Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

[Carrite]

It says everything about Fram that at the very time he was supposed to be showing off his best self, he was still evasive, combative, and obstinate.

That IS his best side!

RfB

[Kumioko]

It says everything about Fram that at the very time he was supposed to be showing off his best self, he was still evasive, combative, and obstinate.

That IS his best side!

RfB

The failure of his RFA was glorious. A lot of people recognized Fram was a dick and deserved to be desysopped.

His RFA also showed, at least to me, how a lot of admins act and, if the community had the ability, would hold them to account.

[CrowsNest]

I agree with it.

There was nothing to agree with.

You cannot have any idea what Kumioko was trying to say or what he supposedly saw, given his lack of context. Which Administrators is he even referring to? Fram? His supporters? What acts? Who the fuck knows.

Was it the second part you agreed with? Because I literally can't even tell what he is trying to say.

If the community is presented with an RfA, they will participate, and the outcome won't necessarily reflect prior decisions of the governance system on the fitness of Administrator? Was that his genius insight, now I've filed in the blanks? Even there I think I'm being generous and giving Kumioko too much credit.

Stop encouraging this nonsense.

If you know what he is saying, and you don't care if nobody else has a clue what he means, then maybe that's the problem.

[CrowsNest]

The children of Fram.....

I agree that the removed content is complete crap and should not be put back in. Reyk YO! 12:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: Do you not understand that "crap" is no sort of objective analysis. The discussion needs to reference WP guidelines not be based on emotive words like "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Crap" (slang, mildly vulgar: Something of poor quality; something that is rubbish; nonsense) isn't an "emotive word", it's a very accurate description of the material you have repeatedly added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on but I concur with Thomas and Reyk - The removed content was utter crap that shouldn't of been in the article in the first place. –Davey2010Talk 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

[JuiceBeetle]

I agree with it.

There was nothing to agree with.

I agree with: "His RFA showed, how a lot of admins act". Cocky and self-righteous comes to mind, and probably a few more.
and: "if the community had the ability, would hold them to account." Mostly this. The authoritarian/oligarchic "self-governance" made sure, they are un-accountable, and without responsibility for their actions.

Maybe he did not think about it this deeply, maybe he thought more deeply, we don't know, and I don't care. There were 2 thoughts, that I agreed with.
Can you accept this? Do you need to continue characterizing everything Kumioko writes as nonsense, and thoughtless? I'd like you didn't do that.

[Abd]

Repeated to emphasize this. Wikipedia tolerated unprofessional incivility for so long that many editors feel completely free to be insulting and highly biased, and will insist on it, as if "crap" were factual. There is no necessity to call content "crap." It's purely an emotional reaction, and insulting to the person who wrote it, without any necessity. Is the content sourced? Is there a better wording? What exactly are the problems?

In order to establish a welcoming culture, ArbCom and established administrators will need to grow a pair and start warning the uncivil. This would not be a claim that the content in question is acceptable. It would mean that editors would be discouraged from unprofessional argument. (Yes, they are amateurs, but that is no reason to tolerate behavior that would not be tolerated in a real encyclopedia's office. If someone, in a private conversation, called a piece of writing "crap," that could be acceptable, depending (and it might also be admonished). But this was a public discussion, and such words are inflammatory and divisive.

And this has long been obvious. Those who stood for civility and neutrality were mostly harassed and driven away.

There was an arbitrator who wrote that he had been inspired to run because of my work. (And he was elected). What happened with him? He was threatened with harm to his family, in real life (thugs, in person, showing they knew where he lived!), if he did not resign. He realized that Wikipedia was a hobby, and not worth the risk, so he resigned. This is all a consequence of the decisions to run the project as amateur, not even the highest positions would be paid.

ArbCom attempted to create a reform committee, opening it up to all Wikipedians. But discussion would be contained and moderated. The lovely "community" shouted it down and ArbCom backed out. No guts. And why should they have guts? They were never actually empowered, so many ways were possible that were ignored.

There is no "community," not really. There is a mob gathered in various places. I wrote that "The community is blocked." Check it out. [[User:The Community]]

Bottom line: if an experiment is not how we have done things, it is prohibited, even if harmless in itself. That's a stand that will freeze any organization into major dysfunction, and it has been routine. Examples abounded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=918186760#Controversial_behaviour_at_squatting_position
Please post the links to the diff, please...

The children of Fram.....

I agree that the removed content is complete crap and should not be put back in. Reyk YO! 12:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: Do you not understand that "crap" is no sort of objective analysis. The discussion needs to reference WP guidelines not be based on emotive words like "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Crap" (slang, mildly vulgar: Something of poor quality; something that is rubbish; nonsense) isn't an "emotive word", it's a very accurate description of the material you have repeatedly added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on but I concur with Thomas and Reyk - The removed content was utter crap that shouldn't of been in the article in the first place. –Davey2010Talk 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The children of Fram.....
The children of a toxic culture.....

[CrowsNest]

I agree with it.

There was nothing to agree with.

I agree with: "His RFA showed, how a lot of admins act". Cocky and self-righteous comes to mind, and probably a few more.
and: "if the community had the ability, would hold them to account." Mostly this. The authoritarian/oligarchic "self-governance" made sure, they are un-accountable, and without responsibility for their actions.

Maybe he did not think about it this deeply, maybe he thought more deeply, we don't know, and I don't care. There were 2 thoughts, that I agreed with.
Can you accept this? Do you need to continue characterizing everything Kumioko writes as nonsense, and thoughtless? I'd like you didn't do that.

I don't accept it. It's fucking retarded. Don't put words in his mouth like he thought them. I don't think I've ever even heard the bloke use a word like self-righteous, and if he did, well, wouldn't it be fucking ironic? That's not a thought you agreed with, that's you finishing a thought for him.

As for the second, it is equally supposing of a higher mind at work, when the reality is it was most likely a cliched attempt to claim the Administration is untouchable, until now when the downtrodden masses rose up. Except it's not. Believing that is to believe one of Kumioko's most favourite victimology myths. It's a strange world indeed when the likes of Gamaliel and Drmies represent the sort of accountability we know Kumioko craves, or that the likes of Ealdgyth and Iridescent (the People's Admins) are siding with The Man to keep people like Fram in champagne and limousines.

This is why, instead of finishing his thoughts, you should have been expecting him to fully furnish readers with precise details of whatever the fuck he thinks he was trying to say, so that those of us who weren't dropped as a baby, can yet again show how he's badly misinformed and is merely here in this thread to push a few favourite narratives from his victimology.

You know what's fucking hilarious? Now you've said what you think he meant, you know what he's going to do? Claim that's what he meant. Even though if he was pressed for details, those sort of details, he wouldn't have any. He would probably just keep repeating, JuiceBeetle gets it.

How do I know? Because that's fucking Kumioko all over. A born talker of shit. He is playing you.

My fears were well rounded, you really are trying to run a special school for special needs kids, and you're gonna drag all of us down to their level so they don't feel left out. Fuck that shit.

[Anyone]

It says everything about Fram that at the very time he was supposed to be showing off his best self, he was still evasive, combative, and obstinate.

That IS his best side!

RfB

The failure of his RFA was glorious.

Indeed. Truly a day to remember!

I'm glad I stayed up late to follow it.

My only regret is I wasn't awake when Fram threw in the towel.

And someone needs to give Drmies a barnstar.

[CrowsNest]

(if I could get a second away from dealing with Kumioko and his mentors, I could finish some of my thoughts and properly furnish the reader).....

Iridescent, no, my problem wasn't really with Fram upholding [the policy that requires separation between personal and 'teacher' accounts], but with him choosing to make an issue out of it at that time, in that forum, and with some shitty comments. That I would abuse my position as a teacher and a Wikipedia editor to get "reviewing credits" or something like that, that is just real hurtful. I have done a lot of shitty things in my life, but I have not abused either of these two position for my own gain.......Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram had committed the ultimate sin. Besmirching the good name of Drmies. So he waited, and he waited, until he could exact revenge.

Even though he tacked it onto that as cover, his oppose had nothing at all to do with the fact he saw Fram make libellous statements. Shiiiiiit, he and Fram are on the same page in that regard - if a person is banned, you can say what you like about them.

This RfA, I just saw it go by in Recent changes and thought WTF? already? And I had actually forgotten about the "banned editor" comments, but when I saw those again I felt like I had to comment. BTW I am not sure I knew already that so much of his commentary had been oversighted; I have tried not to dwell on that episode. You don't owe me an apology or anything: you do you, and that's fine. Haha, one funny thing--there may be some people still, or again, wondering what I meant with the good thing I did while on ArbCom: I'M STILL NOT GOING TO TELL YOU, haha, but breaking a lance for Guido den fucking Broeder wasn't it. Take care Floq, Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

[Guido den Broeder]

Even though he tacked it onto that as cover, his oppose had nothing at all to do with the fact he saw Fram make libellous statements. Shiiiiiit, he and Fram are on the same page in that regard - if a person is banned, you can say what you like about them.

Drmies is a similar type of asshole as Fram, he's just not as good at it.

Over at Sucks, Guido den Broeder indicates that his longtime enemy Fram had talked about him, defaming him as a pedophile.

I'm pleased that Fram calling me a pedophile is what brought him down. It would be even nicer if I get unblocked now. Any admin can do this.

FFS... If we ever put together a soccer team, someone remind me that he has to stay out of our defensive third, because apparently all he knows how to do is kick it into his own goal.

Still clueless. My goal is to destroy Wikipedia, says The Banner. And when Eddy says it, it must be true, right? I'd be happy to score into Jake's goal no matter which side I'm on.