Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

[Anyone]

My prediction looks safe based on the idiots trying to rush in before the doors have even opened.....

Support
* KillerChihuahua 12:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
* Support Welcome back! Double sharp (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
* Strongest Support Welcome back. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
* Support - on general principles. Nobody should be railroaded by an editor with connections at the WMF. Arbcom's continued intransigence is ridiculous. Sebthepleb (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to gamble $5 against £5 to the charity of the winner's choice on the proposition that Fram fails the RFA#2. I say he will not pass it.

That might sound like bad odds to you, the pound being worth more money than the dollar and all; we can agree to pay up on Nov. 1 — I have a hunch that 1:1 parity is a-coming...

RfB

P.S. Actually come to think of it, I'd be the one paying off in pounds, so no worries on the pay off date... Whenever. I'm gonna win anyway...

I sincerely hope he doesn't pass.

Surely anyone can see he's unfit to occupy a position involving personnel management. He's got the social skills of a dog turd.

[CrowsNest]

Co-nominator - Xeno.

Would a Wikipedia Bureaucrat (the closest they have to a God) be so arrogant as to urge the community to ignore the opinions of AGK, Joe Roe, Mkdw, Krakatoa Katie, Premeditated Chaos, and Silk Tork?

And would they do so based on the premise they are not following the Wikipedia way, and are just punishing Fram?

Why yes, yes he would.

And people are confused as to why the Foundation thought it couldn't govern itself.......

Fram's just like Xeno really, or so he says.

Lolwut?

Just how fucking broken is this madhouse?

[CrowsNest]

So tedious.....

My support—whether it's in the nomination or as a support vote—will very much be along the lines of "Fram might actually have deserved everything that was done to him but since the initial desysop was an abuse of authority by T&S and the refusal to restore it was an abuse of authority by Arbcom, the only fair thing to do is return to the status quo ante regardless of what you think of Fram as any oppose vote is a vote to uphold a miscarriage of justice"... ‑ Iridescent 07:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

One, Wikipedia is not a court. Two, if it was, the only concern here would be for the real victims, the people who have actually been denied justice by seeing their harasser not only walk free due to a mistrial, but given back his night stick and, I shit you not, apparently complete immunity from any future prosecution......

.....a fresh successful RFA will basically forgive all past misdeeds, setting the statute of limitation for examining Fram’s onwiki behaviour to the close date of their RfA. –xenotalk 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[CrowsNest]

Carcharoth, you know people aren't stupid, right?

The time for you to suddenly get concerned about Arbitrators voting in RfAs where they had previously had a material impact (and indeed sight of privileged evidence in doing so) was during Floquenbeam's RfA.

It's noted that your concern only seems to apply to Arbitrators who might vote one way.

Stop trying to stack the deck. Stop trying to coach the convict.

Let him stand or fall on the quality of his own judgement (you know, that thing Administrators are meant to have) and let those in high office at Wikipedia who have already judged his judgement and found it lacking, have their say.

[CrowsNest]

Second co-nom, Chowbok.

A great injustice has been done.

Fram's only problem is his sharp tongue.

Everyone will be watching now, so he can't do any harm.

Blah di fucking blah blah.

These people are genuinely mentally ill. Legitimate disagreement is fine, healthy even. Lying through your back teeth, treating your fellow editors like they literally have shit for brains and can't/won't check up on the bullshit you're trying to shovel down their throats? That's not OK.

The only thing people need to know about Chowbok, is that he is firmly on board the Wikipediocracy propagated conspiracy theory that Fram was banned to protect Laura Hale and the undisclosed paid editing ring that goes to the very top. That's the injustice he's trying to correct. Doesn't mention this in his nomination of course, because he thinks people are stupid and won't go check.

You would think being nominated by people this fucked in the head would damage Fram's chances, but if you thought that, you've probably not realized just how mental the whole Wikipedia community has become. At this point, it feels like I'm watching a Trump rally. They're that detached from reality, and they have similar thoughts on civility/decorum/respect.

Someone really needs to just padlock the trailer and toss a match in.

[CrowsNest]

Carcharoth making as much use as he can of the harassment site, and finding support from the site Admin no less.....

Midsize Jake is right [since the Arbcom members saw the WMF's 70-page dossier on Fram and nobody else was allowed to, it might be better if they skipped the RfA so as not to "taint the proceedings."]. That, plus why why should arbs get to vote once in the case and again in an RfA? Some arbs claim to be able to put arb hats on and take them off and be "community members" again. In this case? Not really possible. That is one of the downsides of being an arb. Arbs who can't accept that should not run for being on the committee.

You're never going to come out of this looking principled, not while you ignore the basic fact that Administrators, Arbitrators and even Bureaucrats have happily switched hats multiple times in this affair, if it benefited Fram. Nakedly political acts. Pure and obvious abuse of privelage/power/status.

I swear to God, what is he even trying to pull? Everyone knows why random Arbitrators would be voting oppose in Fram's RfA - they'll certainly be nice enough to give all the information anyone not following along would need to understand their vote.

But here's what voters probably won't be told. Why is Carcharoth voting support? Why is Black Kite? They're not going to reveal their Herculean efforts to promote conspiracy theories originating on the hate site, where they fully participate toward a particularly obvious end goal. They're not going to say a word about it.

It is for voters to find out the full context behind this sort of duplicitous support, and if they don't do their due diligence, well, that's their fault entirely, right?

It's wholly insufficient, but Wikipedians, know your cuckoo......

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=&terms=all&author=Carcharoth&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

It is pretty hard to discern Carcharoth's view of important questions, like whether he believes Fram has been the victim of corruption of a political hatchet job, by examining his on wiki statements alone. You know why of course, because they lack evidence and are wholly damaging to real people, if they were ever to gain actual legitimacy.

Why should anyone not be horrified at the sight of someone whose on-wiki statements can be as bad as this is......

Your comment about a 'conspiracy against Fram' shows that you have misunderstood what that is all about. Fram would not have been targeted by the WMF if they had not tangled with a particular editor, surely you must see that? Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

....is now actively coaching Fram on how to conceal his genuine belief he has been the victim of a conspiracy, from the very community soon to be tasked with assessing whether he possesses the judgement required of a Wikipedia Administrator?

Carcharoth is clearly a bad actor, someone whose primary motivation is antethical to Wikipedia's goals. Spreading conspiracy theories is bad enough, but there is something astonishingly horrendous even about his more innocuous sounding points. The fuck is this bullshit, for example?

......Does excessively highlighting someone's failures count as harassment under policies as they stood at the time (and even now)?..... Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Key word being excessively, which is unambiguous. He let the mask properly slip here, because the rest of the comment is the usual bullshit about how Fram wasn't being excessive and the reason ArbCom thought he was and are ignoring the community, is because they are lizard people, secret agents of the Black Suits trying to eliminate the saintly Fram. The real goal is to argue that excessive enforcement isn't harassment (or hounding). It's just being blunt, rude, whatever. Anything to describe it as mere incivility, because unlike harassment, incivility is now widely seen as not a problem, despite the fact it is still actually a policy, something the Arbitrators at least, are meant to be standing up for.

Shit, after openly expressing views like this on wiki, which quite plainly encourage the harassment campaign being conducted by the hate site, how the fuck is Carcharoth even still a Wikipedia Administrator?

Because the whole damn place is fundamentally broken, that's why.

Fram was an outlier, but harassment of their enemies is in their blood. It truly is, the Wikipedia way.

[CrowsNest]

Third nominator - Lourdes.

That's just embarrassing. As has come up many times, she's pretty unbalanced. Hasn't failed to live up to that image in her statement......

.....Fram's been made to go through the shame of thrones with eyes blindfolded and hands tied. ..... Lourdes 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

......absolute fucking nutjob.

Fram was given every opportunity to show he is Admin material, instead he used every opportunity to show he is not. Simple as that.

we are not slaves to Big Brother

You're not Spartacus either.

If you think six Arbitrators voting to desysop Fram, using their elected powers to partially base that decision on information you're not allowed to see, is wrong, then the cause you should be rallying around is clearly not the restoration of Fram as an Administrator.

Unless, of course, you think those six Administrators have acted with malice and corrupt intent.

Knowing Lourdes, it's most likely she does think that.

Fram needs to seriously consider if he is really this desperate.

[CrowsNest]

Well, the coaching has worked, and the second draft is of course completely different to the first. It is stripped of all the conspiracy theories and overt rebellion and victimhood, and while still eminently Fram-like in its underlying side-eyed and mealy-mouthed nature, makes a passable impression of admitting mistakes, taking responsibility and committing to do better. Just as someone has to do in a reconfirmation RfA (or, rather more ironically, as he would have had to do, were he appealing a ban).

The two drafts are so different in evident mindset, the only conclusion would have to be the second draft is a deliberate attempt to deceive the community about his true beliefs and likely future performance as an Administrator.

It's pretty embarassing, all told. To be this craven, this willing to abandon everything you believe. I had more respect for Fram when I thought he was going to stick to his guns and be true to himself as he laid himself bare before the community, the real Fram we saw all through this matter.

He clearly wants The Precious. Badly.

Suggested vote:

* '''Oppose''' On balance of evidence, studying his behaviour since his ban, the person portrayed in the first draft of this RfA is a more likely indicator of what Fram still believes and therefore how he is likely to perform as an Administrator, than the person portrayed in the second draft. It stretches credulity that both drafts could be a true reflection of Fram at two different points in time, just days apart, and that Wikipedia would either need or want an Administrator whose beliefs are so markedly inconsistent, or that a former Administrator would be so in need of coaching to get through a confirmation RfA. On a point of fact, there is good reason to believe the second draft is a gross distortion of the truth, because as is widely known, it was Fram's hasty and unilateral block of User:Elisa.rolle in August 2018 that caused huge delay and difficulty in her rehabilitation as a productive editor. That case specifically showed that he had categorically not stopped treating Wikipedia Administration as if it were a personal crusade, he had not stopped monitoring his previous targets for ongoing compliance even though other Administrators had the case well in hand, and that he categorically did not stop to pause and consider whether outside input would be desirable or even required, before placing an indefinite block of an established editor with obvious good faith, if not perfect compliance, and indeed when this matter was raised for review, he was steadfast in his insistence that he had done the right thing. At the very least, the community needs to see a sustained period of unambiguous conformance by Fram to his own words, before it should ever consider trusting him with advanced permissions that have serious consequences for Wikipedia if mishandled. The community also needs to ask itself why cases such as Elisa.rolle's August 2018 block, and what it says about Fram's fitness to be an Administrator, are not more widely known, and why he himself has been so unwilling to admit of their existence whenever the matter of his fitness to serve and his past promise to do better, has been under specific discussion. An evident desire for full disclosure rather than just a guarded willingness to address evidence put to them, has to be an absolute requirement in any Administrator, if they are to be seen as trustworthy. I commend this statement to the House. ~~~~

[CrowsNest]

This is particularly deceitful.....

But I'm not the only one doing this job by far, at enwiki we luckily have a large pool of editors trying to maintain some basic quality standards, and I have to let go of some problems sometimes and let others deal with it.

Someone who genuinely held this belief would have absolutely no problem with waiting an appropriate amount of time, and doing the appropriate work as a mere editor, to prove at a reconfirmation that he can in practice actually live with the idea that he is part of a team, and that he does accept he is not indispensable, regardless of how or why he may have been dispensed with, and therefore he would be wielding the tools for the right reasons.

Fram is totally the guy in the first draft. ........

Give me back my tools IMMEDIATELY because they were taken UNJUSTLY and I am AWESOME you would all be NOTHING without me AAAARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!

[CrowsNest]

The Wikipediocracy view.....

Obviously he's pissed off some people, so Megalibelgirl, Gamaliel, and others of that ilk will show up with their cabal. Any bootlickers would need to oppose because "we can't overturn the WMF..."

Opposers are simply part of the cabal, or cowardly bootlickers.

Such a powerful analysis, eh?

It just goes on and on like that in that fucking clown school......

It's not a supportable position because they don't actually know what he did, but not knowing what you're talking about doesn't stop people on the internet from having strong opinions.

Sorry, but no. It's the people arguing that six Arbtrators had a brain aneurism or are in the pay of the WMF who need to demonstrate, and quite convincingly I would say, that they're the ones who know what they're talking about.

Chowbok is of course the new member of Wikipediocracy, welcomed warmly. Another shameless fool prepared to compare Fram's struggle to civil rights.

Of course, the hardcore are droning on as ever.......

Osborne, please point to another case with similar evidence against an admin where a desysoping was successful or even brought.
Shit or get off the pot.

The Rambling Man, in 2016.

Required reading, if only for the hilarious site of Fram defending that piece of shit for similar reasons he is defending himself now, and for yet another example of just how long there has been bad blood between him and Ritchie. And a reminder that Opabina doesn't desysop if there has been no tool abuse.

Does the very worst evidence in that case even look worse than anything Fram has done? Does the pattern of recidivism look any different? Do the excuses and wikilawyering of the accused look any different? Does their righteous indignation look different in anyway way?

Then, as now, there were howls of injustice. Unlike 2019, just three years ago ArbCom were brave enough to say no to the mob, to tell them to go fuck themselves, confident their role was to hold Administrators to the higher standards, even if it meant giving the favourites a sore ring piece.

How times changed, as ArbCom was gradually ethnically cleansed of the hardliners (with the help of Wikipediocracy), and the remainder began to blink at times when what was needed was the cold hard stare of leadership authority.