Wikipedia Sucks!

Unfortunately the community does not have the authority to desysop admins, so discussing here is fruitless. Please file an ArbCom request. This close does not factor whether or not this report has merit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, you are just throwing lots and lots of mud in the hope that it will stick and that people will see "oh, so many diffs, there must be something there". Stick to the ones that you truly believe to be problematic and which preferably aren't many years old, and then people can fairly judge if there is a case to answer here or not.

This isn't going to go anywhere. If you're really serious about this, WP:ARBCOM is thataway. ansh666 22:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

-Fram's conduct regarding this issue—and other recent disputes with which he's been involved—has been an atrocious mix of unnecessary overpersonalization, extreme defensiveness when challenged, lashing out at anyone he feels isn't sufficiently agreeing with him, and a general attitude that his opinions are invariably correct and it's his duty to bludgeon them through regardless of opposition. (Iridescent)

-I believe there is enough gravitas for a case on Fram, even if past community actions have not been attempted. The length of poor behaviour, especially recently, is good enough for me. (Dave)

-I have found Fram to be a more confrontational personality who does not collaborate particularly well. On a number of occasions I have observed that Fram has a difficult time not engaging in personal attacks (Montanabw)

-There have been numerous complaints about Fram’s approach to dispute resolution (especially in tech-related matters) and to adminship (for example, this declined ArbCom case request just a month ago: [23] and the Wikidata request [24].) I do not think that it is premature to consider an ArbCom case examining their battleground conduct (as unbecoming of an administrator), though I suspect I may be an outlier here. (Rschen7754)

- I think there's likely a perfectly reasonable rationale for accepting, if the case is seen as the latest symptom of a growing rift between Fram and the community at large, and their own continued tone deaf responses, including the filing of this case itself. (GMG)

-I feel the main issue here is WP:ADMINACCT, esp. the first two bullet points (bad faith and attacks).....Many editors at AN and in this very case have raised concerns about the conduct by Fram. (Lugnuts)

-Case should be accepted but only to consider Fram's behaviour under WP:ADMINACCT (Legacypac)

-The WP:BOOMERANG concern regarding Fram might be ready for the committee; recent case requests involving Ymblanter and Gatoclass (diffs already included above) suggest that this behavior may be a long-running concern (power-enwiki)

-Fram's attitude here is reminiscent of Gatoclass'. Both strawmanning their opposition and showing disdain for criticism of their behaviour. (Mr rnddude)

[Fram is] an admin who is almost always a net positive

I urge Fram to carefully consider the feedback he is receiving here and on both AN/ANI threads, and to moderate his approach to raising concerns even when he believes he has identified a significant problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

He admitted on the Bad Astronomy forum that "FRAM" is the first three letters of his first name, and the initial of his last name. Make of that what you can.

If he has accounts on the French or Dutch Wikipedias, he has done a remarkable job of covering them up.

If he has accounts on the French or Dutch Wikipedias, he has done a remarkable job of covering them up.

How to make Wikipedia's collective mind implode
The community can enact for a TBAN that's pretty much tailored in scope to whatever there's consensus for, as far as I'm aware, with no practical policy based restrictions. It is therefore in theory possible for the community to TBAN a sysop from doing any administrative action whatsoever (although something like viewing deleted revisions would be outside any practical scope without an admission), effectively enacting a community neutering, and justifying a bona fide desysop case if they violated the ban without getting prior approval from the community to lift it.

I don't think I've even ever heard someone joke about it, but if there was ever a situation where someone screwed up so badly there would be consensus for it (and yet ArbCom refused to do anything about it), as far as I know, there isn't anything anywhere in policy that would actually prevent it. You know, just in case ArbCom does one day decide to totally lose their marbles. GMGtalk 17:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)