Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I disagree. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow I never expected you to say that. ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (comment removed) wbfergus  Talk 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing from military IPs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wow 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Parties and commentators reminded 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dave souza's timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. .. dave souza, talk 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and blocked  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HappyCouple 2