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)
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.tarantino wrote: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)
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?Mr. Brad wrote: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)
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."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.
That would explain why nobody has ever taken the Wikimedia ToS seriously, at least...Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:The terms of service used to have a clause that the user agrees to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Committee.
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.Midsize Jake wrote: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?
Brad sometimes talks a great deal of sense. (He generally talks a great deal...)tarantino wrote: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)
In the end, all you really need to know here.Midsize Jake wrote:Frankly, their "Terms of Use" are an embarrassment, both to themselves and to their attorneys.
He has, on NYB's talk page (diff only).Jim wrote: 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.
Do we have a citation for this?Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:The terms of service used to have a clause that the user agrees to accept the decisions of the Arbitration Committee.
Ah. ok. Pretty obvious, I guess.Hex wrote:He has, on NYB's talk page (diff only).Jim wrote: 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.
Show some spine and block him, Hex! You'd block a regular editor for that!Hex wrote: 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.
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 wrote:Show some spine and block him, Hex! You'd block a regular editor for that!Hex wrote: 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.
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.tarantino wrote: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)
I can still see the original diff.Triptych wrote:the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).
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 wrote:I can still see the original diff.Triptych wrote:the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).
What disappeared for you?
Oh, ok. Scott, you're a disappearing tool of the establishment, you bastard. The rest will come true. Just you wait and see.Triptych wrote: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 wrote:I can still see the original diff.Triptych wrote:the QFT type stuff that tends to disappear on Wikipedia (and indeed is already happening in this case).
What disappeared for you?
What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.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.
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.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...
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).thekohser wrote:Could someone summarize in three sentences what Kumioko did on Wikipedia to warrant the blocking/banning?
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 wrote: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.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...
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.Peter Damian wrote:What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.
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 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.
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.
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.Midsize Jake wrote: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 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.
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 wrote: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.
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.Triptych wrote: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.
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 wrote:I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:
What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.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.
Like.thekohser wrote: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 wrote:I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:
What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.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.
Please forgive my ignorance, but who is that Bob?Peter Damian wrote: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.
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.thekohser wrote: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.
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.neved wrote:Please forgive my ignorance, but who is that Bob?Peter Damian wrote: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.
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
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.Kumioko wrote: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.
The emperor doesn't like it when you point out that he's got no clothes on.Kumioko wrote: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.
It's also worth pointing out that the Arbitrary Committee was never established by the en.wp community.Peter Damian wrote:I think the relevant part of the Terms of Use is this:
What I'm struggling with is why not agreeing to comply with the 'final decisions' of these ridiculous 'bodies' should be 'unlawful'.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.
And here's the proof:Kurt M. Weber wrote: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.
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.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.