Case Opened on 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
Jim62sch has engaged in off-wiki harassment. The relevant evidence has been e-mailed to the ArbCom mailing list.
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.
As anyone who has read my edits would surmise, I'm a left-wing Jew who might appear to throw rocks at the ROTC building rather than actually attend class there. But I am bound to duty and honor, so let me try to explain this situation:
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.
I do not get the luxury of those of you who are not in uniform to interpret these matters. Article 78 obligates me to report any violations of service regulations or UCMJ to a superior officer. I have done that in the non-Wiki world, and I would do it here again. Article 92 clearly states that anyone who violates a lawful regulation is subject to the UCMJ. No, I do not know the specific circumstances under which VO may or may not be involved. It is irrelevant to me and my obligations, because frankly I don't know. My suspicion, as an Officer, is sufficient. I wouldn't even be required to apologize to VO if I suspected him of this issue, and he ultimately had permission.
Again, despite anecdotal stories about officers whining that their flash plugins aren't working, the real world has specific regulations about the use of government property. As an officer, it is irrelevant to me what others might or might not allow in the military, all I know is that the regulations from the DoD is very specific. If VO had specific permission to do utilize government property to edit Wikipedia, then he should be fine.
But let us remember the key point. I'm not an investigator, so what I don't know, doesn't exist. I didn't know anything about VO until the moment he printed Jim's email. Until that second, he was irrelevant to me. After that second, it became my duty, although I do not know his name, so I haven't done a thing about it. It is not a threat, but a warning. And trust me on this point, if I suspected a problem, I would have privately emailed him my concerns, giving him the benefit of the doubt. But because it was clear he would publish the email and classify it an off-wiki threat, I was going to be blunt AND public. VO was in the wrong, because he failed to maintain a level of privacy on himself, not because I am obligated to report him.
I do not have the luxury of interpreting legal rules that are several pay-grades above my ability to understand. I am not a lawyer, don't pretend to be one, and don't care to be one. I am subject to laws of the United States that are, to the best of my knowledge, not superseded by Wiki-rules. The military doesn't necessarily allow free-thinking.
If you state that I have to make a choice between following your rules and following regulations of the military, I will choose following the regulations of the military, because that is my training. Even though I am on inactive reserve, the Navy could activate me and ruin me for not following regulations. And once I make the choice to follow my duty and obligation, other military individuals will do the same, in effect causing an unintentional censoring of individuals here. Or the interpretation of rules will have created an atmosphere where any editor who identifies themselves as military will get reported anonymously for any suspicion of misdemeanour, without any attempt to give them an opportunity to explain their circumstances. Not a great atmosphere.
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.
2) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.
3) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.
4) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.
6) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.
7) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.
8) The Arbitration Committee cannot provide legal advice to users.
9) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
1) During 2007, Jim62sch (talk · contribs) sent a communication to another user that could reasonably be construed as threatening or harassing. That user was involved in a content and policy dispute with Jim62sch at the time. Based on our review of the communication in question, including its tone, content, and timing, we conclude that it was intended to be taken as threatening or harassing, rather than as a good-faith attempt to alert a fellow editor to a legal or other concern. At a minimum, it was reasonably likely from the face of the communication that the recipient could construe it as a threat.
2) When the matter of Jim62sch's conduct was raised on-wiki, several months after it first took place, Jim62sch made several comments that could reasonably be construed as continuing the harassment. However, he also apologized if his comments were interpreted in that fashion.
3) Jim62sch has advised the Arbitration Committee of certain circumstances that affected him when he sent the initial communication, which he requested be considered in mitigation.
4) In recent discussion of this matter, certain editors have made comments that were unnecessarily hostile, strident, and that in some cases could also be construed as harassing or threatening.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying. Any further harassment, threats, or bullying will result in a block or ban per enforcement provisions of this case.
2) All involved editors are reminded of the prohibition against harassment and threats. Editors are also reminded that sensitivity should be shown in making any reference to another user's real-world circumstances in connection with their editing Wikipedia, even where this is done in good faith, due to the likelihood that such comments may be misconstrued.
1) Should Jim62sch make any comment that is or could reasonably be construed as of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Any such action should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Log of blocks and bans and should also be reported to the Arbitration Committee.
2) Any uninvolved administrator may address any incident of harassment or threats in accordance with applicable policy. Editors may report such incidents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for appropriate discussion and follow-up. Where a threat is especially serious or it involves confidential information that should not be discussed on-wiki, the report may be made to the Arbitration Committee.
3) Any incident of a user's engaging in grave acts of real-world harassment of another editor, such as communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia, should be reported to the Arbitration Committee immediately.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Please note that with all actions made relating to the Jim62sch instructed remedy, the Arbitration Committee has specified that they should be notified specifically, in addition to logging the action here.