Fram's RFA

[GoldenRing]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

[Jans Hammer]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

Does anyone recognise names that should NOT be there?

[GoldenRing]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

Does anyone recognise names that should NOT be there?

There are a few names that I'm surprised to see there, though I'm not familiar enough with any of their cases to say whether they should be there: D.Creish, Demiurge1000, INeverCry, Russavia and Scalhotrod are all names that I recognise from around the traps; they were all variously disruptive, but not, as far as I recall, in ways that would upset T&S (though it's worth noting that a large fraction of the names in that category were first banned or blocked indefinitely by local admins or community discussion and then also foundation banned by the WMF).

[Randy from Boise]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

Does anyone recognise names that should NOT be there?

That The kohser/MyWikiBiz and BrillLyle are on there is a travesty, plain and simple.

I don't know what Kumioko/Reguyla/etc. did in the way of off-wiki email bothering, but there is really no case to be made involving "safety" with him either.

WMF T&S couldn't find enough real reasons to validate its existence so it went into the business of settling scores for its Most Favored Gameplayers,™ including JImmy Wales.

RfB

[Ritchie333]

As I've said before, in the case of Kumioko I'm sure it would have been less disruptive overall to keep him inside the tent pissing out, as opposed to outside the tent pissing in.

[Randy from Boise]

Oh, I missed Abd (T-C-L) . There is no fucking way he should be on that list either.

RfB

[Vigilant]

Oh, I missed Abd (T-C-L) . There is no fucking way he should be on that list either.

RfB

Flatly disagree.
Abd aka Dennis Lomax is a net.kook and perennial logorrhea sufferer.
While his sentences generally parse as some form of English, the parsed output is usually insane and/or delusional.
GraafStatler is his equally verbose and idiotic sidekick. This guy could start a fight at a Quaker meeting.

Demiurge1000 aka Daniel Giles Shimmon was banned for being a pedophile. James Forrestor protected him for years.
Scalhotrod was banned for photoshopping porn featuring one of his opponents' faces and posting it in public places.
Russavia aka Scott Bibby was the troll emeritus for wiki-properties. Also a failed EBay scammer.


The kohser/MyWikiBiz was unjustly banned for annoying the Jimmy with the truth.
BrillLyle was unjustly banned for looking into financial irregularities in the WMNYC gang.

[10920]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

Does anyone recognise names that should NOT be there?

There's a thread someone made recently here listing the names and discussing some of them.

Ah yes, it was in the non-public forum.

[Vigilant]

The people on Trust and Safety haven't been changed.
The weapon hasn't been taken.
There's no way it won't happen again ... it'll just happen to someone with fewer defenders.

Bullies never change.

I'm all too worried that you are exactly right. Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L) didn't get populated by T&S not banning people, and they managed several dozen before Fram exploded in their faces. A lot of the editors in that category are probably people you wouldn't like to see wandering the streets, but it is rather difficult to tell which ones.

That's not a complete list.
Watch for users banned on smaller wikis where there is no ARBCOM.

[Osborne]

As I've said before, in the case of Kumioko I'm sure it would have been less disruptive overall to keep him inside the tent pissing out, as opposed to outside the tent pissing in.

Oh, I missed Abd (T-C-L) . There is no fucking way he should be on that list either.

Agree with both.

[Poetlister]

WMF and Internet Archive are bedbuddies.

Yeah, I saw their presentation at Wikimania '19.
But I would not have thought that they are on speed dial for oversighters, nor that they would be monitoring WPO, and notice the link.

There would seem to be some sort of automated Memory Hole bot...

In answer to the original question, I ran into something recently deleted on WP that had also been vanished from InternetArchive. I reckon that those concerned in the integrity of important historical documents should be creating pdfs and saving them offline.

RfB

There is a theory abroad that it is a breach of copyright to retain a copy of a deleted Wikipedia article. That is of course nonsense, unless the article was a copyvio before it was deleted. I assume that it is a rumour pushed by the WMF to ensure that deleted articles vanish.

[Mason]

There is a theory abroad that it is a breach of copyright to retain a copy of a deleted Wikipedia article. That is of course nonsense, unless the article was a copyvio before it was deleted. I assume that it is a rumour pushed by the WMF to ensure that deleted articles vanish.

If an article is archived by a third party then deleted by Wikipedia, the attribution of who wrote it is no longer (publicly) on Wikipedia, and if the page history is not archived when the article is, the archive shows an article but doesn't provide the required attribution of who wrote it, and is thus a copyright violation. Now, if the third party archives the page history too, or otherwise lists the contributors, the attribution requirements are satisfied and all is well.

[Osborne]

There is a theory abroad that it is a breach of copyright to retain a copy of a deleted Wikipedia article. That is of course nonsense, unless the article was a copyvio before it was deleted. I assume that it is a rumour pushed by the WMF to ensure that deleted articles vanish.

If an article is archived by a third party then deleted by Wikipedia, the attribution of who wrote it is no longer (publicly) on Wikipedia, and if the page history is not archived when the article is, the archive shows an article but doesn't provide the required attribution of who wrote it, and is thus a copyright violation. Now, if the third party archives the page history too, or otherwise lists the contributors, the attribution requirements are satisfied and all is well.

That's a very reasonable thought.
However the actors in this case seem to follow a simpler logic. Articles deleted from WP are not deleted from the webarchive automatically. As a curious counter-example: the Fram Signpost article is still available in the archive.
I assume the word "pedophile" is just taboo in admin circles, even if used with 2 indirections.

[Vigilant]

Perhaps we need a full list of everyone who's been WP:OFFICED.

[Beeblebrox]

As I've said before, in the case of Kumioko I'm sure it would have been less disruptive overall to keep him inside the tent pissing out, as opposed to outside the tent pissing in.

I essentially made that argument when he came back under a new identity, a "let the baby have his bottle" argument.

I was very, very wrong.

[Beeblebrox]

To the other point, in my 9 years and counting on the oversight team, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning contacting webarchive, we certainly do not have any official direct communication with them. But most of what we remove is bad shit that absolutely shouldn't be reproduced, so maybe they have a way of checking for that?

[Osborne]

But most of what we remove is bad shit that absolutely shouldn't be reproduced, so maybe they have a way of checking for that?

Counterexample in my previous post. Should see more examples, though.

[Ming]

What struck me as weird during this RFA was some people opposing with saying something like "Fram should've never been desysopped. It was a gross injustice but well, here we are, and I don't like him, so oppose". I guess opportunism is always alive and well.

Yes, in all this long saga it has been impossible to disentangle Fram's general conduct from the specific issue of his interaction with LH which (as far as we know) lay behind the WMF decision.

Well, as has been discussed at length here, it's impossible to disentangle the two because the rationale, if not the motivation, for Fram's "attacks" on LH was her manifest lack of competence. Ming thinks it probably was the motivation; Ming infers that the nominators in the RFA would agree. Fram didn't technically need to be an admin to carry out his program of criticism, but he needed the aura of authority that administration provided him.