Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 20 May 2014 (→How is this governed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Inquiry on observed use of Reliable Sources and Notablity to justify overly broad page additions

Hi, I'm really not sure where to take this question/concern and it's quite possible I'm the one who is misunderstanding things but I need to sort this out. I'm confident this is NOT the page for resolving this issue, but I can not identify what the high level location for such a discussion would be.

Of late I have noticed a trend by editors to defend creation of dedicated pages on tertiary subjects simply because the editor can find the topic they would like to see more coverage of mentioned in a "reliable source". These citeable "reliable source(s)" are then used to justify "notability" implied by the topic's presence in said reliable sources. And poof! we have a dedicated page about something that in all honesty is not truly notable from an encyclopedic stand point, does not provide any depth of understanding to a reader and really would be better addressed on an off wiki resource dealing with that specialized topic.

How and where do I elevate this discussion and is it really worth a discussion? Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you take this to one of the village pump forums for further discussion, you are correct that this is not an issue the committee is going to get involved in. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. BcRIPster (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, if you (or anyone else) aren't certain what the correct venue is for something, then Misplaced Pages:Help Desk is probably the best place to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

URGENT: Real life threats

It appears that User:AGK has sent the following email to another editor

This text has been effectively confirmed by the editor AGK on User talk:Jimbo.

Note that the wording makes it clear that the other editor only "occasionally" edits from DoD (and in fact has not done so for some considerable time) - so choosing DoD rather than Verizon makes it clear that this is not standard "we will contact your ISP" note, with an extra warning but a clear threat.

Secondly mentioning "Wikimedia's Terms of Use" implies official sanction, rather than just an editor who has decided to act form his own initiative.

Thirdly the use of the second person "do not force us to contact" implies a group has sent or authorised this email. Given that the most prominent group User:AGK is a member of is the Arbitration Committee, this has been naturally assumed to be the group in question.

Fourthly, as indicated in the various discussions, it has been considered that this may pass beyond merely a Misplaced Pages issue, into the realms of criminal law.

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave real-world harassment and Harassment and threats specifically "communicating with an editor's employer in retaliation for his or her editing on Misplaced Pages" I am reporting this to the Committee immediately, by the approved email mechanism.

Because the moderators of the email list have previously set it up to reject my emails, and also in the interests of transparency I will also post to Misplaced Pages Talk:ARB, and link from the existing discussion.

I would expect that as a result of this User:AGK would be asked to leave the committee, resign his admin bit and undertake not to email users in future.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

I was the drafter of the Jim62sch decision and am thoroughly familiar with the circumstances underlying that case. I do not consider the current situation as in any way comparable.

As I've indicated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talkpage, I would like to see this situation deescalated at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You didn't. You said you would like to see the Kumioko situation de-escalated. Indeed I made proposals that edit-conflicted with your comment to just that effect. However the AGK situation has gone way past a slap on the wrist - don't do it again. He has lost the trust of the community. His past checkuser actions, edit warring, ridiculous range blocks(which he now denies) could perhaps be forgiven, especially if he had ever admitted fault or apologised. This however cannot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

As NYB said, this is not comparable to the cited case at all. Abuse reports to ISPs, sometimes to academic or corporate networks, have long been a process on Misplaced Pages (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. I assume AGK's reference to the ToU was w.r.t. the section that mandated compliance with the binding decisions of dispute resolution bodies. LFaraone 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As you say filing abuse reports is no longer done. The dispute resolution body on en: is ArbCom, so that would be representing Arbcom as denied. Laws of agency are quite important here, too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

LFaraone, this is different freom an ISP abuse report. In this case AGK is threatening to contact Kumioko's employer, not his ISP. Also, as noted above, the edits from DOD IPs have been sporadic. It is also very different from contacting, say, a company because you can't just be "fired" from the military, especially if you are an active service member and not a civilian. Also, the Abuse reports page has been deprecated and cannot be used. I note that Kumioko would not fit their requirements anyway. Finally, "As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner. If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer" does not sound at all like a standard abuse report. If it wasn't a standard abuse report, which AGK admits to below, than what was it? A friendly reminder? Because it sure didn't sound friendly to me. KonveyorBelt 00:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt - this is because the ISP is his employer. Nathan 00:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but its still rather different. Contacting the ISP is something like IP Number 86.xx is misusing your network, but contacting an employer sounds more like he'd mention real life identities. KonveyorBelt 01:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

1. An abuse report would be filed with all the ISPs used, or it would be ineffective. The other ISPs were not mentioned because they were irrelevant to the danger I was trying to draw Kumioko's attention to.
2. The abuse report would have to explain how the subject's actions constitute "abuse".
3. The exchange took place in a private e-mail between Kumioko and I (and a number of other individual editors). The committee mailing list was not connected to the correspondence.
4. As you know, your e-mail has in fact been added to the list of addresses to be automatically accepted.

   Your position does not tally with Misplaced Pages policy or community practice, nor with ordinary practice in the rest of the internet, because abuse reports is not a legal mechanism. It is a request for a private organisation to assist a private community in stopping abusive behaviour.

Your attention has already been drawn to all of this on other pages. AGK 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AGK has already been told that this combative approach is not going to be effective in this case, and has chosen to ignore this advice, attracting more attention to the case he was allegedly trying to obliterate.

Clearly abuse reports are not going to work when an editor has so many hotspots and mobile options. They are a thing of the past if they ever worked.

There is nothing in this defence that advances AGKs case a whit. RF 00:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You tone and language indicates you have gotten very emotional; when you are less so, perhaps you could consider the points I made. AGK 15:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to know you can read my emotional state from my "tone and language" - except that you can't, and, surely by now should have realised that even if that was your particular forte, it is not wise to ascribe emotions to another editor. Right or wrong it does not make you look good, and, right or wrong, it serves no useful purpose.

So to address your points, as you requested:

1. The abuse report was never going to be effective. You either knew this, or should have known it - as blocking huge swathes of IP addresses didn't work.
2. This is not clear from the email. A significant number of people read this the way I indicated. If you write an email that is widely interpreted as a threat, you are not operating in a way concomitant with being an administrator or arbitrator.
3. I did not bring up the committee mailing list. I would like to know who these other editors are.
4. I don't "know" that my email has been added to the auto accept, I have been told that it has. I have to consider the possibility of a rogue or incompetent moderator as happened before.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

I too urge the ArbCom to take action with regard to this email. We simply cannot allow users to make threats of this nature, and if such threats are made from positions of power then they are even more serious. We don't want to give the impression that the ArbCom as a whole is trying to bully editors by threatening to jeopardize their employment. I hope the ArbCom will confirm for us that this was merely the action of one misguided individual and was not in any way endorsed by the other members of the committee. Everyking (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Salvio said as much on Jimbo's talk page, but that doesn't make it excusable. In fact, forget AGK is a member of ArbCom for a moment and consider his actions as you would any other admin. KonveyorBelt 01:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, but I think the ArbCom as a whole should make a statement to clarify it wasn't involved in this. This is a very serious thing, and I don't think the say-so of one other arb is sufficient. We need to clarify, first of all, whether this was misconduct by an individual or by the group. If we can confirm it was just the individual, then consequences for the individual should be considered. Everyking (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• In terms of analyzing AGK's behavior, it is already far serious enough to be considered in isolation from any role he has on ArbCom. It matters little whether he was speaking for ArbCom or not. What matters is the gross misconduct. I don't think we can separate ArbCom members into two persona each; one that is a member of ArbCom and one that is everything else. AGK's behavior casts an extremely poor light on ArbCom, regardless of whether he was acting as part of ArbCom or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I do think it matters whether he acted with the endorsement of other arbs, but we can certainly agree that AGK's behavior was unacceptable either way. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I mentioned at Jimmy's talk page, I'll say it again here - abuse reports are a tool that is available to anyone. They are regularly filed, previously through a community process detailed here, but more recently just by individuals. It happens that one of the user's ISPs is also his employer - an employer who has in the past sanctioned their employees over such matters. I personally warned the user in question in the middle of March that continuing on his current path might lead to real life consequences. At the beginning of April, he confirmed that he understands the risks that he might get "a letter to my work or my internet provider". That was 6 weeks ago and he had not relented, even gloating that he would not stop.

  In these circumstances abuse reports are the correct course of action. That's not a "wikipedia" rule - it's what the abuse@ address is set up for. So, the question is - should AGK have let the user know that the report was imminent, or just filed it? I prefer the former. I wouldn't have written that email, but if I were in his shoes I would have written a similar one. Worm(talk) 09:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

AGK's use of the word "employees" makes it clear that he recognises he will be alerting Kumioko's employer and that he recognises (or imagines - I question whether it is necessarily so) that this will be very vexatious for Kumioko. That's the whole point of the threat. It's all about contacting the employer and not about filing a routine ISP abuse report (which incidentally based on your link doesn't seem to be active policy these days). It's quite plain that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave real-world harassment applies. The email contains this "As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner." What were these previous abuse reports he refers to? I'm surprised they haven't been raised at discussion on Mr. Wales' Talk page or at the other place. And if indeed the DOD etc. did take a dim view, what precisely was that view and why and what was the outcome? The sentence frankly strikes me as fantasy, or wishful thinking. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Coat of Many Colours - I recognise that alerting a DoD ISP to abuse is akin to alerting an employer and could cause more serious ramifications than "loss of internet". That's what makes the situation different - but the abuse report is still appropriate. Were AGK threatening to write a letter to his employer, or phone him, I would agree - but sending an abuse report - which would be a standard action isn't the same. It might be that there are no serious consequences - I have no idea. I also am not aware of any abuse reports filed by Wikipedians with DoD in the past, the situation that's fresh in my mind though is in the UK vandalism has been coming from government computers and the impression I got was that there would be serious consequences for any employees found to be doing so. I expect the situation to be similar in the States, though I cannot be certain. Worm(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi W (I think I would want to know you better before I start calling you your full monniker :)). The UK vandalism you are talking about is about illegal trolling, inciting racial hatred and so on. It's not comparable, and moreover these DOD addresses are also used for residential accounts on base. It's not just "akin" to alerting an employer. It is alerting the employer and that was precisely the nature of the threat. AGK was fully conscious of it. Of course it's not a plea, his whole reputation centres around his zero tolerance towards vandals. From his very earliest days he was threatening "implications". Here's one such, to a respected administrator if you please who had displeased AGK's sensitivities by citing a Grand Jury investigation into Roman Catholic sex abuse (no really - do the research yourself). That's the baggage he carries with him. He can't credibly defend his email as a friendly nod and word of advice from the local copper to the local drunk GP (his distinctly curious analogy) But the sentence I quote really does for him, I'm afraid. I'm pretty sure it's fantasy and if that is so then he has no position at all to defend. Rich is quite right here. He has to go. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Abuse reports are not generally available to anyone. IP addresses of named accounts are only available to CheckUsers. The CheckUser ability is wholly within the gift of ARbCom (which I have pointed out previously is a serious governance issue in itself). At this point the kindest thing for AGK, and the best thing for the project, is a speedy expulsion, not a semi-circling of the wagons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Not so, the user in question has been editing almost exclusively from IP addresses for months. Worm(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reaching here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

It appears to me that you are reaching here. I've seen no evidence that AKG has obtained K's IP address via CU, and it is clearly the case that K has been using IP addresses. What's happened here doesn't justify a "speedy expulsion". Or the scare section heading. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• IMHO, AGK's email was unwise, but not evil and not worthy of sanction. I'm convinced, from long headache-inducing discussions on the mailing list, that AGK's intent was not to threaten, but to warn that something that has been done in the past in cases similar to this would have much larger than normal consequences this time. I see it as an attempt to bend over backwards not to get Kumioko in trouble at work.

Now, the practicality of an ISP report is debatable, but IF it's being considered, such an email prior to the report is important. This was premature, not unacceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No - it wasn't "something that has been done in the past in cases similar to this would have much larger than normal consequences this time", rather it was "as I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner" i.e. in the past ArbCom have filed abuse reports with the DOD and they have their expressed considerable displeasure over the issue. Face it. He threatened to contact Kumioko's employers, said that ArbCom had acted similarly in the past (i.e. contact employers) and that in the case of the DOD they had responded with extreme disapproval. That's what he did. That's what you have to defend. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I think using the word "evil" is unhelpful. AGk's action is not appropriate, clearly does not conform to community norms (the procedure is historical), of dubious legality, appears to represent ArbCom when it does not, displays characteristics of gunning personally for one editor (especially when combined with AGK's other actions, over this, blanking archives, edit warring, apparently creating abuse filters - and then lying about it). This attitude is long standing, and is not conducive to good governance. AGK should leave the committee to protect the project, not because he is "evil". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
    

    Could I just clarify a few things here. Just because the page is marked historical doesn't mean it's not happening any more, and requests were still being made to the end of 2013. It was marked historical because they weren't being actioned by the volunteers involved - volunteers which by the way included a significant majority of non-admins. As for appearing to represent ArbCom, AGK's email was responding to one of Kumioko's emails to multiple recipients. I believe Kumioko had BCC'd the recipients, so AGK's reply was just to Kumioko, but given Kumioko had been emailing large groups the context implied that AGK was associating himself with the rest of the group, rather than Arbcom. AGK has made this point elsewhere. Worm(talk) 14:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

    • So did he speak for the rest of the group? It does not appear so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
      

Claims have been made (by Kumioko and others) that he doesn't edit from Navy IP addresses any more (eg. above, "has not done so for some considerable time"). Note that he used them at least as recently as 28 April 2014, to harass AGK as it turns out. Fram (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The boot is rather on the other foot. AGK appears to have thought that preventing Kumioko from signing his name, by implementing an abuse filter was a good idea. That message, left over a fortnight ago, points out how useless this approach was. Had AGK been successful (which he manifestly was not, nor could he be) he would have been forcing Kumioko to edit anonymously - this would not have been a good thing by community standards. What is worse he specifically denies trying to stop Kumioko from using his name. I will leave it to others to confirm whether such an abuse filter existed and if so what the rules said and who wrote them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

"He would have been forcing Kumioko to edit anonymously"? No, no one forces Kumioko to edit here, on the contrary, he is supposed to not edit here at all, "by community standards". Anyway, why did you claim that Kumioko hadn't been using these IP adresses for some considerable time when that wasn't really true and when the only apparent reason he finally stopped using the ones I checked was because they were blocked, not voluntarily? Fram (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rich, I'm afraid that reply doesn't answer Fram's point. AGK 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fram's point is non-existent. If there was no ongoing editing from DoD IP then filing an abuse report there would be at best pointless, at worst malicious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Nice evasive answer. You (and Kumioko) claimed that these IPs were long abandoned, which they clearly weren't. Which indicates that your opening post (and posts you made elsewhere) was either misinformed or an attempt to poison the well (Kumioko obviously hasn't the excuse of being misinformed about his own use of some IP adresses). Fram (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The important point is that the wording makes it clear that the other editor only "occasionally" edits from DoD. The parenthetical "some considerable time" is perfectly in tune with a fortnight - there was no ongoing editing. Of course if you find an actual error, please feel free to point it out. There is, of course, no shortage of material to supplement this report if it is required. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There should be no doubt AGK misstepped here. To be explicit, we're talking trout level screwup, so let's just skip the de-sysop, de-arbcom, de-take away his birthday nonsense.

To address NYB's question about how to deal with a formerly valued contributor turned persistent troll with a plethora of disposable IPs, no need to reinvent the wheel -- we need to simply apply consistently, dispassionately continue the tradition of WP:DENY / WP:RBI via WP:RIS (revert, ignore, semi-protect).

Per the deny protocol, I'm only choosing to comment because no one has addressed the root issue regarding AGKs action. It's not his meant as a warning, comes across as a threat email. It's the Father Knows Best / condescension nature of the email. Contributors (even vandals and trolls) should be treated respectfully like adults. The terms of use make it clear that the greater "we" may take action up to legal action against users who violate the terms of service. Emailing a ISP an abuse report is clearly within that scope. The person's relationship with their ISP is not our concern; in fact, attempts to ascertain that relationship could easily run afoul of the site privacy expectations.

Although I honestly think it's moot per the above, so many editors have commented regarding someone getting fired by the US DOD due to an abuse report, I feel compelled to comment. Don't be ridiculous. It is expensive for the DOD to recruit, intake, train and separate an employee (active duty or civil service). I'm unable to get a solid number: for a solider the non-partisan / non-political US Government Accountability Office attempted to ascertain the cost recently, but gave up due to DOD accounting being so labyrinth to make a defensible number impossible. They did determine it was upwards of $100K. This idea that, oh, we've spent all this money on this person but they're disrupting Misplaced Pages! so we're going to terminate them isn't reasonable. Separating either an active duty or civilian employee is not a quick or easy task due to due process requirements.

AGK has stated that in the past a Wikipedian was referred for abuse and subsequently terminated. I am in not way disputing that. Post hoc ergo propter hoc remains a logical fallacy. The most likely scenario is that the person was a subpar performer in difficult to document ways, and the abuse report provided an easy to document excuse to separate someone the command really wasn't thrilled with anyway. For anyone, who is not, to use the informal US Navy term, a "dirtball," the most likely response to an abuse report would be a verbal directive to knock it off.

Perhaps there is a need to revisit Misplaced Pages:Abuse response, given the community concerns. But that should be via an RFC, not a discussion using either AGK or K as a coatrack for "evil admin" / "vile trolls" ad hominem drivel. NE Ent 13:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: It was Risker who first raised the question of contacting ISPs (and inviting Kumioko to consider the implications) in this case here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that NE Ent's analysis of the situation is spot-on, and the most sensible that I have seen throughout this whole discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well-said, NE Ent. Liz 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How is this governed?

The AGK and Kumioko business aside, an issue has been starkly highlighted. The project does not appear to have any policy or procedure for how to handle such abuse reports. Ok, Misplaced Pages:Abuse response has been marked historical (for good reason). But, several templates (examples: {{Shared IP gov}}, {{Shared IP}}) have verbiage stating "abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation." Further, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse is active (or at least not marked historical). Am I wrong that there is no policy or procedure for this?

Sure, anyone can make a report about an IP. All it takes is a whois lookup. But, it seems to me the project is opening themselves up for some serious potential harm in allowing abuse reports to come from more 'official' channels on the project (admins, bureaucrats, arbcom members) without having any set procedure for doing so. I can imagine a form letter of sorts to avoid the sort of situation that has evolved in the AGK/Kumioko case.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is a point best clarified by the WMF, as the project has evolved beyond recognition since the abuse reports process was created. AGK 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, no good deed goes unpunished. AGK told the user about the possible consequences, rather than just filing the report and creating those consequences. I view the warning as a kindness, not intimidation, under these particular circumstances. To avoid future ructions, I suggest that we should create a page that details what an abuse report is, and what the possible consequences may be. After than, any user can say, "If you continue, I will file an abuse report about you with your internet service provider. Please read about what that means. " Having standard text will avoid the risk of a warning being mis-perceived as harassment or attempted intimidation. Jehochman 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Standard text is a good idea. A standard process is also a good idea. But both would require community consensus that community members that it is appropriate to us abuse reports. I would doubt that that would get consensus. Even then it is not true to say that "any user" could file a report, that would only be true of IPs. I would say that abuse reports of that type should be left to the Foundation, for the type of egregious actions we have, luckily, seen very rarely. Note depriving someone of Internet access, deprives their entire household, and can have far wider implications than it did years ago - even medical monitoring is done over the Internet these days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

I think you are right Hammersoft. We have no procedure for raising abuse reports. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

@Jehochman No, AGK did not tell the user the possible consequences. He misrepresented the consequences. It's not true that ArbCom has contacted DOD in the past and it's not true that they take an extremely dim view of abuse of such reports from ArbCom. All that is fantasy and part of an extremely badly judged attempt to put pressure on Kumuiko. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

About "no good deed goes unpunished", it occurs to me that Kumioko's stated goal has been to troll Misplaced Pages to the point where editors end up expending an undue amount of time reacting to it. It looks to me like he has been very successful at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) @Coat of Many Colours: Kumioko emailed me directly, ranting about an administrator. I emailed back and said 'Fair enough, but if you do keep socking and somebody files an abuse report, you could lose your job. Do you understand that?' This did not involve ArbCom and I am not sure why you are talking as though it did. Could you please stop putting words into my mouth? AGK 19:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The email does not say "if" it says an abuse report will shortly be filed with this organisation - note the passive voice, again implying authority rather than just one random Misplaced Pages editor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

@AGK I'm not putting words in your mouth. On the contrary, I'm reminding your apologists what they actually were. Of course Kumioko knew you were from ArbCom. Of course he would have surmised you were acting for ArbCom. Of course that's the impression you sought to give. You need to take responsibility for what you did. Your judgement was badly flawed and your response is immature. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's time for AGK to take some responsibility for his actions, and it's time for the ArbCom to hold him accountable for his actions. Everyking (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of balance, I am not going to comment further. You ought to do likewise and let other people have their say. One group should not dominate a discussion. AGK 09:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to be demure. No one is interested in preventing you from having your say. In fact, a number of people are probably disappointed that the bulk of the discussion appears to be taking place off-line on the arb mailing list and not in public. —Neotarf (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you know what volume of discussion is taking place on the arbcom mailing list? Please let us know how ordinary editors like myself can access these statistics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the discussions werent on the mailing list but on the functionaries and arbs irc channels. It should be noted that agk got read the riot act in private but no one dares speak up publicly because y hey would be proving kumioko right. And believe it or not, i am not kumioko. So feel free to revert this and blame it on them, but youll be proving his point about silencing critics. I was also the one who posted last time that james reverted. I am not banned and am in good standing but i dont dare make myself known and open myself up for retaliation.2607:FB90:1317:8F9C:14C3:9087:17BD:EE34 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

(Note: there is no evidence known to me that this IP is a banned user whose posts should be reverted as such. The fear of "retaliation" is unwarranted, and he or she should really be posting from his or her registered account, but in the context of this discussion I'd say we let that go.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, how about "long headache-inducing discussions on the mailing list"? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=prev&oldid=608830238 although it may be OR to assign a statistical value to what level of hot air is necessary to induce headaches in arbitrators. Apparently AGK has convinced the committee that he is only motivated to help Kumioko and be his friend. —Neotarf (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

They have met, apparently, so I see no reason they shouldn't be friends. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that two of the respondents here who replied to me were on ArbCom, additional thanks for that. I think we need clarification as to whether the community has in the past knowingly contacted employers about ToS abuse (I don't mean criminal abuse) and what policy statements about that have been made in the past. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See the inactive WP:Abuse response for one effort. Apart from that, any of thousands of editors might have reported abuse. Has anyone mentioned that what editors do off-wiki is generally considered to be none of our business? For example, there are cases where known users have contributed towards outing and other harassment of editors, yet attempts to sanction the users have failed because the issues did not occur at Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. WP:Abuse response is inactive as you say, but it concerns reporting abuse to ISPs. This is about knowingly contacting employers. That's right about off-wiki. I suppose we ought to clarify whether AGK's email was a private email (i.e. not his account email) but I doubt it would go to much. Self-evidently he was emailing on behalf of the community. It's quite true that editors routinely use the royal "we" as a means of invoking the authority of the community (I frankly find that irritating), but in this case AGK plainly was emailing on behalf of the community. He surely knew that Kumoiko knew he was from ArbCom and at the very least should have made it clear he was acting in a private capacity if that's his claim now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Private email? What on earth? My personal private email account certainly does not become the public property of the community (or anyone else) just because I happen to use it to register my Misplaced Pages account to. Just as it does not become an official contact method of Google Inc just because I also happen to use it to register my YouTube account to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume that if a long-time abuser uses work computers to troll Misplaced Pages and it is at a company or organization that is large enough to have a dedicated network, informing the ISP would involve them passing along the abuse notice to the organization. Over 13 years of Misplaced Pages, I doubt this is the only time reporting to an ISP means them contacting an employer. The difference I see is that AGK gave Kumioko a warning/head's up that this was going to happen, I imagine in most reporting, the abuser is not alerted in advance.

The problem is that there is apparently no active page that logs these abuse reports any more or explains a) when they are sent and b) possible consequences of being reported. It might be commonplace for websites to send out abuse reports to ISPs but a notice of the condition under which this occurs should exist on the policy pages of Misplaced Pages. Liz 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Demiurge. Well yes, of course. To clarify, if he was emailing though his account then that must be construed as emailing on behalf of the community and in his case, by extension, on behalf of ArbCom. What arises is whether they previously have had an exchange of emails (you say above they had met, so it's likely). AGK could then argue his email was "private", at least if it identified his private ISP email address. But the likelihood is that it's a Gmail address or the like, and in that case I can't see the claim is very convincing. And moreover it doesn't reflect well on AGK, Demiurge, that even after an exchange of emails he is apparently unable to show the slightest degree of real empathy, not even venturing a familiar name (it starts "Hi. You occasionally edit ...").

A problem I have addressing the issue here is I feel constrained about quoting the email as reproduced by Kumoiko in the other place, precisely because there may be a privacy issue involved. AGK (who posts in the other place) hasn't denied that's what he sent. May I reproduce it here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: actually I see it was quoted in its entirety at the outset. Plainly it wasn't following a private exchange of emails. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Liz. The point is that Misplaced Pages was knowingly going to contact the employer. This was a "your boss is going to get a call" letter, as succinctly pointed out in the other place. You can have "troll", but this was nevertheless not criminal abuse. It's not even nuisance given that a very great deal of Misplaced Pages's activity simply is fighting vandalism, indeed that's the sole raison d'être of AGK's account, why Misplaced Pages has him, why he's there. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

According to information given elsewhere, the email was sent to a group of people. Presumably the others were cc'd and the email was send on behalf of all of them, but there has been no indication of whether they were all arbs. —Neotarf (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Then, COMC, it sounds like you believe the warning letter shouldn't have been sent and the abuse report simply filed with the ISP without informing Kumioko. I see the letter as a courtesy but I can see you view it as threatening so there is a difference of opinion on that.

My concern is not this specific case with its unusual circumstances but to get some area of Misplaced Pages where the process of filing abuse reports is explained, what are the circumstances causing the filing of an abuse report, who can file an abuse report, what are the consequences of an abuse report, along with a log of user accounts who have had these reports sent. That, to me, has a greater impact than simply focusing on Kumioko's case. Liz 15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I sense a certain irony in your opening remark, Liz. No quibbles about the second part though, up to the remark about Kumioko's case, where the point is that we in the other place are focussing not on Kumoiko but on AGK's action, and in a broader context on Misplaced Pages's intentions in general (ToS is about to be revised).

I can't speculate on AGK's motives here without entering personal attack territory. But that wasn't a "warning" letter Liz, it was a threat and the threat was to contact the employers, not just an ISP. AGK should have known it was not very well judged, should have sought advice from his fellow members on ArbCom. You ever received a debt collector's letter, Liz? Or for that matter (in all seriousness and if you're in the UK) from the BBC demanding you purchase a TV license. These are demands which unquestionably threaten "implications" (often fantasy in reality) very carefully crafted by (presumably) lawyers. AGK's effort in the same league, but without any of the subtlety and it really is not edifying that ArbCom is so slow to condemn it, as eventually they must. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency let me state for the record that in our mailing list discussions of these issues I supported just doing it and not bothering to warn Kumioko at all. I don't think K deserved any courtesy from us in light of the incredible, deliberate disruption he has been engaging in for several months and if he were to get fired from his job for acting like an ass on their ISP it is no more than he deserves. The vast majority of banned users have the sense to just go away, or to do a "stealth return" and avoid the issues that got them banned.

Once in a while we see someone who instead decides to spend enormous quantities of their time and effort deliberately being a pain in the ass. Old hands will know that K is really a minor player compared to some of the other WP:LTA nut cases, many of whom have been the subject of past reports to their ISPs. The only thing I find to condemn in AGKs actions is his naïveté in thinking K would act like an adult and go away as opposed to screaming like a maniac about all the future abuse of this site he intends to engage in. We've given this troll more than enough of our time. He does not desire to return as a productive member of the community. Nevertheless, he has tried to blackmail the committee by threatening to increase his harassment and disruption campaign until his ban is reversed. I have no patience with and no sympathy for someone who behaves like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a perspective we needed to hear, Beeblebrox, to put this incident in context with how other long-time abusers were handled. It would be helpful if this admin response, and some idea of how often it occurs, would be documented somewhere. It's clear that many editors were surprised at the news of this email message and the abuse response to the ISP and some of this outraged might have been lessened if users realized that this is a standard procedure in WP:LTA cases. Liz 00:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really happen all that often because it often doesn't produce results. However, it is possible the DoD would be more responsive at might actually do something. That possibility, combined with the revelation that the DoD was not only the owner of some of the IPs used but also K's employer is why some arbs thought we shouldn't report his mounting abuses. Others felt we should make the report only after giving him one last chance to just cut it out. Websites of all kinds do this sort of thing all the time, and I seriously doubt most of them would even think about telling a troll they were planning to do so.

K wants to go down as the greatest,most disruptive troll WP has ever seen. He has said so again and again on WP criticism sites. Putting aside what an utterly pathetic and sad life goal that is and what it tells us about his priorities, 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? This isn't about calling his place of employment to get him trouble for editing on company time. I couldn't care less about that. What I do care about is what can be done to stop a sustained and deliberate campaign of harassment and disruption. K is a crybaby and a troll who just needs to go away. If he is so obsessed and irresponsible that he would rather lose his job than cease his trolling that is his problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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: because Misplaced Pages is just a website, and since it's just a website, it isn't worth doing something that might actually get someone fired for? I mean, even if Kumioko follows through on their threat, what does that really amount to? If they were threatening actual harm against anyone, that'd be one thing, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with contacting ISPs in that case. But I haven't seen any threats of that nature; why would we need to take it to this extreme? Like, do you really think that acting like an ass justifies us in possibly getting him fired? I don't; that's pretty messed up. Even people who are jerks are still, y'know, people, and I don't see what would allow us to do anything like this. I'm sorry, Misplaced Pages is just not that big a deal. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's not that big of deal, then why even both reverting vandalism? Why even bother to make sure sources are correct for BLPs? Heck, why not just turn Misplaced Pages into another Usenet/IRC, with a bunch of Jackholes arguing back and forth about the stupidest bullshit they can think of? The reason you don't allow the constant disruption should be evidenced here and on Jimbo's Talk page, it takes up far too much time and volunteer service to deal with. So you just put a stop to it in the best available ways you can. Which includes filing an Abuse@ report. I see a lot of pleading about someone's job, but has anyone thought that you are giving the 'disruptor in chief' exactly what they want? If a certain someone doesn't want to put his employment in jeopardy, the decision is easy. Don't disrupt from that IP. It's not the fault of the person filing a report. And if people really want to drag this around to ANI, there is plenty of evidence that the user used the IPs to disrupt the project repeatedly. It's SOP to file a abuse@ report for persistent disruptions, those that vow to never give up and "become the most prolific vandal Misplaced Pages has ever seen". And if this drags on and on and on, who is really benefiting from all of this discussion about a community banned former editor? Dave Dial (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not contacting people's employers" doesn't imply "don't revert vandalism", as you of course know. Yes, I have thought that this is giving the chief disruptor what they want. Of course that's what it's doing. I'm advocating it because the alternative, where we possibly ruin someone's life because they said some mean things and don't like our website, is not worth it. There is no sense of proportion here; it's ridiculous. And no, as far as I know, contacting ISPs is not standard practice, at least not for anything but the very worst abuse. Kumioko may have promised to become Misplaced Pages's #1 Enemy (whatever that means), but they haven't delivered on that promise yet, and unless they do in a big way, this is not something we should even be considering. I've certainly never even thought of contacting someone's ISP, much less when I know it to be their employer. As several people have pointed out, the abuse report page has been marked historical, and I don't know of any recent cases where it has been employed (though I certainly wouldn't necessarily know). Do you know otherwise? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'abuse report page' is not the only way one can send abuse reports. Any editor can send one. I've sent dozens upon dozens of reports, though most not about this project(I think I've sent a couple from here). Frankly, I think any administrator not willing to send an abuse report to an ISP concerning another editor who has broken the TOS repeatedly and blatantly refuses to cease, should turn in their tools. See section 4 - Refraining from Certain Activities, which the editor in question has violated several of the terms, by their own admission. Particularly harassing other editors. It's easy to ignore if you're not the one being harassed. As Jimbo stated yesterday 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. I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't filed one already. Especially with all the attention Kumioko and supporters have drawn concerning this. Dave Dial (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, it's not standard practice because it doesn't usually work. It didn't fall into disuse because everyone decided it was disproportionate. Reporting someone to their ISP because they misuse the service that ISP provides is fully proportionate and rational. If someone happens to work for that ISP (whether they work for the DoD, Comcast, Congress or whoever)... They knowingly took the risk of misusing and abusing the service provided by their employer. That risk, and the onus of the potential consequences, falls on them. It's not on the abused to measure the consequences of reporting and responding to the actions of the abuser. Nathan 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's always incumbent on us to measure the consequences of our actions. Always. And if it doesn't usually work, then why are we considering doing it at all, since there's not much benefit to outweigh the possible harm? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why consider it in this case? Well, I imagine you know the answer. If an ISP provides service only to its employees and contractors, whether its the DoD or some other organization, it is much more likely to respond to misconduct by an employee than a commercial ISP is for actions of a customer. As to the issue of consequences, I suppose we will have to disagree and let it go. Assuming Kumioko is not mentally ill and not a child, he is capable of taking the potential for punishment into account when choosing to misbehave. The analogy to a criminal is apt; any robber hopes to get away with his crime, but knows there is a chance he may be caught and go to prison. We report the theft (even if a small personal item, like an iPhone) anyway, because the burden of a bad act should fall on the bad actor and not the victim. Nathan 18:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The LTA page says: "In the vast majority of cases, Deny Recognition and Revert block ignore are more suitable approaches." But judging by User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Misplaced Pages and the law of computer misuse, where Kumioko is mentioned by name, it looks like a different approach has been decided on here, but it's not clear why. And if the comment by a user above is correct, AGK and Kumioko know each other in real life. Any complaint sent to Kumioko's employer could state his real name. Kumioko may soon be sharing a jail cell with Chelsea Manning. —Neotarf (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you reread what I wrote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The only reason the banned user is being celebrated and encouraged is all the excited commentary. It is not our concern if a few editors decide to report a long term troll to their ISP, but if anyone does not want that to happen the best approach would be to stop talking and stop encouraging an attention-seeker. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad. I want to excuse myself from further comment here. I have a program of edits on Misplaced Pages I would like to complete and thereafter I shall consider.

Kumoiko's behaviour is not criminal. I doubt it is actionable in civil law. I am quite certain that in the EU at any rate contacting his employers in this way is a infringement of his right to a private life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Since AGK is (for now anyway) a citizen of the European Union, I think it would be an honourable gesture for him to recuse himself from further meddling in this affair. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As someone required to use VPN's for work and other purposes, I can tell you it's pretty easy to leave one turned on by accident when doing a non-work thing from the same computer (it's the other side of forgetting to activate an anonymizing proxy before looking at a privacy invading site like facebook.com). If someone posts a few Misplaced Pages edits from work addresses by accident, by using their computer at home with the work VPN still activated, it would be pretty obnoxious to jack that up into claiming misuse of an employer's network.

I don't take that "most disruptive user ever" thing of Kumioko even slightly seriously. He said that in a lame outburst in the immediate aftermath of getting banned, then slipped back to approximately the same occasional pitiful whining as before he got banned, and has had pretty low impact on anything I can tell. There are other editors (banned or otherwise) who are far more detrimental to the project. I'd suggest starting with them if Misplaced Pages witch-hunting is now also being pursued off-wiki. And any such reports should be only done by WMF legal or security personnel (after referral from arbcom/CU, for example). Having Misplaced Pages editors (including arbitrators) do them is IMHO obviously forbidden per WP:OUTING.

This incident is pretty disturbing and I may write more later. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue Until one considers that the user in question (Kumioko) has a pattern of sockpuppetry and long-term abuse, and is currently banned from English Misplaced Pages for exhibiting such a pattern. That may also be why AGK wants to contact Kumioko's employer (not that I'm endorsing these actions, but still, look at the circumstances). Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my recollection of the public comments made by Kumioko so far align with Beeblebrox's description "the greatest,most disruptive troll WP has ever seen. He has said so again and again", than with the 70.* IP's description "a lame outburst in the immediate aftermath of getting banned" (my emphasis). It would appear there are also numerous comments (or threats?) Kumioko has made privately rather than publicly. So very few of us here know the full picture. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with @70 in that there should be some provisions for making abuse reports including a) at what point is an abuse report sent (identification as a "long-time abuser"?) because it shouldn't be an individual judgment call by any admin, b) who can send in an abuse report, c) what the possible consequences of an abuse report to an ISP and d) a log of abuse reports that have been sent, to avoid duplicate reports and for transparency purposes.

I've posted these above (and I appreciate Beeblebrox's response) but I really think that implementing them, even if only a few reports are sent, would dispel some of the outrage surrounding this case. Liz 17:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

How would those limits work? Anyone who is the target of abuse from an IP address, or even anyone who comes upon it, can submit an abuse report. That's whether or not they've seen the project abuse report pages, or LTA, or anything else. Do we want to have another policy that is most likely to be often ignored, that purports to prevent people from filing abuse reports when they themselves are the targets? Given the kind of abuse people have experienced over the years, that seems unwise. I suspect making the list public would be a mistake for many reasons that are generally more important than preventing duplicate reports. There might be room for some public information about when and how CUs make abuse reports based on data from the checkuser tool, but otherwise I don't see the benefit. Nathan 17:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful for editors here to speculate about whether or not an abuse report would affect Kumioko's employment. The last time I looked at the "other" website, Kumioko was making it very clear that he is not worried about losing his employment, even saying that he, himself, would be part of the team that would look into any IP abuse complaint. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The indent suggests that comment was replying to me, but I'm not sure how it relates to what I wrote. Nathan 18:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nathan, I'm sorry about that. I just put it there in response to the whole series of edits above, and not to your comment specifically, because it wasn't obvious where else to put it. But no, I wasn't calling you out, and I apologize that it looked that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nathan, it's the same idea as WP:NLT: you can pursue a grievance against someone on-wiki, or you can pursue it off-wiki, but not both. DIY enforcement of the TOS vigilante-style when you don't have the standing to enforce it in a court of law seems completely wrong to me. That's why the WMF (the entity with the standing) should handle it directly. They could delegate it to arbcom or stewards or whoever in an official way, I suppose, with the implication that the WMF will back up any actions taken under such delegation, but people should still not do it unofficially on their own. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this skittered off into becoming another chastise Kumioko/AGK thread. This was not my intention. There have been other places to do that. I do feel we need to have an established process for handling this for any future cases. But, this thread's unfortunately gone off the rails on that point. Oh well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Whether people support AGK in this instance or not, I think we can all agree on one thing: abuse reports are not to be taken lightly. My belief is that an ISP should only be notified in circumstances where a user's activities can actually cause genuine harm in someone's personal life. Examples include repeated and malicious posting of personally identifying information, paedophilia advocacy (barring attempts to promote recognition of the condition as a legitimate mental disorder), the crime of stalking, and providing assistance to any unrelated police investigation. I would not feel comfortable jeopardizing someone's livelihood just because they are an unrepentant nuisance on a popular website, especially not if the justification for doing so amounts to "he had it coming". If I were to support this measure against Kumioko, there would have to be significant documented evidence of criminal harassment against one or more editors (generally both on and off-wiki). This means that the threshold must be exceptionally high, and such a motion should probably be initiated by the victims of harassment themselves. If they are using ArbCom as a vector for pursuing legal avenues and their plight is justified, so be it. If AGK, ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, or any other party chooses to go forward with this course of action, it could cost Kumioko his job — and if Dennis Brown's sentiments hold true today, his liberty. Kurtis 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't agree. Last fall, I looked into WP:Abuse reports, a group of volunteers who sent letters to ISPs in long-time abuse cases and I was told that these letters actually had little impact and that's why the project was no longer active. It was then marked as an inactive, historical project after I couldn't find any previous volunteers who wanted to return and continue with it. Liz 20:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't agree with Kurtis either. Boiling that down, it's a weird position to take - we can only report abuse to an ISP when the abusive conduct rises to the level of criminal activity? Criminal activity should be reported to the police. ISPs aren't cops. Maybe the confusion rests on the nomenclature: An "abuse report" is basically a report to an Internet Service Provider alleging that a particular user (or, IP address) is violating the Terms of Service of a website and / or the ToS of the ISP's service itself. In most cases, the maximum penalty an ISP can impose is terminating the connection. In a small number of instances, the ISP happens also to be the employer of the user. What happens in those cases is something Wikipedians don't have much insight into, and regardless shouldn't bear on whether any individual decides to file a report with an ISP. Nathan 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It would boil down to a proposal that some subset of editors can claim complete immunity from any action on their behaviour purely because they choose to abuse their employer's internet facilities for that behaviour; whereas editors who do not commit such abuse can suffer consequences. It's an entirely irrational suggestion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• • I guess I'm wrong in this case; revisiting my above comment a couple hours later, I now concede that it was far too narrow in scope. I'm also not sure why I had somehow conflated contacting an ISP with contacting the police; I've stricken those parts. A regular report to a regular ISP after extensive long term abuse is probably warranted in some cases. Even so, disconnecting access to a certain website is a little drastic unless there's very good reason to do so. The situation with Kumioko has special considerations that need to be taken into account. Kurtis 21:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko has reported on the Other Site that his employer has now received a letter linking his user name with his name in real life. —Neotarf (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I take this claim with the same seriousness that I take other claims made by Kumioko. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thus quite seriously then, given that his original report about AGK's email was confirmed by AGK himself?

I'm sorry that Kurtis struck part of his post, because it was a good summary of the real position (as confirmed by Liz, another useful contributor here). Abuse reports which don't allege criminal behaviour don't receive much attention from ISPs and it's not criminal to violate ToS. What is new here, what I don't doubt Risker was hinting at and which AGK duly enacted, was the threat of effectively contacting his employer, and if notifying the employer really had been coincidental (as Risker was careful to keep open), well then there was not much recourse for Kumoiko. But AGK made the threat precise, so that effectively Misplaced Pages was knowingly contacting the employers. I don't doubt this is where AGK is being attacked for his lack of judgement on the mailing list.

The real problem for Misplaced Pages here is that some editor might now (apparently has already) contacted the employer (no doubt with diffs and proofs and god knows what else, the usual productions). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The entity "Misplaced Pages" has not contaced anything, and per my reply to you above at 10:29, 18 May 2014, events that occur off-wiki are not within the scope of matters requiring attention by this community. About all that can be said is that some editors would be prepared to make abuse reports, and some would not. Personal opinions about whether such contact would be effective are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, don't forget the Sandifer matter. —Neotarf (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You should probably take the claim seriously. After all, a certain arbitrator had threatened to do it, and his threat was effectively endorsed by several other arbitrators, as well as Jimbo Wales. So clearly they were not above taking such an action, and now the target of the threat says it was carried out. While we can't know for certain, the facts suggest Kumioko is telling the truth. Everyking (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press