Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence

Not sure why Theresa is wasting bandwidth attack me personally in a Rfa about Jim62sch, but I don't really care. She obviously is lacking in the knowledge of criminal behavior, which I am obligated by law to report. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This is all in response to Theresa. I hope she reads it.

Let me summarize. An employee from Microsoft adding inside information about Microsoft on Microsoft's computer network? Don't care, because it might violate Microsoft policy, but AFAIK, it does not violate United States criminal law, and certainly does not violate military law. 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. As I have said, I am consciously not trying to find out who he is, despite the fact that I know that previous versions of his User page are easily accessed. 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't quote the entire policy. The policy only expressly prohibits, "LEWD OR SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIALS, CHAIN LETTERS OR MAILINGS, PRIVATE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, AND ANY OTHER USES THAT WOULD REFLECT ADVERSELY ON THE AIR FORCE OR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE." [1]. This means that other use of military computers for non-job-related activity, such as editing Wikipedia, is at the unit commander's discretion. Thus, editing Wikipedia from a military computer is not necessarily against the UCMJ. If the unit commander says, "Don't edit Wikipedia from your work computer", or, "Don't participate in a non-military interactive website (like Wikipedia) unless I approve it in advance" and one of his unit members does it anyway, then the UCMJ has been violated. We don't know if the subject's unit commander in this case has said any of this or not. So, we don't know if a UCMJ violation has occurred. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is amusing. You're failing to include a key subsection. "COMMANDERS AND SUPERVISORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT ASSIGNED PERSONNEL USE GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES FOR OFFICIAL OR AUTHORIZED PURPOSES ONLY." Typical of the military, what isn't expressly forbidden isn't necessarily expressly allowed. But whatever. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I want to be one. 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. But once again, I'm just responding to Theresa's comments about me despite the fact that this is not about me. That's all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the regulation doesn't specifically prohibit editing Wikipedia from a military workstation. It's up to the individual commanders and supervisors to determine if it is allowed or not. Not you. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must be reading a different language. It says for official or authorized purposes only. Anyways, I'm certainly not taking advice from you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put your arguments on the evidence page rather than the talk page. However in answer to your question as to why I am including you; you chose to jump in and defend your friend's actions on thre ANI, you chose to repeat the threat multiply times, so you involved yourself in this incident. Naturally the arbitration committee need to know how you both gang up; it would have been negligent of me not to include you. Not also that criticing your behaviour is not an attack. I have nothing against you personally and do not wish to cause you distress, but you behaviour does need to be looked at by the AC which is why I added it to my evidence. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend???? Excuse me? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you and Jim62sch are practically joined at the hip, but he's not your friend? I don't have a problem with people tending to work together and back each other up on WP (within limits), but don't pretend that isn't what you are doing. If you want evidence, I can easily pull up some diffs, but I think it should be unnecessary. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a chance to answer. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pile-on was unintentional. I didn't see the break in the thread until after I made the comment. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin, you are assuming that "official and authorised purposes" means what is stated in the UCMJ. Others are saying that "official and authorised purposes" include instances where commanders and supervisors give authorisation (ie. "yes, you can use these computers for personal use at these times, with the usual caveats" = authorisation). In other words, it is up to the commanders and supervisors, not you. Sure, you should report what you feel you need to report, but I'm sure that excessive and frivolous reporting would be as poorly looked upon as excessive and frivolous personal use of computers (ie. both are just wasting time). Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect. If I identify myself publicly, and state that I am in fact a LCDR in the United States Navy Reserve, I would order him to cease using government property, he would be OBLIGATED to follow my orders. And trust me, I am so close to doing, because I am incensed that VO would appropriate Government Property for his own personal vendetta against Wikipedia editors.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. It's time to end this argument. As a left-wing Democrat, I can't believe I'm writing this: but those of you who haven't served in the military have the luxury of drinking beers, being fat and lazy, and sitting behind your computer pontificating on issues about which you have no clue (many thanks to Colonel Jessup).OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing something in all this. VO has stated that he has only edited off duty [2]. Is there any evidence to refute that claim? I can't even believe I'm going down this road and giving credence to this stuff, but it's a question that's at least worth asking. --B (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin I assumed that Jim62sch was a real life friend. You defended him so vigorously, he answered for you on your talk page, you take on my argument was almost exactly the same. He seemed to know you were feeling harrassed before you mentioned it yourself.Are you saying above that he isn't your friend? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, I'm not even on the same continent as Jim and OM, I answered on OM's talk page for him, and hope I'm friends with as many Wikipedians as possible. Your remarks seem to suggest that friendships are problematic, and I trust you don't really mean that. .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think it's problematic at all. I just aassumed they were friends and then OM's comment above seemed to suggest that such an assumption was out of line. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it may seem odd but collaborating on this project can build mutual respect and friendships. I'll go out of my way to defend people whose edits I respect, whether or not I agree with their views. Unfortunately, there are several processes here that increase pressure on people, and create the need for such defence. They're necessary, but not as much fun as just editing. .. dave souza, talk 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Orange:

"… 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…" ^[3]

Orange, none of us really knows for sure who the others are in this discussion and what their nationalities or military backgrounds might be.

In practice, there are so many regulations in the military that everybody in uniform is "wiggling" to some extent everyday, especially in the actual "line communities".

I go back to a question that I asked earlier elsewhere -- before you attempt to get another editor in a lot of trouble (criminal prosecution if I'm interpreting your posts correctly), does anyone even know for sure he's using military equipment? That seems pretty important: just because someone is in the military doesn't mean they're editing on company time. You are editing during normal U.S. office hours but that doesn't necessarily mean you're editing at work does it? --A. B. ^(talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriosuly what is the point of asking such a question? Jim62sch had no intention of actually reporting anyone, he sent the email in order to intimidate, pure and simple. When pulled up on this on the ANI his response was to taunt as was OM's, this whole business about legal duty is just a plausible smokecreen put up to hide bully boy tactics. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Orangemarlin's acting in good, if upset, faith and I'd like to hear his answer. I also posed some additional questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Statement by A. B.. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, this will likely be the last time I respond to you, as you seem unwilling to comprehend the facts, and appear to be prone to jumping to contusions in this case. Admittedly, I would not have expected this from you, but here we are.

At no point did I threaten; a threat would be "if you don't stop doing x, then I'll do y". I made no such statement, nor any statement that could be logically construed to be in the spirit of a threat such as described.

You have no way to judge intent, absolutely none. Had you any legal knowledge, you'd understand that intent is one of the hardest things to establish.

Yes, I believe I told VO to go for it, as it is his right to do so. I was and remain more than willing for him to do so, as he has done, as I have nothing to hide or to fear. I already explained that I was sorry that VO took my question as a threat, and I'm rather intrigued as to why he simply did not answer my e-mail with an explanation. If you wish to try to guess (or decide) intent, you might want to look into VO's actions.

That's really all I have to say to you, as I simply refuse to continue participating in a monolithic, repetitive conversation. Thank you for your time. •Jim62sch• 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud you don't have to say "unless you do this or that then I will do whatever" for it to be a threat. Your whole arguments rest on me being to stupid to understand your legal point. Whereas the fact of the matter is I understand it perfectly. I just don't believe it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can and should Orangemarlin be added to the request? If so, what is the process for doing so? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Has Orangemarlin actually sent anything to VO or anyone else which might breach policy, or just noted that he might find himself obligated to do so in discussions / flamewars on ANI and elsewhere? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it 'seems' like there might be case for so-called 'tag-team' harrassment. Where one of them seems to engage in flame wars with somebody, the other usually shows up quite quickly to lay on some more. That's a matter for the ArbCom to decide, if they so wish. I don't know it's reasonable for them to investigate or not, that's merely my own observation from my talk page and the NOR talk page. wbfergus ^Talk 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin has arguably violated WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Comments removed by Theresa here would be evidence. I think that Orangemarlin has been a significant enough part of the discussions to be included as a party. violet/riga (t) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Orangemarlin has made the same threats on this page that Jim62sch is alleged to have made in an email, when he stated at the very top of the page "which I am obligated by law to report". So, unless he is willing to a lawbreaker himself, which the tone of his message implies he is not, he feels compelled to report this. This is a much more direct threat than anything I've seen so far, and still without any proof of misuse, other than VO is in the military. Should Wikipedia just do a block on all IP's assigned to DoD? wbfergus ^Talk 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems sort of a stretch. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding wrongdoing on OrangeMarlin's part in terms of calling the defense of Jim62sch a threat would create a chilling effect whereby it would be difficult to openly express an opinion regarding an arbcom case. There is obviously incivility on OrangeMarlin's part that would be legitimate material for a case, but it would disturb me somewhat if simply the fact that he offers evidence in support of Jim62sch is itself sufficient cause for corrective action. To use, as an analogy, another current case, suppose Arbcom were to find that Giano was blocked in error, then proceed to desysop everyone who agreed with the block whether they had anything to do with it or not. I would not find a problem with including OrangeMarlin to consider civility, but I would have a very big problem with considering merely the fact that OrangeMarlin defended Jim62sch. --B (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, I think it depends on whether you consider these edits here and here as intimidation. Some seem to read them as such, others don't. If they're not intimidation, then I agree with you. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just on this page, Orangemarlin has done the same thing Jim62sch is alledged to have done. Above Orangemarlin has stated:

• She obviously 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.
• If I identify myself publicly, and state that I am in fact a LCDR in the United States Navy Reserve, I would order him to cease using government property, he would be OBLIGATED to follow my orders. And trust me, I am so close to doing, because I am incensed that VO would appropriate Government Property for his own personal vendetta against Wikipedia editors.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.
• ...who do not understand the legal obligations under which I am responsible.

Reread everything above in context, and it sure 'seems' that the same alledged threats have been made. That may be enough to get Orangemarlin added to the case. Those statements were made above and beyond just supplying evidence to support his friend, which could have been done easily without those 'threats'. wbfergus ^Talk 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock because the populace simply could not understand what he was saying. He explained, but he might as well have been explaining to Cerberus. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the Salty Dog? Unfortunately the discussion at AN/I was framed in terms of harassment, threats and blackmail, and people have understandably tended to read between the lines on earnest attempts at explanation which should be examined with an open mind, assuming good faith. .. dave souza, talk 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ye old three-headed salty dog. I've seen some reading under the lines as well. •Jim62sch• 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Don't you people want to write an encyclopedia? Come on, we should all use some common sense here. Where is the threat? Orangemarlin even said although he would be obligated to report it, he would not go out of his way to find out so he put himself in that position. Orangemarlin is saying he would bend over backwards to avoid doing anything here.-Filll (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But again, with context, he clarified that by saying "In doing so, my anonymity here would be completely destroyed.", so that is his caveat for not doing so. It's easy to be the big, bad, abrasive bully when nobody knows who you are. wbfergus ^Talk 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a lynch mob it's an arbitration page, People are entitled to state thier opinions here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can be blocked for expressing an opinion here in an uncivil or personal-attackey manner, just like anywhere else on-wiki. And, to be honest, if this keeps up a bunch of you will be getting warnings from me on your talk pages about that. This page is way over the line. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think any of mine are too attacky feel free to edit them into a more polite form whiste keep the meaning intact. Sometimes, when arguing a point one's feels strongly about things can get heated. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally rather not go changing anyone's comments in a RfAR case (even on a talk page) - The potential for abuse and further drama seems heightened if anyone edits the comments, even for a normally good reason like that.

I think that you (and others) are good editors and admins, and know what "the right thing to do" is. I understand that this case has you upset over behavior you consider abusive. I think that seeing what you consider administrator abuse of users is something we should get upset over. But NPA and CIVIL are important. All you need to do is slow down a little and remember that before you type here, and everything and everyone will be fine. Getting angrier and rude with people does not help in any way to discover the truth of actions or intentions, or ultimately resolve the case. Take the step back, then re-engage more calmly, and we'll all benefit.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, I'm not actually angry,more incenced, and I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I do need to talk in a straight fashioned manner. My manner is straightforward most of the time. I will be critical of people when I see someone doing something wrong,and I don't get offended when someone is critical of me. I expect people who not to be too sensitive because I'm not that sensitive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually angry, incensed...Hmmm... --Filll (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so my use of english is crap.Theresa Knott | The otter sank —Preceding comment was added at 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply was to a stricken comment Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Georgewilliamherbert thank you. I agree completely. It is very unseemly to have so many here baying for blood. People, the world is watching us. So be careful what you write.--Filll (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worrisome -- Videmus Omina, a prolific editor, hasn't edited in almost 3 days since this broke out, notwithstanding the opening of this proceeding. He had an admin delete his user page, then redirected it to his talk page. I wonder if he's leaving because of the heat. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but that's neither here nor there really. Three days isn't very long anyways, and we shouldn't speculate. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. An arbitrator went inactive for nearly a month at the start of the Hoffman case. We shouldn't read too much into such things unless there is clear evidence of statements of intent to leave. The deletion of the user page could be for other reasons. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not know.--Filll (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, that's a very good point that we shouldn't speculate. This whole AN/1 and RfAr has been rife with speculation as to the motives of Jim62sch (and now OrangeMarlin), on the basis of guessing his intentions and motives behind an ambiguous email that asks a question but makes no threat to disclose information. Videmus Omina had already made public his prolific editing, including the dates and times of every edit, and unless there was some significant change in his user page after September, had also made public his first name, rank, unit, base and the city at which the base is located. The AN/I was brought in the context of arguments about the NPOV treatment of creationism, and the question of use of USAF facilities was publicised by Videmus Omina to support those bringing the AN/I. This isn't just a private chat, and supporters of creationism others on wikipediareview, including one banned user who was disruptive on ID articles, are showing a keen interest. I've tried to be cautious in my statements, but the above information is all public, and security through obscurity is not reliable. . . dave souza, talk 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) strike out and italicised text added 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC), first time I've read wikipediareview. dave souza, talk[reply]

Everything they say should be taken with a lake of salt - the MO over there is "assume bad faith and extrapolate from there". One email does not constitute harassment, and neither does a misguided attempt to explain, when the email is dragged up months later to try to put the boot in during a content dispute. The arbitrators have evidence of an admin who undeleted an article written by a banned user, while banned, at the banned user's request, said request being made on Wikipedia Review. This was not considered actionable because it was too long ago. The same applies to this email: if it was that big a deal, VO should have brought it up at the time rather than storing it away to use as ammunition when the time is right. I don't buy the idea that Jim is harassing VO, it looks rather more the other way around, actually. Both sides should have had more sense, but VO is responsible for the shitstorm we now have, and the blame for that lies solely at VO's feet. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did bring it up at the time, with Jimbo. He already explained this. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see, I know Jimbo reasonably well by now, and here's how I think that conversation went:

VO: A user is harassing me

JW: Bad news, send evidence

VO: Here's the email

JW: And what about the rest of the evidence?

VO: It's just the email

JW: OK, come back when there is some kind of pattern of bad behaviour, or where there's evidence of him goign up agianst someone who's not in a content dispute with him.

Speculation, of course, but I would bet one of my small stock of ever-deflating dollar bills that it was pretty close to that. Understand, I am absolutely against harassment, and if I thought Jim was genuinely harassing someone rather than simply engaging in a tetchy content dispute I would simply not be here. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't speculate to that degree. Why not try asking Jimbo what his response was? 86.145.49.154 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Guy, are you saying that VO misquoted Jimbo, or quoted him out of context? You can't say that without seeing the rest of the e-mail. I think Jimbo needs to help clear that point up, and your speculation isn't helping. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that in my experience of Jimbo he is perfectly willing to block people in clear and unambiguous cases, but he asks for evidence first. Had such evidence been forthcoming, I have little doubt that Jimbo would have blocked. But this is, as I said, speculation, and as Thatcher notes below probably not productive, so I will drop it. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has the email. Speculation can only be counterproductive at this point. Thatcher 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it from the other POV, Orangemarlin states that since he is in the military, he somehow feels that he is obligated to report VO, otherwise if somebody finds out that he 'knew' (not suspected, but knew) that there was an obvious misuse of government property and he didn't report it, he would be just as guilty as VO (if VO actually is guilty of anything), and could be brought up on charges.

However, Orangemarlin also states later that he is so upset now because by reporting VO, he would lose his anonymity. So, without any evidence of wrongdoing on VO's part, Orangemarlin above has made a somewhat circular argument that 'if' VO actually was misusing government property and he didn't report it, others could magically know who he is and therefore report him as well, even though he has also stated that on here he is anonymous. The argument doesn't make sense.

Except for a few friends, I don't think anybody on here knew he was a LCDR in the Reserve. So, if nobody knew who he was, how could anybody report him for inaction to the military authorities for a possible violation? Are we to also assume then that since he is a LCDR in the Reserve, that any edits on a weekend are therefore a possible violation as well, since we don't know which weekends he actually is on drill, so there is an unproven 'chance' that maybe one of those weekend edits was actually done during 'military time' on or through government equipment? Should we also assume, similar to the accusations made against VO, that any Wikipedian who is in the military or even employeed by the US government and edits during the 'normal' 8-5 timeframe is misusing government equipment and automatically report all of them, to let their superiors decide?

Heck, why don't we just require all Wikipedians to list their timezone and employer, so that Wikipedia can automatically block their account during 8-5, and any attempts to edit WP during that timeframe will result in an automatic email to their listed employer notifying them of a possible infraction. Doesn't that sound like a far easier and better solution than just making (or suggesting) alleged infractions of 'law' without any evidence? Talk about ludicrous vacuous arguments, that's the whole 'idea' (supposedly) behind why the comments about reporting VO were made (assuming good faith).

Jim62sch and Orangemarlin would have us believe that they innocently, and with all intentions of good faith, merely 'suggested' to VO that since he/she is in the military and some edits were done during normal working hours, that an apparent misuse of government equipment was happening, so without any evidence that it actually was, they therefore felt an obligation to lose their anonymity so their anonymous accounts couldn't get reported for not reporting something for which they had no proof. wbfergus ^Talk 11:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that either suggested to VO was that he, as a self-professed Air Force Master Sergeant, might advise on the USAF policy on use of computers and network. Of course the policy may allow all the use that has been made, or indeed VO might be a high school dropout with a copy of USAF for Dummies and a DVD of Top Gun, but all the rest of the argument was made public by VO. The foundation's legal advice seems to back the view taken by Jim62sch and Orangemarlin about their legal duties, no doubt that will be discussed in private. Your argument should really be "why don't we require all US personnel who suspect possible misuse of computing facilities for WP editing to shop the editors without giving them any chance to explain their actions". ... dave souza, talk 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wbfergus, your argument is uncompelling and does not hold water or inspire any confidence here. My view of the situation is:

1. A content dispute with Jim and VO is ongoing
2. VO advertises loudly and longly that he is in the Air Force and where he is stationed and what position he holds there and even his name and other identifying information.
3. Jim is on pain meds, and sends an inquiry to VO 4 months ago asking about computer use policy in the Air Force, since VO appears to be editing around the clock, every day, day after day, except for maybe 7 hours a day (for sleep?). Jim works for the US government and from his job is very aware of US government regulations about computer usage.
4. This inquiry of Jim is not a threat. According to Jim, it was not intended as a threat. Legal opinion of the Foundation's lawyer is that it is not a threat. I read it as a caution of one editor to another to be careful to avoid getting into trouble.
5. Jim forgets about the email and VO, since he was on pain meds and it was months ago.
6. Someone complains about Jim at AN/I for, among other things, stating that he would object to a teacher of his own children violating US law. It is felt that this statement of Jim is inappropriate, on his own user talk page !!!??!!!
7. VO resurfaces to claim harassment, months and months later.
8. VO claims that Jim threatened to tell VO's boss he was using computers at work.
9. VO claims Jimbo promised to ban Jim
10. Against serious rules on WP, VO reveals a private email that contains no threat, even according to a lawyer working for WP.
11. VO alleges that Jim committed a felony, a serious charge for which there appears to be no basis. Again, a serious violation of wikiquette.
12. VO produces no evidence that Jimbo did promise to ban Jim.
13. VO and others demand an answer. Jim tries to remember the incident, and suggests that it might have been required for him to report illegal usage of government computers.
14. Orangemarlin confirms, that according to his understanding as a reserve officer, he is required to report inappropriate computer usage, or suffer personal consequences
15. Orangemarlin's discussion and Jim's suggestion are now the focus. The crowd does not care about the initial letter so much, but more about this discussion after the fact. The crowd is furious that such regulations might exist in the US government and tries to explain them away with wishful and magical thinking and anecdotes. I personally can verify that such regulations exist, and that the US government uses polygraphs in some cases to discover if anyone working for it knows about computer misuse. If you are found to be lying on a poly about something like this, the consequences can be severe.
16. Orangemarlin makes it very clear, several times, that he does NOT intend to report VO and is going out of his way to not learn VO's identity, although a few keystrokes would reveal VO's identity.
17. Jim and Orangemarlin respond at this Administrative action. The crowd is furious that they are responding and furious if they do not respond fast enough and furious that they did not respond to what the crowd thinks they should have responded to.
18. Orangemarlin states, much after the initial discussion, that he would not want to reveal his identity, but would be prepared to by contacting VO's superiors, but will not do so. Orangemarlin has confirmed over and over and over that he does not intend to contact VO's superiors, and is going out of his way to not put himself in a situation where he might be obligated to contact VO's superiors. Orangemarlin makes it clear he is purposely looking the other way.
19. Orangemarlin's mention of revealing his identity is now seized on by the crowd as evidence of OM's very bad motivations and evidence of how awful Orangemarlin is.

This entire episode is ridiculous. These charges being leveled are somewhat silly. Some statements by those who want to lynch Jim and OM almost amount to blatant harassment, far in excess of a reminder email or inquiry email sent by Jim. If I made a list of the statements and offenses of the "two sides", I suspect that the anti-Jim side has not represented its case in the best possible fashion. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way shape or form. It is not intended as a slur. --Filll (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, in my opinion editors are looking at the case in good faith, but their whole slant on it has been biased by VO poisoning the well in the way he characterised the "harassment" and framed the whole situation when announcing what had been a private and long forgotten matter. Interesting that, far from VO being intimidated, it was Jim62sch who retired from the argument about use of images. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I understand completely your position as a strong complement to the Jim62sch and Orangemarlin tag-team combination. You are usually the one who actually makes an attempt to engage constructively in 'discussions', though you also have the tendency to be so flippant in many of your 'comments' that it is generally difficult to understand if you are in fact attempting to contribut constructively or if instead you are merely arguing a point just to to argue.

1. 1. 1. (Your #4) Maybe if Jim62sch was communicating with you, the email could easily be interpreted as a mere caution (since you friends). But however, it can easily be construed as the exact opposite given the normal rhetoric that Jim62sch, Orangemarlin, and sometimes yourself express to other editors when there is any 'dispute'. Generally, these are not civil exchanges, but uncivil exchanges, filled with profanity and very border-line personal attacks. Based solely upon these previous exchanges, it would extremely easy for any person to interpret correctly or incorrectly the implied meaning of the email as a veiled threat.
      2. (your #4 again, and #10) I myself haven't seen any communication from any lawyer legally representing Wikipedia. I'm impressed by your such close contacts with the Wikipedia Foundation's legal team that they communicate with you directly in an ArbCom case without expressing their opinions openly here on the case.
      3. (Your #14) Inappropriate computer usage varies across all organizations, and as such, is a vague term. It can clearly be identified as surfing porn sites, gambling sites, etc., but I hardly think Wikipedia falls into those categories. Even within the same branch of the military, and even within the same major 'unit', there can (and often are) varying allowances made as what is acceptable or unacceptable. Some units will allow their servicemembers to read abook while on duty, while others will strictly prohibit it, insisting that that is an inappropriate use of official time. If Jim62sch truly does work for the IRS, then that would explain why his 'agency' has such strict regs regarding their computer usage. My agency (and all the others within our Department) however don't have such draconian regs. Few are the people (usually part-time students), who only have less than 500 MB of files. Most have gigabytes of information, many with terabytes, stored on both their personal computer and on the file server and elsewhere throughout the organization. With very few exceptions, most are allowed access to the internet by default. In a few case, access to particular websites does need to be granted special permission though, such as hacker sites, so the security people can see what new tools the hackers have and are using.
      4. (Your #16) I fail to see anywhere above that Orangemarlin does not intend (or even cannot do so now) to report VO. In fact, by his own words, he states that he has been told by other military officers that he must now report VO. (which I am obligated by law to report, I could be charged for an offense equally as bad as VO, and they agree that I am now obligated to contact his commander and the legal obligations under which I am responsible). You must be seeing things in the comments that somehow escape my eye. On the contrary, I see the exact opposite of what you claim.
      5. (Your #18) Very similar to your #16, I cannot see that anywhere above. In fact, Orangemarlin explictly stated "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". That doesn't leave any wiggle room. He has explictly stated that he brought this already to the attention of other military officers (so they now know that he is aware of possible misuse of government equipment). They (by his own words) have stated that he must now contact VO's commander (or other responible military authority) or (again by his own words) "be charged for an offense equally as bad as VO".

There isn't any wiggle room in there at all. Orangemarlin has said that he discussed this with other military officers (who do know who he is), and that he was told he has to report this or face similar charges himself. I suppose if VO doesn't come on here and say that he is posting from a non-military computer and that he has been admonished not to use a government computer again on Wikipedia, that we can all assume that Orangemarlin has therefore broken the law (again by his own statements) by not reporting this and can have charges brought up against him. See how silly this whole has become, due primarily to belligerent behaviour over a period of time? If this was only a one-time deal, then it could easily be ignored and forgotten. But, behaviour similar to this has occured on numerous talk pages, including my own. There is a pattern of excessive belligerence and taunting.

On the otherhand, I wouldn't want to see either Jim62sch or Orangemarlin banned or blocked from Wikipedia either. When they decide to be constructive editors, they appear to be very beneficial to numerous articles. But they do need to refrain from what most 'average' editors would consider abusive behaviour. It doesn't bother me that much, I'm ex-Army myself and quite accustomed to it. But, there are many people here on Wikipedia unaccustomed to it, and there are also several policies and guidelines in place stating it is unacceptable. Therefore, we must adapt to those policies and guidelines whether we consider such actions acceptable or not. wbfergus ^Talk 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One comment I will make here, is that this is not the first time I've seen US military people (or people claiming to be military people - anyone remember that case some time ago about a Star Trek editor?) involved in arbitration cases, or indeed just present in general on Wikipedia. One of the things involving these editors is that they seem to have some enhanced status because of being in the military - and often editors spring to their defence with patriotic statments and the like, and will attack the other side with accusations of "armchair general" type behaviour and "they are defending you", and so on. Can I ask US editors if this reflects how things work in real life? Do people in the USA generally argue over military and patriotic issues like this? Finally, I am horrified at the polygraph techniques referred to here. I hope some people in the USA object to that sort of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have never seen or heard of this until now, at least regarding something as innocent as accessing and possibly editing Wikipedia. I have heard of it done to one guy who was actually running a child porn web site off of a government computer (he worked in the next building over from where I work), and bunch of cops showed up to haul him away and the evidence. Also, being ex-military myself, and from a very long line of military members, I can say that 'incidents' such as this are quite common in the military, where people use government equipment for personal use. It is generally tolerated on a small scale, killng time, making a copy of an important document for the Dr. or a mortgage company or somethng like that, but is almost always prosecuted for major cases like using a government vehicle for personal business, or using the units copy machine to print flyers for a persons band, or things like that. Most people respect the rules and laws, and agree that there is a grey area (usually a broad grey area), over what is acceptable or not. Very few people see things in strictly black or white (right or wrong) with no middle area. Those people generally don't last long in the military and are given assignments most people wouldn't want so that they decide on their own that they don't want to remain in the military after their time is up. I myself am a very active and supporter of the military on the whole, but I also know full well that there are a whole bunch of 'slugs' in the military who would never make it in the civilian world, except maybe as a ditch-digger, a warehouseman, or possibly as a janitor (not meaning to impugn those professions). wbfergus ^Talk 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the previous case I was referring to (as involving military matters) is here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wbfergus, your liberties with the facts, your sarcasm and assorted attacks and smears do not bolster your position very much. I might respond to you later. But you are not just a little bit wrong, but quite wrong in many of your contentions. I am afraid I do not find these gratuitous assertions very compelling. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to the above post? You appear to have forgotton to actually say anything. Let me do it for you: Wbfergus when you talk of Military people only being good for digging ditches you slur people like Orangemarlin who are in the military and who you are implying are acting as one of the 'slugs' by arguing in black and white as you put it. If that was not your intention then you should clarify and apologise as it looks like a personal attack. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think you are here to pour gasoline on the fire, as near as I can determine wbfergus and TK. However, I would like people to realize that there might be another interpretation of the situation than what they are so frantically proclaiming. For example, take a look here. Do not be too sure you are right and your position is the only one here. Bullying others to try to force your opinions really reflects poorly. Sorry for any offense this causes.--Filll (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you think an ArbCom arbitration page is the place for personal attacks and insults. However, what I wrote above was for the most part, just a direct cut'n'paste of what Orangemarlin has written on this page, nothing more. You assert that he has no intention of reporting VO, yet his own words state that since brought the matter up to other military officers, that they told him that he is now compelled to follow through. How is that taking liberties with the facts? Those are his own words. wbfergus ^Talk 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, maybe the omission (a typo) of "don't" gave the wrong impression. After re-reading it, I saw that was missing. Without it, it does give the wrong impression. On the whole, there are lots of great people in the military, but there are also a bunch of slugs there as well (similar to civilian jobs, but much harder to get rid of. When my oldest son was being mustered out of the Army for PTSD (which he was fighting), he was assigned to a unit that consisted solely (except for the officers and NCO's in charge) of people the Army was getting rid of. Most of those in that unit were being kicked out for being stoned while on duty, or even smoking a joint in formation, if you can believe that. My son was unit for over a year before he finally lost his fight to stay in, and he said there were guys in that unit who were there when he was first assigned to it, and still there when he left. Those are the 'slugs' I was referring to. wbfergus ^Talk 18:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I'm not quite sure what that internet posting is about. Is that guy one of the Wikipedia Foundation lawyers or something, or just aposter on that list? Either way, it doesn't appear that he saw the email in question, which starts out with Jim saying something like "Are we ready to have some fun? I sure as hell am." followed by his 'innocent' question of something like "BTW, what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?", which I believe is address by the section bleow about Swatjester's information. wbfergus ^Talk 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is the foundation lawyer and he is talking as part of a general priniciple not this case in particlular. He hasn't all the evidence, not the emails or this page. Whereas the AC have and will make the decision of what to do in this particular case. The discussion on the mailing list is about such things as whether OM's comments mean we need to bar all military people from editing.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now trying to admonish people to be careful with gratuitous claims and defend myself and what I see is the objective reality of the situation constitutes a personal attack? Wow that is a good one. Goodness gracious...--Filll (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? And what specifically are you talking about, because you reply makes no sense to either my or wbfergus's latest comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are referring to this "Thanks but I think you are here to pour gasoline on the fire, as near as I can determine wbfergus and TK" and wbfergus's interpretation of that as a personal attack. I don't view it as such but it's certainly not an admonishment to people to careful either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to Filll's little paragraph above where you asked if there was a purpose to it. But due to edit conflicts, what I had written couldn't easily be rewritten in new, smaller pieces to be placed as directly needed or otherwise applicable.    :^)

Filll, I would very like for you to show me how Orangemarlin's comments above, using his own words expressed solely by him on this page, could be construed any differently than what I have said. I would also very much like for you to show me how the 'real world' is in regards to this situation. Also please try to take into account the statement/evidence presented by Swatjester, showing how that is obviously so wrong (since you are persisting in this line of self-persuasion and semi-justification). wbfergus ^Talk 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to demonstrate to you how your pronouncements are really inappropriate and far from the truth, and closer to inflammatory conjecture and tortuous accusations, but given the current circumstances I am unfortunately unable to. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do this. Writeout what you want to add to the evidence, post it on Thatcher's talk page and ask for his advice? If he say's it's OK then post either here, or even better on the actual evidence page. That way, you know you are safe from repercussions. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between evidence-based argument and personal insult. Thatcher 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of all of these arbitration pages is to assist the arbitrators in reaching a fair, reasonable, and expeditious decision in the case. As a general observation, if a comment on an arbitration page does not serve this purpose, it would better be omitted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well all this arguing seems pretty moot now; see:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence#Evidence presented by Swatjester

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at first reading it makes it seem all the more strange that the enquiry about policy on use of computers and networks wasn't given a simple informative response of that sort, rather than being somehow taken as a threat and escalated behind the scenes. It may be that there's a generation gap between the expectations of older reservists about computer use, and the current situation in active service. .. dave souza, talk 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be the case, but I am slightly taken aback that such use is so, well, widespread. Obviously I can't say what the US Army should be doing, but I wouldn't want soldiers rushing to protect me after having sat in front of a computer screen for a few hours. Fortunately I don't live in a country where US soldiers are stationed at a "highest state of readiness". Well, I hope not. Still, there may be a case for a more general statement from somewhere on all this, and people really should stop jumping on every pronouncement by Mike Godwin (the Foundation lawyer) and using it to back up their particular case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

c.f. a lack of familiarity with what a QRF does. QRF are like ambulances. They sit around and wait to get called out. Our official requirement was that we had to be out the gate within 5 minutes of a call. Our unofficial requirement was 30 seconds to muster, and out the gate within 2 minutes. It may sound like " sitting in front of a computer screen for a few hours", but that's a way to pass the time after having cleaned your rifle 5 times, read field manuals, and did other training/proficiency stuff while waiting for one of the 3-4 callouts QRF will get in 24 hours. From sitting in front of the computer in the internet lab, my fire team was able to get into our humvee's, engines on, .50 cal loaded, and ready to move within 45 seconds. Nothing to be taken aback about. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a matter of differing interpretations to me. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we pay Godwin for just keeping his chair warm. I guess I forgot.--Filll (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Godwin is not a military lawyer, and the UCMJ is not within his realm of expertise or requirement as general counsel. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but this comment appears to be a non sequitur and just adds to general confusion. I did not refer to him in this context, so you appear to be under some misapprehension. However, as much as I would like to, I cannot discuss the copious bits of other incorrect and misleading material above. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously now Filll stop playing the martyr. If you truly feel you cannot discuss things then stay away from this page. But don't keep saying "I want to disagree but I'm not allowed" because that's just silly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have been subject to repeated volumes of abuse here, and been threatened, I have chosen to still flag things that are wrong in a succinct fashion. You are wrong, I know you are wrong, and I want you to know that I know you are wrong so you do not go around feeling too full of yourself. If I could actually engage in a debate and discussion with you, you might understand things in a slightly different light. But too bad, I cannot. And if you do not like it, I am sorry. I do not make these rules. And I have plenty more to say to you and probably some might not judge it to be particularly complimentary. But I will decline to do so since I am not allowed to. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, been told by the arbcom clerk to stop with the personal attacks is not being "threatened". You are allowed to say why you think me wrong, an you know this.The above is mere foot stomping. If you have something to say please just say it already. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more frustration than foot stomping, but I agree that it could look like foot stomping. Filll, Theresa is right, you can say what you want to say, and I've been discussing other matters with you on your talk page. The problem seems to come when you use strong language and focus on people, rather than what they say. Examples of strong language from this page: ludicrous, vacuous, stupid, witless. From the diff on your talk page: disgust and loathed. All these direct focus away from what you might have been saying, and focus instead on the people involved. It is perfectly possible to say what you are saying without the strong language. All people are asking you to do is tone it down a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously advise you to take a step back from all this as your comments are adding to the problems rather than helping. Using strong language as Carcharoth noted above is counter-productive and goes against the spirit of WP:CIV and common sense in debates. violet/riga (t) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I never expected you to say that. ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I don't think he is laughing. I think his response speaks volumes, but let's just leave it at that. Us adding any more will just be feeding things. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Godwin is the foundation lawyer. He is paid to look at foundation legal issues not to act as an arbitrator. We have arbitrators for that. Mike Godwin was participating in a general prinicple discussion, he was not shown (as far as I know) the original email or the evidence on the evidence page. The arbitrators have. They decide, not Godwin. Do you understand now? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my sources inform me that you are mistaken on a few points. Maybe you should check your sources again.--Filll (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fill are you a kid? If you think I'm mistaken then post your arguments here, because they may be important. Sorry to say this but you are really bad at this. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or an even better post your sources as you call them on the evidence page so that the arbitrators can take them into account. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised that I am being discouraged from defending myself and position. Suffice it to say I disagree with several of the particulars and can back it up, but I am unable to do so at this time. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(comment removed) wbfergus ^Talk 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been asdvised on his talk page to tone it down a bit. Good advice for all of us don't you think? I'd strike your third sentence above as unnecessary if I were you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having missed the beginnings of this case, I had no idea that it was linked to VO's attempt to use the RFAR process to win a content dispute. He filed a self-rightly spurious complaint, in which he was clearly in the wrong, withdrew it, and tried to blame Jim? I can see why the word "intimidation" was on his mind. I always thought VO had lost sight of the mission of Wikipedia in his crusade against fair use images. I had no idea he had wandered this far. Wow. Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whar are you talking about? If you have evidence to back your assertions up please add them to the evidence page where the arbitrtors will definately see it. Not all arbitrators read talk pages in every case. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is paramount. You are here because you have a disagreement about how to write the best free encyclopedia possible, but you all have that same goal. Respect each other, assume good faith, and play nice. If necessary, I will ban uncivil editors from editing the pages of this arbitration case, enforceable by blocking. Thatcher 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will strike part of my latest comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, did you see the question/comment I left you on my talk page regarding your warning? Is the above strikeout, per Theresa's comment about it sufficient, or should I strike the whole paragraph? Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you struck the last part based on Theresa's comment, but since your entire comment was based on a false assumption (and was kind of snarky even if your assumption was true), it would probably be seen as a nice gesture to remove the whole thing. Thatcher 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I will be enforcing bans from this page from now on. Which is to say, editors found to cross the line of civility on these arbitration pages will be restricted from these without further warning (that means clean slate, within reason). Thx. El_C 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious here, maybe this has already been answered.

A) Jim62sch is an employee of the treasury department. How is he subject to the UCMJ so that failing to report Videmus Omnia's computer use would be a criminal offense, as opposed to something he felt morally obligated to do?

B) OrangeMarlin is an officer in the Naval Reserve, Videmus Omnia is an Air Force Sergeant. OrangeMarlin says that if he ordered VO to stop editing, VO would be obligated to obey.[4] Does the military chain of command really work that way? Thatcher 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) He is not subject to the UCMJ as far as I am aware.

B)Sort of. An officer may give orders to enlisted men outside of the chain of command by virtue of their rank, however it is uncommon, and should the orders be superceded by someone in the enlisted man's chain of command, he is obligated to follow the orders of his direct superior, not the one in the other service. As a matter of tact and courtesy, it is bad form for a Naval officer, especially a reserve one, to be ordering an active duty senior Air Force NCO.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Swatjester's assessment above. It's been almost 27 years since I got out of Active Duty, and 12 since I've been out of the Reserves, but that is commonly how such orders are 'generally' treated in the military. However, in many cases that I myself had either been in or personally witnessed, if the person given the order didn't agree, they would typically ignore the order until they contacted somebody in their immediate chain of command (usually as fast as possible) to verify whether they should follow through with the order. In many cases, the immediate chain of command superior (even if an NCO and not another officer), would negate the order. I myself did this several times and when the 'other branch' officer finally contacted one of my officers, they always validated my response to negate the order. It's kind of a common sense rule, though not officially written down as far as I could tell. If the order was common sense, then go ahead and do it. If there was any doubt about the validity of the order, ask one of your immediate superiors ASAP. It is difficult to tell in this case what did happen (at least in regards to VO), and what he would have done if Orangemarlin did do as he states he could. The big 'question' here would be how could VO know for sure if Orangemarlin really was a Reserve officer or just somebody claiming to be one? If it was me, I would just ignore the 'order' coming through email or from a talk page here, ask one of my superiors, and not even bothering to reply back. If pressed subsequently about it, I would answer that a superior had told me not to worry about it. wbfergus ^Talk 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the situation is not urgent, or the order is not a trivial one, most times when an order is received from an officer significantly outside your chain of command, you instruct them to contact your superior. i.e. I'm supposed to be on my down time relaxing before a mission. A navy lieutenant comes up to me and says "Help me unload these trucks, it will take an hour". I'd politely tell him, "Sir, that conflicts with my present orders, you'll have to take it up with Lt. MySuperior." OTOH, if he came up to me and said "Help me carry this one box from here, 100 feet over there", that's such a trivial thing you'd have no excuse not to do it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Numerous times, as a low rank (E-3 and below), I recieved orders from someone outside my chain-of-command (another unit or branch of the military), sometimes officers. If I didn't mind the order, I did it. If I had a question about it, I'd explain that since they were outside of my chain-of-command, I would need to get clarification from my immediate superior first so that they were both informed of my activities and so that they could be aware of the request and verify that it ddin't conflict with my current orders, and if they wanted, they could accompany me or I could give them directions to where they were at. Usually that by itself was enough for the person giving me an order to back away. On a few occasions they persisted, and my superiors gave me orders to not follow the order (even if the original 'person' was an officer and my superior was only an NCO. My superior would then escort the officer to his officer who always backed up the NCO's order. Once I became an NCO, I acted as those before me had done. If it was a simple request, like Swatjester's example of moving something 100 feet, no big deal, go ahead and do it. If it was something a bit more involved like "Hey, I'm short-handed and need a few more men for post police call" (picking up trash on post), then I would negate the order to my men and have the person telling them to help to come with me while we straightened out his 'request' through our Company Commander (CO). The CO always backed me up in those situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbfergus (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, if Jim62sch or Orangemarlin reported VO's activity directly to his commanding officer, the CO would probably act on it based on his pre-existing opinion of VO -- if VO's a valued member of the unit, the CO would politely promise to look into the situation, then blow it all off as a bizarre call after he got off the phone. He (or a subordinate) would probably warn VO, however, that he'd gotten the call. The crankier and odder the call, the less seriously it would be taken (" … and not only that, Colonel, but you should know he's violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and taking innocent editors to ArbCom!") On the other hand, if VO already had a poor reputation, this would be still another strike against him.

However, there are other places to complain to that create enormous problems, whether or not a servicemember is innocent. A call to some "fraud, waste and abuse hotline" might bring out the military's civilian criminal investigators, some of whom will pursue the purloiner of a ballpoint pen to the ends of the earth. A complaint to a Congressman can take on a similar life of its own. Subjects of such investigations, career-wise, can be damaged goods even if they're innocent and never charged. Fair? No. Sensible? No. But that's they way these things can work -- read Catch-22 for a better explanation of military logic.

So a report of alleged criminal behaviour on VO's part could stop his career even if no abuse was found after months of plodding investigation.--A. B. ^(talk) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expertise, if Orangemarlin finds that a report is needed it does seem appropriate that a bare statement of the relevant facts would be made to the CO of the unit identified in VO's user page, presumably that's what the protocol requires. Following Thatcher's enquiry I looked through the statements made by Jim62sch and have found no evidence that he's subject to a military obligation to make a report. His obligation as a secure rated government employee appears to be to take appropriate steps to prevent waste etc., by in effect reminding VO of the need to comply with USAF procedures he did that in private, and since being reminded by this case being opened has been assured by VO's statement that appropriate care has been taken. . . dave souza, talk 14:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your timeline and your talk about "discrepancy", are you implying that Jim62sch sent his e-mail before VO even filed the RFAR? The timestamp on the e-mail is not marked as UTC so I presume it's local time, either that of Jim's timezone or that of VO's. If that's in the US, it would resolve to some time exactly where you'd expect it: after the opening of the case, after Jim being notified, before Jim commenting, and of course before VO making his retractions. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline merely puts down facts as I found them. It's wiki-mail, and I do not know how wiki-mail datestamps mailings. It's certainly a coincidence that Videmus Omnia marked the RfAr as being Initiated five minutes before the date stamp on the email, but filed it about an hour and a half later. However, it is of course plausible that Videmus Omnia did not look at his email until 23 hours later when he changed his talk page header to refer to "off-wiki threats against my livelihood, as well" as the other reasons for his withdrawal from image patrolling 5 days earlier. .. dave souza, talk 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My statement of lack of understanding about datstamps appears to be well justified. I thought an exchange of emails supported the timeline as shown, but looking at a thread I've now found a five hour discrepancy between continents, suggesting that the date stamp is set by the preferences on the computer receiving the email rather than by the sender and supporting your interpretation. No doubt the arbiters will be able to sort that out. I'd added comments to the evidence page based on my misunderstanding, and have now withdrawn them and moved the email section down in the timeline, though that's obviously subject to confirmation. The discrepancy between "initiated" time and posting time remains, but doesn't appear to be significant. .. dave souza, talk 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is apparently a sock of User:Kdbuffalo (If the committee or anyone else wants I will explain my reasoning). I've blocked the account indefinitely. I suggest its evidence section also be removed. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request that the evidence section be left in place as, in conjunction with Filll's response, it illustrates the sort of teamwork that has been dubbed "tag-team" by some making accusations of harassment. An unknown editor attacked Filll, then Orangemarlin quickly noticed a similarity to a known banned sock-puppeteer and placed a brief statement on the account's talk page, at which the account retired.[5] .. dave souza, talk 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and blocked Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs) indefinitely - it's far from the first episode of abusive sockpuppetry, and even under the best of circumstances the RfC's on that user make clear that s/he was not an encylopedia-builder. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kdbuffalo had not edited under that name since November 2006. I'm not tremendously concerned about it, since, as you pointed out, the user is not overly constructive, but since he was not banned at the time and it had been over a year since he had edited, calling it sock puppetry (as opposed to a user who had exercised his right to vanish coming back under a different name) is a bit of a stretch. --B (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you are going to make a serious accusation against someone else you must not create a sock to do it. There is no right to vanish and come back again. Right to vanish is for people who wish to leave forever, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this conversation is located here and not somewhere else, but kdbuffalo was a difficult editor. To state that he has not edited since 11/06 is accurate, since him and his offensive Christian POV was chased out of several articles, where he was causing trouble. However, his socks showed up approximately once every other month for a significant period of time. You merely have to look here and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (4th) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (note that VacuousPoet was the sockpuppeteer that I noted, without knowing of kdbuffalo. It was later ascertained that VP was a sock of kdbuffalo, but for simplicity sake I have built each case as VP as the sockpuppeteer since he was blocked. So, although B is technically correct, with just a little bit of background checking on kdbuffalo, it would have been easy to find the various VP incarnations. HappyCouple 2 is a sock along with someone else I just noticed at the same time. I'll be setting up a SSP soon enough, and that will end that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was unaware that there were more than just the two accounts involved. Pointing that out would have been sufficient and the assumption of bad faith claiming on the user's talk page "B's interest in unblocking this editor goes in the face of this data" was inappropriate. I had no interest whatsoever except seeing that an appropriate course of action be taken. The information that the user had created and abused a large number of socks was a key fact that I was not aware of when I made the above statement. I looked at this category of socks of Kdbuffalo, which is linked from Happy Couple2's page and only gives Happy Couple2 and one IP as socks. I did not notice that the similarly named category on kdbuffalo's page, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kdbuffalo, was actually a different category, containing a number of socks. Had I noticed this and realized that there were a number of socks over the last year, I obviously would not have committed the unpardonable sin of questioning the block. Simply pointing out the large sock farm was sufficient - the accusation of bad faith is unnecessary. --B (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors on the evidence page have engaged in idle speculation [6] about how Jimbo was involved back at the time. It's pretty silly trying to present "evidence" about this here (to whom? The arbitrators obviously know about this better than any of us ever will.) But even I can tell you, and vouch for it: you are dead wrong on that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the truth, and I suspect you do not either. What I do know is that Videmus Omnia claimed about 3 or more times he had contacted Jimbo, Jimbo had said that Jim62sch had done an awful thing and needed to be blocked or banned for this. And I do know that Jim62sch was not blocked or banned. So there are a few options:

• Jimbo forgot to block Jim62sch but meant to
• Videmus Omnia lied
• Jimbo did not think it was so bad on second thought

and probably a few more.

What is the truth? I have no idea. I do know that Jim62sch was not blocked or banned however. Why not, if what Videmus Omnia said was correct? Just tell me that. Why not? It does not prove much, but it is an interesting data point with everything else.--Filll (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Jimbo's mail at the time. Ask Jimbo. Or simply rely on the arbitrators knowing what happened. You are far, far off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think this is a very fruitful line to pursue. Attempting to conclude what, if anything, Jimbo's reasoning was isn't going to accomplish anything. I think Future Perfect's point is that the evidence page is to help the arbiters reach a conclusion, not an opportunity to air everyone's mutual grievances. Since the arbiters are (or can be) in possession of any email Jimbo might have sent, speculating about it doesn't accomplish very much. --B (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no idea. All I know is that Jim62sch was not banned, blocked or as far as I know, even notified that he stepped over the line 4 months ago until around New Years. That is all I know. And if you think that is meaningless, oh well. You are under no obligation to tell me why you think it is meaningless, but if this were a real court proceeding, believe me just that one tiny piece of evidence could mean everything. At the very least, it could get a few people sitting in deposition with lawyers screaming at them for 10 hours a day for days or weeks on end (Just in case you do not know these things...). --Filll (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That piece of evidence could mean everything IF AND ONLY IF Jimbo's actual email were unavailable to the jury. But in this case, arbcom has (or can have) the actual email that Jimbo sent, even though you and I may not have it. So speculating on what is in it doesn't accomplish anything as far as answering a question for arbcom because they already know what the answer is (or can know) - they can know exactly what Jimbo said to VO. --B (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speculating. I just notice Jim62sch was not blocked or banned.--Filll (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not likely to be helpful to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I reserve the right to defend myself and my views. I did not bring it up. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]