NYB has accused Kumioko of engaging in illegal activities

[tarantino]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =604858827
archived here.

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[SB_Johnny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =604858827
archived here.

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a pool yet on whether NYB will be hired on to the legal team at WMF after he resigns? It would actually be a good match, in both the good way and the bad way.

[Midsize Jake]

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where he's in breach - maybe Mr. Brad can explain, but by including the word "Koomeohko" in the offending edit, he seems to be taking responsibility for it under his most recognizable identity/persona, and (by the same token) also avoiding any issues of fraudulent misrepresentation. He's not accessing any non-public areas, posting malicious code, or scanning for "vulnerabilities" (as if that's even relevant - OMG! I found a way to actually change the articles!)... what's the problem?

The only clause that seems to apply, and it's a stretch, is "Disrupting the services by inundating any of the Project websites with communications or other traffic that suggests no serious intent to use the Project website for its stated purpose." Of course, nobody knows what the "stated purpose" is anymore, but putting that aside... since he only tried to post the comment twice, I just don't think they could make a case for "inundating." (And why do they have that word "inundating" in there anyway? It's a stupid word to use in that context - probably stupider than most of what they're likely to be "inundated" with.)

I guess that leaves the part under "Management of Websites," which reads...

In the interests of our users and the Projects, in the extreme circumstance that any individual has had his or her account or access blocked under this provision, he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on or seeking access to the same Project, unless we provide explicit permission.

For this, they would have to prove he's the same guy, and that might be impossible in a court of law, especially if he used a proxy of some kind. Also, I wonder how they define "explicit permission." I suspect he could make the case that since he isn't being technically denied the ability to create another account, the functionality of the "Create an Account" page is tantamount to permission, though it would be harder to make the case for "explicit."

Frankly, their "Terms of Use" are an embarrassment, both to themselves and to their attorneys.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The terms of service used to have a clause that the user agrees to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Committee.

[Midsize Jake]

The terms of service used to have a clause that the user agrees to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Committee.

That would explain why nobody has ever taken the Wikimedia ToS seriously, at least...

I guess if they're sure it's Kumioko, they could conceivably refer to existing (though barely relevant) judicial precedent for ToS violations being deemed to be criminal offenses - I remember there was that time when some woman used a phony Facebook account to drive an innocent teenage girl to suicide, and they gave her what, 18 months? Based on that standard, a suitable punishment for Kumioko might be to have to miss his or her softball practice in order to watch the WP admin corps get frog-marched into the slammer for 20 years each, for wasting the court's valuable time with inane trivialities.

That could be a real blow, if there happened to be a big game coming up.

[Kelly Martin]

they could conceivably refer to existing (though barely relevant) judicial precedent for ToS violations being deemed to be criminal offenses - I remember there was that time when some woman used a phony Facebook account to drive an innocent teenage girl to suicide, and they gave her what, 18 months?

As I recall, at least one court has rejected the application of the CFAA to conduct that merely violates the terms of service of an otherwise ordinary website. I'm not sure if this is the case you're talking about, as the Drew case involved a fake MySpace account, not a fake Facebook account. (Many blogs and other sources incorrectly report that Drew used a fake Facebook account.) In this case, Lori Drew, the defendant, was ultimately exonerated. The feds have cut way back on the use of the CFAA for such purposes after the loss in the Drew case and after Aaron Swartz's suicide; 11 of the 13 charges that were pending against Swartz at the time of his death were CFAA violations.

[Jim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =604858827
archived here.

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Brad sometimes talks a great deal of sense. (He generally talks a great deal...)

This, though, is pompous, preposterous bullshit. "Unlawfully"? FFS.
The guy is editing the "website anyone can edit" in a way you don't like, and flouting your unenforceable little village rules in a way that thousands of others have done, and will do, because they're unenforceable (and little).
Perspective, please...

Picture, if you will, a courtroom, in a place far removed from what you're accustomed to calling "reality". This is no ordinary courtroom. Here the rules are shaped only by your imagination.
Up ahead is a signpost. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone:

• "So, learned counsel for the prosecution, your client requires no identity to join, and it is, indeed, against their odd little rules to reveal the identities of accounts.
  They encourage anonymous edits, and their site implores users to make them. What am I missing, here, in this case? -
  There's a post on one of their funny little pages where they play at being lawyers, saying someone is "banned", and this might or might not be them, being a bit argumentative after they were told very strictly not to, you say?
  Oh. ok. We can't have that. 15 to life, then, since we're close to lunch - throw away the key, (and throw them to the ground roughly upon arrest).
  Where should I send the constables to enact judgement? ... You don't know? Err...Salmon, on rye, pepper but no onions, please."

Fortunately, Kumioko probably hasn't considered the small amount of fun he could have by characterising this as an implied "legal threat" (oh noes, NLT...), so I won't tell him. Shush.

[Cedric]

Frankly, their "Terms of Use" are an embarrassment, both to themselves and to their attorneys.

In the end, all you really need to know here.

[Kumioko]

I agree that Brad's comment are nothing more than a legal threat and I stated as such on his talk page. The Wikipedia policy which identifies no legal threats does not exempt the Arbcom so IMO his threat was nothing more than another example of admins and arbs not being held accountable for violating policy. He could have done a large number of things but instead chose to post a threat.

Additionally, while I am no lawyer and Wikipedia is a "hobby" and the duties of Arbcom surely are an extension of that hobby, they also have an inherent legal standing according to both their mandate and statements by the WMF and Jimbo. I can't help but wonder if his actions as a member of the Arbcom are a violation of any legal statutes. For example, he is certainly licensed to practice law in New York as well as possibly other places. Since the servers for Wikipedia are maintained in Virginia, the Headquarters in San Francisco and other assets scattered around, and its possible that his activities aren't legally grounded. Also, since editors are editing from all over the world, including me, his legal standing on the site is nearly worthless. In fact, his legal background and understanding of the law probably jeopardize any serious cases from going anywhere because as a member of the court, he has requirements that the other non lawyer members of the Arbcom do not. Just my opinion. Aside from that Brad is a mediocre lawyer at best anyway and as has been pointed out their TOS is an embarrassment.

So I am not particularly worries about their "threats". Admins have been threatening me on Wikipedia for years, that's why I was banned lets not forget. Because I was being critical of admins and the failures of Arbcom to do anything about abusive admins.

[Hex]

Fortunately, Kumioko probably hasn't considered the small amount of fun he could have by characterising this as an implied "legal threat" (oh noes, NLT...), so I won't tell him. Shush.

He has, on NYB's talk page (diff only).

I've removed the phrase in question from the IP talk page, because it was manifestly inappropriate. If NYB wants to do that sort of thing, he can join the WMF's legal department.

[Kumioko]

Thanks Hex, Brad's just pissed and frustrated at their inability to do anything about me since I have refused to accept the invalid ban levied against me for being critical of admin abuse. Ironically all I wanted to was help build up the project as evidenced by the amount of work I put into it, but their failure to apply policy to admins became a major problem for me that I could no longer ignore.

[iii]

The terms of service used to have a clause that the user agrees to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Committee.

Do we have a citation for this?

I believe you, I'd just like to be able to refer to it later.

[neved]

I wonder if that sick block rationale is mr. matetsky own initiative, or he acts on behalf of the charitable, tax-exempt wmf.
I am not an attorney, but I believe if mr. matetsky would take such a case to court, first he would have to explain to the court what exactly does it mean to be community banned from that charitable, tax-exempt wmf's site, and I'm guessing the court (like any normal person) would have difficulties in understanding that being community banned means being banned by a few anonymous bullies (out of the community that numbers thousands) in proceeding that looks like that Then mr. matetsky would have to explain to the court what is the difference between contributing to wikipedia, editing wikipedia and exercising one's right to freedom of speech on that charitable, tax-exempt site.
In my particular situation mr. matetsky would also have to explain to the court that I was banned by a few, involved, anonymous users, one of whom to support my ban used the lies it got directly from a criminal , and also that I was banned with no single evidence of an alleged harassment simply for exposing and stopping a bully admin who besides others bullied 16-years old kid to the extend he felt as killing himself.

When I read something like that statement by mr. matetsky I feel deeply ashamed that sadly I have been and will be forever associated with that so called charitable site.

[Jim]

Fortunately, Kumioko probably hasn't considered the small amount of fun he could have by characterising this as an implied "legal threat" (oh noes, NLT...), so I won't tell him. Shush.

He has, on NYB's talk page (diff only).

Ah. ok. Pretty obvious, I guess.

Poor form, Brad. I hope you're ashamed of that knee-jerk, smart arsed, "I'm a lawyer, so I'm the law" block rationale now. You've punished others for far less.
(Breath not held for apology)

[Triptych]

I've removed the phrase in question from the IP talk page, because it was manifestly inappropriate. If NYB wants to do that sort of thing, he can join the WMF's legal department.

Show some spine and block him, Hex! You'd block a regular editor for that!

[Jim]

I've removed the phrase in question from the IP talk page, because it was manifestly inappropriate. If NYB wants to do that sort of thing, he can join the WMF's legal department.

Show some spine and block him, Hex! You'd block a regular editor for that!

That's actually a fair comment. I'd maybe consider playing my sysop bit on that, but that's easy to say when you don't have one.

[Triptych]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =604858827
archived here.

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "NYB has accused Kumioko of engaging in illegal activities." He said "unlawfully." I'd be hard-pressed to locate diffs but I *know* I have seen common editors indefed for statements equivalent to this.

Brad has done this sort of stuff before, questionably and casually invoking the law. He's done it here at Wikipediocracy. It really is surprising to me to see him that is widely supposed to be be a successful attorney making such statements.

What is he actually saying? He's not clear about it. Is he stating that any editing of Wikipedia in violation of the "terms of use" is unlawful? Is he arguing that a clear red-line exists for an editor "banned" by an assortment of ten or eleven anonymous jerk-offs at WP:AN/ANI that couldn't even agree on what they were blocking Kumioko for? (Although the record shows that the "ban Kumioko" discussion commenced when he was tattled on for, get this, criticizing WP:AN/ANI.)

Last, nice work by Tarantino in catching this, as well for caching it at archive.today (what a rockin' website that appears to be, useful for the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).

[Jim]

the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).

I can still see the original diff.
I haven't noticed anything "disappear".
What "disappeared" for you "in this case" ?

[Triptych]

the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).

I can still see the original diff.
What disappeared for you?

The part that Hex deleted. Yeah, there is still the original diff (for now) but in the future one will have to dig through the history for it. The offending material has essentially been hidden. I say it has in fact begun to disappear.

[Jim]

the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).

I can still see the original diff.
What disappeared for you?

The part that Hex deleted. Yeah, there is still the original diff (for now) but in the future one will have to dig through the history for it. The offending material has essentially been hidden. I say it has in fact begun to disappear.

Oh, ok. Scott, you're a disappearing tool of the establishment, you bastard. The rest will come true. Just you wait and see.

[thekohser]

Could someone summarize in three sentences what Kumioko did on Wikipedia to warrant the blocking/banning?

[Kumioko]

I had been very critical of admins and the arbitration committee. I stopped editing from my account and locked it only editing as an IP because I felt and still feel they are not worth creating a user account if they don't respect their own policies. I started limiting my edits to advocating for change and admin accountability through said IP's. That annoyed and upset some of the admins, particularly the bullies so they started looking for ways to get rid of me. After multiple ANI's ended without the intent they wanted they finally got me banned for making a comment on a users talk page.

[Newyorkbrad]

I'm reading through these posts while waiting at an airport. I can't respond in detail right now, but I expect to blog on this topic on Wikipedia in a day or two.

(I don't know what happened to the topic heading... more proof I shouldn't post until I get to a real computer.)

[Kumioko]

I for one look forward to hearing what you have to say.

[Peter Damian]

I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:

You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.

[Midsize Jake]

I agree that Brad's comment are nothing more than a legal threat and I stated as such on his talk page. The Wikipedia policy which identifies no legal threats does not exempt the Arbcom so IMO his threat was nothing more than another example of admins and arbs not being held accountable for violating policy...

Not to take sides or anything, but while it might be considered a "legal threat" by some Wikipedians, we should all try to be clear on the fact that by any sane definition, to call that a "legal threat" is patently absurd. Just expressing your notion that something is illegal (whether it is or not) is a far, far cry from actually threatening to take legal action.

[Triptych]

Could someone summarize in three sentences what Kumioko did on Wikipedia to warrant the blocking/banning?

I'd summarize it not as warranted but as another contemptible "vote him or her off the island" WP:AN/ANI proceeding in which insults and accusations rampant, and policy-violations tied to diffs almost non-existent (Demiurge1000 alone offers that one of Kumioko's edit comments, in part, "Wikipedia has become a fucking joke," violates WP:DISRUPT).

The ban discussion is split into two adjacent boxes, closed by administrators Nyttend, Jehochman, and 28bytes, each of whom may be said to have had his hand on the ban dagger plunged into Kumioko's chest, and allowing each to disclaim responsibility (though only 28bytes has done so).

If you're looking for facts that are pointed to rather than to Kumioko's long-term relationships with the "block him" voters (or their character traits that motivate such votes) administrative participant Ne_ent initiated the ban discussion citing this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =596997571) in which Kumioko says that complaining of bullying to WP:AN/ANI gets the complainer blocked, and not the bully.

[Kumioko]

I agree that Brad's comment are nothing more than a legal threat and I stated as such on his talk page. The Wikipedia policy which identifies no legal threats does not exempt the Arbcom so IMO his threat was nothing more than another example of admins and arbs not being held accountable for violating policy...

Not to take sides or anything, but while it might be considered a "legal threat" by some Wikipedians, we should all try to be clear on the fact that by any sane definition, to call that a "legal threat" is patently absurd. Just expressing your notion that something is illegal (whether it is or not) is a far, far cry from actually threatening to take legal action.

I infer it being a legal threat on the grounds that he is a) a lawyer b) an admin and C) an arbitrator. Since any one of those three gives hm the ability to perform different actions against me, from blocking me from the site(granted thats already been done) to actual legal action on behalf of Arbcom or the WMF. As absurd as it may be in a real legal sense, there is no reason I should not assume it as an at least indirect threat. Not saying he was threatening necessarily, but its not beyond reason that he wouldn't do some sort of action on behalf of the Arbcom.

[Midsize Jake]

What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.

I suspect Mr. Brad is trying to promulgate the idea that the ToS is a contract, and that Mr. Kumioko is in breach of that contract, for his having not abided by the clause demanding compliance with Arbcom rulings after he made a bunch of edits, blah blah blah. But he certainly should know that such a breach would fall under civil, not criminal, law - it could only be considered "unlawful" in the broadest possible sense of the term.

I mean, if we're taking any of this seriously (which we probably shouldn't be), then we have to accept two factors that are both at least 90-percent likely, the first being that Mr. Brad was just unusually angry when he typed the word "unlawful," and the second being that Mr. Brad is perfectly aware that any attempt by the WMF to sue or prosecute a banned user for posting with a sock-puppet account would not only be laughed out of court, but laughed out of any sane prosecuting attorney's office before said attorney even had a chance to sit down. Still, if were to also accept their presumed argument that Mr. Kumioko is unusually (and extremely) annoying to the WP folks, then I don't really see this as a libelous statement on Mr. Brad's part, silly though it may be.

[Midsize Jake]

As absurd as it may be in a real legal sense, there is no reason I should not assume it as an at least indirect threat. Not saying he was threatening necessarily, but its not beyond reason that he wouldn't do some sort of action on behalf of the Arbcom.

Absolutely - just to be clear, under the Wikipedia definition of "legal threat," what Mr. Brad wrote would definitely qualify. I just think it's important to contextualize these things in our own discussions, so it doesn't look so much like we're as crazy as they are.

[Kumioko]

I generally agree with both of those statements. I certainly am annoying to some of the Wikipedia folk especially to those who are bullies and use the tools or the status of being an admin (because sometimes they don't need to "use" the tools to be abusive), abusively. I think the ToS argument might have some validity if it was an arbcom sanction which it wasn't. It was a ban by a handful of mostly anonymous editors representing the "community". Many of which I had previously identified as being bullies or abusive.

In the case of policy violations being unlawful, I think that my failure to obey the site ban is about as much unlawful as Wikipedia's failure to adhere to their mantra of being the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" when they are aware that thousands of editors have been blocked making it all to clear that not everyone can edit.

[Peter Damian]

Email from Tim Usher, who makes the following clever point:

1) our contract is that you must do whatever Bob tells you to do.
2) Bob doesn't represent us and we take no responsibility for Bob's commands, which you must obey or be in breach of our contract.

There is also the unspoken 3) we collude with Bob behind the scenes.

[Kumioko]

Lol, yep that about sums it up all right. I would also note that someone posted a discussion to Jimbo's page about this discussion and calling them to task to do something and it was deleted twice with the assumption that the poster was me. Which I probably would have done eventually but was otherwise to busy to do and besides if it was me, I would have claimed it, just so I could show the flaws in their Edit filter (my specific one is 608 BTW) which is getting better but still lacking. I thought the editors use of K*mioko was quite clever though and might use that later myself. So I don't even have to edit, they have shown they will bock anyone who mentions my name in conversation.

[Triptych]

As absurd as it may be in a real legal sense, there is no reason I should not assume it as an at least indirect threat. Not saying he was threatening necessarily, but its not beyond reason that he wouldn't do some sort of action on behalf of the Arbcom.

Absolutely - just to be clear, under the Wikipedia definition of "legal threat," what Mr. Brad wrote would definitely qualify. I just think it's important to contextualize these things in our own discussions, so it doesn't look so much like we're as crazy as they are.

I think Kumioko made immensely good points a few posts above. Yes, if it just some Joe Blow regular editor spouting off or trying to sound authoritative then "banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use" can be laughed off. However when it's an administrator, arbitrator, and someone widely understood to be an attorney (and by the way someone who has just perma-blocked your IP) it becomes a serious and disturbing statement by every measure.

I say again to those still inclined to laugh this off, that if an attorney tells you you are behaving unlawfully, you should take it infinitely more seriously than your neighbor that in a moment of anger threatens to sue because your dog barks too much or something like that.

That Brad (or "Mr. Brad" as someone above is calling him, I don't mean to be unduly familiar where it's unwelcome) is an attorney is not "outing" him although I guess it might've been once upon a time before he identified himself and his profession to the New York Times for an article involving Arbcom, as well he now links this (http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1242098183.shtml) from his userpage. It's commonplace or at least uncontroversial for a Wikipedia editor to be aware Newyorkbrad is an attorney, and one who presumably passed and is in good standing with the demanding New York State Bar.

So Kumioko is right to be all kind of "WTF?!" about this, and I'd even suggest there may be some shock to it that has yet to sink in with him.

[tarantino]

I generally agree with both of those statements. I certainly am annoying to some of the Wikipedia folk especially to those who are bullies and use the tools or the status of being an admin (because sometimes they don't need to "use" the tools to be abusive), abusively. I think the ToS argument might have some validity if it was an arbcom sanction which it wasn't. It was a ban by a handful of mostly anonymous editors representing the "community". Many of which I had previously identified as being bullies or abusive.

In the case of policy violations being unlawful, I think that my failure to obey the site ban is about as much unlawful as Wikipedia's failure to adhere to their mantra of being the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" when they are aware that thousands of editors have been blocked making it all to clear that not everyone can edit.

I also consider you annoying and usually skip over your posts. I respect you though, because when I do read your posts on wp or here, I find you are consistent and honest.

[Kumioko]

No problem, I've been called worse (I've been married a couple times:-)). Thanks for the positive note too.

[EricBarbour]

It's commonplace or at least uncontroversial for a Wikipedia editor to be aware Newyorkbrad is an attorney, and one who presumably passed and is in good standing with the demanding New York State Bar.

From personal experience, there can be a considerable gap between "passing the bar exam" and "being a competent attorney". Ira might be okay in his usual subject area of "commercial, contract, securities, employment, and real estate related matters". But on Wikipedia, he has repeatedly stuck his foot in his mouth, prevaricated, and occasionally spun like a top. In short, on Wikipedia he tends to talk more like a slightly crooked alderman, running for re-election, than a lawyer. Not as crooked as the Little King Jimbo, but not especially honest either.

And it's not confined to mere attorneys in private practice. In my California county, there is a judge who, despite having retired some years ago, currently has multiple lawsuits filed against him for his questionable past decisions. Thanks to his friends on the Superior Court, he somehow manages to dodge every one of them. I would tell you more but you might not believe me. It is literally akin to a bad Hollywood melodrama.

[thekohser]

I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:

You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.

And since "community" isn't really defined -- what I suggest is that 3 or 4 Wikipediocracy members who are in good standing on Wikipedia simply form their own "dispute resolution body" (maybe call it the Wikipedimediation Committee), and rule in favor of whomever is facing trouble with complying with any "final decisions" of the other dispute resolution bodies... that way, the defendant could just hold up in court the Wikipedimediation Committee's ruling that exonerates them.

[Peter Damian]

I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:

You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.

And since "community" isn't really defined -- what I suggest is that 3 or 4 Wikipediocracy members who are in good standing on Wikipedia simply form their own "dispute resolution body" (maybe call it the Wikipedimediation Committee), and rule in favor of whomever is facing trouble with complying with any "final decisions" of the other dispute resolution bodies... that way, the defendant could just hold up in court the Wikipedimediation Committee's ruling that exonerates them.

Like.

[neved]

Email from Tim Usher, who makes the following clever point:

1) our contract is that you must do whatever Bob tells you to do.
2) Bob doesn't represent us and we take no responsibility for Bob's commands, which you must obey or be in breach of our contract.

There is also the unspoken 3) we collude with Bob behind the scenes.

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is that Bob?

[EricBarbour]

And since "community" isn't really defined -- what I suggest is that 3 or 4 Wikipediocracy members who are in good standing on Wikipedia simply form their own "dispute resolution body" (maybe call it the Wikipedimediation Committee), and rule in favor of whomever is facing trouble with complying with any "final decisions" of the other dispute resolution bodies... that way, the defendant could just hold up in court the Wikipedimediation Committee's ruling that exonerates them.

a) please don't use the term "mediation". There is a "Mediation" system on Wikipedia that has repeatedly proven to be worse than useless. The whole subject is an embarrassment. Mediations almost inevitably fail, and end with someone either being permabanned, or dragged to Arbcom for further abuse.
b) this would be pointless anyway. As I keep saying, they would rather crash Wikipedia into the ground than cede even a small amount of control over it.

[Peter Damian]

Email from Tim Usher, who makes the following clever point:

1) our contract is that you must do whatever Bob tells you to do.
2) Bob doesn't represent us and we take no responsibility for Bob's commands, which you must obey or be in breach of our contract.

There is also the unspoken 3) we collude with Bob behind the scenes.

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is that Bob?

As I understand (Usher never explained), Bob is just an imaginary character, used to illustrate the absurdity of a legal contract invoking someone you claim to have no legal relationship with.

By analogy, Bob is the Arbcom.

[Peter Damian]

I've posted this a few times before, but Larry had it perfectly.

But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders. And then, if you really want to keep working on the wiki, nothing is stopping you from making a new account and getting back to work, instantly, as everybody knows. It's ridiculous. In fact, the complexity of the ridiculousness is mind-boggling, and would take a very complicated essay to tease out. This is what you're upset about being banned from?" Larry Sanger WR 20 Feb 2012

[Kumioko]

An excellent quote from the Original Wikipedia Critic!

[Triptych]

Lol, yep that about sums it up all right. I would also note that someone posted a discussion to Jimbo's page about this discussion and calling them to task to do something and it was deleted twice with the assumption that the poster was me. Which I probably would have done eventually but was otherwise to busy to do and besides if it was me, I would have claimed it, just so I could show the flaws in their Edit filter (my specific one is 608 BTW) which is getting better but still lacking. I thought the editors use of K*mioko was quite clever though and might use that later myself. So I don't even have to edit, they have shown they will bock anyone who mentions my name in conversation.

It's interesting to read that you have been targeted with abuse filter #608. Yes, it's probably a misnomer to call it an "abuse" filter which just plays into the hands of whomever is authoring it, but for clarity I call it that without meaning to imply agreement.

If you haven't realized it yet, the filter stops your attempted edit but sends its text to the filter coder to sniff and peruse and stroke over, no matter whom you intended to receive it (as in, you typed on an editor's talkpage).

I disagree that "K*mioko" is clever filter work, at least until you realize what they are doing. They are largely script-kiddies typing wildcards into a pre-set filter template. It gives them too much credit to even call them "coders" really. Filtering your signature may also be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to force you to "sock."

Kumioko, I saw somewhere there, his talkpage I think, that you attributed responsibility for your filter to arb "Timotheus Canens" (who is Ruijie "Tim" Song, 26 to 32 years of age, of New York City area, USA). What is your basis for this, if you don't mind explaining.

[Kurt M. Weber]

I had been very critical of admins and the arbitration committee. I stopped editing from my account and locked it only editing as an IP because I felt and still feel they are not worth creating a user account if they don't respect their own policies. I started limiting my edits to advocating for change and admin accountability through said IP's. That annoyed and upset some of the admins, particularly the bullies so they started looking for ways to get rid of me. After multiple ANI's ended without the intent they wanted they finally got me banned for making a comment on a users talk page.

The emperor doesn't like it when you point out that he's got no clothes on.

[Kurt M. Weber]

I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:

You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.

It's also worth pointing out that the Arbitrary Committee was never established by the en.wp community.

They didn't like it when I made that known.

[Cedric]

Welcome to Wikipediocracy, Kurt.

[EricBarbour]

It's also worth pointing out that the Arbitrary Committee was never established by the en.wp community.

They didn't like it when I made that known.

And here's the proof:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 08801.html
The only objector: Cunctator, who was also on the list because Jimbo wanted him. Cunctator then said something that proved to be darkly prophetic:

My goal is to make such institutions unnecessary, but history shows us that once people are given power they're loathe to give it up, even if their institution is harmful or obsolete.

In other words, this is a step in the wrong direction which is not likely ever to be reversed.

[Kumioko]

My goal is to make such institutions unnecessary, but history shows us that once people are given power they're loathe to give it up, even if their institution is harmful or obsolete.

In other words, this is a step in the wrong direction which is not likely ever to be reversed.

He hit that nail on the head.