Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
kołdry
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:27 am

Where WMF seem to have completely fucked up is allowing their T&S system to be used by their own staff (so it seems). This reeks of policy wonkery. The T&S people seem largely incompetent both as HR people and as editors.
I cannot be bothered to weigh into that TL;DR discussion. But what I would be saying is that WMF staff should not edit En-WP as volunteers and if they do they cannot expect to use internal T&S for complaints.
Also, all of the en-WP welcome messages should be amended to include a clear warning that any behavioural concerns might be handled at the WMF level and explain the practical consequences of that.
I have no doubt that Fram's behaviour could be interpreted as harrassment. But the heavy-handed approach by WMF outweighs any validity. I am not impressed by the prevalent functionary's "I am Fram" meme, especially the WBScribe antics.

User avatar
Guido den Broeder
Critic
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:11 am
Wikipedia Review Member: Guido den Broeder

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Guido den Broeder » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:33 am

mendaliv wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:They know very well what behaviors are too far and what aren't.
Respectfully, we don't. Sure, most of us know obvious things like calling the workplace of someone is highly inappropriate, and threatening people's safety generally is unacceptable. But when you get down to specific factual scenarios involving confrontational but nonthreatening behavior, the jury is out on almost everything. Same with civility.
Confrontational behavior is unacceptable, period. Civility? Not an issue, nobody cares. Somehow the users with the bits keep putting these two in the wrong order of priority. What happens the whole time is that someone, who is editing constructively, gets harassed by editors with an opposing view. They make one understandably irritated response and then get indeffed for being incivil, by an admin who shares the opposing view.

The community is evil and ignorant. Do not follow their lead.
This draws on the classical school of thought for criminal justice, which focuses on deterrence. For a penalty to deter misconduct, it must (1) come swiftly, (2) come surely, and (3) be severe. If it fails in any of these respects, the deterrence factor will be severely blunted.
It is not their job to penalize or deter, in fact policy strictly forbids that.
What can anybody learn from Fram being banned? What can Fram even learn? When the reason why someone is punished is not known, especially if it seems like it might be for a reason that wasn't previously punishable, we naturally strive to figure out what happened so we can avoid the same fate. By acting as they have, WMF have sown chaos and chilled participation far more than what Fram alone could have done.
Fram's ban is not a punishment, otherwise he would have been locked up in jail. He is banned to protect the encyclopedia and the community from further harm, and everyone knows why.

User avatar
Guido den Broeder
Critic
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:11 am
Wikipedia Review Member: Guido den Broeder

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Guido den Broeder » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:35 am

Jans Hammer wrote:Where WMF seem to have completely fucked up is allowing their T&S system to be used by their own staff (so it seems). This reeks of policy wonkery. The T&S people seem largely incompetent both as HR people and as editors.
I cannot be bothered to weigh into that TL;DR discussion. But what I would be saying is that WMF staff should not edit En-WP as volunteers and if they do they cannot expect to use internal T&S for complaints.
Also, all of the en-WP welcome messages should be amended to include a clear warning that any behavioural concerns might be handled at the WMF level and explain the practical consequences of that.
I have no doubt that Fram's behaviour could be interpreted as harrassment. But the heavy-handed approach by WMF outweighs any validity. I am not impressed by the prevalent functionary's "I am Fram" meme, especially the WBScribe antics.
Heavy-handed? You got to be kidding. Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:18 am

Guido den Broeder wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Where WMF seem to have completely fucked up is allowing their T&S system to be used by their own staff (so it seems). This reeks of policy wonkery. The T&S people seem largely incompetent both as HR people and as editors.
I cannot be bothered to weigh into that TL;DR discussion. But what I would be saying is that WMF staff should not edit En-WP as volunteers and if they do they cannot expect to use internal T&S for complaints.
Also, all of the en-WP welcome messages should be amended to include a clear warning that any behavioural concerns might be handled at the WMF level and explain the practical consequences of that.
I have no doubt that Fram's behaviour could be interpreted as harrassment. But the heavy-handed approach by WMF outweighs any validity. I am not impressed by the prevalent functionary's "I am Fram" meme, especially the WBScribe antics.
Heavy-handed? You got to be kidding. Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.
Puh-leeeeeeeeaze.......

Melodrama much?

t

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Dysklyver » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:15 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Melodrama much?
With 703 posts here, and as the Wikipedians have written 10 entire ANI archive size pages worth of irrelevancies, I think we can safely say yes...
Globally banned after 7 years.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:40 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:Heavy-handed? You got to be kidding. Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.
That's probably the single most 'snowflake' comment I've ever seen.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:43 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I think it is time for serious Wikipedia true believers to admit that the project as we knew it is dead.
That's absurd. What is the proportion of editors who are aware of what's going on?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Guido den Broeder
Critic
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:11 am
Wikipedia Review Member: Guido den Broeder

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Guido den Broeder » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:17 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:Heavy-handed? You got to be kidding. Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.
That's probably the single most 'snowflake' comment I've ever seen.
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:49 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:They know very well what behaviors are too far and what aren't.
Respectfully, we don't. Sure, most of us know obvious things like calling the workplace of someone is highly inappropriate, and threatening people's safety generally is unacceptable. But when you get down to specific factual scenarios involving confrontational but nonthreatening behavior, the jury is out on almost everything. Same with civility.
Confrontational behavior is unacceptable, period. Civility? Not an issue, nobody cares. Somehow the users with the bits keep putting these two in the wrong order of priority. What happens the whole time is that someone, who is editing constructively, gets harassed by editors with an opposing view. They make one understandably irritated response and then get indeffed for being incivil, by an admin who shares the opposing view.
Well clearly this long-term editor hasn’t derived the same lesson as you from this situation. That’s the problem with forced disappearances and punishment without process or publicity: You can’t apply them to your behavior to avoid the same fate. You can just guess at why and hope your interpretation is right.
The community is evil and ignorant. Do not follow their lead.
That’s crap and you should know better.
This draws on the classical school of thought for criminal justice, which focuses on deterrence. For a penalty to deter misconduct, it must (1) come swiftly, (2) come surely, and (3) be severe. If it fails in any of these respects, the deterrence factor will be severely blunted.
It is not their job to penalize or deter, in fact policy strictly forbids that.
That policy is the biggest lie on Wikipedia. In any event, deterrence is not prohibited, and people are expected to extrapolate from specific cases of community action and form general principles. See WP:PG. That’s why we don’t have, or at least aren’t supposed to have, a central legislative committee: Our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. (Though frankly, that’s probably the second biggest lie on Wikipedia.)
What can anybody learn from Fram being banned? What can Fram even learn? When the reason why someone is punished is not known, especially if it seems like it might be for a reason that wasn't previously punishable, we naturally strive to figure out what happened so we can avoid the same fate. By acting as they have, WMF have sown chaos and chilled participation far more than what Fram alone could have done.
Fram's ban is not a punishment, otherwise he would have been locked up in jail. He is banned to protect the encyclopedia and the community from further harm, and everyone knows why.
I don’t know why. Mr. Eissfeldt has been very clear that neither you nor anybody outside of T&S knows either. That’s why this is so dangerous. We need to know where the axe will fall.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:52 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Where WMF seem to have completely fucked up is allowing their T&S system to be used by their own staff (so it seems). This reeks of policy wonkery. The T&S people seem largely incompetent both as HR people and as editors.
I cannot be bothered to weigh into that TL;DR discussion. But what I would be saying is that WMF staff should not edit En-WP as volunteers and if they do they cannot expect to use internal T&S for complaints.
Also, all of the en-WP welcome messages should be amended to include a clear warning that any behavioural concerns might be handled at the WMF level and explain the practical consequences of that.
I have no doubt that Fram's behaviour could be interpreted as harrassment. But the heavy-handed approach by WMF outweighs any validity. I am not impressed by the prevalent functionary's "I am Fram" meme, especially the WBScribe antics.
Heavy-handed? You got to be kidding. Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.
We don’t know this. We don’t know what he did or to whom. We don’t know what the harm to his victims was. We know nothing.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:02 pm

Mr. Eissfeldt has requested the “tool” be taken down on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226427

Edit to add: Oh no wait, that’s just a notification to Phab. Apparently he just turned it off himself. Apparently Bryan Davis (bd808) turned it off for him. https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nov ... .detox/SAL

Anyone know of any other tools/bots that can be claimed is producing “unethical” output?
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Guido den Broeder
Critic
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:11 am
Wikipedia Review Member: Guido den Broeder

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Guido den Broeder » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:16 pm

mendaliv wrote:I don’t know why. Mr. Eissfeldt has been very clear that neither you nor anybody outside of T&S knows either. That’s why this is so dangerous. We need to know where the axe will fall.
You don't want to know. The axe will fall where I said it will fall a decade ago, and you didn't want to know it then either.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:33 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:
mendaliv wrote:I don’t know why. Mr. Eissfeldt has been very clear that neither you nor anybody outside of T&S knows either. That’s why this is so dangerous. We need to know where the axe will fall.
You don't want to know. The axe will fall where I said it will fall a decade ago, and you didn't want to know it then either.
I should clarify, by "the axe," I'm referring to a metaphor from an Oliver Wendell Holmes (T-H-L) speech, "The Path of the Law". Being able to tell where "the axe" falls is being able to tell what exactly the response to particular behavior will be and being able to conform your behavior to that expectation. Put differently, there's a reliance or expectation that particular behavior will lead to sanctions, and particular behavior will not lead to sanctions, and people have conformed their conduct to that particular arrangement.

Consider the recent jurisprudence regarding stare decisis (T-H-L) in the United States. Everyone is suddenly freaked out about it because changing attitudes on the bench (really an apparent reversal between conservatives and liberals) leads to the possibility that Roe v. Wade might not survive a differing interpretation of the 14th Amendment because it won't be as protected by stare decisis. I won't delve into which understanding is correct (i.e., whether stare decisis should even apply to constitutional law cases as opposed to statutory interpretation cases) because it's not pertinent to this discussion. For our purposes, it's enough to know that people rely on longstanding action/inaction/interpretation of particular rules, and that it can be unfair to suddenly pull the rug out from under them.

Of course, where action is doing real, measurable harm, it can be reasonable to realign policy and announce new enforcement efforts that does rather suddenly prohibit previously permissible conduct. Using foul language in arguments, for example. But generally speaking, you must give the community proper notice of the new rule, and you generally do not retroactively apply the new rule. We have no notice of the new rule, at least no meaningful notice. We have vague waves to concepts of "trust" and "safety" which have little meaning to a great many of us. Even me, who has been harassed related to on-wiki actions before.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:26 pm

Dennis may not comment here himself, but this is now on his talk page:
Without the free labor provided by hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors, and the several hundred admin that have been selected by those editors to handle the maintenance of the English Wikipedia, there would be no need for paid employees at WMF, and in fact, the WMF would not exist. In fact, it did not exist until a great deal of work had been done by those volunteers.

What should exist between the English Wikipedia and the WMF is a partnership, with mutual respect. The community should (and does) expect that there are certain actions that must be taken using private information, but the community clearly feels actions should only be taken if it is impossible for the community to police the problem. These are rare events, but do happen. If a problem can be handled by the community, either through formal discussion or Arbitration (which is fully equipped to deal with private information and does so regularly), then we would expect that the WMF would leave matters to the community.

If WMF must take direct action, the community expects that the WMF will be exceedingly forthcoming with information, discussion and at least addressing the concerns of the community, at the same level we expect from admin and arbitrators. Without this level of accountability, there is no partnership. We accept this means that sometimes, it may mean releasing private information to Arb so they may explain the situation, even if they are not able to be a point of appeal. Arbs are fellow editors, and frankly it is more palatable to hear something without evidence from editing peers than from (WMF) accounts that only show up to give us the outcome, then disappear back to their offices, free from any consequences. Arb is our liaison to the WMF in many ways, and at the very least, they should have heard the information and been allowed the opportunity to agree or disagree with you before you took non-emergency action in this case.

We are not subjects of the WMF. We do not work for you. We are not beneath you. We owe you nothing; we are volunteers. We are trying to work WITH you to create something special, but you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves.

Dennis Brown
Damn straight Dennis.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:35 pm

mendaliv wrote:We don’t know this. We don’t know what he did or to whom. We don’t know what the harm to his victims was. We know nothing.
When did ignorance ever stop a Wikipedia editor? :B'
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:11 pm

In organizational sociology, one finding is that the staff captures the control of not-for-profits.

This conflict may be seen as the moment where the staff defeated the editors.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:26 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:In organizational sociology, one finding is that the staff captures the control of not-for-profits.

This conflict may be seen as the moment where the staff defeated the editors.
Huh, a bit like regulatory capture (T-H-L).
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
CoffeeCrumbs
Critic
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by CoffeeCrumbs » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:45 pm

mendaliv wrote:Mr. Eissfeldt has requested the “tool” be taken down on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226427

Edit to add: Oh no wait, that’s just a notification to Phab. Apparently he just turned it off himself. Apparently Bryan Davis (bd808) turned it off for him. https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nov ... .detox/SAL

Anyone know of any other tools/bots that can be claimed is producing “unethical” output?
Dear Wikipedia Overlords,

The Jan Eissfeldt tool is malfunctioning. Please take it down as it is causing unethical output.

Thanks.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:37 am

CoffeeCrumbs wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Mr. Eissfeldt has requested the “tool” be taken down on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T226427

Edit to add: Oh no wait, that’s just a notification to Phab. Apparently he just turned it off himself. Apparently Bryan Davis (bd808) turned it off for him. https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nov ... .detox/SAL

Anyone know of any other tools/bots that can be claimed is producing “unethical” output?
Dear Wikipedia Overlords,

The Jan Eissfeldt tool is malfunctioning. Please take it down as it is causing unethical output.

Thanks.
Glorious :rotfl:
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:57 am

Dirk Beetstra just shut off XLinkBot. His comment explaining why can be found here.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

MrErnie
Habitué
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by MrErnie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:34 pm

Courcelles seems to have reappeared for this incident - linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Courcelles[/link] to his activity log. His latest edit was rev-deleted from the WP:FRAM page, and seems to have been the only thing removed. This brings his total activity during his term, after assuring voters he would be active, to 6 live edits and 1 rev deleted edit.

Sophie
Contributor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:24 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Sophie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:02 pm

Unless I'm reading something incorrectly, it seems like Courcelles comment is still there though? The comment under the heading of Two questions is:
Not to mention, Maggie IS NOT on vacation. She’s on medical leave. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

MrErnie
Habitué
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by MrErnie » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:09 pm

Sophie wrote:Unless I'm reading something incorrectly, it seems like Courcelles comment is still there though? The comment under the heading of Two questions is:
Not to mention, Maggie IS NOT on vacation. She’s on medical leave. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's weird, I don't understand it. Maybe a functionary can explain it.

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by tarantino » Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:15 pm

MrErnie wrote:
Sophie wrote:Unless I'm reading something incorrectly, it seems like Courcelles comment is still there though? The comment under the heading of Two questions is:
Not to mention, Maggie IS NOT on vacation. She’s on medical leave. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes that's weird, I don't understand it. Maybe a functionary can explain it.
I suppose someone was being overly cautious about complying with HIPAA rules, but messed up on deleting the edit.
General Rules

The Security Rule requires covered entities to maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for protecting e-PHI [electronic protected health information].

Specifically, covered entities must:
Ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all e-PHI they create, receive, maintain or transmit;
Identify and protect against reasonably anticipated threats to the security or integrity of the information;
Protect against reasonably anticipated, impermissible uses or disclosures; and
Ensure compliance by their workforce.

The Security Rule defines “confidentiality” to mean that e-PHI is not available or disclosed to unauthorized persons. The Security Rule's confidentiality requirements support the Privacy Rule's prohibitions against improper uses and disclosures of PHI. The Security rule also promotes the two additional goals of maintaining the integrity and availability of e-PHI. Under the Security Rule, “integrity” means that e-PHI is not altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner. “Availability” means that e-PHI is accessible and usable on demand by an authorized person.

User avatar
No Ledge
Habitué
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:13 pm
Wikipedia User: wbm1058

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by No Ledge » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:33 pm

tarantino wrote:I suppose someone was being overly cautious about complying with HIPAA rules, but messed up on deleting the edit.
Previously discussed HERE
No coffee? OK, then maybe just a little appreciation for my work out here?

User avatar
Guido den Broeder
Critic
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:11 am
Wikipedia Review Member: Guido den Broeder

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Guido den Broeder » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:47 pm

Who is meant to use T&S and how and why
There is a question here that needs answering, namely who is entitled to use the WMF's T&S process if they are feeling harassed during the course of their editing or other on-wiki and off-wiki activities, and whether T&S are able to act impartially in the process. My concern here is that people in positions of trust and responsibility are using the T&S process and the cloak of anonymity it affords them to avoid the transparency need to be able to trust those in positions of responsibility, and that complaints made by those in the following positions may be given preferential treatment (even if not intended). Given that, should the following be afforded the use of the T&S process, or should their concerns be handled a different way using a different process?

Various functionaries (e.g. checkusers and oversighters) making complaints about how they have been treated while carrying out their work
Arbitrators making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in arbitration work
Stewards making complaints about how they have been treated while carrying out their work
WMF employees making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in work for the WMF
WMF Board members making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in their work as Board members
All the above, if they edit using a personal (community) account and wish to make a complaint from that account about how they have been treated
As an example, if a WMF employee raised concerns with their line manager or people in the HR department about how their treatment on-wiki was affecting their ability to do their job, should they or HR legitimately be able to use the T&S process to anonymously raise their concerns, or should it be handled a different way? Should an arbitrator be able to use T&S to anonymously raise concerns about an on-wiki comment made about them as an arbitrator or ArbCom as a group? Should WMF Board members be allowed to make an anonymous complaint to T&S if on-wiki criticism is made about actions they have taken? Compare all these with a complaint made by an ordinary editor (the vast majority of cases) and consider whether T&S can act impartially in such cases, especially if they work with, or for, or know the people making the complaints. Are there checks and balances in the T&S process to avoid such conflicts of interest arising? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As most of us didn't even know T&S existed before their recent actions, I do wonder indeed who it is that is behind the alleged allegations. I say alleged allegations as we actually don't really know if any allegations were made, still less what they may have been. All we have is the action. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I knew they existed, and was on several of the monthly ArbCom calls with them, but so far as I knew, they only handled situations such as child protection or threats of harm (where law enforcement contact might be required), or massive cross-wiki abuse (and I figured the stewards generally handled that). I had no idea they were planning to handle run-of-the-mill issues like disputes between editors, and from all indications, the current ArbCom was caught off-guard by that too. Seems like something they might have wanted to discuss in advance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Why do you, Seraphimblade, suggest that this was a run-of-the-mill-issue when the WMF keeps indicating otherwise?
Carcharoth, is it your position that 'various functionaries' should be able to complain to T&S but 'ordinary users' should not?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:31 pm

One can safely surmise that if you’re fucking the Chair of the Board of Trustees that you’re going to get more attention to your claim, regardless of merit, than if you’re one of the great unwashed.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:07 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:Why do you, Seraphimblade, suggest that this was a run-of-the-mill-issue when the WMF keeps indicating otherwise?
Because Seraphimblade as usual doesn't know what day of the week it is, let alone what's really going on in this case?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:11 pm

I'm more inclined to buy it on a corollary of Occam's Razor: Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by the mundane.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

jinkinson
Contributor
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:47 pm
Wikipedia User: IntoThinAir

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by jinkinson » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:11 pm

This seems to have quite a lot of layers to it and I haven't looked at the whole story yet.

But if the controversy here is just that a user was banned out of nowhere, without any public explanation, I don't know why this is controversial in and of itself. Many users have been banned "out of the blue" for reasons the WMF refuses to disclose publicly. It seems like the problem here isn't just that there was no reason given for the ban (again, this utter lack of transparency has been par for the course for WMF for years now), but a combination of the lack of a reason, the weirdly specific (en.wp only) and short-term (1 year) nature of the ban, the fact that people really respect and appreciate Fram's many years of work on en.wp, and the fact that the banning policy was changed shortly before the ban in such a way as to make the ban possible when it would not have been. Is that the gist of the story here?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:53 pm

jinkinson wrote:This seems to have quite a lot of layers to it and I haven't looked at the whole story yet.

But if the controversy here is just that a user was banned out of nowhere, without any public explanation, I don't know why this is controversial in and of itself. Many users have been banned "out of the blue" for reasons the WMF refuses to disclose publicly. It seems like the problem here isn't just that there was no reason given for the ban (again, this utter lack of transparency has been par for the course for WMF for years now), but a combination of the lack of a reason, the weirdly specific (en.wp only) and short-term (1 year) nature of the ban, the fact that people really respect and appreciate Fram's many years of work on en.wp, and the fact that the banning policy was changed shortly before the ban in such a way as to make the ban possible when it would not have been. Is that the gist of the story here?
And that the best guess for a complainant, Laura Hale, is banging the Chair of the Board of Trustees, is a professional victim and got preferential treatment.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:01 pm

Doc James has now chimed in at WP:FRAM. Something he seems interested in doing sounds vaguely familiar:
Doc James wrote:The next question is would a tool similar to this but which picks up potentially uncivil behavior be useful for our movement? Keep in mind that CopyPatrol is only about 60% accurate and yet is still very useful so we do not need a perfect tool but we do need competent people from within the community making the final call. A tool that does this is mostly build from what I understand. I am going to be speaking with people who have been involved with its development this Thursday and will report back. We will definitely need the ability to "teach" the AI by providing feedback on when it misses cases or over calls cases.
And the follow-up:
Doc James wrote:I am also pitching a similar technique for dealing with incivility, whereby a tool flags issues and community members in good standing follow up the issues in question. Ie we deal with incivility internally with the support of technology.
The cynic in me is wanting to see this as a distraction: Get the community excited about some new toy and involved in its construction and improvement.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:00 am

@Pine:- As to your writeup :-I am concerned about reports that one or more people have been hounded off wiki - if we are thinking about the same issue, a vast majority (>~90%) of the hounding was done by someone over a off-wiki fora and that part. person claims to not edit over here. Even if he/she edits, we have no scope to determine that. I agree that it is bad but how do we, the Wikipedians, avoid that? ∯WBGconverse 05:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: thanks for your question. For better and for worse, the ENWP community has little ability to control what happens off-wiki. In limited circumstances I might support on-wiki penalties for off-wiki activities by someone who participates both on-wiki and off-wiki, but if someone shares information only off-wiki then I believe that the only recourse against them would be to reach out to the authorities of the relevant off-wiki platform(s) or to legal authorities. Legal authorities have significant variability in their willingness to take action regarding online activities, and the authorities for the off-wiki platforms may or may not cooperate. --Pine (✉) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
A new summer project beckons...

Thanks for volunteering, Pine.
Last edited by Vigilant on Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

ShinkawaGirl
Contributor
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:55 pm
Location: Kiyosu, Japan

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by ShinkawaGirl » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:01 am

On 26 February 2007, the enwiki community granted admin right to Fram (talk · contribs). There has never been a resolution of the enwiki community, nor of its Arbitration Committee, to remove those rights. On 10 June 2019, they were removed unilaterally by WMFOffice (talk · contribs). That action has not, in accordance with prior precedent, been referred to the enwiki ArbCom. There has been no public statement, despite two weeks having been elapsed, from WMF to state that ArbCom is for some reason unsuited to reviewing Fram's status as an administrator. There has not even been a clear statement that private off-wiki actions by Fram were considered by WMF as part of their decision to enact sanctions. In the intervening period, enwiki ArbCom has not found that Fram's onwiki actions justify removal of admin permissions. Nor has a community process reached that view and endorsed WMF's actions. It seems to me that we have now been more than patient with WMF, the Board and (for that matter) with ArbCom, to which I self-referred my earlier actions on 13 June 2019. Fram has asked two very simple questions. They are questions that as a matter of basic fairness ought to have been answered regardless of whether anyone believes Fram to be guilty or innocent of (as yet unspecified) misconduct. They have not been answered. Those questions, and those raised by members of this community, have been met with obfuscation and delay. In light of the absence of any serious attempt by WMF to engage in discussions with the enwiki community since this incident occurred, I have therefore restored Fram's community-granted admin rights. WJBscribe (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _contribs)
He needs to be recalled urgently as per his recall terms

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:05 am

ShinkawaGirl wrote:On 26 February 2007, the enwiki community granted admin right to Fram (talk · contribs). There has never been a resolution of the enwiki community, nor of its Arbitration Committee, to remove those rights. On 10 June 2019, they were removed unilaterally by WMFOffice (talk · contribs). That action has not, in accordance with prior precedent, been referred to the enwiki ArbCom. There has been no public statement, despite two weeks having been elapsed, from WMF to state that ArbCom is for some reason unsuited to reviewing Fram's status as an administrator. There has not even been a clear statement that private off-wiki actions by Fram were considered by WMF as part of their decision to enact sanctions. In the intervening period, enwiki ArbCom has not found that Fram's onwiki actions justify removal of admin permissions. Nor has a community process reached that view and endorsed WMF's actions. It seems to me that we have now been more than patient with WMF, the Board and (for that matter) with ArbCom, to which I self-referred my earlier actions on 13 June 2019. Fram has asked two very simple questions. They are questions that as a matter of basic fairness ought to have been answered regardless of whether anyone believes Fram to be guilty or innocent of (as yet unspecified) misconduct. They have not been answered. Those questions, and those raised by members of this community, have been met with obfuscation and delay. In light of the absence of any serious attempt by WMF to engage in discussions with the enwiki community since this incident occurred, I have therefore restored Fram's community-granted admin rights. WJBscribe (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _contribs)
He needs to be recalled urgently as per his recall terms
Someone needs to buy him a beer.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:05 am

You should resign, and you should do so immediately. You have demonstrated a repeated willingness to violate the Terms of Use, exceed the mandate that the community has granted you as a bureaucrat, and inflame conflict on-wiki based on your own personal opinions. I have absolutely zero confidence in your impartiality as it pertains to anything. ~ Rob13Talk 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:08 am

But one of the few things we do know here is that T&S consider maintenance and tagging to constitute "harassment" of the vandal/spammer. I would suggest "I am concerned that if I revert this vandalism/spam/copyright violation you would consider it harassment, so am forwarding it to you to discuss the appropriate action to take" as a suitable cover notice. ‑ Iridescent 10:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
:rotfl:
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:32 am

Pine is a Harry Potter looking motherfucker.
I'm going with Hufflepuff...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Disgruntled haddock
Critic
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:57 am
Location: The North Atlantic

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Disgruntled haddock » Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:01 am

Vigilant wrote:
You should resign, and you should do so immediately. You have demonstrated a repeated willingness to violate the Terms of Use, exceed the mandate that the community has granted you as a bureaucrat, and inflame conflict on-wiki based on your own personal opinions. I have absolutely zero confidence in your impartiality as it pertains to anything. ~ Rob13Talk 00:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
What a surprise. ArbCom tries to rip away power from the bureaucrats (Rob will deny this, but he argued in favour of the ArbCom circular wording for hours until Mkdw jumped in to defuse the situation) and then when they don't get what they want, Rob goes after the individual bureaucrats. Stay classy.

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by tarantino » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:32 am

Vigilant wrote:

A new summer project beckons...

Thanks for volunteering, Pine.
If you search our archives, you'll find most of what you want to know. His failed participation in Cascadia wikimedia user's group, the failed Motivational and educational video to introduce Wikimedia, his failing Continuation of educational video and website series, his short term employment as a wmf contractor, etc, etc.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:59 am

The funny thing is that by insisting that a T&S block means "he is child pornography levels of bad" the Community is potentially hamstringing WMF lawyers' efforts to argue that the mere T&S block is not defamatory on its own. Like that has to be the most ironic part of the whole thing.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by BURob13 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:52 am

Insisting that what someone said implies something does not make it so. Defamation requires a statement of fact that is false, not a statement of fact that is true, but misinterpreted to mean something that is false. Plainly obvious implications can potentially lead to a viable claim of defamation, but implications such as "Others who have been banned were pedos, so banning someone must mean they're a pedo" are not. That's a blatantly wrong line of thought.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:09 am

BURob13 wrote:Plainly obvious implications can potentially lead to a viable claim of defamation, but implications such as "Others who have been banned were pedos, so banning someone must mean they're a pedo" are not. That's a blatantly wrong line of thought.
Aren't you oversimplifying it, though? Nobody is saying they're all pedos by implication, but rather that they're all perceived to have been engaged in "nefarious activities" that would be deemed morally objectionable by reasonable people. Obviously we know there are exceptions to that on the list, but public perception is what matters in a defamation-by-implication case, no?

Maybe they should just have two lists, one for people who have been banned for morality-related offenses, and another for people who have been banned for whatever else they happen to come up with.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:12 am

I didn't know Wikiversity awarded law degrees.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
DHeyward
Gregarious
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:52 am
Wikipedia User: DHeyward

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by DHeyward » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:57 am

jinkinson wrote:This seems to have quite a lot of layers to it and I haven't looked at the whole story yet.

But if the controversy here is just that a user was banned out of nowhere, without any public explanation, I don't know why this is controversial in and of itself. Many users have been banned "out of the blue" for reasons the WMF refuses to disclose publicly. It seems like the problem here isn't just that there was no reason given for the ban (again, this utter lack of transparency has been par for the course for WMF for years now), but a combination of the lack of a reason, the weirdly specific (en.wp only) and short-term (1 year) nature of the ban, the fact that people really respect and appreciate Fram's many years of work on en.wp, and the fact that the banning policy was changed shortly before the ban in such a way as to make the ban possible when it would not have been. Is that the gist of the story here?
Only banned from en-wp. I guess it's okay to expose other communities to such a nefarious harasser. </sarcasm> Why T&S is involved in an en-wp issue when the behavior obviously doesn't violate WMF global policy is rather odd.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:11 am

DHeyward wrote:Only banned from en-wp. I guess it's okay to expose other communities to such a nefarious harasser. </sarcasm>
This is honestly one of the biggest head-scratchers in the whole situation. If this person is dangerous on enwp, there's no reason to believe he won't be dangerous on other wikis. Especially if this were an issue of Fram creating a hostile work environment for staffers; letting him be on meta would be impossible in that situation. And that's just it: When T&S bans someone it's because they're dangerous to the community; that they're on the same level as child pornography posters and people who engage in harassment. They can play it off as "it's just a ban, not commentary" all they want, but I think it's quite possible there's enough to get to discovery on some cause of action. Maybe false light.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:39 am

What the hell is Jehochman's endgame here?
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:56 am

mendaliv wrote:What the hell is Jehochman's endgame here?
Extend the drama, get attention, make other users forget about his own heinous misdeeds?

It's just the standard "But wait, I have secret evidence!" gambit - nothing we haven't seen before, a whole bunch of times.

MrErnie
Habitué
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by MrErnie » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:06 am

mendaliv wrote:What the hell is Jehochman's endgame here?
And if he ever does reveal the smoking diff, then we'll have the usual back and forth arguing over whether or not such behavior warrants a 1 year ban. Regardless of what side you are on, this is a colossal screw up by the WMF.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:09 am

I half wonder if this is supposed to be that exchange on WT:NPA that's currently hatted (wherein Fram uses a certain word that should be IRL career-ending). But that makes no goddamn sense given the person with whom Fram was arguing and the fact that Fram is not blocked on Commons.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Post Reply