Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 2 January 2008

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by JzG

Dispute escalated beyond all sense

• This is the root of the case, as far as I can tell: . Not a very civil remark but not a blatant attack either. To have that bit of silliness escalate to ArbCom really is pretty lame, IMO.

Jim2sch and the email

• The email was sent on September 6, nearly four months ago, and was intended to point out a potential problem. It's not clear, per policy, what other route Jim should have taken to bring the AUP issue to VO's attention. Probably he should simply not have done it, but my past experience shows that Jim is a pretty straight up-and-down kind of guy and he probably felt obliged to point out something he knows is almost certainly not permitted by a Government employer. No evidence has been presented of any comparable incidents, so this is not a serious, repeated or persistent issue with this user, just a single email that maybe got misinterpreted.
• Jim2sch apologised for the offence caused , and explained (at least tried to) why he sent the email; this explanation appears to have been interpreted as truculence rather than simply taken at face value.
• Jim62sch recognised that his attempts to explain were not productive

Videmus Omnia was in dispute with Jim62sch

Videmus Omnia (VO) appears to have a long-standing dispute with Jim62sch. VO's actions in bringing this from a complaint of minor incivility to an ArbCom case are perplexing to me:

• I am struggling to find a charitable interpretation of this , note the personal comments about FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• is far from civil and indicates an ongoing dispute, one which I think may be more significant in VO's mind than in those against whom VO is protesting, speaking for myself anyway.
• This was unhelpful at best.
• This looks like a calculated attempt to escalate a dispute; the accusation is a non-sequitur of no obvious relevance to the debate at hand; were this a diff on Misplaced Pages it would be dismissed as hopelessly stale and unactionable.
• This is just wildly inappropriate. Extortion is a felony, guys, we do not accuse each other of felonies without really good evidence!

Overall VO gave a strong impression, which I really hope is wrong, of a vendetta against those promoting the scientific rationalist perspective in intelligent design related articles. I'm sure VO can explain this, because pursuing a vendetta like that would be wrong on so many levels.

No attempts at resolution

In as much as this is clearly a dispute dating back to early September if not before, it is not clear to me which other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. The case request at WP:RFAR contained no evidence of such, only a complaint of serious harassment which, if it really is only one email, does not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps there are others that ArbCom have and we have not seen. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Theresa Knott

The issue is less about the original email than the attempt to justify it on Wiki which expounded the original harrassment

The email is bad enough, asking a question like this is boulnd to cause alarm and distress, but the attempts to justify the sending of such an email made matters much worse.

here Jim62sch repeats the harrassment 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?

He states that at the time he sent the original email he was suffering from illness but he is not claiming to be ill at the moment.

and again It seems that he expected Videmus Omnia to have to answer to him for editing Misplaced Pages. It "irks" him to see poeple editing Misplaced Pages on what he supposed must be goverment computers.

At this point I chime in to say that it harassment and he must stop. His reply is "That's your opinion -- that is that it's harassment. Your lack of comprehension of legal matters is both sad, and not my problem. Misplaced Pages is not its own universe. I've tried to explain this to you elsewhere, to no effect." But in my opinion at least Misplaced Pages is in it's own universe when it comes to this sort of thing. Editors should have the right to edit here without fear of somone reporting thier editing to an employer.

Meanwhile Orangemarlin pipes up:

1. with an abusive quip Note that it is direct reply to another user who states that such behaviour is unacceptable.
2. and again

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.