More threats by Arbcom

[Kumioko]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

[thekohser]

If you have a screen shot of that e-mail, I think it should be posted (www.chillingeffects.org comes to mind), and I think you have a credible legal case against the Wikimedia Foundation, given that the "ArbCom" has no legal standing as able to speak for the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the sites whose "Terms of Use" apply.

[Kumioko]

I might jsut do that, it doesn't matter that the DOD IP's they are referring to has been blocked for months or that its a proxy IP used by used by thousands of users all over the navy. Its just a threat, made by bullies, to silence a critic. They are more worried about stopping me from criticizing their failures than doing something about the problems I am trying to bring their attention too. The bottom line is they want to be abusive because that keeps them in power. Just like the Kings and Queens quelling rebellions in monarch controlled countries.

[Freddy]

It's funny how AGK completely ignores Wikipedia:No legal threats (T-H-L). Amazing double standard there.

[Vigilant]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

You need to drop that on Jimbo's page.
AGK needs to get the banhammer.

Open question to wikipedians:

Is this the way we want to proceed?
I haven't ever contacted any employer (even though I like to make some wikipediots squirm).
If we're allowing ARBCOM members to contact employers to get people fired, then, "Game on, motherfuckers!"

I can GUARANTEE you that you won't like the outcome.

[SB_Johnny]

This probably puts this over the bar to make it blog-post-worthy, though that certainly wouldn't help your situation.

[Freddy]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

You need to drop that on Jimbo's page.
AGK needs to get the banhammer.

Open question to wikipedians:

Is this the way we want to proceed?
I haven't ever contacted any employer (even though I like to make some wikipediots squirm).
If we're allowing ARBCOM members to contact employers to get people fired, then, "Game on, motherfuckers!"

I can GUARANTEE you that you won't like the outcome.

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (T-C-L) just posted it on Jimbo's talk: link

[Triptych]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

Don't let these people upset you, Kumioko. From your posts you're holding up with confidence, but it has to be disturbing to have some NYC lawyer accusing you of illegalities and loss and damages and so forth. And now this.

Would you post the entire email (with your own email and personal stuff redacted of course). It's an official Arbcom email. I wouldn't ask you to post a personal email.

AGK is Anthony G. Kelly of Glasgow, Scotland according to what I've read, if you want to know who is threatening to call your employer. 23 to 28 years old I think. White guy.

He tells you there to mind Wikipedia's terms of use, but I wonder where in the terms of use editors are warned of its sicko, cyberstalkery "sockpuppet investigations" administrative culture, where it's strict anonymity for them but your identity and details collected and plunked down on the table for examination whenever they like. Do the terms of use warn that these "investigations" extend beyond Wikipedia's borders? Nope, I don't think so.

[Kumioko]

This probably puts this over the bar to make it blog-post-worthy, though that certainly wouldn't help your situation.

Go ahead, this sorta situation needs more press. The Arbcom has long been abusive and so have the admins so this just puts some weight behind just how far they will go to keep their power. If anyone is interested, here is the response I sent to AGK and most of the rest of the Arbcom.

"And now you are using lies and manipulation to justify a bad decision and you aren't being realistic of my ban either. The community banned me unfairly and without authority in order to silence a critic of abuse and you don't care because you have the power and want to keep it. You are jsut as abusive as anyone and sending a report to my employer doesn't prove me wrong.

As for my angry emails, I didn;t send angry emails because accounts were blocked. I sent angry emails because I was unfairly banned by a handful of abusive editors and the Arbcom doesn't want to do the right tthing and overturn it because they want me out of the way because I was critical of them for failing in their job as well. I sent angry emails because you would rather revert my edits than do your job and you would rather let abusive editors like Beyond My Ken antagonize and insult editors. You would rather protect your fellow admins so they can continue to be abusive and you would rather degrade the editing environment even further rather than give up some of the power you have grabbed.

For what its worth, I only get about half my income from my Navy job, so if I get fired it will be extremely annoying and would free me up to do more acting (I will be in 2 episodes of House of Cards next season) where I make a lot more money and would give me a lot more free time to email and contact the Arbcom members than I do now.

So if you want me to stop, you can undo my ban or do something about the abusive admins on the site that are destroying it. As for only hurting me, certainly it would have an impact initially, but getting me fired will only serve to strengthen my resolve and piss me off and I bet it would make a decent news story too over how the WMF is suing a long term and high output contributor who was banned by bullies for advocating that the volunteer admins on this site not be exempted from following the sites policies. So far nothing on either side has been worthy of news coverage, but if editors start getting sued and fired from their jobs for editing, it would be. And I can assure you, I am fairly certain I could find some reporters willing to discuss a news story about how the #5 website in the world treats its editors. You'll see me picketting outside Meetups in DC, philly, new york and others and handing out flyers at Wikimania about what happens to people who edit.

So although I would request you not submit a letter to my ISP, if that is what you feel you need to do to protect your power, then that is what you can do but that will escalate this to a whole different level that will be just as damaging in the longterm for Wikipedia and the WMF as for me. If you thought my emails before were angry, you would see me truly angry.

I also threw a few extra folks on this email response (in the to and BCC lines) so they can see just how abusive and petty the Arbcom is and to what lengths they will go to silence a critic who, from day one, has only had the intention of improving the editing environment of Wikipedia and methods aside, every knows that was always my intention. Many won't care, but this could be a lesson to what could happen to any editor who disagrees with the Arbcom and the adminsitrative power base on Wikipedia."

[Kumioko]

So now, not only do I have Newyorkbrad the New York lawyer posting legal threats on Wiki for everyone to see, I have AGK, another arbitrator sending me legal threats by Email and threatening to contact my employer to get me fired. With all the editors slinging antisemetism, child porn on Commons and the multitudes of other things that needs to be stamped out, they are wasting time with me, because I had the morale courage to stand up to abusive admins and the failures of Arbcom and don't honor my ban. Oh the horror!

[Triptych]

I am fairly certain I could find some reporters willing to discuss a news story about how the #5 website in the world treats its editors. You'll see me picketting outside Meetups in DC, philly, new york and others and handing out flyers at Wikimania about what happens to people who edit.

That's hardcore!

[thekohser]

Not to be a wet blanket, but I wouldn't let Wikipediocracy be used as a "Look what they did to me" without seeing some evidence that what is alleged was actually done.

[neved]

Before Newyokrbrad threatened (bullied) Kumioko he blocked one of my IP with the edit summary "soapboxing by banned editor improperly accessing the site in breach of the terms of use"
I did feel threatened and even emailed to Peter, and asked him, if that means newyorkbrad and the company are going to sue me.

[TungstenCarbide]

So now, not only do I have Newyorkbrad the New York lawyer posting legal threats on Wiki for everyone to see, I have AGK, another arbitrator sending me legal threats by Email and threatening to contact my employer to get me fired. With all the editors slinging antisemetism, child porn on Commons and the multitudes of other things that needs to be stamped out, they are wasting time with me, because I had the morale courage to stand up to abusive admins and the failures of Arbcom and don't honor my ban. Oh the horror!

You just can't make this shit up.

[thekohser]

Before Newyourbrad threatened Kumioko he blocked one of my IP with the edit summary "soapboxing by banned editor improperly accessing the site in breach of the terms of use"
I did feel threatened and email to Peter, and asked him if that means newyorkbrad and the company are going to sue me.

Just because someone interprets something as a breach of a terms of use agreement, then shares that interpretation with the rest of the world, doesn't mean that that someone is going to sue anyone. C'mon, let's not get like Wikipedia, where if you say, "While I don't have any intention to sue Editor X, what they just said could be considered defamatory," you're then blocked in a New York minute.

[neved]

Before Newyourbrad threatened Kumioko he blocked one of my IP with the edit summary "soapboxing by banned editor improperly accessing the site in breach of the terms of use"
I did feel threatened and email to Peter, and asked him if that means newyorkbrad and the company are going to sue me.

Just because someone interprets something as a breach of a terms of use agreement, then shares that interpretation with the rest of the world, doesn't mean that that someone is going to sue anyone. C'mon, let's not get like Wikipedia, where if you say, "While I don't have any intention to sue Editor X, what they just said could be considered defamatory," you're then blocked in a New York minute.

Greg, I simply stated how I felt about the edit summary. I am not saying my feelings were justified, but to me it was strange the use of "the terms of use" in the edit summary. It smelled as a legal threat. I believe it was made in purpose to scare me, and it did. Honestly how many times did you see admins using "breach of the terms of use" in their blocks edit summaries, and how else you could explain newyorkbrad using it other than a scare tactic?

[Kelly Martin]

The constant invocations of the "terms of use" by Arbitrators and others are a part of an obvious legal strategy, likely backed by the Foundation, to enable the Foundation to seek civil injunctions, and possibly criminal prosecution, against people who continue to edit after being told to stop. It's actually a strategy I recommended they use as far back as 2006, with respect to editors who were actually stalking editors, editors who made real, actionable threats of violence, and editors who were obviously pursuing minors for illicit purposes, but which the Foundation refused to pursue.

We can hope that they restrict actual legal proceedings to people who actually present legitimate concerns for the safety of editors or others, but the fact that they're exercising this strategy against Kumioko (who is obviously harmless) suggests that they're not going to do that.

AGK's alleged email, above, reminds me of FT2's infamous "anvil" threat.

[Triptych]

Not to be a wet blanket, but I wouldn't let Wikipediocracy be used as a "Look what they did to me" without seeing some evidence that what is alleged was actually done.

I see your point. Without disrespect to Kumioko, there are the hypothetical possibilities that A) Kumioko is making it up, or B) someone sent Kumioko an email falsely claiming to be AGK.

We'll get a better idea when AGK responds. (He hasn't edited for a few hours.) Easy enough for him to deny it if he's going to.

Meanwhile Salvio appears to have firmed it up a bit.

Speaking in my personal capacity, I just want to point out that this was not an e-mail from or on behalf of ArbCom, but rather an e-mail from an administrator who is also a current member of ArbCom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Under the bus!

[Kumioko]

The constant invocations of the "terms of use" by Arbitrators and others are a part of an obvious legal strategy, likely backed by the Foundation, to enable the Foundation to seek civil injunctions, and possibly criminal prosecution, against people who continue to edit after being told to stop. It's actually a strategy I recommended they use as far back as 2006, with respect to editors who were actually stalking editors, editors who made real, actionable threats of violence, and editors who were obviously pursuing minors for illicit purposes, but which the Foundation refused to pursue.

We can hope that they restrict actual legal proceedings to people who actually present legitimate concerns for the safety of editors or others, but the fact that they're exercising this strategy against Kumioko (who is obviously harmless) suggests that they're not going to do that.

AGK's alleged email, above, reminds me of FT2's infamous "anvil" threat.

In fairness I actually doubt the WMF was consulted or even had any knowledge of AGK's email. I have always gotten the impression the WMF stays way far away from matters like this which is exactly why they created the Arbcom in the first place. To put some distance and a degree of blameshifting away from them to the WMF. So if the Arbcom does something that they disagree with, they could either deny invovlement or just ignore it.

I would also like to say clearly that although I do not like what AGK did or many of the ways he does things I did actually appreciate in some ways that AGK did send me an email to "warn" me in advance and although I would have posted the DMCA as well if I recieved one of those, I do want to at least give him some props for that. He could have just sent it and dealt with the fallout from that.

I also agre that in the grand scheme of things I am a pretty insignificant reason to invoke this rule when compared to the other more serious issues which they ignored. I think the thing that sets me apart from the others is I am arguing against the power base of admins and the Arbcom and I am being very vocal about it. I'm not just vandalizing articles or spamming links, I am arguing that admins and arbs should not be exempt from the rules. A position they have achieved through years of manipulation and cultural development into thinking that admins are better than thou.

What the Arbcom folks should be asking themselves is, did the ban make things better or worse for the project? Did his attitude change for the better or worse and do we think sending a DMCA letter to his ISP or work will make things better or worse? Those are the important questions they should be asking. Its not like there aren't a million free WIFi signals I can use. The fact I am using my home and posting the occassional comment from work are a matter of convenience, not a requirement. In fact I would argue doing so will only make me harder to track because I will be using a lot more IP's and will be far less likely to associate my edits with my Kumioko "signature".

[Kumioko]

Not to be a wet blanket, but I wouldn't let Wikipediocracy be used as a "Look what they did to me" without seeing some evidence that what is alleged was actually done.

I see your point. Without disrespect to Kumioko, there are the hypothetical possibilities that A) Kumioko is making it up, or B) someone sent Kumioko an email falsely claiming to be AGK.

We'll get a better idea when AGK responds. (He hasn't edited for a few hours.) Easy enough for him to deny it if he's going to.

Meanwhile Salvio appears to have firmed it up a bit.

Speaking in my personal capacity, I just want to point out that this was not an e-mail from or on behalf of ArbCom, but rather an e-mail from an administrator who is also a current member of ArbCom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Under the bus!

What sort of "proof" are you looking for? An Email snapshot perhaps?

[thekohser]

What sort of "proof" are you looking for? An Email snapshot perhaps?

Please see the very first reply to the original post.

[Kumioko]

What sort of "proof" are you looking for? An Email snapshot perhaps?

Please see the very first reply to the original post.

Oh yeah got it. I don't have an account on that site and I am not in a place to add it there yet. I'll do that later once I learn a little more about that site and where to post it.

[Kelly Martin]

In fairness I actually doubt the WMF was consulted or even had any knowledge of AGK's email.

Let me be clear that I don't think that the WMF directed AGK to send that email, or is aware of it. However, I strongly suspect that the WMF has advised the ArbCom that it has, or will soon have (note the prominent banners regarding the pending change in the site's terms of service) the authority to create civil and criminal liability for individuals who violate its edicts, and such advice is the underpinning of AGK's action. Although it's possible that Mr. Matetsky's drumbeating is the reason, and not some memo from Geoff Brigham's office. We'll likely never know.

But, Kumioko, why do you persist? You are dealing with a bunch of irrational loose cannons. True, most of their salvos will miss, but what do you gain from constantly throwing yourself into their field of fire? Walk away, it's not worth it.

[Vigilant]

[Freddy]

The constant invocations of the "terms of use" by Arbitrators and others are a part of an obvious legal strategy, likely backed by the Foundation, to enable the Foundation to seek civil injunctions, and possibly criminal prosecution, against people who continue to edit after being told to stop. It's actually a strategy I recommended they use as far back as 2006, with respect to editors who were actually stalking editors, editors who made real, actionable threats of violence, and editors who were obviously pursuing minors for illicit purposes, but which the Foundation refused to pursue.

We can hope that they restrict actual legal proceedings to people who actually present legitimate concerns for the safety of editors or others, but the fact that they're exercising this strategy against Kumioko (who is obviously harmless) suggests that they're not going to do that.

AGK's alleged email, above, reminds me of FT2's infamous "anvil" threat.

In fairness I actually doubt the WMF was consulted or even had any knowledge of AGK's email. I have always gotten the impression the WMF stays way far away from matters like this which is exactly why they created the Arbcom in the first place. To put some distance and a degree of blameshifting away from them to the WMF. So if the Arbcom does something that they disagree with, they could either deny invovlement or just ignore it.

I would also like to say clearly that although I do not like what AGK did or many of the ways he does things I did actually appreciate in some ways that AGK did send me an email to "warn" me in advance and although I would have posted the DMCA as well if I recieved one of those, I do want to at least give him some props for that. He could have just sent it and dealt with the fallout from that.

I also agre that in the grand scheme of things I am a pretty insignificant reason to invoke this rule when compared to the other more serious issues which they ignored. I think the thing that sets me apart from the others is I am arguing against the power base of admins and the Arbcom and I am being very vocal about it. I'm not just vandalizing articles or spamming links, I am arguing that admins and arbs should not be exempt from the rules. A position they have achieved through years of manipulation and cultural development into thinking that admins are better than thou.

What the Arbcom folks should be asking themselves is, did the ban make things better or worse for the project? Did his attitude change for the better or worse and do we think sending a DMCA letter to his ISP or work will make things better or worse? Those are the important questions they should be asking. Its not like there aren't a million free WIFi signals I can use. The fact I am using my home and posting the occassional comment from work are a matter of convenience, not a requirement. In fact I would argue doing so will only make me harder to track because I will be using a lot more IP's and will be far less likely to associate my edits with my Kumioko "signature".

When someone is unjustly blocked, it's like cutting the head off of a hydra. They've gone from the frying pan into the fire trying to silence you.

[Kumioko]

In fairness I actually doubt the WMF was consulted or even had any knowledge of AGK's email.

Let me be clear that I don't think that the WMF directed AGK to send that email, or is aware of it. However, I strongly suspect that the WMF has advised the ArbCom that it has, or will soon have (note the prominent banners regarding the pending change in the site's terms of service) the authority to create civil and criminal liability for individuals who violate its edicts, and such advice is the underpinning of AGK's action. Although it's possible that Mr. Matetsky's drumbeating is the reason, and not some memo from Geoff Brigham's office. We'll likely never know.

But, Kumioko, why do you persist? You are dealing with a bunch of irrational loose cannons. True, most of their salvos will miss, but what do you gain from constantly throwing yourself into their field of fire? Walk away, it's not worth it.

I can say they are aware if it now, if they weren't before. I also agree its probably that teh Arbcom consulted them on options, likely in other cases besides mine.

The answer to your second question is, I do not like bullies and I do not like being bullied. When I am bullied, I bully back and the harder they fight the harder I fight back. Additionally, the process used to ban me was neither fair nor appropriate. Allowing my ban to stand without fighting for it shows the bullies they can get away with it and it shows the community what will happen to them if they question the authority of the admins or Arbcom. I want the admins to be held accountable for policy the same way editors are, not be used as the means to show them once and for all that they are an expendable commodity and can be thrown away at the will of any abusive admin whenever the mood strikes them.

[Vigilant]

In fairness I actually doubt the WMF was consulted or even had any knowledge of AGK's email.

Let me be clear that I don't think that the WMF directed AGK to send that email, or is aware of it. However, I strongly suspect that the WMF has advised the ArbCom that it has, or will soon have (note the prominent banners regarding the pending change in the site's terms of service) the authority to create civil and criminal liability for individuals who violate its edicts, and such advice is the underpinning of AGK's action. Although it's possible that Mr. Matetsky's drumbeating is the reason, and not some memo from Geoff Brigham's office. We'll likely never know.

But, Kumioko, why do you persist? You are dealing with a bunch of irrational loose cannons. True, most of their salvos will miss, but what do you gain from constantly throwing yourself into their field of fire? Walk away, it's not worth it.

This is a brave new world we're entering here.

ARBCOM members, clerks, stewards, bcrats, WMF employees, admins etc should strongly consider whether they want unfettered total war to break out.

I'm telling you now, if this is how you want to do things, then don't ever go crying about how far it went.

[Kumioko]

Personally I hope they don't go to the extreme of contact my employer of sending a DCMA just to prove a point. But if they do, I'll make sure I provide copies for the world so they can see to what lengths the Wikipedia/WMF folks are willing to go to persecute their editors. Its not like I just showed up last week and started vandalizing articles. I did 500, 000 edits, created hundreds of articles (mostly on Medal of Honor recipients) and developed several to featured status. I wsan't targetted until I started to stand up to the abusive admins on the site that are exempt from policy. Maybe I could do a Saturday night live skit about recrutiing an editor in college through having them hualed off to jail. As an Ironic twist maybe I could get Pricasso to stand in for Jimbo!

[Vigilant]

As the chatter at Jimbo's talk page drops off, I think it's safe to assume that the conversations have moved to IRC/Skype/Chat.

[Peter Damian]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

[Vigilant]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

Alison gets my vote.

Sorry Alison.

[eppur si muove]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

You need to drop that on Jimbo's page.
AGK needs to get the banhammer.

Open question to wikipedians:

Is this the way we want to proceed?
I haven't ever contacted any employer (even though I like to make some wikipediots squirm).
If we're allowing ARBCOM members to contact employers to get people fired, then, "Game on, motherfuckers!"

I can GUARANTEE you that you won't like the outcome.

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (T-C-L) just posted it on Jimbo's talk: link

And kww has now blocked the Duke. The corrupt police are rushing to silence their critics.

[Peter Damian]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

Alison gets my vote.

Sorry Alison.

Echo.

[Vigilant]

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

I'm not sure why you're shocked.
We've already seen this a few times. The most egregious example being the FT2 "anvil" email which, eventually, lead to Paul Sinclair's downfall.

[Kumioko]

So for those that might be interested, Anthony, the Arbcom member kown as AGK has now resorted to threatening to get me fired by sending a letter to the DOD because I used to edit occassionally from a DOD IP. Of course that IP has been blocked for over a month, and even then was used by thousands of people daily. Most of which weren't me. This is just more proof that Arbcom is nothing more than a group of threatening bullies.

Here is the Email I just received:

"Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

You need to drop that on Jimbo's page.
AGK needs to get the banhammer.

Open question to wikipedians:

Is this the way we want to proceed?
I haven't ever contacted any employer (even though I like to make some wikipediots squirm).
If we're allowing ARBCOM members to contact employers to get people fired, then, "Game on, motherfuckers!"

I can GUARANTEE you that you won't like the outcome.

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (T-C-L) just posted it on Jimbo's talk: link

And kww has now blocked the Duke. The corrupt police are rushing to silence their critics.

Judging by the edit summary Kww left when blocking them, he likely thinks its me. Sorry Duke!

[Peter Damian]

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

I'm not sure why you're shocked.
We've already seen this a few times. The most egregious example being the FT2 "anvil" email which, eventually, lead to Paul Sinclair's downfall.

The Anvil was actually quite a bit worse. But I had always thought, mindful of what happened, they had reformed a bit. Silly me.

[Kumioko]

There are also a lot of tertiary effects that could come out of this, results to me aside. The DOD could put Wikipedia on the block list and no one would be able to access it or edit it. Thats several million people less that could use it every day. Additionally, I don't think Wikipedia wants it known how many people are editing from Government computers on a daily basis. That could lead to a lot of bad press about it as well. This whole mess could get excrutiatingly ugly for a lot of people.

[Vigilant]

This is terrible and appalling. So appalling in fact that I find it hard to believe. As the others have said, do you have any kind of proof of this? Why not show a copy to someone that most of us trust, and have them confirm it, without publishing it?

I'm not sure why you're shocked.
We've already seen this a few times. The most egregious example being the FT2 "anvil" email which, eventually, lead to Paul Sinclair's downfall.

The Anvil was actually quite a bit worse. But I had always thought, mindful of what happened, they had reformed a bit. Silly me.

Yes, it was. I just reread it to refresh my memory.
It's amazing to me that Paul Sinclair wasn't indeffed over that.

While this is a much shorter version, it threatens someone with the loss of livelihood over posting to wikipedia.
It is much the same in intent.

[Triptych]

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (T-C-L) just posted it on Jimbo's talk: link

And kww has now blocked the Duke. The corrupt police are rushing to silence their critics.

No warning, explanation, or evidence. Just the block log with the raw assertion "abusing multiple accounts" and link to WP:SOCK. Kww's not a checkuser, so it's not based on that.

The Duke's contributions are infrequent but it looks like he did some productive stuff with images, and he's been very polite, like a duke ought. Kww has not demonstrated any abuse by the Duke.

WP:ADMINACCT (policy) says administrators are supposed to communicate. None of that here.

So it's the block itself that is abusive. Will another administrator fault him? No. Administrator Dougweller already approves and is urging Kww to publicly label the Duke a sock at Jimbo's talkpage. Kww is the thrice-blocked and Arbcom-admonished administrator who has been perma-blocked at Wikimedia for socking (see "Kww_2" there). Will another administrator speak up against him? Doubtful.

[Poetlister]

It's amazing to me that Paul Sinclair wasn't indeffed over that.

He is in fact still an admin. Maybe that's something for Lila Tretikov to examine.

[Duke Olav III]

Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (T-C-L) just posted it on Jimbo's talk: link

And kww has now blocked the Duke. The corrupt police are rushing to silence their critics.

No warning, explanation, or evidence. Just the block log with the raw assertion "abusing multiple accounts" and link to WP:SOCK. Kww's not a checkuser, so it's not based on that.

The Duke's contributions are infrequent but it looks like he did some productive stuff with images, and he's been very polite, like a duke ought. Kww has not demonstrated any abuse by the Duke.

WP:ADMINACCT (policy) says administrators are supposed to communicate. None of that here.

So it's the block itself that is abusive. Will another administrator fault him? No. Administrator Dougweller already approves and is urging Kww to publicly label the Duke a sock at Jimbo's talkpage. Kww is the thrice-blocked and Arbcom-admonished administrator who has been perma-blocked at Wikimedia for socking (see "Kww_2" there). Will another administrator speak up against him? Doubtful.

Actually, that was over my oppose vote on his bot (link), which he wants to use to get rid of the archive.is links.

Which actually makes it much, much worse.

[Freddy]

After five hours, AGK responds: link

What Salvio giuliano should have said is "This is not an e-mail from ArbCom, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise." AGK [•] 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

After five hours, AGK responds: link

What Salvio giuliano should have said is "This is not an e-mail from ArbCom, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise." AGK [•] 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that works as confirmation that a sitting member of ARBCOM (hiding behind a fig leaf of 'my private account' donchaknow) sent an email threatening the job of someone whose posts he doesn't like on wikipedia.

I think this allows for significant widening of the conflict.

Edit: A new fig leaf.

Banned users who are socking every evening are usually fought using an ISP Abuse Report. This is fairly ordinary for cases of advanced abuse, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. This tactic has not been used to date because Kumioko's ISP is also his employer. I e-mailed Kumioko after his most recent spree of abusive socking, in reply to one of the long, angry e-mails he sends a few times week, threatening to "never stop", "never give up", etc. My e-mail was not signed or remotely suggested as being for ArbCom.

This e-mail alerted Kumioko to the fact that when an abuse report is filed, as it inevitably would be if he did not let up, it is likely to affect his employment and cause trouble to his real life. I did not say "I will call your employer and rat you out." This would be abhorrent, and I am outraged at the people who suggest this is what I did. My message was very clearly framed as a plea for Kumioko not to force Wikipedia's hand, with such desperate consequences. I am utterly certain that I would write this e-mail again, even if I knew some people here would misinterpret it, because the alternative is to wreck a man's livelihood and life. A misguided man waging a farcical campaign against a website, but a real, living man nevertheless. AGK [•] 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Compare and contrast

Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner.

If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer.

There's no way AGK should have access to any advanced permissions.

[Coat of Many Colours]

If you have a screen shot of that e-mail, I think it should be posted (http://www.chillingeffects.org comes to mind), and I think you have a credible legal case against the Wikimedia Foundation, given that the "ArbCom" has no legal standing as able to speak for the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the sites whose "Terms of Use" apply.

Yes. Less than a month after starting his celebrated Wikipedia career as chronicler of gentlemen's conveniences at Scottish suburban railway stations, young Anthony was firing off stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=43765643 to respected administrators contributing to the coverage of Cathlic sex abuse cases (i.e. citing Graand Jury reports) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... d=38743574.

Real form there. How he made it to Secretary General beyond me. A lot of airbrushing helped.

(It's either by the way as suits me and takes my fancy at the time, K. No need to keep on anxiously fumbling down there. Honest.)

[Zoloft]

We kinda have an informal agreement forbidding blackmailers from being members here. I'm referring to AGK of course. I might have to take it to our Trustees.

[Kumioko]

Banned users who are socking every evening are usually fought using an ISP Abuse Report. This is fairly ordinary for cases of advanced abuse, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. This tactic has not been used to date because Kumioko's ISP is also his employer. I e-mailed Kumioko after his most recent spree of abusive socking, in reply to one of the long, angry e-mails he sends a few times week, threatening to "never stop", "never give up", etc. My e-mail was not signed or remotely suggested as being for ArbCom.

This e-mail alerted Kumioko to the fact that when an abuse report is filed, as it inevitably would be if he did not let up, it is likely to affect his employment and cause trouble to his real life. I did not say "I will call your employer and rat you out." This would be abhorrent, and I am outraged at the people who suggest this is what I did. My message was very clearly framed as a plea for Kumioko not to force Wikipedia's hand, with such desperate consequences. I am utterly certain that I would write this e-mail again, even if I knew some people here would misinterpret it, because the alternative is to wreck a man's livelihood and life. A misguided man waging a farcical campaign against a website, but a real, living man nevertheless. AGK [•] 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify somethign here, my work IP has been blocked pretty much continuously since about 7 February 2014. So other than about 3 or 4 comments I slipped in the day or 2 it was unblocked, it would be physically impossible for me to use my work IP to edit. Making AGK's comment pretty much pure lies. Additionally, he stated "every evening". I don't frequently use the cot under my desk, so that again, makes the argument of sending a notice to my employer nothing more than a threat. And your right AGK, it is abhorrent behavior and endemnic of the type of conduct I have been harping about for months that you and others insist doesn't exist. Nope never happens here, we are fair and square.

[Triptych]

Umm, AGK now says "I did not say "I will call your employer and rat you out."" But AGK's now-confirmed email said "Please do not force us to contact your employer." The meanings are equivalent or did the email promise to contact Kumioko's employer with a letter of praise? It is to laugh. He threatened to contact his employer and rat him out.

The other bit of deception, and maybe this is the pivotal point, AGK says "my e-mail was not signed or remotely suggested as being for ArbCom." However AGK used plural in the email: "Do not force US to contact your employer" (caps added). If "us" is not Arbcom, who is "us?" Furthermore AGK asserts he responded to one of the "angry emails" he claims Kumioko sends regularly. Surely those are emails Kumioko sends to Arbcom generally, not AGK personally. How should this response as AGK calls it, from an arb and replying to an email to Arbcom, be construed by Kumioko as other than from Arbcom?

Further background here is that individual arbs frequently and historically purport to speak on behalf of the entire Arbcom. It's commonality for them.

It's amusing to watch Salvio Giuliano throw the AGKster under the bus, in the vernacular, claiming that AGK didn't speak for him or the other arbs, but the record is going to show that's the way they've always done it. They don't get to run away from it now.

[Vigilant]

Who is this Sɛvɪnti_faɪv (T-C-L) twat?

[Zoloft]

Who is this Sɛvɪnti_faɪv (T-C-L) twat?

Good Day. I am a person,[citation needed] who uses this account to edit wikipedia every once in a while, becase my IP is a shared adress that gets blocked alot.

Ah, a comedian...

[Hersch]

It's funny how AGK completely ignores Wikipedia:No legal threats (T-H-L). Amazing double standard there.

At this stage of the game, no double standard at WP should be considered amazing. It's "Double Standards R Us."