OPE-L message, Re: [OPE-L] Suspension of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
I.  Chronology of  Recent Events
=================================


A. Although there was a long pre-history for this dispute, Ajit Sinha 's
message of November 12
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0095.html>
initiated the most recent controversy.  Ajit accused Xxxxxx in that
message of violating the January 24 Advisory Committee statement
policy(hereafter call "the agreement") - Section # 2 of
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0701/0080.html>


B. Upon reading Ajit's message, I immediately instructed everyone that the
discussion on this matter would proceed *OFF-LIST*:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0096.html>

We had already determined in an Advisory Committee (AC) "Statement on
Flames" that in the future all complaints concerning alleged flames (or,
by inference, charges of violations of the January agreement) must be made
*OFF-LIST*: see 4.b) of
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0707/0099.html>


C. *AFTER* B.) Xxxxxx sent *two* on-list replies to Ajit's message:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0097.html>
and <http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0098.html>

The second message violated two policies: 1) it alleged *ON-LIST*
thatanother member had written a flame; and 2) it quoted Ajit ("your
stupid editorializing") and hence was a violation of the January 24
agreement. It was all the more outrageous a violation because he had
_just_ been instructed that discussions on that issue were to take place
*OFF-LIST*. D. I replied immediately to Xxxxxx:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0099.html>
insisting that he not again discuss the matter on-list.


E. Almost immediately afterwards, Xxxxxx used that same _expression_
-"editorializing" ("oh just some editorializing")
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0107.html>

Everyone on the list  by this time knew that was a reference to what Ajit
had written earlier that day.


F. I *once again* instructed Xxxxxx not to continue to quote Ajit on-list:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0110.html>
He was told in no uncertain terms to "*STOP IT, NOW!*".


G  Almost immediately afterwards, Xxxxxx once again referred to
"editorializing" in *two* separate messages in reply to Ian H:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0113.html> and
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0114.html>

Anyone who had read the sequence of posts that day was aware that the
reference to "editorializing" was a reference to what Ajit had written.


H. In reply to these events - and what he perceived as the unwillingness
of the list administrators to act against Xxxxxx, Ajit resigned:
<http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0125.html>

Ajit remarked - among other things - that there had been a  "blatently
thumming of nose" by Xxxxxx at the list coordinator and that he
had repeatedly violated the January agreement.




II. Conclusions
    ===========

The above - beyond a shadow of a doubt - establishes that
Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx:


A. Violated list policy by alledging on-list that he been flamed;


B.  Violated the directive to discuss Ajit's complaint off-list rather
than on-list.

C.  *Repeatedly* violated the January 24 agreement by referring to what
Ajit had written.

The January agreement specifically says that there are to be "NO
EXCEPTIONS" and that any violations of the agreement by Xxxxxx would
result in a suspension for a "substantial period" of time. Given the
above, there is NO ALTERNATIVE allowable under list policy other than to
suspend Xxxxxx for a substantial period oftime.  Accordingly, Xxxxxx has
been suspended for a substantial period of time -- the amount of which
will be decided shortly.


In solidarity, Jerry