Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

message: How long ago was that e-mail sent?  I don't recall, but it was quite some time ago (during the period where I missed four-plus months of work due to severe illness, if I recall).  It was also labeled private and confidential, and was taken off-wiki to spare VO embarassment.
In any case, as a federal employee it is my duty to try to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, and this includes the military. That's not harrassment, that's known as doing one's duty as a civil servant as described by the OGE and ethics regs in the different executive branches. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government and the military have a limited personal use policy regarding PC's.  I do not edit from work as doing so is beyond what is allowed by the Department of Treasury's personal use policies, and I'm pretty sure the same is true re the DoD.
I will plead guilty to sarcasm though.  I am, have been and always will be sarcastic -- I seem to have inherited that trait from my Dad.  And that really is what most of the diffs unrelated to VO's charge show -- sarcasm.
As for the harassment charge, as I said in the first and second paragraph, I was trying to get VO to stop using government computers to edit Wikipedia, especially as he appeared to be doing so throughout the day, rather than at lunch or break. As I said, it's my duty as a civil servant. (Heck, it's the duty of anyone here who is a US citizen.) Had VO simply responded to the e-mail I'm sure everything would have been ironed out amicably.
In any case, I'm sorry that VO took the e-mail as harassment as that was not the goal.  Was I mad when I sent the letter?  Yes, (in both senses of the word).  Could it have been better phrased? Undoubtedly.  Was it harassment?  No.  As I said, I'm sorry that VO took it that way, and that it caused him any mental or emotional discomfort.
:NOTE, I'll be sending an e-mail to an Arbcom member explaining what my illness was, as that will shed some light on the situation. •Jim62sch• 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Jim62sch

message: Ah, so I'm a troll now?  No, what really occurred was that you were assuming for unknown reasons that the images were not free. You had no proof that they weren't, but you just assumed that they weren't. Interestingly, many had been tagged as free images by the editors who uploaded them. Is it then safe to say the WP:AGF does not apply to image uploads and the certification by an editor that the image is, in fact, free?  Interesting.
Also, whether we have edited the same articles in mainspace is utterly irrelevant. You seem to be implying that image and template deletion pages are your playground and I'm not permitted in the sandbox, on the swings, on the slides or anywhere else therein.  Again, interesting.  •Jim62sch• 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to User:B

message: OPM carefully noted "so long as it doesn't cost the government money" (or words to that effect).  However, you seem to be missing several points: VO is not a civilian, so UCMJ prevails.  And even if he were, the interpretaion by most agencies of the executive branch is that unnecessary bandwidth usage does indeed cost the government money as it impedes others from doing their work.  Work = time, and time = money.  •Jim62sch• 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to wbfergus

message: Again, there was no threat, there was a question.  If it had been a threat of an action, I would not have let him even know about it: I would have followed protocol and referred the matter to the appropriate authorities.  However, while VO and I disagree on a number of issues, I had no intention of causing him harm (hell, the mere fact that he identified imself on WP via his user name and an image of himself and his family would have been enough for the AF), I wanted to remind him of the law. 
I've also noticed that no one noted the "BTW" in the e-mail: it separates the two comments.  Feel free to go through my edit history and you'll not my predilection for using BTW as a separator.  •Jim62sch• 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:A. B.|A. B.]]

message: Entirely secret evidence, eh? Anyone who wants to attempt to read the tea leaves here, see WP:AN/I#User:Jim62sch. Seems to relate to off-wiki harassment of some sort. -- Kendrick7talk 01:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to VO above) I'm perfectly fine with your decision to keep the deeper details of this matter private. I just wanted to save others some digging. -- Kendrick7talk 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved Kendrick7 

message: This situation has really gotten out of hand and I believe has gotten to the point where arbcom needs to step in.  Please see this diff  on ANI, which is the direct issue behind the request, but more than that, there has been a good deal of incivility and harassment towards anyone that does anything that certain editors of intelligent design-related articles disagree with.  For examples of incivility/harassment from Jim162sch, please see , , , , , , , , trolling of my PUI nominations (six comments in separate edits, but one other user's comment in between), .  As I said, this is really getting old.  --B (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to Guy, for whom I have nothing but respect, content has nothing to do with it.  Trolling WP:PUI is not a content dispute. Harassment is not a tool in a content dispute. I can't even think of a time where Jim62sch and I have even edited the same article in mainspace.  And in any event, even if you were to assume bad faith on my part, the diffs speak for themselves. --B (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:B]] 

message: Completely uninvolved but ArbCom should know that there are accusations of blackmail flying through the air on ANI. I seriously think ArbCom needs to deal with this quickly. The issue raised by the initiator is serious but so is accusing another editor onwiki of apparently real life blackmail. I'm not sure about US law but in Europe such accusations would need to be proven in a court of law. We are an encyclopedia - such things should be handled by the authorities if there is any basis for using such terms as blackmail. I think that thread on ANI ought to be speedy archived and all further communication conducted privately via the ArbCom mailing list. Please accept. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement from EconomicsGuy

message: Can't speak to the evidence sent by email, of course, but the diffs above look to me like an example of a few minor incidents of sarcasm escalated beyond all reason with no evidence of any attempt to resolve the dispute (escalate, yes, but not resolve).  B's statement above seems to em to amount to "make the nasty man go away", largely because the two seem to disagree on some content issues - the original ANI thread was a quite unnecessary personalisation of the dispute.  In the "examination of the conduct of all concerned", this  looks like a violation of WP:POINT, and this  displays quite inappropriate paranoia. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Having read Jim's statement, I would say this is old hat and dragging it up now, when there is a content dispute between the two, looks an awful like trying to use process in order to gain an advantage in a dispute.  If, as is suggested, Jim's message offers at least the possibility of an innocent explanation, and given that he has said there was no intent to harass, and there is no other evidence of harassment by Jim, I would suggest this is probably baseless. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Addendum: See ; I suspect that Jim has belatedly realised that his attempts to explain were only compounding the problem.  I suspect he will not be the last to learn the lesson that when in a hole, one should promptly stop digging :-/  I believe that the original email was a sincere attempt to bring an issue to a fellow Wikipedian's notice privately, or at least could be so interpreted.  There is no evidence of persistent or recurrent behaviour of this type from Jim, who is in my experience a mature, thoughtful and well-educated fellow.  I met him for a coffee once in Philadelphia, apart from looking a lot like Harry Dean Stanton, Jim is just a regular guy. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User_talk:JzG|JzG]] 

message: Videmus Omnia seems to have interpreted a passing reminder about computer usage policies as explicit blackmail, and has then presented it to others in that light, poisoning the well and making an unwarranted assumption that Jim62sch was threatening to inform his employer. VO has ensured the usage is completely compliant with employer policy, and a response to that effect should have ended the issue, rather than it being escalated. .. dave souza, talk 15:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion at User talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting people's employers in real life has given some idea of the legal and military obligations editors can be under, and as JzG notes, this appears to have been a sincere attempt to bring the issue to a fellow Wikipedian's notice privately. Cleary Jim62sch did not take the matter any further, having raised the issue on September 06 at a time of personal illness. Videmus Omnia made the issue public at AN/I at 20:49 on 31 December, stating that he had discussed it with Jimbo and others and had assurances that Jim62sch was to be banned, apparently with no attempt to hear Jim's explanation of events. At 23:58 Videmus Omnia stated that his use of computers was approved, and that he had double checked this following the enquiry, so there should be no difficulty with any reports that anyone is obliged by their position to submit. A. B. has pointed out that Videmus Omnia is immediately identifiable to anyone in his unit looking at his user page. By making the matter public, he has put other editors in potential legal jeopardy, and I would doubt that anyone at Wikipedia can advise or idemnify editors with regard to these regulations, so any editors concerned may have to make sure that they too are in the clear. A. B. has referred to explanations for usage, and said "Since it's impossible to know for sure that this sort of situation doesn't apply, you are probably therefore absolved of any obligation to report Videmus", but I certainly would not know how secure that was. .. dave souza, talk 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, I've not seen "a "friendly reminder" email that his CO may take unkindly to unauthorized use of federal resources," but have seen the comment VO posted at AN/I with an email including a question as to "what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?" Reading between the lines is a quick way to jump to conclusions. .. dave souza, talk 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going with the line that VO is the one jeopardizing others, by public disclosure of this? That is drawing an exceptionally long bow. Given that the location he used whilst making edits would be known only to people with Checkuser who utilize that functionality, any "obligation" to report anything would be on the most tenuous grounds. As noted elsewhere, how do you know when he is on or off duty? How do you know from where he is editing? To suggest that there is a legal jeopardy to other editors who are federal employees, military or otherwise, on the grounds that "we know this person is a serviceman, ergo, he COULD be misusing federal computer resources, ergo we are behooven to report such or face disciplinary action ourselves" is, quite simply, farcical. Indeed, this would almost be a meta-legal threat in and of itself. "Do you know he's not misusing computer resources, are you willing to risk your job on it?" - all because he had the unmitigated gall to mention that someone had taken it upon themselves to find out that the IP address from which he was posting was assigned to the US military, and drop him a "friendly reminder" email that his CO may take unkindly to unauthorized use of federal resources, when, indeed, the sender of said email had zero evidence that said use was unauthorized, even going so far in this RfA to admit that he was making assumptions based on his (non DOD) departmental policy. Achromatic (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]] 

message: [I've added these headers as statements by others on this page do not seem to be threaded with comments, if that's incorrect it can be changed.] 
My statements are my own, based on my own analysis of information made public looked over with an open mind, which I'd be expected to do when considering any user. The timing of VO's contributions is readily available from his User contributions link. My clear understanding is that Jim62sch does not have Checkuser, and I have no idea what led him identify the location – presumably, like A. B., he looked at VO's user page, though I note now that the page was created as a redirect at 00:21, 1 January 2008, so that should mean that future identification of VO does not arise. I've not read UCMJ, but it is clear from statements made that it can be understood to impose stringent requirements that federal government and military personnel report possible misdemeanours. The requirement would be imposed by their own position, and for all I know, the protocols could be satisfied by a report to their own superior stating the situation and noting that they've received assurances that the use is authorised. As stated by Jim62sch above, he sent the email when he was mad in both senses of the word, and this may be a complete misunderstanding of the UCMJ requirements. If that is the case, I'm sure that will be a considerable relief to Jim62sch and anyone else affected by these regulations. What I have not seen is "unmitigated gall", and I'm sad that there seems to be a presumption of bad faith which appears to me completely implausible from reading the statements made. .. dave souza, talk 09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I've not seen "a "friendly reminder" email that his CO may take unkindly to unauthorized use of federal resources," but have seen the comment VO posted at AN/I with an email including a question as to "what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?" Reading between the lines is a quick way to jump to conclusions. .. dave souza, talk 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to response by [[User:Achromatic|Achromatic]]

message: ::We're going with the line that VO is the one jeopardizing others, by public disclosure of this? That is drawing an exceptionally long bow. Given that the location he used whilst making edits would be known only to people with Checkuser who utilize that functionality, any "obligation" to report anything would be on the most tenuous grounds. As noted elsewhere, how do you know when he is on or off duty? How do you know from where he is editing? To suggest that there is a legal jeopardy to other editors who are federal employees, military or otherwise, on the grounds that "we know this person is a serviceman, ergo, he COULD be misusing federal computer resources, ergo we are behooven to report such or face disciplinary action ourselves" is, quite simply, farcical. Indeed, this would almost be a meta-legal threat in and of itself. "Do you know he's not misusing computer resources, are you willing to risk your job on it?" - all because he had the unmitigated gall to mention that someone had taken it upon themselves to find out that the IP address from which he was posting was assigned to the US military, and drop him a "friendly reminder" email that his CO may take unkindly to unauthorized use of federal resources, when, indeed, the sender of said email had zero evidence that said use was unauthorized, even going so far in this RfA to admit that he was making assumptions based on his (non DOD) departmental policy. Achromatic (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Achromatic|Achromatic]]

message: I am an uninvolved party in this particular dispute, but I think it should be pointed out that there is a pattern of behaviour in other areas of Wikipedia as well, besides just this dispute. First, I never removed this page from my watchlist after the COgden RfARB, which is the only reason this caught my attention.
Jim62sch and others have a habit of supporting each other and vigorously harrassing others. A simple case in point is the following. During a series of 'discussions' on the NOR talk page, Badgerpatrol came by and left some comments. The name seemed familar, so I went to his talk page to see what kind of editor he is. I noticed the following excahnge from OrangeMarlin , thought it was a tad out of line, considering various Wikipedia policies, and left OrangeMarlin a note  (see NOR section at bottom of page). This was followed by Orangemarlin's response on my talk page here . As you can see, without any exchanges between Jim62sch and myself, and with no comments or replies on Orangemarlin's talk page, Jim62sch comes out of the blue to harass me along with Orangemarlin.
At the time, I then checked a few other people's talk pages (mainly participants from the NOR discussions), and I thought I saw similar excahnges there as well, though I haven't attempted to research that aspect for this statement. It is interesting to note though that when one of the 'group' becomes involved in a 'discussion', others in the same 'group' usually show up soon after with the same 'attitude'. Viewing the comments here, on the archived NOR talk pages, and the above mentioned AN/I thread easily shows the same 'group of self-supporters', without even going into the other pages where these editors have been involved in other 'discussions' (like ). Many of them (though in all fairness, not all of them), seem to exhibit similar behaviour, though not as extreme as this case filing is about.
I also must admit that on the NOR talk page, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch and others were originally very 'rude' to say it politely  (search for Jim62sch to see context of comments), but after a series of final exchanges there  (again, search for Jim62sch to see context), things settled down, became more civil, and Jim62sch actually did begin to participate in the discussions constructively.
Regarding some of what I gather about why this case was brought to ArbCom's attention, what does it matter if the one editor is using a government computer or not? If it against his agencies policy or his superiors directives, I am quite sure that the network folks who monitor computer usage and network traffic would have taken notice and taken action, especially within DoD. Obviously they saw nothing wrong, it doesn't cost any more money for a computer that is turned on and just sitting there gathering dust than it does for one turned on and being used constructively. The implied threat of notification to his agency is just beyond the realm of normal, civilized behaviour, if it is indeed true. That is a matter for his agency and his immediate superiors to sort out, if it needs to be. There are plenty of active duty military personnel who are allowed to use government systems for personal use, and the Office of Personnel Management even issued a directive that civilian personnel may use government systems for personal use as long as it does not cost the government money or violate other government directives, like porn surfing, gambling, etc. wbfergus  Talk 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Wbfergus|wbfergus]] 

message: 7 votes to accept, 0 votes to reject. Can a clerk please open this case now? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved kaypoh 

message: I realize this is a closed case, but I would like to comment on some things.  First off, this is a very good example of why people in the U.S. military and the U.S. government shouldn’t advertise who they are in a very loud voice on this site and also should not be appearing as using government e-mails and channels for this site.  I learned this the very hard during a deployment to the Middle East when I acted like a jerk, voiced strongly that I was in the armed forces, and the end result was an investigation into what I was doing on this site by NCIS (for which I was totally cleared, BTW).
It should also be noted that a decision has been made in military law, at least as far as I know, that someone who states they are an enlisted member of the US military on the internet, and then contacts someone who states they are an officer on the internet, is bound by rules of military courtesy.  For instance, Staff Sergeant X could not e-mail Captain W and state “you are an a-hole” or something like that.  I also was surprised to learn about two months ago that this applies to Wikipedia users in that if they have openly stated they are in the military, it is considered uncalled for to post rude or disrespectfully messages to other Wikipedia users who also say they are in the military.  I think this would only apply to two users who knew eachother in the real world and it could be proven who they were.  I can’t see something like that being enforced that well when you’re talking about long distances between two military members and even more so when the Wikipedia profile hasn’t been verified as a true member of the military.
In closing, I really liked Vid O and am sad that his webpage says he hasn’t edited and may have departed.  I do think it probably wasn’t the best idea to post all over the place that he was in the USAF and even more so give links to MySpace that had personal information about him and his family.  But then I made similar mistakes like that and ruined a once good reputation on Wikipedia (which I am only now starting to slowly rebuild).
Just some comments then for this case.  Thanks. -OberRanks (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a closing comment if that's all right 

message: The following assertions were added without any admin being named, so I've moved them here:
*23 May 2008  Jim62sch incivil and bullying comments, including profanity:   . Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding the fact that Jim62sch's comments, as linked to above, are inexcusably rude and unnecessary. There's room for all sorts of personalities on Wikipedia, as in life - some people are naturally more abrasive than others, some are naturally more conciliatory than others. But there's no excuse for deliberate, conscious incivility, either on here or in the real world. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave souza's sniping at Cla68 is beside the point. The cited edits made by Jim62sch are what they are and others will judge them for themselves. Personally, I think they're pretty ugly and sadly typical. --A. B. (talk •  contribs)  14:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave was correct to remove the comments from the log.  I was out of procedure here.  I should have posted them to the ArbCom enforcement board first. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Log of blocks and bans