Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

[CrowsNest]

When Fram last editted, it was 61%. Now at 52%.

Ouch.

[Anyone]

01H30 BANGKOK TIME

65:58

Surely this is the beginning of the end. Or as Graaf might say:

FUCK OFF FRAM

[Anyone]

I'd say Drmies' influence on the opposition is being overplayed

Opposes:

#22: Oppose Per many of the reasons brought up by others, specifically Drmies.
#24: Strong Oppose, largely per Drmies.
#26: Oppose. Temperament concerns. The comments by Drmies and Kirill Lokshin are especially concerning.
#30: Oppose per many of the above, particularly Drmies.
#33: Oppose. I was going to oppose because of temperament and judgment, but what Fram did to Drmies is beyond any boundaries of decency.
#41: What Drmies talks about is just the latest example that pushed me from abstain-leaning-oppose to adding my name to this column.
#56: Oppose like Bbb23 I was going to oppose due to temperament among other things but it pales in comparison to Drmies oppose.
#59: Strong Oppose per many of the above comments, including those from @Drmies .....

Drmies, Ritchie and Molly were always going to be key players [though the latter two are still yet to register their opposes].

[JuiceBeetle]

Support #64 comes from this moronic-looking cunt:

Lol, I had a long discussion with that guy... He's not as moronic, as he looks... (sorry for him), but he has very strong opinions, that's hard to argue with. Nevertheless, he's a respectful fellow, which I respect
He's admin on dewiki and commons, interesting, that he dropped by.

[Guido den Broeder]

I believe if you add one to the revision number, you will get the next revision along in the database and hence the date. In these cases it appears to be 28 November 2018 and 29 November 2018. Quite why these edits were not brought up in the ArbCom case (or even during the whole WP:FRAM discussion), I don't know (maybe they were?). I can understand Drmies not wanting to bring it up, but Kirill should know better than to sit on something like this (or had you only just become aware of this?). Though surely there were plenty of people aware of this - why is it only being brought up now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Because, my dear Carcharoth, some things are more important than editing Wikipedia.

[Anyone]

02H30 BANGKOK TIME

71:66

There's a gem over on WPO right right now.

I suspect this is going to end about 70% approve

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p251654

That guy really is a spastic.

[Guido den Broeder]

Providing "diffs" that are not visible to anyone but oversighters, while not providing the context is to put mildly, misleading. Alex Shih (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the whole community saw it before it was oversighted, and there are similar diffs still left untouched.

[Anyone]

03H00 BANGKOK TIME

73:70

Game.Over.

Opposes 65, 68, 69 & 70 reference Drmies.

[JuiceBeetle]

Levivich wrote a pretty good summary:

Oppose – Per answer to Question 7. Won't submit to WP:RECALL, and writes "If I would get the tools back, and I act in ways people feel are not becoming for an admin, they can go to the admin noticeboards and arbcom (well, preferably they first contact me about it of course)." This is ironic given Fram's criticism of Arbcom, both before and after their own case that resulted in a desysop (e.g., these comments, including "So it feels as if the only reason for a desysop is to appease the WMF, as if a 100-days ban and an admonishment isn't enough."). (Fram, after all this, you really think that's the "only reason for a desysop"?!). While I agree T&S shouldn't have desysoped, and I agree with much of Fram's criticism of Arbcom, Fram apparently thinks the bit shouldn't be taken away by T&S, or Arbcom, or even by the community! Sorry, that kind of entitlement to the bit a deal-breaker from me. Moreover, the first draft of this RFA, comments at Fram's user page about that drafting, and the answers to questions here, shows to me that Fram "says the right things" only when they have a lot of coaching. When you get "actual Fram", the real Fram, you get expressions of entitlement to the bit and being above reproach. I would still support a future RfA (because Fram has done a lot of good work, and usually shows good judgment, outside of the issues raised here), but from a Fram that has actually, genuinely, taken on board the community's feedback and demonstrated, for a while, that they have changed their behavior accordingly. IMO, the better move would have been for Fram to shut out those editors who wish to use Fram to make a political point, edit productively for a few months without civility incidents, and then run for RfA. In the event this RfA doesn't succeed, I hope Fram does exactly that, and I look forward to supporting the next one (if they're open to recall). (By the way, on Fram's substantive point about recalls: when was the last time an admin on the list was recalled? That's how you know recall won't be abused by disgruntled editors, so there's really no reason not be on that list.) – Levivich 18:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

[Kumioko]

Wow, I have to say that I though it would be closer but Frams RFA is a wonder to behold. Ftam has been a serial asshole for years and I am glad others are stepping up to oppose his RFA. I hope he retires for good after this but even if not, being a regular editor after being an admin for so long is really going to suck!