Keeping Score: Arbcom's "We'll Contact your Employer" Threat

[Triptych]

Posted to "General" as it's of broader interest than the "Governance" sub-forum.

I was attempting to keep track of which arbs chose to stand behind AGK's "contact your employer" email to a ban-evading editor. Here's what I have thus far if it's of interest to you. It's been solid support from the other arbs that have spoken publicly, except for Salvio Giuliano who acquainted AGK with the undercarriage of a Greyhound right away ("I just want to point out that this was not an e-mail from or on behalf of ArbCom, but rather an e-mail from an administrator who is also a current member of ArbCom"). Jimbo also lined up square behind AGK.

All edited for brevity, but not to distort meaning. Go look up the diffs by the timestamps if you want the entire statements.

Hi. You occasionally edit from [presumed employer's] IP addresses. You must be aware that an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation, alerting them to your refusal to abide by Wikimedia's Terms of Use. As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with [presumed employer] take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner. If you are employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer."

.

And, in response to the debate that ensued when the banned editor copy-pasted the email portion on Wikipedia criticism website Wikipediocracy.com and subsequently linked at Jimbo Wales' talkpage, the other arbs and Wales said:

This was premature, not unacceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Abuse reports to ISPs, sometimes to academic or corporate networks, have long been a process on Wikipedia (although that specific process has fallen out of use), and the release of data for the forming of an abuse report is explicitly authorised by the Wikimedia terms of use.

Why should we hold back from reporting his abuses to his service provider, regardless of who they are or what his relationship is with them? Troll, utterly pathetic, sad, crybaby, troll, obsessed, irresponsible, trolling, fuck off.

An ISP report would obviously be a last resort, would obviously be controversial, and as important, it might or might not work. Who has a better idea?

Abuse reports are a tool that is available to anyone. They are regularly filed. I personally warned the user in question in the middle of March that continuing on his current path might lead to real life consequences.

Any editor can report abuse by an IP. That's probably how it should be.

A report to Kumioko's ISP, whether an employer or not, is long overdue.

No further commentary from me, but I'm making a record of this here in case in comes in handy for someone later. Keeping score.

[Kumioko]

I can't help but wonder if the others that haven't commented agree or are not commenting because they do not agree.

[Randy from Boise]

I think some quotes from Vigilant would also be appropriate here, since this incident seems destined to be the turning point for retaliation in kind and at some point there will be some WP insiders who will begin lying about the origins of the gang war...

This is an epic failure by Jimmy Wales, who chose to lay down his ceremonial crown to muck it up in daily politics, tossing kerosene on the fire...

RfB

[Kumioko]

Yep I agree, nothing good is going to come out of this decision by Jimbo that contacting peoples employers is ok and can be done by anyone at will for any reason.

[Vigilant]

[Randy from Boise]

Jimbo speaks after a great silence...

Kumioko is a banned editor with a long history of harassment of other editors, including me. A report to Kumioko's ISP, whether an employer or not, is long overdue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So says the god king.

Hear me, wikipediots.

Your employers are now fair game.
Your use of company networks is fair game.
Your stealing of company time is fair game.
Being a douchebag online will be reported to your ISP and your employer, if possible.

I will be relentless, merciless and cruel.

Those of you who succumb can thank the jobless Mr Wales for opening the floodgates.

* * *

This discussion is closed. It is completely mistaken to characterize the problem of ongoing harassment of editors a problem of being "persistent about accessing". If you have further questions, I recommend you email them to WMF legal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It should also be recorded that the person whom JW was stifling with the second hat was Dennis Brown, who throughout the Kumioko discussion was the voice of reason in the WP administrative corps, arguing forcefully and repeatedly that threatening retribution via contact of employers was not okay.

I think Dennis is 100% right here, for what it's worth.

RfB

[Kumioko]

I saw that too, so ny shutting down his comments, he inferred that it is in fact ok to contact peoples employers.

[thekohser]

I think Dennis is 100% right here, for what it's worth.

I thought you think that Wikipedia works quite well, and that Jimmy Wales is actually a quite acceptable leader for the project? Changing your mind now, or have I unfairly characterized your standpoint?

[thekohser]

I saw that too, so ny shutting down his comments, he inferred that it is in fact ok to contact peoples employers.

He didn't infer anything to other readers. Maybe he implied it.

[Randy from Boise]

I think Dennis is 100% right here, for what it's worth.

I thought you think that Wikipedia works quite well, and that Jimmy Wales is actually a quite acceptable leader for the project? Changing your mind now, or have I unfairly characterized your standpoint?

I think Jimmy Wales, on the whole, has been an excellent official and ceremonial leader for the project.

I think he has committed an idiocy here.

RfB

[thekohser]

I think Jimmy Wales, on the whole, has been an excellent official and ceremonial leader for the project.

Ah, "excellent", not just "quite acceptable". I'm glad I asked.

[Randy from Boise]

I think Jimmy Wales, on the whole, has been an excellent official and ceremonial leader for the project.

Ah, "excellent", not just "quite acceptable". I'm glad I asked.

He's been an intelligent public face of the project and has kept to keep the (utopian) motivations behind the project in the pubLic eye. Yes, better than acceptable — excellent.

RfB

fixed for Greg

[Kumioko]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here on this one Randy.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

"Tell them, 'Valdez Is Coming (T-H-L)!'!"

[thekohser]

He's been an intelligent public face of the project and has kept to keep the (utopian) motivations behind the project in the pubic eye. Yes, better than acceptable — excellent.

Too bad how the media also picked up on the financial (steak and wine) motivations, the sexual (Marsden) motivations, and the political (Kazakhstan) motivations. Oh, wait -- I see you actually said "pubic". I guess we're in agreement.

[Triptych]

I saw that too, so ny shutting down his comments, he inferred that it is in fact ok to contact peoples employers.

He didn't infer anything to other readers. Maybe he implied it.

Perhaps he inferred it before he implied it?

[Kumioko]

Eh, you know what I meant! You'll have to forgive my spelling and grammar, I was a Wikipedia editors for 8 years.

[Anroth]

*shrug* Dont have an issue with the 'threat' except that the time was long past threatening. Should have just done it and be done with it. In the past I have reported nuisance users messing with servers/webpages/networks under my control to ISP's, employers, the local police and on one occasion a Texan sheriff (which incidentally got the quickest resolution to any nuisance script-kiddy ever, no one expects their local law enforcement to turn up and ask them questions about why they are pissing off people on the other side of the world) Most of the people here complain about the anonymous nature of editing and lack of accountability. It swings both ways, if you make a nuisance of yourself from an employers network, your employer is fair game. Although in my experience, local law enforcement has the quickest response. They are usually willing to file a report and go have a chat to the individual. Problems tend to disappear once people realise things they do on the internet can affect their real life.

I would not have blinked about reporting him to his employer. If any member of arbcom/admin wants to furnish me with the logs I'm happy to do it now.

However I will grant that my viewpoint comes as an ex-sysadmin and we tend to be rabid about people interfering with out networks

[Triptych]

*shrug* Dont have an issue with the 'threat' except that the time was long past threatening. Should have just done it and be done with it. In the past I have reported nuisance users messing with servers/webpages/networks under my control to ISP's, employers, the local police and on one occasion a Texan sheriff (which incidentally got the quickest resolution to any nuisance script-kiddy ever, no one expects their local law enforcement to turn up and ask them questions about why they are pissing off people on the other side of the world) Most of the people here complain about the anonymous nature of editing and lack of accountability. It swings both ways, if you make a nuisance of yourself from an employers network, your employer is fair game. Although in my experience, local law enforcement has the quickest response. They are usually willing to file a report and go have a chat to the individual. Problems tend to disappear once people realise things they do on the internet can affect their real life.

I would not have blinked about reporting him to his employer. If any member of arbcom/admin wants to furnish me with the logs I'm happy to do it now.

However I will grant that my viewpoint comes as an ex-sysadmin and we tend to be rabid about people interfering with out networks

Anroth, are you calling Kumioko repeatedly the deep criticism of "nuisance" because of what he's actually done, or just as an idle and irritable insult based on no knowledge at all?

[tarantino]

... if you make a nuisance of yourself from an employers network, your employer is fair game.

Let's see, Newyorkbrad can be annoying, so can Fluffernutter, LFaraone, Timotheus Canens, DangerousPanda, along with dozens of other wikipedian admins who edit from work.

[Anroth]

Anroth, are you calling Kumioko repeatedly the deep criticism of "nuisance"

Sorry is that a trick question? Do you think he has not been a nuisance to wikipedia?

[Anroth]

... if you make a nuisance of yourself from an employers network, your employer is fair game.

Let's see, Newyorkbrad can be annoying, so can Fluffernutter, LFaraone, Timotheus Canens, DangerousPanda, along with dozens of other wikipedian admins who edit from work.

Well quite, and when they do it after being banned from wikipedia and taking up peoples time dealing with it, I would lodge a report against them too. *shrug* If you think he should be able to annoy as many people as he wants because currently his targets are arbcom and the admin corps, well feel free to cheer him on. But not everyone cares about indulging his petty need to be the centre of attention.

[Triptych]

Okay, I started a Live Journal for that portion of my Wikipedia criticism (and activism) that is too edgy even for Wikipediocracy. If you look at the first entry, it was motivated intensely by a couple very recent actions of the administrative culture. I put an email address there in the first entry, if you have something to communicate to me. The Live Journal is at timsongfan.livejournal.com.

I will never disclose your emails and if you ask I will, at first convenience but never exceeding a week, delete whatever you send me to the best of my ability, not even leaving you in the address book.

I read what Kohser and Zoloft said today about standards of what Wikipediocracy is about, and limits of what is to be discussed here. I feel like I've always listened about that stuff, that I never "tried to set up shop here," that I've contributed in the forums at least a meaningful amount of the discussion that drives the site. I really value my participation here, and recognize I think what I need to do to stay in okay standing.

I have a big ready chunk-a-wunk article that I intend to Live Journal tonight, so look back at least once more then.

[everyking]

To read all those quotes from the arbs is deeply disheartening. To put it politely, these are some seriously misguided individuals, and I don't believe any of them should have the slightest bit of power to harm other Wikipedians.

[tarantino]

... if you make a nuisance of yourself from an employers network, your employer is fair game.

Let's see, Newyorkbrad can be annoying, so can Fluffernutter, LFaraone, Timotheus Canens, DangerousPanda, along with dozens of other wikipedian admins who edit from work.

Well quite, and when they do it after being banned from wikipedia and taking up peoples time dealing with it, I would lodge a report against them too. *shrug* If you think he should be able to annoy as many people as he wants because currently his targets are arbcom and the admin corps, well feel free to cheer him on. But not everyone cares about indulging his petty need to be the centre of attention.

I find Kumioko annoying at times, so I mostly ignore him. That's what you wikipedians should do. You all even have a TLA that encourages just that.

[Anroth]

I find Kumioko annoying at times, so I mostly ignore him. That's what you wikipedians should do. You all even have a TLA that encourages just that.

Well generally so do I. But he isnt annoying me on wikipedia so its not really a problem for me. Probably a more annoying issue for the arbs and admins.

[Kumioko]

I find Kumioko annoying at times, so I mostly ignore him. That's what you wikipedians should do. You all even have a TLA that encourages just that.

Well generally so do I. But he isnt annoying me on wikipedia so its not really a problem for me. Probably a more annoying issue for the arbs and admins.

I have to be honest here Anroth, I don't really care if I am annoying to the arbs or the admins and I am betting you don't even know or care what my situation is. Your just stuck in the he's banned and bad mindset.

I was unfairly banned by a group of bullies. The ban should have been vacated immediately but instead no one was willing to do the right thing and revoke it. Because I was advocating that the arbs start doing their jobs for once instead of walking around patting each other on the back for doing nothing and for admins acting abusively with no oversight. That is why I was banned and don't let anyone fool you into thinking it was anything else. As I have said before I do not and will not accept my ban but I also think its unrealistic to think I would be given a fair trial. I'm not going to tell you I am perfect and certainly I have made my mistakes but I have also been blamed for statements I didn't make, edits I didn't do and accounts that aren't mine. I have been threatened, I have been outed and I have been insulted so I find it pretty disingenuous for the high and mighty Arbcom to say I cant come back for being critical of them but they have violated every rule on Wikipedia that matters. They are the ones that should be facing a ban, not me. I am not the one who contacted an editors employer, I am not the one leaving legal threats, I am not the one making unfounded accusations and comments on a site they cannot edit.

So if you want to question someones ethics, please contact your nearest Arbcom member.

[Anroth]

You were banned because you were an irritating idiot with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. Since you repeatedly failed to understand that no one gave a shit about you or your contributions, it was unsurprising no one cried too much when you pushed them to the point of getting yourself banned. You were given chance after chance to not escalate matters, but you chose not to.

There are real issues of bullying on the internet. What happened to you was not one of them. That you still dont recognise it was your own actions that put you in your 'situation' is your problem.

[thekohser]

You were banned because you were an irritating idiot with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. Since you repeatedly failed to understand that no one gave a shit about you or your contributions, it was unsurprising no one cried too much when you pushed them to the point of getting yourself banned. You were given chance after chance to not escalate matters, but you chose not to.

There are real issues of bullying on the internet. What happened to you was not one of them. That you still dont recognise it was your own actions that put you in your 'situation' is your problem.

You are Guy Chapman, and I claim my five pounds!

[Kumioko]

You were banned because you were an irritating idiot with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. Since you repeatedly failed to understand that no one gave a shit about you or your contributions, it was unsurprising no one cried too much when you pushed them to the point of getting yourself banned. You were given chance after chance to not escalate matters, but you chose not to.

There are real issues of bullying on the internet. What happened to you was not one of them. That you still dont recognise it was your own actions that put you in your 'situation' is your problem.

Lots of people are irritating idiots. AGK, Beyond my Ken, and a laundry list of others but they are still around. You won't find a bigger bully than Sandstein but he is an admin and untouchable.

And I gave them chance after chance to do the right thing and take care of some of the abusive admins but they were more interested in covering for each others screwups than holding admins accountable. Also, my situation, was created by admins and arbs who wanted to send a message to the community of what happens when admins are criticized. Judging by the multiple editors who have participated in discussions of the last couple weeks stating fear or retaliation and Arbcoms recent display that policy doesn't pertain to them, I think you are the idiot if you think I was anything but a victim of bullies.

[EricBarbour]

[Anroth]

You were banned because you were an irritating idiot with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. Since you repeatedly failed to understand that no one gave a shit about you or your contributions, it was unsurprising no one cried too much when you pushed them to the point of getting yourself banned. You were given chance after chance to not escalate matters, but you chose not to.

There are real issues of bullying on the internet. What happened to you was not one of them. That you still dont recognise it was your own actions that put you in your 'situation' is your problem.

You are Guy Chapman, and I claim my five pounds!

Given the amount of times I have been accused of being one of Poet's socks, does that mean you think Guy Chapman = Poetlister?

Kumioko managed to piss off BAG. Seriously, the Bot Approvals Group ffs. If his personality and actions are so grating they managed to alienate BAG - a group of people who are generally about as apolitical as it gets in wiki-land, there is a sign there that perhaps he might need to moderate himself somewhat.

[Kumioko]

You were banned because you were an irritating idiot with an over-inflated opinion of yourself. Since you repeatedly failed to understand that no one gave a shit about you or your contributions, it was unsurprising no one cried too much when you pushed them to the point of getting yourself banned. You were given chance after chance to not escalate matters, but you chose not to.

There are real issues of bullying on the internet. What happened to you was not one of them. That you still dont recognise it was your own actions that put you in your 'situation' is your problem.

You are Guy Chapman, and I claim my five pounds!

Given the amount of times I have been accused of being one of Poet's socks, does that mean you think Guy Chapman = Poetlister?

Kumioko managed to piss off BAG. Seriously, the Bot Approvals Group ffs. If his personality and actions are so grating they managed to alienate BAG - a group of people who are generally about as apolitical as it gets in wiki-land, there is a sign there that perhaps he might need to moderate himself somewhat.

Really, your responding with BAG? The BAG folks are about much of a cabal as anyone. They let requests for bots languish for weeks, they rarely approve bots outside their own or for lame things that don't need to be done anyway. And the last time I talked to anyone in BAG was about 4 years ago.

[EricBarbour]

Really, your responding with BAG? The BAG folks are about much of a cabal as anyone. They let requests for bots languish for weeks, they rarely approve bots outside their own or for lame things that don't need to be done anyway. And the last time I talked to anyone in BAG was about 4 years ago.

Oops, I should write something up about BAG.

Bot Approvals Group

First set up in March 2006, WP:BAG is supposed to be the first starting point for anyone authoring a new Wikipedia editing bot. Its membership list, past and present, is a litany of process-abusing administrators. And as can be seen by its talkpage archives, it has been a squabble-fest since foundation -- and appears to have died out in 2013.

Additionally, the Bot Requests for Approval noticeboard is a massive grinding mess, unreadable and dominated by a small group of patrollers and annoyances. The archives are imposingly large. As with WP:BAG, interest and traffic seem to have declined since mid-2013.

[Kumioko]

Just a word on a new edit by Beeblebrox here: link.

Ok Beebs, I am calling bullshit right now. The only reason you haven't contacted my ISP was because it could affect my job? First, you know as well as anyone that contacting ISP's is rarely effective. Second, any idiot can clearly see that 99.9% of my edits and even my emails sent privately where done from my home or other ISP's and not my work. So they only reason to contact my work..was as a threat. And its lucky for you that I did not get fired too, because if you think I was a pain in the ass before...oh I would have been much worse.

Now in the past week alone, Arbco members have violated every single policy that matters in Wikipedia with the full support of Jimbo and number of members of the community. So it should be perfectly fine then if I send a letter to your place of work and let the know a breakdown of the time you spent online, how you contacted an editors place of work (not you individually but as a committee) and tried to get them fired. That should be ok right?

@Tryptofish, your right I have gotten a lot of attention and so have the violations of policy by the arbcom. I have advocated for the last 2 years that arbcom was abusive as are a bulk of the admins, but in the last week, the Arbco cemented that into reality to the whole community on a variety of venues on the site. Thousands of editors read these discussions and a couple dozen commented. The problems aren't about me, the problems are about the chronic abuse and corruption within the admin ranks and the Arbcom.

[Randy from Boise]

Just a word on a new edit by Beeblebrox here: link.

Sound effect: "DOOOOOOOoooooooosh!!!"

[eagle]

And its lucky for you that I did not get fired too, because if you think I was a pain in the ass before...oh I would have been much worse.

The basic problem with contacting an employer is that it exposes the actor/WMF to liability. If Jimmy Whales writes on his talk page that he feels harrassed by a user and that becomes the basis for a departure from a long standing practice not to contact an employer, then the user can claim that the individual and the WMF acted with malice. There is no good solution to handling these situations. Banned users can find places other than the place of employment for their editing. Banned users can easily create new accounts or can make deals with non-banned editors for the inclusion of content. The WMF will alienate its stakeholders if it appears malicious.

Thousands of editors read these discussions and a couple dozen commented. The problems aren't about me, the problems are about the chronic abuse and corruption within the admin ranks and the Arbcom.

There are two separate issues that have become mixed together on this thread. I was pleased that this thread was started by someone other than Kumioko, and that he raised it as a policy question of whether contacting employers is a good approach and whether the WMF follows through on its threats.

Whether Kumioko's ban is appropriate and whether Wikipedia should be in the business of "banning" "bad people" is a separate question which should be left for a different thread. (I think we exhausted that discussion months ago.) Thanks.