to be dealing with significant real life issues here as well. Sorry if you find that off-putting. ... dave souza, talk 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin's recent incivility

4) Per this evidence Orangemarlin has a recent history of incivility towards various editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Not related directly to this episode but presented here as a background about Orangemarlin. Whether he was incorrect in his involvement this time or not his recent history shows that he has violated WP:CIV. violet/riga (t) 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, Violet, and it is appropriate for the ArbCom to consider this evidence as background. But I don't know that it would be appropriate to officially broaden this case beyond the specific VO incident, in the absence of a prior RfC. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not. I presented this here to show that this incident almost seems to have been boiling up and that it is not just something that has come out of nowhere - it comes from a user that, just prior to these events, was warned about his behaviour. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection, and evidently Guettarda's, is that Videmus Omina was bullying and aggressive in trying to get fair use images removed from the ID article, and showed this when taking a content dispute to RfAr rather than seeking consensus. Presumably an effort should also be made to consider detailed evidence of this as background. .. dave souza, talk 10:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further establish background, please see my 'evidence' section [here]. This behaviour was 'not' soley directed at only VO, and 'appears' to be a normal part of Orangemarlin's editing behaviour when disputes arise. wbfergus^Talk 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redacted per rewritten version below. wbfergus^Talk 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a good time to point out that civility and no personal attacks applies to everyone. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, wbfergus, your comment was way out of line and I suggest removing it. --B (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redacted per rewritten version below. wbfergus^Talk 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Rewrite of previous comments)

Orangemarlin states [here] that his duty (reporting VO), trained into his brain, is to report it, and let the officer in command deal with it. However, all military officers of all branches also have thoroughly drilled into their brains lessons about being "an officer and a gentleman", are constantly reminded of this through various military proceedings of "conduct unbecoming an officer", etc. Much of this 'training' specifically deals with treating others with respect (civility). Doctors get similar training, or at the very least, are offered training. My own doctor, and two of my wife's doctors specifically said that as part of their schooling, they had to take a class in 'bedside manners'. I do not know if all medical schools require this, but it does seem like it would appropriate for doctors. Anyway, the point of all of this is that Orangemarlin has stated that he is both a military officer and a doctor. He should therefore be fully aware of these principals as he is allegedly is of the UCMJ and the various rules and regulations of all the various branches of the military and their subordinate commands. Yet, he states that "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.. Just because he claims to be in the military does not excuse him from abiding by Wikipedia standards while here. My main point is that even though he obviously knows better, he has intentionally decided that he can break the 'rules' and act without regard to his prior 'training' or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. wbfergus^Talk 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatible arguments

4) Videmus Omnia has made two statements in respect of computer use and the email Jim62sch sent. In one, the email is represented as a threat to VO's livelihood. In the other, VO states that all edits were in off-duty hours and compliant with acceptable use policy. In order to perceive the email as a threat, VO could not have been sure beforehand that the use was within policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no incompatability. If someone threatened to complain to my employer about my editing of Wikipedia, I would find this to be a very serious threat and act of harassment even if I were confident that the complaint lacked merit and would be discarded once it was reviewed. I would be even more concerned if my employer were a large, bureaucratic organization such as the U.S. military. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a puzzle to me as the two statements are irreconcilable. VO needs to clarify when policy was checked to ensure all edits were in compliance, and clarify whether Jim's email was what prompted a review of said policy, or whether VO was always knowingly within policy, in which case the threat to livelihood argument is specious and should not have been advanced. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the insightful posting here [21]. There is a very real scenario how a complaint could have damaged a person's career even if ultimately unfounded. This is what he was worried over at the time. I don't know what happened in the meantime that made him more confident, it's none of our business. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want my workplace to receive a complaint about me no matter how unfounded. The investigations would be stressful and there would be a presumption of guilt. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

An 'Official' slap on the wrist

1) At a minimum, an 'Official' slap on the wrist to all of the involved parties, with the warning that any future, similar conduct would not be condoned, and that this slap on the wrist could very well be used against them then for more serious penalties. This would not entail any bans, blocks, or anything else other than an admonishment to refrain from such activities in the future. This appears to be mainly a severe case of extremely poor judgement, habitual abusive behaviour (civility and personal attacks), and poor communcation skills. But, after thorough investigation, the ArbCom may decide more stringent warnings would be more appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: