RFA for Floq would be WP:POINTY and an utter WP:WASTEOFTIME better spent on writing or curating articles. Floq's historic intervention was an inspiration at least to me and I suspect to many others. Rather than going through a regular RfA, which he declared that he will not pursue, there should be a popular-acclamation RfC/RfA by which Floq would be declared admin emeritus and be given the tools back honoris causa. Dr. K. 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope you are watching, Trust and Safety, general Foundation staff, and the Board of Trustees. The Administrator who deliberately and knowingly overturned an office action, putting identifiable users at risk (had Fram not wisely chosen to assume the ban was still in place even though it was no longer in force from a technical standpoint), despite knowing in advance that they did not and could not have all the relevant details, is seen as some kind of inspirational hero by the community.
Jimmy Wales, for so enthusiastically supporting these people over the legal operators of the website, entertaining absolutely no possibility that they cannot be allowed to govern themselves even before they have shown what their response to this situation would be (and they have already shown their specific response regarding whether or not this Administrator did anything wrong is to officially lodge 'no ruling'), you have serious questions to answer.
I can see a time where Jimmy Wales' comments are used to make him a co-defendent in a massive Gawker style extinction suit. If the Foundation has any sense, this would be the right time to review Jimmy's status as a Board member. Their first priority is to ensure the survival of the corporate entity.
Oh, and it's been fifteen days since the last official update from ArbCom over how they intend to proceed regarding their Foundation (Jimmy?) granted authority to review Fram's ban, and thus give final certainty to the people whose peace of mind and literal safety is dependent on the outcome of that review and the general principles it produces. Not that there can be any certainty in a project where even apparently cast iron rules with legal implications can be set aside by pseudonyms, with zero consequences.
Needless to say, for the people whose safety the Foundation ban of Fram, both directly and through the message it sent, was meant to assure, they are left wondering how much longer they need to be worried, these delays merely adding to the months it usually takes the ineffectual and unprofessional ArbCom to close out even any ordinary business. Unlike a corporate entity, something that can be sued for negligence, the supposedly autonomous self-governing community of course has no rules covering such a critical thing.
Indeed, by what mechanism has the Board assured itself ArbCom even intends to perform their allotted task? Granted, you kept Fram banned as an obvious precaution that they end up doing nothing, but you cannot be blind to what a community that sees people like Floquenbeam as a hero are going to do if they realise ArbCom has decided they want no part of this, because it's just too damn difficult to square the diametrically opposite interests in play. If victims can't trust ArbCom and the community won't trust the Foundation, then there is no middle ground. Someone has to lose, someone has to be thoroughly defeated.
Obviously you couldn't have entered into any formal contract to ensure your volunteer partners will actually do something to resolve the impasse, because you are not dealing with a legal entity, just twelve individuals whose separate and distinct legal liability doesn't cover collective ArbCom decisions at all, at least not in any way their own lawyers would accept.
Perhaps it was just a gentleman's agreement, eh? Did they pinky swear via their Hello Kitty email accounts?
How inspiring.