Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

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)

URGENT: Real life threats

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

“ Hi. You occasionally edit from U.S. Department of Defense 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 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.

”

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 Wikipedia issue, into the realms of criminal law.

Per Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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 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. 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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^TT(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 Wikipedia: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^TT(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^TT(talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reaching here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 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)