Jim62sch Arbitration Case Options

[Castle Rock]

A pseudoscience spat spills over into someone's RFA and a complaint is posted on the ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Jim62sch Jim and image cop Videmus Omnia get at it immediately. Accusations of off-wiki harassment, appeals to Jimmy Wales, and hurt feelings abound.

Yes, another member of the club. You don't believe Jim would engage in off-wiki harrassment? Jim threatened to contact my employer on a suspicion that I was editing Wikipedia from my employer's network. After viewing his e-mail, Jimbo said "In my opinion, that's enough to ban Jim62Sch right there. This is not the kind of person I want participating in Wikipedia, period, full stop.". Unfortunately there was no followup. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim threatens to get him in trouble at work for wasting time on government computers playing around at Wikipedia.

(ri)Go for it. However, you seem to forget that as a federal employee it is my duty to try to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, and this includes the military. That's not harrassment, sarge, that's known as doing one's duty as a civil servant as described by the OGE. Do you really want to take this further? Feel free to, if you wish, but I doubt it'll prove satisfactory to anyone. Why you felt the need to bring this up here is beyond me, but so be it. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government and the military have a limited personal use policy regarding PC's. Enough said? •Jim62sch• 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

> From: Jim62sch [jim62sch@hotmail.com]

> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:24 AM
> To: Videmus Omnia
> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>
> This is a confidential and private e-mail -- i.e., it's
> copyrighted and not for release to anyone.
>
>
> (Videmus Omnia),
>
> Are we ready to have some fun? I sure as hell am.
>
> BTW, what's the private use policy on USAF PC's? Or LAN lines?
>
> Jim
>
> © 2007 Jim62Sch

copy-righted email? shades of durova
Escalated to Arbitration, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ration#Jim62sch, within hours.

This post has been edited by Castle Rock: Wed 2nd January 2008, 12:59am

[dogbiscuit]

Wake up at the back there! Yes you, laddy. You behind the bike sheds. Stand still, laddy!

The arbcom case has closed. Nothing much to see:

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Cake and eat it?

Compliance with basic policy

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

...appears to hint that Jim was in the wrong.

Jim62sch

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

...slapped wrist?

Jim62sch instructed

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

...did that sting a bit? I doubt it. Still, a formal warning for one of the beloved.

But wait...

Jim62sch

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Now, that is exactly what I would have wanted to see. Jim is now on a short leash. Of course, anything he reacts to may be excused as being baited.

So, seems to me to be a sensible ruling. Nothing that is written in a way to humiliate Jim, but acknowledges that he went too far. However, I note that the remedy is not about specific email threats, but acknowledges that his general behaviour on Wikipedia has gone beyond the bounds of acceptability. Hmmm, how did OrangeMerlin escape that sanction too? Off for a rummage.