NYB has accused Kumioko of engaging in illegal activities

Kurt M. Weber · Unread post by **Kurt M. Weber** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:05 am

These things create their own inertia, to be sure.

When I was running for ArbCom BITD and questioned its legitimacy on these grounds, people often liked to ask me "Doesn't the fact that people are voting in these elections prove its legitimacy?"

Are we to assume that there were no reublicans taking part in the State Duma elections in 1906? Or is it perhaps that they were just trying to make the best of a bad and fundamentally unjust situation until they could replace it with something better and with real popular legitimacy?

Sure, the bulk of the SRs boycotted, but you'd be hard pressed to call the Trudoviks or especially the Social Democrats monarchists.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:19 am

Kurt M. Weber wrote:
Peter Damian wrote: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.

For anybody who didn't quite see on the first pass (as I didn't) what Mr. Weber was saying, it's that Arbcom was established by Jimbo, not "the community," which means that the text from the current WMF terms of service quoted by Mr. Damian above doesn't apply.

Of course, an Arbcom determination is not what happened with Kumioko anyway. What happened with Kumioko was just some unpopularity contest bull done by a pack of habitually quarrelsome, narrow-hearted, and low-minded regulars at WP:AN/ANI.

So, given that neither Arbcom nor WP:AN/ANI (which doesn't even have a charter or rules) is a "resolution body established by the community" it'll be interesting to see New York attorney Newyorkbrad articulate the basis for his charge that Kumioko acted "unlawfully." Which Newyorkbrad has said he'll blog about in the next couple days.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:30 am

Kurt! Welcome home.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:39 am

I suspect Brad won't even discuss the legitimacy of my block but will focus on my failure to adhere to my ban. Which I have never denied dodging because I do not recognize it as valid and likely never will. Of course I may eventually get bored of posting, but that probably won't happen for a long long time.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:58 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Kumioko wrote: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.

Yes. That's why I said a small amount of fun could be had with it. Of course it's patently absurd, but much that happens through that particular looking glass is - that's often the point of us, I think.

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:04 am

My understanding about the birth of ArbCom was that it was supposed to replace Jimbo in some respects, by taking over some administrative functions. Ironically, they seem to see their remit as only being able to deal with misconduct, which technically makes it a sort of police state.

I don't really understand what Kumioko is trying to accomplish with his comment campaign. I don't think anyone would disagree there is a double standard for admins vs. non-admins, but I don't see what action the ArbCom could take. In all fairness, they have taken some actions--and fairly recently too, in the last year.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:03 am

tarantino wrote:Kurt! Welcome home.

Why do you hate Wikipediocracy?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:48 am

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

He made lots and lots and lots of noise about oppressive administrators and their abusive ways and got tossed for disruption — more or less.

RfB

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:44 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
thekohser wrote:Could someone summarize in three sentences what Kumioko did on Wikipedia to warrant the blocking/banning?
He made lots and lots and lots of noise about oppressive administrators and their abusive ways and got tossed for disruption — more or less.

RfB

Lots of Wikipedians do that. Some even make it their sole duty to complain about administrators oppressing them without their ever being banned. What made Kumioko so "special" as to warrant exile?

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:32 pm

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

Kumioko was banned not by the committee, but by so called community. Those so called community bans are as illegal as it gets. They violate each and every term of human rights and each and every law of civilized world. Just look what kind of users regularly support "community" bans:demiurge1000, russavia, beyond my ken and other sick bullies. It is grotesque that an attorney newyorkbrad keeps repeating "banned user", "banned user". It means that he is as indecent as demiurge1000 and as russavia are, and that he is as wikipediototic as the saddest wikipediot on wikipedia.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:45 pm

neved wrote:Those so called community bans are as illegal as it gets. They violate each and every term of human rights and each and every law of civilized world.

Well, that's not true at all. If you're banned on Wikipedia, just open a new IP address, create a new account, and continue editing. Editing Wikipedia is not a "human right", nor is it protected by "law".

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:47 pm

thekohser wrote:
neved wrote:Those so called community bans are as illegal as it gets. They violate each and every term of human rights and each and every law of civilized world.
Well, that's not true at all. If you're banned on Wikipedia, just open a new IP address, create a new account, and continue editing. Editing Wikipedia is not a "human right", nor is it protected by "law".

"If you're banned on Wikipedia, just open a new IP address, create a new account, and continue editing." Really? And have a pack of rabid dogs running after you and hounding you?

But whatever, I'm not interested in editing wikipedia, and I would never understand people who still want to edit wikipedia (for any reason except maybe making money) even after they were banned. I mean editing wikipedia was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. I will never repeat that mistake again. Of course you could argue that I was editing wikipedia after I was banned, but ,no, I was not. I was not editing any article, and IMO editing articles it is what "editing" wikipedia means. I was trying to make wikipedia a better place, not editing it. I was able to help a few real people, a few very desperate human beings, and I am proud of that!

Now, of course editing Wikipedia is not a "human right", nor is it protected by "law", but as I said I don't care about being able to edit wikipedia. When I was talking about human rights and laws of civilized world I was talking not about ability to edit wikipedia, but about practices of so called community bans that many call "lynching", and lynchings they are.

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:55 pm

The Joy wrote:What made Kumioko so "special" as to warrant exile?

Maybe this page (Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review)? Kumioko is at least one of the IPs as well.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:37 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Kumioko wrote: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.

As we're criticising Wikipedia, it's fair enough that we don't only criticise what the policies appear to say but how they are interpreted by admins and others.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:18 pm

I completely agree Poetlister. I just noticed that Brad has posted a note to his talk page here:link with the heading "Wikipedia and the law of computer misuse".

He hasn't posted the actual thesis yet but at least we have a placeholder for it.

Which brings at least 2 questions so far to my mind. First, who's computer have I misused? Certainly not mine and since the ToS and policies on Wikipedia are so weak it would be virtually impossible to prove any "lawful" violation. Perhaps I am a nuisance, but that isn't against the law in this country....at least not yet.

The second related comment is...since when are blogs allowed on Wikipedia and since when did the rule change that allowed users to use even their userspace on Wikipedia as blog space. Although there is a fair amount of flexibility to the uses of userspace, the last I heard it was discouraged from having a personal blog. In fact I have personally seen a number of these types of pages deleted and several editors over the years scolded for doing it. So yet again, this seems to me an example of the rules not being applied for admins and Arbs where a regular editor would be.

I still look forward to seeing his thoughts on said blog post but so far, his "insights" into why I am a criminal because I am editing through an invalid ban don't impress me or persuade me why I should stop advocating that admins be held accountable on Wikipedia for violations of policy and bullying.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:30 pm

Kumioko wrote:I completely agree Poetlister. I just noticed that Brad has posted a note to his talk page here:link with the heading "Wikipedia and the law of computer misuse".

He hasn't posted the actual thesis yet but at least we have a placeholder for it.

Which brings at least 2 questions so far to my mind. First, who's computer have I misused? Certainly not mine and since the ToS and policies on Wikipedia are so weak it would be virtually impossible to prove any "lawful" violation. Perhaps I am a nuisance, but that isn't against the law in this country....at least not yet.

The second related comment is...since when are blogs allowed on Wikipedia and since when did the rule change that allowed users to use even their userspace on Wikipedia as blog space. Although there is a fair amount of flexibility to the uses of userspace, the last I heard it was discouraged from having a personal blog. In fact I have personally seen a number of these types of pages deleted and several editors over the years scolded for doing it. So yet again, this seems to me an example of the rules not being applied for admins and Arbs where a regular editor would be.

I still look forward to seeing his thoughts on said blog post but so far, his "insights" into why I am a criminal because I am editing through an invalid ban don't impress me or persuade me why I should stop advocating that admins be held accountable on Wikipedia for violations of policy and bullying.

He can only be referring to this. But this act was mainly to protect government computers.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:33 pm

Peter Damian wrote:He can only be referring to this. But this act was mainly to protect government computers.

This is the CFAA, which I mentioned earlier. You are correct that it was intended only to protect government computers, but the Department of Justice has, over the years, pressed (successfully) for increasingly broad interpretations of the law such that virtually any computer is a "protected computer" and virtually any conduct not approved of by the owner of that computer counts as "exceeding authorized access".

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:36 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:He can only be referring to this. But this act was mainly to protect government computers.
This is the CFAA, which I mentioned earlier. You are correct that it was intended only to protect government computers, but the Department of Justice has, over the years, pressed (successfully) for increasingly broad interpretations of the law such that virtually any computer is a "protected computer" and virtually any conduct not approved of by the owner of that computer counts as "exceeding authorized access".

OK. So an act passed by Federal Government will be used by an organisation which has a fundamental commitment to openness and freedom, and which promotes the ability of 'anyone to edit' its computers. And it will not use it against common vandals, but rather in retaliation against a user who is protesting unfair treatment and administrative corruption.

Rich.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:52 pm

Actually in New York there are several laws pertaining to computer use as can be seen here:link.
Again the problems lies in, at minimum, the following:
a) I am not in NY (virginia)
b) the computer assets I am using are not in NY (virginia)
c) the Wikipedia servers are not in NY (virginia)
d) the WMF is not based in NY (California)
e) the laws change dramatically from state to state
f) the WMF ToS are basically garbage
g) Wikipedia is billed as the encyclopedia anyone can edit. So would they really want to open that can of worms and show to the world that it isn't and chase off a lot of potential editors?
h) Their method for banning me is unlikely to hold up in any court.
i) etc...there are a lot more reasons that this "blog" post of Brad's is less a legal proof or theory as it is a threat to me to stop posting on the incorrect assumption that I am either too stupid to know better or to chicken shit to speak up. I am neither.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:49 pm

Kumioko wrote:The second related comment is...since when are blogs allowed on Wikipedia and since when did the rule change that allowed users to use even their userspace on Wikipedia as blog space.

There are plenty of essays in Wikipedia space; they're not quite blogs, but basically they're one person's musings.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:25 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The second related comment is...since when are blogs allowed on Wikipedia and since when did the rule change that allowed users to use even their userspace on Wikipedia as blog space.
There are plenty of essays in Wikipedia space; they're not quite blogs, but basically they're one person's musings.

Although I admit there are 1001 ways to argue the use of the term blog, I can't help but wonder what would result if a new editor or non admin had a user subpage and actively maintained a blog.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:34 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The second related comment is...since when are blogs allowed on Wikipedia and since when did the rule change that allowed users to use even their userspace on Wikipedia as blog space.
There are plenty of essays in Wikipedia space; they're not quite blogs, but basically they're one person's musings.
Although I admit there are 1001 ways to argue the use of the term blog, I can't help but wonder what would result if a new editor or non admin had a user subpage and actively maintained a blog.

One of my blog posts, God help us all, was plagiarized to repair that Blofeld and crew nightmare of an article, Kahuzi-Biéga National Park (T-H-L).

So, my blog is now officially advertised on en.Wikipedia. If others can advertise my blog there, why can't Newyorkbrad, as an admin with so many more privileges than mere editors, write his blog criticizing me (and all those other nasty gang members who point out errors in science articles) on en.Wikipedia?

How many ways can en.Wikipedia justify allowing an editor to make up information just because they're a nice person?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:41 pm

Well, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad has an actual blog somewhere...

Hmmm. No.

So I guess this is it: link

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:45 pm

Zoloft wrote:Well, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad has an actual blog somewhere...

Hmmm. No.

So I guess this is it: link

Lol.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:51 pm

Zoloft wrote:Well, I'm sure that Newyorkbrad has an actual blog somewhere...

Hmmm. No.

So I guess this is it: link

He posted the link to it on his talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... blog_posts

In a meantime I found an article about types of computer misuse on BBC

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:26 pm

Carrite wrote: He made lots and lots and lots of noise about oppressive administrators and their abusive ways and got tossed for disruption — more or less.

Kumioko —

Do you feel this to be an accurate one-line summary???

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Carrite wrote: He made lots and lots and lots of noise about oppressive administrators and their abusive ways and got tossed for disruption — more or less.
Kumioko —

Do you feel this to be an accurate one-line summary???

RfB

Yeah I would agree that is an accurate one line summary.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:09 am

Well, it is posted, and honestly I am surprised that this was written by an attorney.

For example NYB writes:

It is not the case that any website is helpless to seek a legal remedy against a user who insists that he is going to continue to edit without permission with the admittedly foreseeable and intended effect of (1) causing the site administrators to have to spend the time dealing with his unwanted edits, and (2) triggering rangeblocks and thus interfering with access to the site by other users with whom he is unconnected.

Oh really?

Some time ago I posted a short post to Jimbo's talk who by the was has an open door policy. This post resulted in the admins and arbitrators spending one and half months dealing with the results of my post. Does it mean I could be sued for that? No, mr. matetsky, I could not because there was no criminal intent in my post, just the opposite. I made the post with the only purpose - to make wikipedia a kinder place, and a few first responders took it as such. Nobody in his right mind could have ever predicted what was going to unfold as a result of my post.
Another example. Let's say a banned editor makes some positive contributions, and an anonymous wikipediot administrators spends the time deleting the good articles only because they were written by a banned user. Try to sue that banned user, and I assure you you'd be laughed at all over the courts.

Now, could I be sued because anonymous wikipediots blocked a range of IPs because I made a few legitimate posts to Jimbo's talk? No, I could not. Wikipediots are unpredictable bullies. If they make rangeblock to silence a single person, it is their and yours problem, not mine, or you forgot this case ?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:35 am

Oh my, where to start, there is just so much wrong with that blog post I hardly know where to begin, but I'll give it a try.

First, disclaimers aside, Brad is a lawyer and admin and an arb. His arb position, is one of authority and by extension a part of the WMF (as could be argued is the admin toolset to a much lesser degree). So to simply disclaim I am posting this of my own volition doesn't really matter.

Secondly, Brad presents a couple extreme legal cases where a girl hung herself after being cyberbullied and another case where an editor obviously broke the law a variety of ways and compares them to me, an editor who doesn't recognize an illigitimate ban. There isn't a court in the world that is going to take that seriously, let alone me.

Next, we have my ban itself. There is again no court in the world who would accept that my ban by a dozen anonymous editors meets any kind of valid legal requirement. Even if it did you would then need to try and explain to the court members the culture of Wikipedia, the ban process, what it means to "sock", wikipedia's policy of Revert, Block, Ignore, how and what the checkuser tool is and its weaknesses. Good luck with all that! Again, no court is going to entertain it because its not a law anywhere and its just plum fucking stupid anyway.

Now to some of the bullets he posted many of which would require significant explanation to a court. I created a lot of accounts, I have never denied that. The vast majority of my posts I included my name so there is no denying who I am. I have also created a lot that have yet to be discovered and blocked (a lot of them) but more than half of the ones they blocked aren't me and they revert any IP or new editors comments that even look like me, which isn't my fault but the fault of them using an unreliable tool. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.

All that blog showed me is that Brad would rather waste time talking about my socking (a very insignificant problem) than doing something about the abusive admin culture on the site (a major problem). He and the other members of the Arbcom lack the desire and morale courage to actually do anything about it. Because if they did, they would actually be making a difference but instead they would rather write garbage sanctions like the one for Rich F that are so broad and open to interpretation they remove any doubt that the Arbcom is inept and incompetent. IF they weren't I would still be editing articles at a rate of 10, 000+ edits a month.

So frankly if the WMF and the Arbcom want to show their ass and take me to civil court because I am editing the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" then I guess bring it on. I am sure it would make a nice blog post on here and a few good news articles, probably even in mainstream media that Wikipedia is suing an editor for advocating an end to abuse on the site. I'm sure that would make Wikipedia look great.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:43 am

Under the CC by SA license, the text I am going to reproduce here is from this blog post on Wikipedia: link

Wikipedia and the law of computer misuse

Newyorkbrad wrote: The other day, I blocked a banned user who was socking around his ban through the latest in a series of IPs and throw-away account. Exasperated, instead of just labeling the block "sockpuppetry" or "ban evasion" or the like, I wrote in the block log and on the talkpage exactly what I was thinking: "banned user unlawfully accessing and interfering with the site in breach of the terms of use." I've been asked to explain the thinking behind that summary, which I am happy to do.

This being a lawyer's post, it comes with several disclaimers. The first is that I didn't come to Wikipedia to be a lawyer. Thinking about the law should (apart from articles about law and lawyers and judges, and with occasional exceptions for copyright issues) be remote from the Wikipedia experience of 99.9% of editors. The second disclaimer is that I haven't discussed anything in this post with anyone in the Wikimedia Foundation office; the Foundation has a highly qualified legal staff, but I have no affiliation with them, and am simply a volunteer like most of the rest of you. (I'm also not writing in my capacity as either an administrator or an arbitrator on this project.)

With all that being said ... does a banned editor who continues to edit, in breach of a ban imposed by the community or its dispute-resolution procedures, thereby act in a legally impermissible manner?

Merely breaching a website's internal rules or "terms of use" (TOS), without more, usually does not give rise to either criminal or statutory civil liability under statutes such as the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, although it may be civilly actionable by the website owner under other theories. There are several cases (some briefly summarized here) declining to find liability for "computer abuse" where courts believed that prosecutors or plaintiffs sought to overextend the concept, including to TOS violations.

The best-known of these cases is probably United States v. Drew. The facts of this case are sad. Two young teenage girls quarreled, and one asked her mother, Lori Drew, to help find out what her former friend was saying about her. The mother created a Myspace account under the fictitious name of a nonexistent 16-year-old boy, who purported to flirt with the girl for some time, but then abruptly told her that the world would be a better place without her&mdash. Heartbroken, the girl hanged herself. After state prosecutors investigated but decided there was nothing they could do, the federal prosecutor indicted Drew for (among other things) violating the CFAA by accessing Myspace's computers "in excess of authorization." The basis for this charge was that Drew had breached Myspace's TOS by creating a fictitious account, which according to the MySpace TOS is not allowed. The jury convicted on this count, but the District Court reversed and dismissed the charge, on the ground that a reasonable person would not expect a simple violation of the fine print in a website's TOS to constitute a crime.

Another interesting precedent in this area will be made any day now by the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) in People v. Golb. Raphael Golb is the son of Norman Golb, a scholar who espouses a particular theory as to the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls. More established scholarly rivals of Norman Golb, including a professor named Lawrence Schiffman, support a different theory. Over the course of several months in 2008, Raphael Golb signed onto computers in the library of New York University (which as an alumnus he was permitted to use), and sent hundreds of e-mails accusing Schiffman and others of plagiarizing Norman Golb's work and denying Golb credit to which he was entitled. Most troubling, Golb created Gmail accounts in Schiffman's and some other targets' names, and sent dozens of e-mails in which (for example) Schiffman purportedly confessed and admitted to plagiarizing from Norman Golb.

Raphael Golb was indicted and convicted for numerous crimes under New York State law, including multiple counts of identity theft, criminal impersonation, forgery, "aggravated harassment," and one count of unauthorized use of a computer. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed all but one of the convictions in this opinion. Among other things, the court rejected Golb's First Amendment challenges to his convictions, finding that Golb acted with criminal intent and that his e-mails could not properly be characterized as "satiric hoaxes or pranks." The crux of the decision was that "Defendant was not prosecuted for the content of any of the emails, but only for giving the false impression that his victims were the actual authors of the emails. The First Amendment protects the right to criticize another person, but it does not permit anyone to give an intentionally false impression that the source of the message is that other person."

The Court of Appeals granted Golb leave to appeal and heard oral argument on March 25. Anyone interested in computer law should stop reading this right now and take the time to read the transcript or, better still watch and listen to the argument. It's a fascinating 40-minute discussion (with Ron Kuby appearing for Golb), fully accessible to non-lawyers. The questioning, particularly by Judge Smith and Chief Judge Lippman, raised a host of cutting-edge issues in this field: the overbreadth of the harassment statute (see Volokh Conspiracy post here); the availability or not of a parody defense; and (the driest issue but the one relevant here), whether a person is guilty of "unauthorized use of a computer" under New York law where he was, in fact, authorized to use the computer, albeit not for the specific purpose he wound up using it for. Is it really the case, the judges asked the prosecutor, that if an employee has the employer's permission to use the computer for work purposes only but signs onto Facebook, the employee has committed a crime? The prosecutor's answer was yes. The court's answer is going to be no. (The New York statute criminalizes "unauthorized" use of a computer but not use "in excess of authorization," and in that respect is narrower than its federal counterpart, so this will not become a direct CFAA precedent, but depending on how the court writes the opinion, it may still be instructive.)

So, merely socking around a ban, by itself, does not seem not to violate the statute. And this is as it should be. No one wants a system where every frustrated editor who socks around a block thereby becomes a criminal, so it's good that neither the WMF TOS nor the statute seems to contemplate such a result.

Are there, however, some limits? Does there come a point at which screwing around with Wikipedia actually crosses the line into legally impermissible behavior? Frankly, my strong hope is that we never need to find out the answer in a court decision. But if someone does press hard enough, he or she may find that the answer is yes.

Suppose a user is banned. (I don't plan to debate here the bona fides of the ban in question, although it was fully justified; one small piece of the saga can be found in my talkpage archive here, where the user said he was scrambling his password and leaving Wikipedia.) And suppose the user continues to post after the ban has taken effect. And suppose the user continues to post on-wiki with the avowed purpose of disrupting the site, voluntarily describing his behavior in words like these:

"I have been creating accounts since September in anticipation. They just blocked about 60, but thats only the last few days. All I wanted to do was help the project and they threw me out so now I will be the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history."
"So now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else."
"[O]nly about half those 60+ [blocked accounts] are me. The rest were just helpless well meaning editors. Same with the ones [administrator 1] blocked and the IP that [admin 2] accused of being me. They don't all have to be me, all they have to do is be caught in the path. I don't really care anymore if Wikipedia likes me or not, they can delete every edit I did. They didn't want me there anyway and they made that clear as crystal. So, since they didn't want me there, I'll have some fun. And I haven't even tried to be a sockmaster yet. Pretty soon it will be 260+ accounts."
"Since my help wasn't wanted, I'll just distract them with socking and trolling as I find the time. Days or weeks might go by and it may come in waves but it'll be fun."
"I doubt they'll tremble of fear me and it really just amounts to a waste of time. But since they didn't want me to help, I'll just be a pain in the ass and a distraction. In the process though a lot of innocent editors will be blocked (several already have), time will be distracted form the project and I'll have some fun. The only way they'll keep me away is if they range block the whole t-mobile and Verison Fios networks. I doubt they have the desire to do that."
"Case in point, [admin 1] recently got so annoyed with my pings he disabled the Echo pings. Others probably did as well but didn't post it. That means they are disabling functionality because of me. Good! They have continued to block and accuse editors who aren't me or my friends as being me. Largely because the checkuser app is crap. More good news! And that's after only 24 hours of being banned. Imagine the impact after a month. Maybe they ban editing from the Verizon network or t-mobile. Its hard to say what the long term effects will be, but its not going to be pleasant."
"In less than 48 hours I have gotten 2 range blocks for Verizon Fios which means a lot of people coming from 172 or 208 will need to get an IPblock exemption to edit in which case most of them will assume its me and deny it. 1 for me, 0 for WP. I have also caused several users to turn off pings (Echo) and distracted several users. Childish perhaps but I am having fun."
"Well I am up to 88 socks and that's not even counting the ones [admin 3] identified here which are mostly mine (but there are a couple that aren't). It also doesn't include my Bots Kumi-taskbot or A bot called bob so including those that pushes me over a 100. Plus the folks who turned of Echo pings, the range blocks of 138, 172 and 208 preventing editing to a large number of Verizon Fios and Us Navy users and the editors who weren't me that got blocked as collateral damage or several of my friends who have joined in. Not a bad start for 48 hours of naughtiness. Can't wait to get to the month mark."

... and that's just from the first two days, and it continues in that vein for week after week. (It's not a good use of my time to hunt down more diffs from on-wiki to go with those quotes from Wikipediocracy, but anyone who's followed this saga knows that I could come up with dozens of them, not to mention e-mails.)

It is not the case that any website is helpless to seek a legal remedy against a user who insists that he is going to continue to edit without permission with the admittedly foreseeable and intended effect of (1) causing the site administrators to have to spend the time dealing with his unwanted edits, and (2) triggering rangeblocks and thus interfering with access to the site by other users with whom he is unconnected.

I can readily fashion an argument that this type of conduct is against the law. I will not advance that argument in detail here, because to the best of my knowledge it has not been tested in application (I'd be quite interested if anyone's aware of any precedents; the DDOS cases may be the closest, but I acknowledge that this isn't that), and because there are far more direct means of dealing with the problem than invoking a statute. (The Wikipediocracy thread on this topic, in particular, has completely missed that "unlawful" can refer to civil as well as criminal law.)

I very, very much hope that all of this will remain in the realm of academic discussion. And in that vein, I'm going to take off my lawyer hat and remind the banned user in question, and everyone else who is reading here, that almost all of us came to Wikipedia as a hobby. And ... when a hobby stops being fun for you ... or when for whatever reason you're asked to leave the club ... the rational thing to do is to step away and find another hobby. You don't stick around and complain that everyone else is doing a lousy job enjoying your old hobby ... and you certainly don't destroy the clubhouse or scrawl graffiti on it and leave a mess for everyone else to clean up. And you especially don't outlast your welcome to the point that even one of the notoriously most relaxed and lenient administrators on the site, who is not especially hard-assed even against banned users quietly returning and doing good work (those who doubt that should carefully review this thread) is thinking, even fleetingly and metaphorically, about calling a cop on you, or to wonder whatever happened to the old Abuse response process, a page I had hoped never even to have to read.

Kumioko, I'm sorry you are so disaffected with Wikipedia. You had high hopes for the project and for your role in it, and for whatever reason (this isn't the place to find fault), your hopes were dashed. But you really, really, really need to step away now. Goodbye. Newyorkbrad 4:35 pm, 21 April, 2014 (UTC−7)

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:53 am

I would also like to note that, I wasn't banned for vandalism or graffiti or whatever as indicated above. I was banned because I was raising awareness of bullies and those bullies got tired of it. So they sent a message to the community of what happens to editors that question admins and the Arbcom. Could I silently return to editing? Sure, but that would mean the bullies win and I am enabling that culture of abuse by giving in. Like me or hate me, I am not the give up type.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

Jeez, Brad, just say "I fucked up with an overly legalistic and quite probably incorrect edit summary" and move along...

tim

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:15 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Jeez, Brad, just say "I fucked up with an overly legalistic and quite probably incorrect edit summary" and move along...

That is not sufficient. See this?

frontpageanyone.png

What does that say, Brad? Do you see any "exceptions" or "footnotes", Brad? Does it say "anyone except people Ira Matetsky doesn't want editing it", Brad? Does it say "Anyone can edit except (link to list of banned users)", Brad? It doesn't say any of that, does it?

All it does is link to the "Introduction". What does the "Introduction" say?

Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits. If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia's main pages should usually be discussed first.

Remember – you can't break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later. Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:18 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:Jeez, Brad, just say "I fucked up with an overly legalistic and quite probably incorrect edit summary" and move along...
That is not sufficient. See this?
frontpageanyone.png
What does that say, Brad? Do you see any "exceptions" or "footnotes", Brad? Does it say "anyone except people Ira Matetsky doesn't want editing it", Brad? Does it say "Anyone can edit except (link to list of banned users)", Brad? It doesn't say any of that, does it?

I'm sure he can read normal sized type...

t

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:21 am

Kumioko wrote:I would also like to note that, I wasn't banned for vandalism or graffiti or whatever as indicated above. I was banned because I was raising awareness of bullies and those bullies got tired of it.

ColonelHenry was sure enough of how en.Wikipedia admins and arbitrators (worried about the publicity if I keep criticizing Cwmhiraeth's turds, Brad? WTF? but not worried about spawning unsourced turds? WTF?) would respond to relentless and vicious bullying on en.Wikipedia that he carried on as he did at ANI. His personal attacks and bullying were even encouraged.

And why not? He tried to out me on en.Wikipedia, and admins and ArbCom didn't give a crap about that, either. Warn me about NPAs while ColonelHenry's are sanctioned and encouraged on ANI? Bunch of fricking women-hating hypocrites.

Wait, that's your point!

<--- I can name that horse in one note! (WikiCupRannethOverHer)

Anyone can edit, if they have no subject matter expertise!

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:28 am

I wonder if anyone has ever brought Wikipedia up for fraudulant advertising. They have obviously banned or blocked a lot of users, there are huge IP ranges that can't edit so it would be pretty easy to prove that not everyone can edit. If they actually did take me to court, even if they court ordered me to stay away from Wikipedia, there is also a good chance I could argue they had to drop the Anyone can edit bit since it would obviously not be true with a court order to prove it. Bet that would make the news.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:29 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Jeez, Brad, just say "I fucked up with an overly legalistic and quite probably incorrect edit summary" and move along...

tim

He would not because he's a wikipediot. A month ago he blocked for three months! one of dynamic IPs I was using with the edit summary: "(anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 3 months (soapboxing by banned editor improperly accessing the site in breach of the terms of use)"
Why I am saying he is a wikipediot? Here's why:
*he knows quite well that I have no difficulties in changing not only IP, but even a range of IP. Why to block an innocent dynamic IP for three months?
*why did he remove the talk page access, if he knows that if I feel as posting something I will rather post it to his own or to Jimbo's talk page. Why in the world would I use a talk of a dynamic IP that nobody reads and that I would never use again.
*a month ago after newyorkbrad blocked that poor IP, I made an agreement with another arbitrators who maybe is not yet as insane as others. Newyorkbrad knows about that agreement and he knows I used a different IP address, when I talked to that other arbitrator. Why doesn't he lift the block on that IP he blocked? Maybe an innocent bystander wants to make an account on Wikipedia right now, and cannot do it because a senior arbitrator imposed a wikipediotic block on it.

BTW "soapboxing" was a post at Jimbo's talk that was responded by many users, and that resulted in two other post made by wikipedians.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:47 am

Kumioko wrote:I would also like to note that, I wasn't banned for vandalism or graffiti or whatever as indicated above. I was banned because I was raising awareness of bullies and those bullies got tired of it. So they sent a message to the community of what happens to editors that question admins and the Arbcom. Could I silently return to editing? Sure, but that would mean the bullies win and I am enabling that culture of abuse by giving in. Like me or hate me, I am not the give up type.

Bravo!
But sadly I am afraid that no mater what you, me or anybody else for that matter is doing wikipedia would always be run and governed by sick, anonymous bullies.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:14 am

The wikipedia discussion about the blog has started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... ter_misuse

An interesting blog post. As a non-attorney, I cordially disagree with the likelihood of Wikipedia obtaining any satisfaction under the law for a socking editor's transgressions. I feel it would be a sad day for freedom (defining freedom as the ability to swing our elbows freely from side to side) if merely violating a website's TOS Terms of Service) and causing problems for site administrators were to be used to constrain the physical or financial liberty of a human being. Note: as a website administrator, I do have insight into the aggravation user actions can cause. →StaniStani 04:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:16 am

Unfortunately your probably right.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:20 am

I like the comment Risker made about going to the ISP's. True, that might be helpful if I hadn't used about 17 different ones, there weren't a nearly unlimited number of free WIFI hotspots around the DC area to use and even then the ISP would likely not do much on the first offense. Maybe send me a letter. I sorta wished I could respond to that blog post but even then they are still arguing this from the standpoint that my ban was legitimate which it wasn't. Im surprised the Arbcom hasn't created their own little drumhead trial so they can say I have an Arbcom sanction.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:51 am

I read through his little piece, and the piece he linked to (see excerpt below). Entirely vacuous. Take the one below. He lists a number of good articles which were deleted simply because of who wrote them. He expresses the fact well, I admit. But then he just says ‘I see the arguments on both sides’, without giving any of the arguments.

I would challenge even his claim that “They were properly deleted”.

Nowhere is there even an attempt to explain or consider what has gone wrong when a good contributor is not allowed to make good contributions.

There is also the utter hypocrisy of a man who has enabled bullies to remain on the project, while tacitly supporting bans enacted by those bullies. “There are some former editors whose conduct on or off-wiki was so outrageous that the policy of blocking their socks on sight and automatically reverting or deleting anything they write not only makes good sense, but is essential”. Really? Then why do you continue to support them in positions of power, Brad?

We (I say we because the admin who pressed the delete button a few dozen times was implementing our community policy)—we deleted his article about Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just, the acclaimed biography of a remarkable early-twentieth-century African-American cell biologist (a book memorably reviewed by Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History, which I've meant to read for twenty years). We deleted his article about the film River of Renewal: Myth and History in the Klamath Basin. We deleted his articles—our articles—about the Sarawak pygmy swellshark and the Melville Society and the film Lions in the Desert and the Azorean Maritime Heritage Society and a bunch more.

(I'll acknowledge that I've drawn the list from the cry of pain he posted elsewhere when he'd noticed that his work was gone, though I have double-checked that he really did create all these articles and that they were good-faith, appropriate contributions.)

None of these articles would have been considered for deletion if it weren't for who wrote them. They were properly deleted—but are either the encyclopedia or the community better off for having deleted them? I see all the arguments on both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ommittee_3

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:32 am

As is often the case, the thing that most disappointed me about this screed of Mr. Brad's isn't his argument regarding the legal ramifications of sock-puppetry, but rather is the part nobody is talking about, namely the bit at the end.

I'm going to take off my lawyer hat and remind the banned user in question, and everyone else who is reading here, that almost all of us came to Wikipedia as a hobby. And ... when a hobby stops being fun for you ... or when for whatever reason you're asked to leave the club ... the rational thing to do is to step away and find another hobby. You don't stick around and complain that everyone else is doing a lousy job enjoying your old hobby ... and you certainly don't destroy the clubhouse or scrawl graffiti on it and leave a mess for everyone else to clean up.

You'd think Mr. Brad would understand by now that for the sixth-most trafficked website in the world, the one that's been busy putting traditional reference-publishers out of business with a tax-advantaged freeware "produce," the stakes are a bit higher than they are at the local model railroading enthusiast's organization. Maybe the implied comparison would have been sort-of valid in 2004, but this isn't 2004, and the implied comparison now is completely ridiculous.

Not only that, I also wouldn't agree with his assertion that "almost all of (them) came to Wikipedia as a hobby," either. Putting aside the increasingly-large group of people who show up with a clear ideological/commercial/personal agenda, most people start editing Wikipedia because they see something that's missing, poorly expressed, or simply wrong. Not everybody gets a huge thrill from the act of fixing someone else's web page. Indeed, it only becomes a "hobby" for a very small minority, and even then, not until much later on in the indoctrination process.

Regardless of that, WP is a site from which millions of people get basic information about a vast number of topics, as their first and sometimes only source. The idea that it's being treated like some sort of school's-out treehouse fort for pre-pubescent boys is simply outrageous. (Then again, that would at least explain the so-called "gender gap.")

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but still, it's unfortunate that this is still going on after all this time.

Clipperton · Unread post by **Clipperton** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:16 pm

The Wikimedia Foundation has not banned Kumioko. Nobody in a contractual relationship with the WMF has banned Kumioko. The only party with any potential interest in a civil remedy has not said a goddam word to Kumioko about his use of their internet site (hereafter "Wikipedia"), nor required Kumioko to agree in advance to act in a way that accords with the collective or individual opinions of User:I'mTheBoss, User:WTFAmIDoing, or User:KatharticKoolaidKabalist.

Kumioko is only ignoring "community" norms within a playground that has been purposely voided of representative management by the only party with the ability to make a civil claim.

Textnyymi · Unread post by **Textnyymi** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:35 pm

Rules on a wiki are made and changed on the spot.
Therefore, no rules.
That's why what you see is passed off as an encyclopedia, but in reality it's just another general content box of potential pure unadulterated fun.

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING!

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:16 pm

Brad's blog post led me to muse about several things.

First, I imagine that, like Wikipedia, most people come to the Ku Klux Klan as a hobby, too. It's a shame when one of the hobbyists starts pointing out how hateful or inept the hobbyists' organization is, isn't it?

Second, I see that Brad is mostly talking about the opportunity that the WMF would have in filing a civil case, rather than a criminal case against any given sockpuppeting offender of the ToS. I would welcome a civil case filed against me by the WMF, because the counter-suit would be an absolute blast.

Third, I see no reason why my use of sockpuppets to publish verifiable, factual, reliably-sourced content that I have been paid to publish is in any way actionable by the WMF -- civil or criminal.

So, all in all... a fun blog post, Brad!

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:28 pm

One of the factors Mr. Matetsky does not consider in his explication is the doublebind Wikipedia finds itself in if it attempts to invoke the CFAA. The CFAA, as a federal statute, relies primarily on the Interstate Commerce Clause to establish jurisdiction; as such, in order for the CFAA to apply to a website (that is, for the computer on which the website is hosted to qualify as a "protected computer"), that website (or at least the organization that owns it) has to be (at an absolute bare minimum) engaged in interstate commerce. Wikipedia has long insisted, however, that it is not engaged in interstate commerce in order to avoid being subject to all sorts of other laws that apply to websites that are engaged in commerce; not only is there the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which places fairly onerous rules on websites that allow children under 13 to register accounts (and the is the main reason Facebook and Google both require account holders to be at least 13), but also the CPOEA (so-called "2257 regulations"), which require any site that carries sexually explicit content to have documentation proving that all persons depicted are of legal age. Commons, especially, is stuffed to the gills with content that would require the Wikimedia Foundation to have 2257 declarations on file, were Commons not outside of the ambit of the CPOEA by virtue of being noncommercial. Wikipedia has long insisted that they do not have to comply with these laws, and indeed virtually all federal law related to the operation of a website, because they are not "engaged in commerce". Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, also relies on its noncommercial nature for many other legal purposes, all of which would be undermined by attempting to invoke the CFAA.

Mr. Matetsky needs to stop relying on legal sophistry to obfuscate the real issue here, which is that he lost his temper and blurted out something that he ought not have said, for which he should apologize for his momentary lack of self-control and move on. But he can't do that; his entire Wiki-experience is predicated on his ability to project the appearance of some sort of unflappable Mandarin, who can always be relied on to parachute into some crisis and calmly and rationally sort out the bodies, issuing a series of calming platitudes that smooth the waters (while not actually resolving the crisis, of course, but at least submerging it for the moment). For him to be the one stirring the maelstrom, rather than tempering it, simply cannot be countenanced; thus, his comments have to be recast retroactively.

Finally, it should be pointed out that at least one person (who I shall not name) actually has been enjoined from editing Wikipedia by court order. However, the order in this person's case is based not on violations of Wikipedia's terms of service or on any edicts by the ArbCom, but instead by this person's extensive and unlawful harassment of various people, by many different means, including Wikipedia. To compare this individual's grotesquely criminal behavior with the garden variety trolling that Kumioko engages in would, in all honesty, amount to actionable defamation of Kumioko. There are other people who have been enjoined from editing Wikipedia, but in every case I am aware of the injunctions stem not from Wikipedia asking the court to stop the person, but from another party asking the court to stop the offender from harassment or other tortious conduct by any avenue, including (without limitation) Wikipedia.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:04 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:One of the factors Mr. Matetsky does not consider in his explication is the doublebind Wikipedia finds itself in if it attempts to invoke the CFAA. The CFAA, as a federal statute, relies primarily on the Interstate Commerce Clause to establish jurisdiction; as such, in order for the CFAA to apply to a website (that is, for the computer on which the website is hosted to qualify as a "protected computer"), that website (or at least the organization that owns it) has to be (at an absolute bare minimum) engaged in interstate commerce. Wikipedia has long insisted, however, that it is not engaged in interstate commerce in order to avoid being subject to all sorts of other laws that apply to websites that are engaged in commerce; not only is there the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which places fairly onerous rules on websites that allow children under 13 to register accounts (and the is the main reason Facebook and Google both require account holders to be at least 13), but also the CPOEA (so-called "2257 regulations"), which require any site that carries sexually explicit content to have documentation proving that all persons depicted are of legal age. Commons, especially, is stuffed to the gills with content that would require the Wikimedia Foundation to have 2257 declarations on file, were Commons not outside of the ambit of the CPOEA by virtue of being noncommercial. Wikipedia has long insisted that they do not have to comply with these laws, and indeed virtually all federal law related to the operation of a website, because they are not "engaged in commerce". Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation, also relies on its noncommercial nature for many other legal purposes, all of which would be undermined by attempting to invoke the CFAA.

Mr. Matetsky needs to stop relying on legal sophistry to obfuscate the real issue here, which is that he lost his temper and blurted out something that he ought not have said, for which he should apologize for his momentary lack of self-control and move on. But he can't do that; his entire Wiki-experience is predicated on his ability to project the appearance of some sort of unflappable Mandarin, who can always be relied on to parachute into some crisis and calmly and rationally sort out the bodies, issuing a series of calming platitudes that smooth the waters (while not actually resolving the crisis, of course, but at least submerging it for the moment). For him to be the one stirring the maelstrom, rather than tempering it, simply cannot be countenanced; thus, his comments have to be recast retroactively.

Finally, it should be pointed out that at least one person (who I shall not name) actually has been enjoined from editing Wikipedia by court order. However, the order in this person's case is based not on violations of Wikipedia's terms of service or on any edicts by the ArbCom, but instead by this person's extensive and unlawful harassment of various people, by many different means, including Wikipedia. To compare this individual's grotesquely criminal behavior with the garden variety trolling that Kumioko engages in would, in all honesty, amount to actionable defamation of Kumioko. There are other people who have been enjoined from editing Wikipedia, but in every case I am aware of the injunctions stem not from Wikipedia asking the court to stop the person, but from another party asking the court to stop the offender from harassment or other tortious conduct by any avenue, including (without limitation) Wikipedia.

Lol. I think I'm the someone with the crush on you.

Thank you--that crap about I should not stir the waters was the living end, and just look what was in the waters.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:18 pm

Brad logic:

Making a public accusation that someone is a criminal for editing a website against the rules: that's okay.

Restoring the concealed prior user name of someone who actually is a convicted criminal, and has a ten-year history of major violations of the rules of the same website: that's not okay.

Alrighty then.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:27 pm

Hex wrote:Brad logic:

Making a public accusation that someone is a criminal for editing a website against the rules: that's okay.

Restoring the concealed prior user name of someone who actually is a convicted criminal, and has a ten-year history of major violations of the rules of the same website: that's not okay.

Alrighty then.

But, Hex, he's privy to some secret knowledge about why it should not be done, and you're not.

Still, all the discussion that ensued because NYB implied he was privy (sic) to some secret did more harm than necessary. Obviosly the accounts have to be tied together, why debate it. The Colonel's real life identity can be found by anyone, but does not need to be mentioned in discussions, and no one has done that, except for the article--which I think should have been removed from the AN discussion.

Yet, NYB's "shush, I know more than you do, I have a secret" was ridiculous and called so much unneeded attention to the RL.

The Mandarin whispers too loudly for everyone else to be quiet. Annoying as F(/$ way to call attention to something while pretending otherwise.

Shhh, I really do have a secret.