Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Fram[edit]

Final (108/122/14); Closed as withdrawn by candidate. –xenotalk 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC) ; Scheduled to end 11:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) –

Co-nomination by Iridescent: I've certainly had strong differences of opinion with Fram in the past, but despite that I have no hesitation nominating Fram nor in strongly supporting this RFA. While Wikipedia is generally and rightfully egalitarian in its approach to everything, if you're not familiar with the background here in this particular case you probably shouldn't comment (either in support or opposition) until you've at least skimmed the history at WP:FRAMBAN as this is an exceptional case.

At different and relatively recent times I've previously described Fram as arguably the best admin in Wikipedia's history and described his conduct as 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, and I stand by both opinions. Fram has a genuine, and rare, talent for spotting the core of a problem, and an even rarer willingness to challenge problematic conduct without fear or favor, even when doing so means alleging misconduct on the part of people who are used to intimidating critics into silence. In the past Fram has also been arrogant, obnoxious, and unwilling to admit any alternative explanation for a given event than his preferred theory.

However, Fram was warned about his conduct in 2018, and since then the issues that caused concern have been virtually non-existent. Despite having literally hundreds of editors going through his contributions (initially looking for something to justify T&S's original ban of him, subsequently trying to find evidence for the arbcom case), nobody has managed to find anything untoward other than a couple of grumpy comments. Although Arbcom are unable to release exactly what the claimed evidence T&S used to support their ban was, they have confirmed that it was based entirely on on-wiki activity, and as such if there was anything problematic it would have come to light. As far as I can tell from what's either been officially made public or has slipped into public knowledge, none of the complaints was legitimate grounds for desysopping, at least one of the complaints was an outright and demonstrable lie, and there's a strong suggestion that Fram was blocked not for anything he did wrong, but for investigating too closely a small group of well-connected people engaged in inappropriate activities.

In light of all this, I believe Fram should have admin status restored for two different reasons. There's the procedural view, that since the entire set of circumstances that led to Fram losing admin status was illegitimate we should return to the status quo of 9 June, and if someone has genuine evidence of any kind of misconduct they should present it so a legitimate case can be held within Wikipedia's accepted processes. (If the reasons for not making the allegations public are legitimate, I assume it's safe to say that everyone involved is by now aware of where to find Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee.) I find that procedural argument convincing, but even if one discounts it completely I would still support Fram for admin at this time. The last significant conduct of any concern was more than a year ago—a lifetime in wiki-terms—and since then Fram has demonstrated consistently good judgment, often in very difficult circumstances, and has consistently worked in areas such as New Page Patrol where having access to the admin toolset would be useful. As such, even setting aside everything that happened in the last three months, this is a candidate to whom I would give a straightforward support based on their activity over the past year and a demonstrable use for the tools. ‑ Iridescent 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Xeno: I’m not asking you to restore Fram’s administrator privileges in order to reverse what has been (to put it mildly) a rather unfortunate series of events, though that would be a sufficient reason also. I’m asking you to re-instate Fram because despite the treatment Fram has received at the hands of WMF/T&S, and subsequently, the Arbitration Committee, Fram still believes deeply in the project and is still committed to maintaining quality control in our product. No administrator is perfect and Fram is no exception. In the past Fram has been curt (sometimes even uncivil) with users they have dealt with administratively. So have I. So have any number of administrators. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct: “Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect.” However, the committee wants us to accept, sight unseen, that Fram has engaged in “sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia ... incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and [shown] consistent or egregious poor judgment.” (Ibid.) This is simply not borne out by the evidence presented. Fram has made mistakes. Fram has not always been the model of civility. However, Fram has committed to self-introspection and improving their mode of interactions with other editors and the evidence has shown progress in this goal. To refuse to reinstate Fram’s administrative privileges is to engage in punishment, not prevention, and this is not the Wikipedia way. We’ve already lost a significant percentage of our active administrators (and many have significantly curtailed their activity) resulting from the unprecedented actions that were taken against Fram. Let’s not lose another one. –xenotalk 12:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Chowbok: It's no secret that I'm doing this (my first admin nomination) because I feel a massive injustice has been done to Fram, and it needs to be undone as soon as possible. But I've also had time to look at Fram's contributions as an editor and decisions as an admin, and I must say that I would strongly support his/her getting the admin bit even if this unpleasantness had never happened. While there are some legitimate concerns about Fram's occasional sharp tongue, there's no doubt it my mind that he/she had greatly improved in this respect in the months before the ban, and, more importantly, will be on his/her best behavior going forward, knowing that his/her conduct will be scrutinized like no admin ever before. Being able to take a stand on principle that also unquestionably benefits the project is a win-win, and I strongly encourage everyone to vote to re-grant Fram the tools.—Chowbok 00:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Lourdes: If this would have been a regular nomination statement, I might have started with showcasing Fram's Featured Lists or Good Article, or the fact that they've written more than a thousand articles, or that more than 62% of their 175,039 edits are to main space...and so on, so forth. But this is obviously not a regular nomination, leave alone a regular RfA. It's an RfA which I'm leading to support to take a stand. To be honest, and as Chowbok says, I too would have nominated Fram even if they'd not gone through the recent saga. I've known Fram for enough time to have had significant disagreements and agreements with them, to have my opinions on their actions and to have their opinions on my actions. And through all this, I've come to realise the value of their contributions. Fram is an absolute net positive, as an editor and as an administrator. They've made mistakes, and I have had no love lost for them in my interactions. But as xeno says above, Fram's been made to go through the shame of thrones with eyes blindfolded and hands tied. And irrespective of what the Foundation's response has been, if things have to be brought to square one by the community, it has to start here – where it's not just my stand or xeno's or Chowbok's, it's the stand of the community that has to prove this point to the powers-that-be... That we are not slaves to Big Brother, and we're ready to bite back when bitten. I consider Fram's RfA a cause I will not back down from; I hope the community joins me in this call for action and supports Fram's RfA. Lourdes 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Fastily: Hey folks, I am pleased to co-nominate Fram for adminship. Fram been editing since 2005 (14 years!) and has amassed an amazing 189,000 (!) edits and 28,000 logged administrative actions during this time. As one of our most prolific, accomplished, and long-standing administrators, he has a lengthy history of cluefulness and dedication to the project. Fram has excellent knowledge of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines and he is exceptionally talented at sniffing out nonsense. This is clearly exemplified by his well-reasoned critical commentary throughout the project and extensive contributions to our XfD/PROD processes. In terms of content, Fram has created a massive 1,565 articles, with highlights such as Featured list Leuchtenberg Gallery, Did You Know? Antidotarium Nicolai, and Did You Know? La finta pazza. I'll keep my comments on the WMF/ArbCom decision brief, as my fellow co-nominators have already stated most of what I had planned to say. While Fram could have been more friendly in the way he interacted with others, considering how recent events have played out, I cannot possibly imagine an outcome where he has not both learned from mistakes and emerged a changed (and better) Wikipedian. That said, I think it is most important to emphasize the obvious benefits of returning the mop and bucket to Fram: his thorough policy knowledge, detective skills, willingness to speak up, and relentless dedication to the project equate to a net-positive of titanic proportions. Adminship is no big deal, so Why not empower Fram to continue serving and do what he does best to the benefit of the community. -FASTILY 07:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Required disclosures: I have never edited for pay. My only other account is User:EngFram (I may have created one or two throwaway accounts to check the impact of some software deployments for new editors: I don't recall the account names, and never used them contrary to the socking policy). Fram (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. With nearly 250 !votes, it is clear that this RfA will not succeed, and most issues and opinions that needed to be aired have been aired presumably. There clearly is widespread concern about my behaviour and attitude (though also a heartwarming bunch of supports). I will continue to edit, take the applicable concerns to heart, and hope to reapply in a year (or later) with a better track record. Fram (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The same as before, i.e. mainly new page patrolling (for all new pages, including those by autopatrolled editors), copyvio checks, some handling of AN and ANI cases, checking new tools or software in general, which includes checking how these work for admins (e.g. we have had in the past some things where people could create pages on enwiki but no one could delete them), and checking DYKs on the Main Page to get rid of errors. My Adminstats show that over 12 years, I made some 28000 admin actions (which excludes things like editing through protection, necessary for main page maintenance), the vast majority of them deletions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Apart from my admin contributions, and keeping an eye on the articles on my watchlist, I try to continue creating content. While I have in the past written some GAs and contributed to some FAs, my main contributions are usually less well developed, just basic articles containing all necessary information. Some articles I'm proud of (ones I started or where I am a main contributor) are Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges, which recreates in word and image one of the most important art historical exhibitions ever; Leuchtenberg Gallery, a Featured List about a no longer existing early museum; Antidotarium Nicolai, an important medieval book about medicines; La finta pazza, a popular 17th century opera; some sporting biographies I started, like Nafissatou Thiam, Wout van Aert, Laurens Devos or Willy De Bruijn; Nazi art dealer Alois Miedl; or "firsts", like the first cookbook ever printed or the first dedicated photography exhibition in the world or the first printer in the Americas.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, there have been a number of conflicts. In February-March 2018, I got too confrontational, leading to legitimate complaints; I realized that I had unnecessarily antagonised people, and took care to take a more neutral, less personal approach in my adminning thereafter. I have also, as I explained in discussions during the ArbCom case, tried to take care not to be sole admin involved with prolonged or complicated cases, but to bring issues to admin noticeboards for further comments (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Bach editing from June 2018), or to make sure that others have tried to solve problems or to warn editors about some issues as well. The "job" I do in new page patrolling or copyvio checking is a necessary one, and one that often leads to unhappy "customers", editors who are trying to (or in the case of paid editors usually pretending to) help enwiki, and who don't understand why their edits aren't welcomed no questions asked. 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.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Cabayi
4. I'm concerned by this comment - "Fram preferred the option of going to a RfA than having to make a pledge to ArbCom to abide by Admincond". Will you abide by WP:ADMINCOND and WP:5P4? Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
A: Yes, I will follow WP:ADMINCOND and WP:5P4. Fram (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Barkeep49
5. I had considered asking this even before it became your first oppose, but after that decided I should. I noticed you accepted a lot of advice and guidance with your RfA. That's great we can all use that. How will you seek out guidance and advice as a sysop if this RfA is successful? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
A: Depending on the situation, I will e.g. discuss longer with the editor involved before proceeding with blocks, AN discussions, ...; bring possibly controversial blocks to ANI (e.g. if I had raised the GorillaWarfare situation at ANI instead of blocking her, things would have looked a bit different and less drama would have followed); sometimes just sit back and see if others notice the same problems; and if I do get good faith feedback, listen to it. I do not promise that I won't make any more mistakes, but I do try to learn from the ones I did make and avoid repeating them. Fram (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Smallbones
6. You’ve been accused of harassing and intimidating people, e.g. you were briefly blocked on MediaWiki for “Intimidating behaviour/harassment” in 2014. [1] Many of the people you appear to be harassing are the elected representatives of the Wikipedia community.
Two former ArbCom members, BU Rob13 and Gamaliel, have said that you were a major factor in their quitting ArbCom.
Less than a year ago [2] you requested a case on ArbCom against the entire 2017 list of ArbCom members (the large majority still on the 2018 ArbCom), appears to be an obvious case of bludgeoning the process.
This year you wrote arbcom “Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have.… utter incompetence in many of its members …. Just crawl into a corner and shut up … don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit.”
Regarding your recent desysop you wrote about ArbCom “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.” [3]. And criticized “arbs who made incomprehensible statements and refused to do anything about it when this was pointed out, arbs who made personal attacks.” [4]
Can you guarantee that you will not harass or intimidate other editors, especially our elected representatives, and will start accepting the findings and remedies of ArbCom?
A: Considering that you authored the BLP-deleted Signpost article about me, and then continued to make false claims about me at the arb case request about that Signpost page, I prefer not to interact with you. Fram (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Follow-up: While you obviously don't like me, this is a community discussion - don't you think you owe it to the community to answer a question about you harassing and intimidating the elected representatives of the community?
As far as the article in The Signpost. Don't you remember emailing me after reading the full article (less than 24 hours before publication) "feel free to post it"? (ArbCom has a copy of the email, if you've lost yours). Don't you remember posting at about the same time "First, note that I have had plenty of chance to reply from the Signpost writer, so this longer reply is just to get some more space and to reply to the latest entries, not in any way a complaint about the report writer"? [5] Yet, after publication you started crying that I did not allow you to respond to the allegations. Is there any reason why I should trust your word ever again? Is there any reason other community members should trust you?
I wrote a reply to the claims by Gamaliel and BU Rob13. You refused to add this to the article, claiming that my reply was too long; afterwards you claimed that I had not replied at all, and that I had outed Gamaliel. This can all be read at length at the rejected Arbcom Case and doesn't need rehashing here. Fram (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Follow-up 2: No. I had to ask you 3 or 4 times to get a comprehendible response from you. I'm not required to get your approval to publish an article, only to make sure that you've had a chance to reply. When you wrote "feel free to post it" (in effect twice) that's enough for me, and it would be enough for any reporter. Then you wrote "I have prepared a reply at [6] which, after publication, should perhaps be copied over or linked to in the comments section under the page." I did not link that simply because it looked like a personal attack. And any potential admin should know that a blocked editor cannot edit on Wikipedia. Any editor who "copied over" a personal attack from a blocked user would be subject to being blocked as well. Do you understand those rules?
Additional question from ONUnicorn
7. I probably should have thought to ask this before supporting, but in light of the temperament concerns, assuming this RFA passes, will you be willing to submit to a recall process at a pre-determined future date (perhaps 12 months from now)?
A:: No, sorry. Admins must be willing to make tough calls and to put the requirements of a good encyclopedia over the concerns that editors may have too many friends and that taking action may mean making enemies. As we can see in this very RfA, part of the opposes (though obviously not all) are more based on "time to get back for what you did to me or to a wikifriend of mine" than on impartial considerations. And it is much easier to fail an RfA than to succeed, due to the relatively high bar. For that reason, in general I oppose recall RfAs (not just for me). 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). Fram (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional questions from Leaky
8. You have declined to answer Q6 for personal reasons. However, the evidence in the preamble is not covered by your answer to stock Q3. If I add that question as my second permitted question, will yoy answer it?
A: It's a loaded question, a variation on "have you stopped beating your wife", so no, I won't answer the same question no matter who posts it. Fram (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
8A. Considering the lengthy response you have added to expand on the concerns raised relating to interactions with Drmies, would that not have been relevant to mention in Q3? In terms of likely stress caused it seems to me to outrank anything else listed there due to the prominence and nature of the issues identified. (I am not concerned about your more recent dispute with Smallbones, it is out of scope for me)
A: People were already complaining that my statements were too long. I could have raised this, I could have raised other issues brought up at my Wikimedia talk page by Silktork during the unban discussions, ... I don't mind discussing specific issues, but I don't think listing anything which may have caused someone stress or where someone may have disagreed with me would have been useful (see e.g. the below question by Fae, another issue I didn't include in my reply to Q3, and which they probably feel should have been included). Fram (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Vanamonde93
9. Even those who have a lot of respect for the work you have done here, and I count myself among those, would concede that you have sometimes been quite forceful in investigating and addressing long-term behavioral issues. I have watched many resultant disputes from afar, and in my opinion, your approach has often been counter-productive, and has engendered more drama than a more conciliatory approach might. Even if I am wrong (and you might well believe I'm wrong, and that's okay) there is definitely a perception in the community that you have been too aggressive in some of these situations, and this perception is going to muddy the waters in the future, even if you aren't doing anything wrong. So, in the interests of dealing with future behavioral problems with the minimum of drama, would you be willing to commit to not pursuing any long-term behavioral issues yourself, but to instead bring them to the community's attention? To be clear, I'm referring specifically to potentially complex issues exhibited by experienced users; not run-of-the-mill admin actions such as blocks for vandalism or other disruption.
A: Yes, that's what I plan to do. Of course, it will sometimes be hard to decide when something moves from "repeated concerrns" to "long-term behavioral issues". I don't mean this as a cop-out, even though it might read like one. But if I would e.g. post a message to the talk page of an experienced editor about some problem, and when it continues after my message, I drop a note at ANI; I guess many people would then consider this "hasty" and "you should discuss this longer before bringing this to wider attention". Finding the right balance isn't always easy (and of course, as has been remarked, in the cases where I have been accused of harassment, I did bring the issues to the community). Fram (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from
10. If you are trusted by the community to wield the mop and have authority over other contributors, do you intend to carry on causing disruption and lowering our common behavioural standards in discussions by dropping n-word bomb and f-word bomb in what are by any reasonable judgement both entirely gratuitous, avoidable and inflammatory?
A: I intend to stop using "fuck" like that onwiki, yes. I don't agree with your characterisation of the other issue though, I used the N-word explicitly as an example of a highly insulting word (relevant in the context of how labels can be factually right or wrong, and can be innocent or insulting, but the two are not necessarily linked: a factually correct label for a person can be highly insulting anyway, and a factually wrong label for a person can be completely innocent and friendly). My use was not gratuitous at all, and I didn't expect it to be seen as inflammatory. Fram (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
  1. I nominated last time, and have not come to regret this. (The ban&desysop was clearly wrong, and I resigned my admin bit for a while over this). What impresses me most about Fram is the willingness to point out problems in the editing of powerful and well-connected people. Fram's tone has sometimes been fairly direct, but uncivil only in rare moments of understandable frustration. —Kusma (t·c) 12:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Fram's desysop was fatally flawed, and it is really important that it not be allowed to stand, regardless of whether I've had some problems with their approach in the past or not. I understand the nominators' comments about nominating them regardless of the poor desysop, but for me, addressing this is my primary motivation, sorry. I do actually have faith that Fram will accept the 5.3 gazillion units of feedback they've received over the last 3 months, and further adjust their way of interacting with people they think are in the wrong. If my faith is misplaced, I'll have no hesitation in seeking a legitimate ArbCom desysop for future unacceptable behavior, but I'm actually pretty confident that it won't be necessary. I have dozens more thoughts on the subject, but will do everyone (especially the crats, who have to read and digest all this) a favor and keep them to myself, since they do not directly address whether Fram should be resysopped or not. They should be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. I can list a long list of reasons for support, but as long as it is not necessary; I would keep my vote consise. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support Fram was a good admin previously, and will be a good one again. The WMF actions were totally out of order and should be fully rejected. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. I griped with myself about the details, and used some of the days leading up to this to observe Fram work and deal with criticism, and I'm firmly convinced Support is in order. I'm not going to get into the decision to desysop, even though that in and of itself would have compelled me to support on the moral imperative to not be a part of grave and unfair injustice. Luckily I don't have to. Even leaving FRAMGATE totally out of it I see a passionate, knowledgeable and skilled editor that would be a net benefit as administrator. Magisch talk to me 12:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. The WMF was 100% in the wrong to ban and desysop Fram in the first place. Fram should have got the bit back automatically and I regard the necessity for the RFA as actually a bit insulting. Reyk YO! 12:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support - Welcome back. I see no reason for you to stay desysoped after all you've been through. - ZLEA T\C 12:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support I'm convinced that Fram should never have been banned, let alone desysopped. It's time to reinstate this editor to the status quo that existed before everything went sideways. Lepricavark (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support The ban and desysop were entirely unjustified. Fram deserves this back. Toa Nidhiki05 12:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. Support. As per co-nom (Iridescent). Treating this as a recall referendum for an editor who clearly has always used the tools to support the improvement of the content of the project. Loopy30 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Support Fram is a skilled editor who puts the admin tools to good use. And he watches the watchmen, which is a rare and valuable thing.[7] Haukur (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support because we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a social media site. While Fram is not always the most polite, they always have the goal of the project uppermost and have improved when concerns are brought to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. Support I am with Floquenbeam on this one. The most important item in the Arbcom case decision regarding Fram is FoF number 9: "There was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence. Passed 9 to 0 at 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)". That being the case, Fram's desysop should not have occurred and cannot be allowed to stand. It is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia that we should be judged in the open, in public, for our public on-wiki actions. Secret trials and star-chamber justice in cases of alleged on-wiki misconduct are unacceptable and intolerable. In conducting such a secret trial in this case the ArbCom abused its power and betrayed the community's trust. It is up to the community now to correct this breach. Oh, yeah, I also think that Fram has been a good and valuable admin and will continue to be so. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Absolute and unconditional Support. Even with the higher expectancy on admin standards, I have not seen any evidence that Fram's behaviour has even fallen below anything significantly lower than the highest standards under admins. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  15. Support: I do not like Fram, nor do I agree with their aggressive approach to adminship; the analogy using a police officer to explain their rational here ([8]) is what I think is fundamentally wrong with Fram’s mindset over the years. But nothing they have done up to this point would remotely warrants a desysop; there are far worse administrators that “falls below” WP:ADMINCOND on daily basis.
    This is not whataboutism; the desysop simply should not have happened. It was arbitrarily done without due process, but ArbCom was worried that straight resysop would be a endorsement of Fram’s incivility, which is downright silly; just say it isn’t, as Newyorkbrad has pointed out. Instead, ArbCom has chosen to treat Fram in a grossly unfair manner, something that this particular committee has done consistently to a number of different editors. Many of these committee members throughout the case consistently chosen to neither acknowledge direct pings nor queries, nor even making an effort to communicate with the community; these kind of behaviours should not be the one judging Fram’s conduct as an administrator.
    If anything positive has come out of that mess of a case, I would say that Fram has acknowledged the flaws in their temperament on Wikipedia, and is noticeably improving in my opinion. And that’s why I am supporting; we are not children, nobody needs to be pledging anything. Alex Shih (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  16. Strongest possible Support, per... well, pretty much everybody, really, but particularly co-nom (Iridescent), Floq, Reyk, Toa, Ealdgyth, NSK, Dirk, and Alex. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  17. (edit conflict) Support per everyone. Somehow unable to figure out how to reconcile 70 pages of alleged on-wiki public secret evidence with 0 bits of actual evidence being found when everyone was asked to go on a fishing expedition to dig up dirt in Fram's editing history. Κσυπ Cyp   12:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  18. Support My basic requirements are that an editor is competent and well-intentioned, unlikely to abuse the tools, and not a jerk. Fram is clearly competent and well-intentioned. I don’t believe Fram would intentionally abuse the tools. But Fram has often behaved like a jerk, and admins who behave like jerks are abusing the tools every time they act like a jerk to anyone who doesn’t have the same amount of power they have, and that includes other admins who aren’t as influential. Fram is clearly a super useful admin 99% of the time, but that 1% of the time they aren’t causes drama, wastes others’ time and energy, and likely has resulted in the loss of useful or potentially useful editors. That 1% has a disproportionate effect and cancels out way more than 1% of the good work Fram does. If this had been a fresh RfA, I’d have likely !voted oppose with a recommendation the candidate run again after a period of jerk-free behavior. But this whole mess is the fallout from bad decision-making by WMF, who neglected to get the community on board to make needed changes to an atmosphere that tolerated jerky behavior by influential admins. And it looks like Fram did take in feedback over the past year+ and has been behaving like a jerk a lot less. On balance I’ve decided to cross my fingers and treat it as a correction. I’m counting on you, Fram. Don’t abuse the tools by being a jerk admin. --valereee (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support I have not seen any evidence of tool misuse, and in fact, he is incredibly good at using the tools. Fram is very skilled finding copyright violations. Iridescent said it best, above. Fram is positive to have in the admin corps. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  20. Support. Shouldn't have been banned or desysopped in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  21. Even if I didn't think Fram was suitable for adminship at this time I'd support this RfA as a matter of principle - the WMF handling of FRAMBAN leaves a sour taste. As it happens, I do belive that Fram should be an admin, so count this as a double support. — sparklism hey! 12:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  22. Support. An out-of-process desysop from a toxic over-reach from the WMF should have been overturned. Let me be clear that the support is not a !vote against the WMF or ArbCom (although by Christ they both deserve so much more than that). If this had been a confirmation of Admin abilities pre April 2018 I would likely have opposed the retention of the bit (too black and white in viewpoint, too didactic in approach, etc). Since then, however, I do not see anything that deserves a desysop. In other words the conduct warning did what it was supposed to do and the subsequent removal was nothing more than a punitive and act by WMF, driven by a COI/insider politics, compounded by the mess at ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  23. Support Fram's best characteristic is his integrity when investigating things. I trust his judgment more than that of ArbCom, and certainly more than that of the WMF. --Pudeo (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  24. Support.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  25. Support. If this goes to a crat chat, take that as a strong support (since that occasionally matters at crat chats). This RfA is going to be huge, and if I get started, I'll have a lot to say, so I'll just leave it there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  26. Support - Fram has done an awful lot of good work as an admin, and I would prefer to see them continue that work instead of being on the outside looking in. Yes, there have been some problems regarding temperament, but certainly not to the extent that a ban was justified, and Fram has worked hard, in my estimation, to improve. Overall, Fram as an admin is a net plus for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  27. Support No justice in WMF action (Fram not allowed to see any details of the complaint(s) against him). Given that ban has been overturned by ArbCom, so should the desysop have been. Murray Langton (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support - It is near miraculous that WMF stepped down to let ArbCom handle this case – simply because WMF members depicted themselves as having Jesus levels of infallibility, repeatedly. It is near miraculous that, having taken the case, ArbCom lifted the ban – albeit after more than a month had passed. It would have been equally miraculous if ArbCom decided to re-sysop, but alas two near miracles is as many as we will receive it seems. I've crossed paths with Fram several times, and have never once doubted their competence as an admin. That is enough for me to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  29. Support after careful consideration. Jonathunder (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  30. Support. I've been thinking a fair bit about what I'd say at this RfA, and I could have supported based on the desysop being out of process - and I think that's a fair reason. But I decided instead that I'd base my decision purely on whether or not I want Fram as an admin, and I do. Iridescent has described the situation very well and I agree with every word (and he's saved me from trying to say similar things myself). I know Fram has shown some very bad attitudes in the past, and if this had been the pre-2018 Fram running for RfA I'd be opposing and saying something like "Please adjust your behaviour towards others and try again in another year or so." The post-2018 Fram has mostly been doing exactly that, and will, I hope, continue to do so. We've seen a handful of lapses, when the pompous and aggressive Fram of old has briefly resurfaced, but not enough to dissuade me from supporting. The events of the past couple of months really should have focused Fram on what we expect in the future, and the level of scrutiny we're likely to see from now should be, I think, a sufficient safeguard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'll just add that even through some of the worst examples of interpersonal behaviour, I'm firmly convinced that Fram's motivation has always been 100% honourable and aimed solely at protecting and improving the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  31. Support The desysop was wrong, while I have disagreed strongly with Fram's behavior in the past, as Iri points out his behavior has improved to a point where I dont think is necessary to hold up his past as a stumbling block to resysopping. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  32. Support ultimately it's about whether wikipedia is better off with Fram as an admin. Yes he can be brusque, but he is often right , and places the integrity of the 'pedia foremost. I have found him to be fair and not afraid to tackle issues with users that might be considered well-connected. I have disagreed with some of the approaches he has and values of entities such as DYK, but his criticisms are based on issues with fidelity and integrity of the 'pedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  33. Support on general principles. Is Fram the most polite? No. Does Fram take criticism onboard and modify their behaviour accordingly? Yes. They were railroaded by a borderline incompetent editor with a clear COI and connections at high levels within the WMF. ARBCOM failed to find any reason to desysop (and had previously declined cases regarding Fram which included...checks notes...all of the 'evidence' provided in the recent case), and yet for some reason didn't reinstate a user permission which had been removed solely as either a standard when banning an admin, or as an extra twist of the knife. There is quite simply no logical reason for Fram to not have the bit. Sebthepleb (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  34. Support. Fram is a good administrator who handles a tough job. Not perfect, but improving in light of feedback. We need admins willing to make tough calls and tackle problem users. The goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia, not a social media community where everyone is perfectly nice to one another. If the worse that can be said about Fram is that he has been too tough in defending the integrity of our content and policies, then I think he deserves to continue as an administrator. As an aside, my support is also intended and should be interpreted as a demonstration of my lack of confidence in the actions of T&S and the arbitrators who voted in favour of desysoping Fram. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  35. Support - Per Iri. WBGconverse 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Since I apparently can't {{hat}} things any more, additional comments were removed about a topic outside of RFA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  36. Support. The legitimacy of Fram's de-adminship in the first place is extremely debatable; unless ArbCom can produce a reason to desysop, it should be restored. Yunshui  13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  37. Support Fram has consistently done good work to uphold quality standards on this project. That work is aided by the admin toolkit. Procedurally, the de-sysop action should be undone to reset things to the status quo as of June 9. There are valid concerns about Fram's temperament and personality, and Fram should be observed closely moving forward, and if those concerns re-manifest themselves, should be dealt with at that time. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  38. Support - They have learned over the last few years how to better interact with people. There are still occasions where its less than optimal but that goes for many other editors too. They are one of the few that are willing to tackle complex problems head on. spryde | talk 13:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  39. Support If you factor out the WMF’s shameful conduct, or Arbcoms evidence free desysop you’re left with the fact that Fram is on the short list of admins worth their salt. You want more Frams not less if the goal is building an encyclopedia. Cube lurker (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  40. Support – WP:FRAMBAN was an utter clusterfuck, pardon the expression, and I'd support Fram merely based on that; furthermore, ensuing discussions at FRAMBAN and ARBCOM did not uncover any misconduct to warrant the removal of Fram's tools. All the best Fram! —MelbourneStartalk 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  41. Support - Has been doing a decent job with the tools, will continue to do so. - MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  42. Support without hesitation. Zero justification for the manner in which Fram was treated, zero justification for a desysop. Of course protecting the integrity of Wikipedia rattles cages, and I'm sure Fram has learnt from that feedback. Absolute net positive for maintaining a high quality encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  43. Support per nominators' statements, many of the above editors' rationales, and the restrained response Fram has offered to the endless harassment and abuse directed at him throughout this ordeal. The WMF has sat idly by while people have speculated that (due to the T&S's initial one-size-fits-all boilerplate responses) Fram must have abusively sockpuppeted, or approached an editor in real life, or committed all sorts of heinous behavior too dark to speak of. Administrators and other editors who should know better have attacked him with phrases like long-term abuser and worse. And I hope no editor is again subjected to the kind of "anonymous" defamatory and hateful smears published in the Signpost (which have since been deleted on BLP grounds) that Fram has had to endure. If anyone participating in this RfA is confident that you would have been able to take all of that in stride without getting grouchy about it at least once, then God bless ya, but I'm not sure the rest of us can pull that off. Regardless of whether this RfA succeeds, Fram has a lot of work to do to demonstrate that the legitimate concerns people have had about his approach are being considered and acted on. 28bytes (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  44. Support. I followed the recent ArbCom case in which the Arbitration Committee unanimously overturned the WMF's one-year ban of Fram from EnWP, but a majority of the arbitrators declined to restore his adminship. I do not approve of the hard time that some people have given those arbitrators; they clearly thought their votes were well-justified, even in the face of substantial community pushback on the PD talkpage and elsewhere. But the ArbCom decision also emphasized that all the evidence before them, both public and non-public, was based entirely on Fram's behavior on-wiki, not on any off-wiki matters. Fram's edits, particularly in 2018-2019, have been pored over in great detail by this point, and while they reflect some flawed behavior, I find nothing in them that should have risen to the level of desysopping. It therefore follows that my !vote is to restore Fram's adminship. I take Fram at his word that he will remain mindful of the feedback he has received over the past few months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  45. SupportIridescent's judgement over and above any in the'Oppose' section,none of whom make convincing arguments againstthe restoration of the status quo ante bellum. ——SerialNumber54129 14:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  46. Support per Iridescent and Fram's answers to Q3 and Q5. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  47. Support as the desyop was out of process and Fram seems a tough but fair admin to me,Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  48. Support for a range of reasons (I will try and expand on this later). The main reason is fairness. Fram should be given a chance with the bit to moderate his conduct, rather than have been desysopped through a manifestly unfair process. Those who object to his past conduct can monitor his behaviour going forward. While I am here, though I doubt enough people will see it, can I ask people to use less inflammatory and divisive language? Some of those stating opposes are coming across as very bitter and angry. We all have to live with the result at the end of the day and continue to work together. A little moderation will go a long way. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  49. Support per Iridescent in particular. Fram had toned down past excesses, and was pretty generally in the right in the past, just pushing things too hard. He does very important quality control in areas where few choose to tread. The desysop was inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  50. Support Fram does great admin work and would definitely be a net positive to the project as an admin. While he has been over-aggressive in the past, he has changed his behaviour noticeably over the past year, and it is inconceivable that he would slip back into old habits with so many watching his edits. I am impressed by his answer to Q3.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  51. Support As an editor of over 10 years myself, my past interactions with this editor have left me with the impression of a professional admin. Nuff said. In addition, too many good admins have been desysopped, and too many bad editors remain to be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  52. Support net-positive to the project. The desysop was inappropriate in the first place. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  53. Support precious quality comics and control. My vote of trust is not based on secret complaints, but years of interactions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  54. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  55. Support Fram is a necessity to clean off bad wiki entries. StaniStani 16:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  56. Support We need admins who are not afraid to block powerful editors (maybe if I'd blocked for incivility rather than offering a private warning in a couple of cases, the level of snark and insult around here would be a little lower now). We need admins who are not afraid to criticize Arbcom when its members start behaving like a "Govcom". We need admins who care about copyvio (a serious legal matter) and who explain to editors who violate copyright and otherwise write poorly what they are doing wrong (which is what Fram is doing with the long posts on talk pages that the current Arbcom briefly tried to limit), and who have the courage to defend the encyclopedia no matter what nasty notes editors producing copyright violations and bad translations post on their user talk pages. We badly need admins who work as hard as Fram, particularly in new page patrol. While waiting for this to go live, I examined two instances that were covered at the Arbcom case. On the block of GorillaWarfare, I disagree with Carrite on both the justification for blocking and the desirability of consulting with the blocking admin before unblocking (I at least let the blocking admin know before making my now notorious unblock, and that was playing fast and loose with expectations of admin behavior), but as Fram has subsequently said, an immediate block was not the best response. On the treatment of Dr. Blofeld (a wiki-friend of mine and someone who has done a lot for the encyclopedia, including a lot of encouraging others to write and improve articles), I do find that overly harsh on Fram's part, and I believe that's one of the cases Fram has recognized that they mishandled. But I find those statements of recognition and promises to treat fellow editors more gently to be persuasive, and concur with the nominators that Fram has indeed followed up on those promises in the past year or so. So I am happy to finally have a chance to support. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  57. Support My opinion is based on the entire adminship career of Fram and not just the recent events. Stress does a lot of things to people. Most of the decisions (If not all) taken by Fram were good and for the benefit of Wikipedia in general. We need good admins and Fram is one of them.--DBigXray 16:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  58. Support I really wish the Wikiscandal that wouldn't die would just be over, but since Arbcom couldn't bring themselves to do the obviously right thing I guess we gotta do it for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  59. Support Beyond the whole WMF/ArbCom mess, I believe we need more admins like Fram, not fewer. Admins who are dedicated and tenacious about the project, and serious about quality. Perhaps we don't want every admin to be like Fram, but that's another matter. Not every admin takes on the same challenges in the same way. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 16:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  60. Cautious Support. I've never had any interaction with Fram, and it seems clear that a lot of people have issues with him. But, his desysopping was improper, and anything other than a restoration to the status before that is unacceptable. And lest anyone think that my reasoning is purely bureaucratic, it's rather more an issue of fairness to me. Most (but not all) of the opposes are perfectly reasonable gripes, but these are gripes that should be made at an admin recall, and since we don't have those, then they should be discounted. If the community really wants to be able to recall an admin due to general displeasure over their behavior, then put such a process in place, but don't use this as an end-run around the lack of one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  61. Support Per Noms. The main crux of opposes below seem to based of grudges and not off the capabilities of the candidate. Valeince (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  62. Support Fram was a strong contributor. The controversial "Fram Ban" was both unprecedented and illegitimate. Re-sysoping Fram preserves the integrity of Wikipedia. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  63. This is unfortunate, I would've preferred the committee not put us in this position. RfA is not arbitration, but it's being treated as round 2 of the case (complete with new secret evidence). Restore Fram, and if you really want feel they are no longer entitled to their toolset because of their behaviour, file a proper case, let them respond fairly in the usual way, and let the proper expectations be set for the rest of the community. This whole affair has been a shambles. –xenotalk 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC) 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Xeno, in the past, when you've thought that an admin should no longer be an admin, did that mean you "wanted their toolset"? When you frame concerns about an admin's suitability as "wanting their toolset", you give off the impression of wagon circling, and risk a chilling effect. It's kind of like saying, "Restore Fram, and if you still want to be an asshole, file a proper case!" If someone has serious concerns that they think should be addressed by Arbcom, they should file a proper case. "Wanting their toolset" has nothing to do with it. Levivich 18:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right - I've amended my remark. –xenotalk 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  64. Support as I fail to see compelling reasons for desysop'ing Fram much like Newyorkbrad. I followed through some of the oppose votes and I do not find them convincing. Multiple editors noted this edit and took this as a “dismissive treatment of an editor” without considering the preceding edit. It is worthwhile here to read this subsequent thread. While the approach in regard to GorillaWarfare was apparently not the best, I cannot follow how this response by Fram can be the ground to attest an “apparent superiority complex”. Fram states simply that “[u]nblocking shouldn't be done before consulting the blocking admin” which is certainly best practice and then Fram continues to quote from WP:NPA that “[s]erious accusations require serious evidence”. Isn't it ironic that an admin who meticulously collects diffs to provide evidence to his claims finds himself in the Kafkaesque situation where he is banned without a sufficient rationale and after the lift of the ban he gets subsequently desysop'ed without being provided with diffs that would warrant this? It is obvious that Fram is in the business of scrutinizing edits and in particular new articles by other editors quite independent from whoever wrote them. In his response to his first question, Fram explicitly tells that we would do “[t]he same as before, i.e. mainly new page patrolling (for all new pages, including those by autopatrolled editors)”. He is one of the very few doing this in this scale. He is doing this even if that is not exactly an approach to make friends and his fearless approach has even stunned a member of the arbitration committee who took this opportunity to admit that “[t]he complaints in 2019 all relate to ArbCom.” I think that being fearless is a good trait for admins but that it wouldn't hurt to combine this with some humility at the same time. Fram acknowledges that there were “legitimate complaints” and that he “had unnecessarily antagonised people” and promised in spring 2018 to take a “more neutral, less personal approach”. I haven't seen here any significant diffs (beyond the run-ins with the arbcom) which disprove this. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  65. Support as co-nom. —Chowbok 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  66.  ‑ Iridescent 2 18:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  67. Fram would never have been desysopped if the WMF hadn't stepped in to ban him. Opposing this RfA would be an endorsement of the WMF's meddling in this project's affairs, something which I feel is wrong. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  68. Support without reservation. I've personally had some maddening interactions with Fram, especially when I asked him to reverse admin actions and felt that he was always doubling down on his position instead of considering mine. However, on reflection I always realized that he was acting with the best interests of the project in mind. He's also shown repeatedly that he's willing to deal with difficult issues. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  69. Should never have been removed in the first place. ansh.666 19:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  70. Support, as I prefer the admin tools to be wielded by folk who are exceptionaly honest. Which is not to say I think Fram is always accurate. While Fram is the one editor I find even more meticulous than the Colonel, they sometimes seem excessively cynical & tenacious. They haven't always seemed to allow for the fact that if someone does a huge amount of work, they're almost inevitably going to make a large amount of mistakes. So when I've looked at the background for some of Fram's attacks & harsh judgements, I've found them to be wrong - though have never had cause to doubt their good faith. Fram has undoubtedly caused a lot of upset to a good many productive editors. So I don't have strong feelings against the WMF or Arbs for how they handled this. Yet I agree with most of the noms, especially Iri. And as well as Fram going after the big guns without fear or favour, I've noticed over the years that they occasionally stick up for the little guy when they perceive them to be unfairly treated, even if they're Inclusionist. A flawed admin, but also a great admin IMO and a big asset. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  71. Strong Support per Iridescent and Valereee. Additionally, I would like to add that Fram meets my criteria in spades, has proven themselves to be a capable administrator time and again, and there’s no reason for me to think that Fram would’ve been desysoped had this been taken to ArbCom from the start. I took a brief look at Fram’s interactions with other editors over the past year, and it seems to me that they were indeed making a conscientious effort to moderate their tone when dealing with other editors. That, to me, shows a positive step forward, and I hope that Fram continues to consider this whole mess to be a “teachable moment”. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Commenting to add that I’m honestly surprised that people are legitimately opposing Fram based on their original self-nom statement that wasn’t even a part of the live RFA at any point. Editors should be more than welcome to tweak their RFA before it goes live, and I originally thought that this was the precedent observed by the community. For what it’s worth, here’s what I see with that edit: I see an editor that was pilloried by the Wikipedia community for months over an unprecedented ban by the WMF, and was understandably frustrated at the end of all of it, and I also see an editor that, on further reflection, decided it would be wiser to edit their response and dial things down a bit (again, the edit being made well before this RFA went live). Opposing solely because of that initial self-nom is, frankly, ludicrous. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  72. Support. We've never interacted but I've known this editor for as long as I was here. SlightSmile 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  73. Strong Support. I was saddened to log in today, with this RfA just a few hours in, and see that it had already dropped deep into the fail range. Before I get started on what I hope is a careful explanation of my support, and of why I hope that the early oppose commenters will reconsider, I want to suggest to Fram that you withdraw this RfA, spend several months demonstrating that you really have turned over a new leaf, and then try again when the emotional temperature is less hot. OK, that said, there are two kinds of ways one can justify a support here. One is based on the unfairness of how Fram has been treated by WMF and ArbCom, and the other is based on evaluating whether or not his adminship will be a net positive going forward. I think it is obvious that the latter makes for the stronger argument. But I have been following WP:FRAM and the ArbCom case very carefully from the start, and I think that it's important to recognize that these two things are not independent. I warned ArbCom that, whatever one thinks about whether or not Fram will be a good admin, the process has been made so fundamentally unfair that there is no hope that this RfA can ever be anything but unfair. I predicted that there would be opposes based on "I would not vote for anyone who arbcom have found to be involved in "a pattern of borderline harassment", however valuable the rest of their work is for the project", and sure enough that is exactly what is happening. So, for a start, let's get the facts right. In their final decision, ArbCom cited exactly two diffs of relevant conduct by Fram, and said explicitly that there was no evidence at all that could not be found in diffs that everyone could see. There was a lot of history behind those two angry comments, but they really do not rise above being two isolated cases of getting hot under the collar. (I consider Drmies to be a wiki-friend, but frankly, I've seen him say a lot worse.) You can see the entirety of ArbCom's findings here, and I hope editors actually will look there and judge for yourselves. What was the so-called "borderline harassment"? The significant other of the Chair of the WMF Board of Trustees was someone who repeatedly violated policies and guidelines, and didn't hear complaints about it. Fram, as an admin, responded to that, and he did do something wrong: he took it upon himself to do this alone, instead of reaching out to other admins for help, so that it was always him in the prosecutorial role. Unnamed persons complained to the WMF, and the WMF enacted the ban and the desysop. That's it: "borderline" indeed. But here, at this RfA, Fram is guilty until proven innocent, because at RfA, people pile on. We have a ton of opposes that are based upon untruths. (And I'm quite sure that one of the ex-Arbs named in Q6 did not quit because of Fram.) I guess that's more than enough from me about process. So here is what is most important of all. Fram has, under incredibly stressful circumstance, done a lot of serious self-reflection. And he has acknowledged past mistakes, and committed to doing better. We all make mistakes; what matters is whether or not we choose to learn from them and improve. Again, I've been watching all of this closely, and I believe that Fram really means it. And aside from ArbCom's two diffs, he really has kept a clean record for quite a long time before the WMF stepped in. When I take that along with what he had done right as an admin, I see him as a clear net positive for what he can contribute if he becomes an admin again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I've come back to further emphasize something that I tried to get across earlier. For all those who oppose because ArbCom said that there was a "pattern of borderline harassment", you need to recognize that this came out of a very tortured decision, and you need to verify for yourself whether there actually was harassment, or whether it was so "borderline" as to be trivial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  74. Support per Iridescent Debouch (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  75. Support KinoCat (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  76. Support. As I mentioned a few days ago to another fellow Wikipedia editor, I wouldn't have minded being the first support here. – Athaenara 20:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  77. Support as co-nom -FASTILY 20:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  78. Support. per Iridescent, who puts it better than I could. I have been critical of some of Fram's action in the past (especially the block of GorillaWarfare), but 9 out of 10 times Fram hits the bulls-eyes with his criticism of grifters, people filling Wikipedia with sub-par material, and last but not the least: the mindboggling incompetence of the WMF, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    PS: ..and if we are going to desysop Fram for incivility ("Fuck arbcom"), then we also have to desysop admins who can say "Utter fucking bullshit."
  79. Support I agree that Fram's desysop was fatally flawed. After Fram's adminship is restored, if editors believe based on the evidence that Fram should not be an administrator, the process should begin de novo by requsting to revoke their adminship using the dispute resolution process, per WP:DESYS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  80. Support Drmies' oppose gives me a serious cause for concern, and I contemplated asking for clarifications on that, but ultimately, whether anyone likes to admit it or not, the desysopping was improper, ergo Fram is an admin by right, voting oppose here is tantamount to voting support in the fantom RFDe-adminship, and a public vote is a lynch-mob, not justice. Since ArbCom has found that all evidence of misconduct was limited to on-wiki activity, there is no reason to forgo the actual right way to go about desysopping an admin, i.e. a full-fledged public case against them at ArbCom, where they can mount a proper defence. What they allegedly did to Drmies (and/or others) might be indefensible, but I'd rather that was examined by ArbCom, not an RfA. I am sure their wiki-life is going to be Damoclesesque going forward, and there isn't really a lot of room for them to behave contrary to commitments they've made to the community regarding their ongoing self-reflection and improvement. That's a solid basis to think they'll be a net positive as an admin (also ROPE), esp. considering that those who know them, supporters and detractors alike, seem to agree that they already brought a lot to the project (not just in non-admin areas), issues notwithstanding. Usedtobecool TALK  20:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    User:Usedtobecool, I don't know if any investigating needs to be done, and you are right in saying that an RfA isn't the place for that anyway--I'm not asking for anything like that. But I can't support this RfA, and I can't oppose without giving reasons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  81. SUPPORT Despite this mess youve been a net positive as an admin in my opinion. I believe you should have your bit back. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  82. Support My limited interactions with Fram have been positive and I have seen firsthand the fastidious nature of their work. Yes, Fram's temperament could, and probably should, be improved but they have seemingly acknowledged this fact and have made attempts to act on that. I can only give them the benefit of the doubt there and I imagine that Fram's future work will have a lot of eyes on it from here on in. Fram undertakes difficult work at times but to the overall benefit of the quality of the project. On top of that, the desysop was out of process. Kosack (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  83. Support. Despite not interacting with Fram that much, I've observed them to be a competent administrator. They are really detail-oriented and effective as an admin. I can't think of much more at the moment so I'll go with "all of the above". epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  84. Support - I agree with those above that the desysop, and subsequent calamity it caused, was unjustified. Frame, though I have not interacted with them directly, has acted in a questionable manner in the past, but it is difficult to argue that they aren't a net positive to the encyclopedia, and will be in a position to be an even more advantageous asset if the mop were to be returned. So I support, with some reservation. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  85. Support. Most trusted name in oil filters. ―cobaltcigs 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  86. Support - strongly. I have followed the Framban issue very closely. Not only can I find no compelling reason to object to resyoping, but I am fully convinced that in the absence of any publicly available evidence, the reason for removal of the tools is so vague as to never have happened. Moreover, it begs the question whether Fram has been made a scapegoat for more sinister activity within the movement. Certainly it has led to a huge breakdown in the Community's trust in the WMF, probably something just waiting to happen whoever was likely to be the catalyst. If there ever was any misdemeanour on Fram's part, he will certainly have learned from this, the greatest upheaval I have witnessed during my tenure on Wikipedia, and he should be allowed back to adminship with a clean slate - now is not the moment which users often exploit to dig up and settle old scores. RfA is neither a popularity contest nor a vote of no confidence, rather it should be based on the good a user does or has done for Wikipedia as a net positive. As stated elsewhere by Haukurth: ...the T&S action that led us here was a wildly inappropriate and counterproductive intervention in community affairs which should be undone as strongly and directly as possible. Therefore, anyone who is not fully acquainted with the history, new users and old hands alike, and those who are privy to the secret information, should kindly consider recusing themselves from this RfA, at least from the Oppose section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  87. Support. I agree with Floquenbeam and others. Fram shouldn't have been desysopped in the first place. He's a good administrator with a strong record of struggle to keep Wikipedia clean and with quality content. I particularly appreciate his work with monitoring DYK submissions and his work in that area. Unfortunately he messed with the wrong powerful people with powerful WMF relatives, which led to his butchering by WMF based on a secret evidence. Yes, there is some troubled history and civility concerns with Fram. I believe though, he will take the huge amount of feedback to his heart, and abide more in line with WP:ADMINCOND. English Wikipedia is losing admins almost every single week. More and more admins are leaving or becoming inactive. Fram is the kind of administrator who devotes his time to make Wikipedia better and cleaner. We need him as a community.--Darwinek (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  88. Support per BMK, Boing! and others. Fram is WP:NETPOS personified, and resysopping them would right a wrong which has rent the community. Miniapolis 23:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  89. Support An unjustified WMF action. Fram should never have been removed in the first place. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  90. Support per "no big deal", long history of excellent work, and the fact that the SanFranBan was just wrong. Status quo ante is needed here. If there's a problem with Frabn';s work then a separate RFAR is the way to go. Guy (help!) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  91. Support - I am on wikibreak but specifically came back to vote, that is how crucial I de this is. We need editors like Fram to keep tabs on others, indeed a net positive for Wikipedia. The public evidence in the ArbCom case shows that Fram has improved their behaviour, and I have seen no evidence worthy of a desysop. The WMF’s actions (and ArbCom’s) were a breach of Fram’s right to due process. We need public evidence, but sadly it seems that WMF and ArbCom have already poisoned the well. starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  92. Per Floquenbeam, Alex Shih, valereee, and Usedtobecool. From what I saw during the whole recent mess, Fram seems to be someone who can be blunt and intemperate, but seems driven by the ideals of the encyclopedia. There's also some evidence (or lack of counter-evidence) that Fram's behavior has improved recently, and it seems likely that has been reinforced (as well as severly tested) by recent events. Were this a normal RFA, I'd probably sit it out.
    But this isn't normal: Fram was banned and their sysop removed in an abhorrent Star Chamber decision by T&S. I was initially discouraged by the direction of the ArbCom case as the apparent attempt at parallel construction failed and Arbs began leaning on the secret "evidence", but encouraged when GorillaWarfare posted her excellent re-analysis of the situation accurately identifying the lack of admissible evidence in the case to support a desysop. But unfortunately too many Arbs chose to instead hide behind the secret "evidence" to support that desysop anyway. This RFA is our way to revert that poor decision, and so I !vote. Anomie 00:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  93. Support per Iridescent and Xeno's statements, per Ealdgyth, Laser brain, Tryptofish, Yngvadottir, Johnbod and others. Fram is deeply committed to the project and to quality and I believe we need voices that, apparently, are considered dissension. Fram is deeply honest, apparently to a fault, but honesty is quality I value. I know Fram from watching DYK talk for more than a decade; from watching the VE roll-out; and from the medieval Early Netherlandish painting subject areas where I'm active. I've never had a negative interaction with Fram. I meant to wait until I have more time to write a better thought-out and more elegant comment but decided to post this now, though I hope to return to expand when I have more time. I'm deeply sad to see the division in the community and hope we can recover. P.s, edit conflicted w/ Anomie above & agree w/ that statement too. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  94. Support per Iridescent. Also, anyone disliked by the massed ranks of the Wikimedia DC chapter, with their undue influence in WMF circles, can't be bad. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Moved discussion to talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    There are tens of us! Tens! Gamaliel (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  95. Support. Welcome back. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  96. Support (Moral). After all the feedback I am sure Fram will be much more careful not to become exasperated at users. If not, ArbCom will deal with it swiftly, and I will support them in doing so. Fram, you probably should have waited to come to RfA and been more reflective on your errors to have improved your chances. In addition, I do not like the appearance that the WMF DC Chapter is playing games. I know political tricks are fashionable in Washington, but let's not import that stuff into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 01:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    What are you and Sitush implying? Is this because you thought WMF DC somehow criticized you? I don't see how Wikipedia chapters are relevant when evaluating Fram's fitness to be an administrator. If there is some connection, please elaborate on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fram 2. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently WMDC is the Wikipedia Deep State. Gamaliel (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  97. Support per TRM. The bit should never have been removed, so the community really shouldn't be deciding to give it back. Nihlus 02:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  98. Strongest Possible Support As the process, full of secret evidence that Fram never did see, was fundamentally unjust, any penalty that resulted from the process is also fundamentally unjust. An oppose vote under these circumstances is the raising of an unclean hand. Opposing the WMF's actions and opposing Fram's RFA here are mutually exclusive. I'll support Fram's RFA whether it's this attempt or the thousandth consecutive attempt after this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  99. Support The tools should never have been taken from him in the first place. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Glad you found this page with your second edit of the year... Welcome back to Wikipedia! Carrite (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  100. Support – should never have been desysopped. Has done great work with the sysop tools in the past and I am confident that they will continue to do so if given back the tools. Graham87 04:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  101. Support Many of Fram's detractors have managed to keep tools despite egregiously poor stints as arbitrators and admins with very poor behaviour. There was no justification or diffs provided for tool removal despite the assurance that all behaviour was on-wiki. Resysop. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  102. Support - Fram was always a strong but fair administrator who lose the tools through a disgraceful process against all natural justice. Of course they should be returned. I also hope that the 'crats evaluating this decision will look with appropriate disdain on the !votes from people whose response essentially boils down to "There are reasons but I can't tell you what they are". That's how this mess came about in the first place. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  103. I am strongly supporting, largely per what Anomie said. This is an editor who is wholly committed to the project and who has done years of excellent administrative work. They have had occasionally lapses of civility and are sometimes over assertive, but I believe they are willing and able to take on board feedback, and this is anyway more than offset by all their positive work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  104. Support – Notwithstanding the exceptional circumstances that took the community to this RfA, Fram's conduct as an administrator is worth examining. In the arbitration case, it was found that Fram had violated WP:ADMINCOND, our policy about expectations of administrator conduct. This policy states:

    Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. (emphasis mine)

    Nobody has alleged "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia", so we are left with an appreciation of Fram's conduct as exhibiting "consistent or egregious poor judgment". Turning to the available evidence, as dissected by GorillaWarfare, I could see indeed several incidents where Fram has been unduly combative in dealing with contentious situations. However, none of those incidents occurred within the last year and a half, after the Copyvio & retaliation ArbCom case in March 2018. At the time, Fram acknowledged that "being right and being a dick at the same time" was not a productive or respectful approach, and since then s/he has settled on a "blunt but fair" attitude. In this admin candidacy, Fram pledged to seek assistance from other admins when s/he feels s/he can't deal with a situation. Acknowledging one's mistakes, and taking concrete action to improve one's behaviour, are hallmarks of maturity, and I believe that Fram has passed that bar. Being "blunt but fair" is a perfectly acceptable posture for someone entrusted with powerful tools, just as being "magnagnimous and mentoring" is another perfectly acceptable posture. Our admin corps needs both types. — JFG talk 08:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  105. Support on procedural grounds if nothing else. It's been said above but apparently needs to be reiterated: Since Arbcom saw no merit in the office ban of Fram, they should have restored the status quo ante and resysopped him in addition to vacating the ban. Anyone who wanted to could then have initiated a proper Arbcom case, with open evidence, about Fram's behavior as an admin. I don't recall ever dealing with Fram personally, but this whole business appears to have been an unseemly exercise in authoritarianism. Deor (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  106. SupportWasell(T) 09:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  107. Support because Fram is an excellent editor and admin who had the integrity to address the long-term problematic editing by the person who reported him to T&S. Fram brought his concerns about the editor at different times to AN and ANI, and the community found his concerns to be valid. Unfortunately, although Fram had no way of knowing it, the complaining editor was the spouse of a WMF Board member. This lead to an unfair process and the unfair desysoping. Although the T&S complaint was "confidential", the editor made it public in a "notice box" that is worth your careful review. Hlevy2 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  108. Support Do I think Fram was one of the finest examples of our admin corps? No. He has flaws and some rough edges. But I feel the grounds for him losing his mop were flat-out wrong. I tend to agree with those who suggest this RfA should have been postponed, because there's too much heat in this, but here we are and I am strongly of the opinion he shouldn't have been desysopped in the first place. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose – at this time. Let me begin by saying I have considered none of the allegations relating to your recent case involving WMF and a cast of hundreds. I have read it and commented only a few times here and there.
    I am pleased to see that you accepted a considerable amount of advice in the preparation of your RFA. In particular Q3 and deciding against turning your request into an extension of the drama crusade against WMF/T&S. That, at least, demonstrates a willingness to accept and receive advice. There is no doubt that the hostile diatribe in your earlier draft was an error of judgement. But admins. do not usually get the chance to collaborate on their responses & decisions and I fear that if the Admin. rights are returned, you will resort to the behaviour pattern which would see an ordinary editor referred to AN/I. You are indeed a curious special case. I do doubt you can change your ways (despite the effusive nomination statements to the contrary) or moderate your approach so that editors do not “feel” intimidated by the force, weight and repetition of the arguments you advocate. But I accept that I might be wrong and to that end I think a few months of post drama work might have provided the proof. Instead, you had this drafted even before the AC case was closed, again demonstrating your impetuous nature. I think you have not yet distinguished between the valid concerns about your treatment by others (WMF, Arbcom) and the justifiable concerns about your treatment towards others (identified in Q3 and some of your nominator’s remarks). In fact your dismissive treatment of an editor within the last 24 hours on your talk page indicates your current inability to tolerate challenge. Finally, your voluminous nomination statements look like an attempt at a coronation. Shows bad judgement. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Temperamentally unsuited to be an administrator. Arbcom may have got to the result in a convoluted manner, but they got to a correct result nevertheless. If Fram wants to pour on a 1,680 word nomination to make it seem like All Righteous Thinkers support him, please bear with me for an equally wordy response of why this person should not have power tools ever again: (1) Response to the bad block of GorillaWarfare. I'm sure others will explain why it was a block that never should have been made. It was terrible. Shit happens. What doesn't need to happen, however, is having administrators with such an apparent superiority complex as THIS. When Fuzheado undid his clearly and egregiously bad block, Fram huffed up a bogus requirement that "unblocking shouldn't be done before consulting the blocking administrator... Please reinstate the block and take it to a noticeboard instead." Failure to admit error, failure to even consider the possibility that a dubious block for reasons that only a tortured and "original" interpretation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy would justify, is exactly what we do not want to see in an administrator. I'm not the only one who sees this. A few days ago, HERE is advice Geo Swan} gave Fram, pointing out his user talk: "Your record seems to show you have a great deal of trouble (1) considering the possibility you may have made a mistake; (2) you seem to have a great deal of trouble with showing respect to people who disagree with you." It took Fram an entire four minutes to to contemplate this sage observation before vanishing it from the page with the edit note: "unwanted advice." Well, my friend, you should want that advice, because it is exactly right. //// (more to follow) No need to pile on. Carrite (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Last edit: 15:32 26 Sept. 2019
  3. Oppose This !vote is not based whatsoever on anything other than my usual concerns. At AfD, the !votes are over 90% for delete, and about 20% of the time, the result is "not delete". The batting average is below the standards I consider reasonable. And I fear that other arguments made relating to past events are unimportant. Collect (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose - It's about the tools and lapses of civility that has been ongoing for years. Fram's style and temperament have left a track record of his hounding multiple editors. This has not happened in a vacuum: see WP:FANCLUB, and refer to the drama that unfolded on Jimbo's talk page over the summer. The subsequent Arbcom case that vacated Fram's ban imposed by Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety (T&S) team, concurred that "the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator". Arbcom did not automatically restore his tools, but drop-kicked the ball to RFA.1
    Years ago, I had crossed paths with a good-faith editor whose perceived skill level by Fram led him to launch an unsuccessful attempt to get the editor permanently banned/blocked. That editor is now alleged to be the subject of this year's drama that led to the removal of Fram's tools. During the drama, others "outed" that editor's online identity and private life, leading to the outed editor opting for their right to WP:VANISH. This sends a troubling message that Fram was still targeting this individual, only halted by a T&S intervention.
    How many other editors have dealt repeatedly with Fram hounding them, and for how long? When Fram reverts/deletes/goes after another editor's work, I am not convinced he's always backed by policy. But he's had the tools, so it's his way or the highway. I know of other editors who have been his focus of repeated hounding, but considering the careless "outing" by in-house loose lips, I prefer Fram's other targets "out" themselves if they feel so led. This RFA, and my opposition, is about Fram's temperament and how he has used the tools. — Maile (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - the behaviour displayed over the years by Fram is clearly not up to the standard we should expect from administrators. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose While I support the community pushing back against the WMF process, I can tell you from personal experience that that the "good work" of this candidate caused me significant harm over the years, and not just "on-wiki" harm. They have never stopped finding fault with my work, rarely if ever apologised or even acknowledged being wrong. They have pushed for my indefinite banning for over a decade, and succeeded in getting a year block over one edit to one article which I created.
    While in the early stages of the Arbitration case there were statements about "trying to do better" Fram has not changed his approach. He has deleted advice on how to work collegially from his talk page with the dismissive edit summary "Advice not wanted", and on Meta he is decrying ArbCom as puppets of the WMF. Once again Fram is right, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
    May-be, provide links to the multiple community threads on you including an ArbCom case, for the sake of fairness? WBGconverse 13:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    A little ad hom there? Face-wink.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
    Just as an aside, and as two people have brought it up now, that "advice" that Fram removed was a follow-up from an editor who had only an hour previously posted this less than collegial message. In the light of that, I can understand Fram reacting badly to the subsequent "advice". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    less than collegial message is a rather diplomatic way of saying "patronizing tirade". I'm staggered that anyone would think removing stuff like that from their own talk page would count against any RfA candidate. Reyk YO! 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's not what I was referring to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
    Jeez people aren't allowed to remove messages from their own talk page now?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    It's clearly not and never was "not allowed to". It would have been simple and diplomatic to reply "Thanks for the advice" - no harm done, no need to follow the advice, tensions descalated.
    As an admin this sort of basic people skill is really a requirement.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC).
  7. Oppose Not going to write an essay here, because you will already have your views that aren't going to change, but ignoring the procedural irregularities of this whole debacle, I would not vote for anyone who arbcom have found to be involved in a pattern of borderline harassment, however valuable the rest of their work is for the project. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Just like WP:DRV isn't WP:AFD round 2, RFA isn't RFAR round 2. In this request for adminship, we're not asking "was Fram treated unjustly?", we're asking "Given everything we know, should Fram be an admin?". For me, the answer to this question is No, per Carrite above.
    I was also taken aback by this proposal Fram made during the early FRAMBAN discussion that we not just go on protest strikes on his behalf, but actually mark WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CCI as historical. This clearly puts a dent in the defense that Fram's behaviour can be excused by his commitment to quality and the integrity of Wikipedia. Compare and contrast with The Rambling Man, for example, who has been blocked a few times because of his temper in pursuit of quality - throughout all his blocks he never relented in posting what he saw issues that needed to be fixed, instead of just giving up, or worse, ask people to actively disrupt Wikipedia in solidarity.
    I further find the incongruity between Fram's aversion to authority and his request to wield authority himself to be absurd. Last but not least, while the "Fuck Arbcom" comment keeps getting downplayed, the reason this was inherently toxic is that it is difficult to address the unacceptable tone of this outburst without risking immediately to be accused of wanting to silence a critic. Admins are supposed to lead by example, and this is not the kind of examples I'd like to see set for the rest of the editor community. Being a critic of Arbcom or the WMF doesn't require the bit.
    For all these reasons, Fram should not recover his bit, regardless of how flawed the process that led to its loss was. MLauba (Talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per OxonAlex, and MLauba summarises my thoughts with the sentence "Admins are supposed to lead by example, and this is not the kind of examples I'd like to see set for the rest of the editor community". Sam Walton (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Since I apparently can't {{hat}} things any more, additional comments were removed about a topic outside of RFA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. Strong Oppose. Fram is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin. His behavior harassing other users has been over the top. He can edit the encyclopedia without the administrator toolkit and because of his temperament and past abuses of the system, he should never be granted the ability to exercise such power. I’ll not go into details, as we all know the tale. Montanabw(talk) 13:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. It's interesting to look at previous versions of this RFA. The first edit summary reads "No discussion, no application of logic, no appeal to fairness or demand of actual evidence will change the position of those wanting to desysop". Yet the now-removed text is far from a logical discussion, but is a rabble rousing cry to send "a clear message to WMF and ArbCom". You've already sent that message and both the WMF and ArbCom have backed down; there's a clear victory for community governance. Now the message you need to send is not a rallying cry for a battle that's over, it's a message that you are indeed capable of competent community governance, and the way to do that is not to empower a long-term abuser just to spite perceived authority figures. If you want to believe that there no evidence for any of this, despite ample testimony of many and a 70 page report, then no discussion, no application of logic, no appeal to fairness will change your position. While I'm here, I would like to direct Fram's most infamous two word quote to ArbCom, who in a stunning display of moral cowardice has dropped this mess in our lap. Were there any justice in this world, all nine of them would be forced to live in the same house as Fram for an entire season of Big Brother. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. I came to my conclusion separately, but I'm here per Maile, Maluba, Gamaliel. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Even their supporters admit their behavior has been appalling and undermining of their own efforts to support them, where they themselves admit that they probably should have been blocked for their behavior. They are happy to shower ArbCom with praises when they think they're on their side. And when it becomes apparent they're not, ArbCom is a cabal of lies conspiring to undermine them (which by some observers could be construed as a personal attack). The best defense here seems to be that they've been doing a bit better lately, except they haven't really.
    The nomination wants us to believe that they care deeply about the project, while the evidence that I've seen is that they care first and foremost about being conspicuously correct, and making sure everyone knows it regardless of the consequences. As pointed out above by Montanabw, "caring about the project" went right out the window the moment it stood in between Fram and being vindictively right. The notion in #3 that they had a brief spat of incivility for two isolated months shows...what?...obliviousness? I get it, people get divorced, family members get sick, sometimes people have a rough go, but we just finished an ArbCom case where, even with time limits placed on evidence we have a novella's worth of incidents. So everything outside these two months is perfectly okay?
    There is simply no reality in which we would give access to the tools to any other user who has such a sustained record of toxicity, been dragged to noticeboards so often, desysoped by ArbCom for cause (in a case where there was unanimous agreement that their conduct was unbecoming, and the most significant debate was how rather than whether to desysop), is even remotely a candidate for being banned by the Foundation, and who continues to be toxic even as the community is debating the extent of their toxicity. The only thing that makes this different is that vocal parts of our community are itching to give the finger to the Foundation whatever it takes.
    So by all means cast a !vote to give the finger to the Foundation by restoring adminship to a toxic user, but heaven help you if you ever find yourself standing between Fram and conspicuous correctness, because they don't care about you, and they will grind you down in the same way they've spent years doing the same to others. Good luck. GMGtalk 14:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I have no doubt that Fram is well versed in policy, as well as capable and accurate in actions. I respect Fram for that and see their value. However, more is needed from an admin. WP:ADMINCOND states: “Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.” I feel that to meet this, Admins must do two things in their communication. (1) Respond respectfully to others when correcting them, as this is more conducive to the person actually making a change. (2) Listen when others provide constructive feedback or correction, and try to see if any of it could apply. My personal impression is that Fram, while often right, does not meet either of these two points. If Fram was less blunt with others, it may give room for those corrected to really change instead of resisting. And if Fram could really consider feedback from others, without arguing that it does not apply, it would help Fram. I also feel the “lead by example” point is a key. How do we want new users to behave towards each other? They will follow the example our admins set. Would a new user see a comment by Fram and assume they can likewise correct others that way? Such a new user may then use the same tone as Fram, but without the logic or accuracy behind their statements that Fram has. Examples are powerful. We must think not only of the effect Fram’s communication has on others but the effect that the imitators of it will have. So for now, I must sadly oppose. Desertborn (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  15. No, because of the last ArbCom elections, which they tried to tank (well, I didn't get in, so I guess they were successful). Somewhere in there they suggested I have students write for DYK so I can get "free reviews", which is pretty ridiculous. I went looking for the diff, but found it's oversighted. I ran into a couple more such edits of theirs on the same occasion, this (edit summary suppressed) and this (oversighted as "Potentially libelous/defamatory"), and now I'm kind of sick to my stomach. One wonders why they never sought to desysop me; they were eager enough to do that for other admins.

    I don't know what prompts a person to make those kinds of statements; I was fine with not running into this admin for the while. I didn't even submit this to ArbCom, though in hindsight I should have. I didn't even follow the case, in part because the whole episode was so embarrassing in so many ways, including the blatant abuse of process by the WMF, and so I never really got a good idea of what the alleged harassment was supposed to be--but that Fram is capable of saying horrible things is clear to me. The RfA is likely to pass, and as a certified sheep I will fall in line with the community, but if I live out my Wikipedia career without ever seeing them again that will be a good thing. (User:Xeno, they aren't "curt"--they made a ton of edits that had to be oversighted.) Drmies (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

    Drmies, for the sake of those who don't have admin access (we just get an error message come up saying the comment is oversighted), can you provide the dates on those diffs? No showing of content is needed, just the dates/datestamps. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Even for the sake of those who are admins but not oversighters, the dates would indeed be helpful. GoldenRing (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    The threads are presumably here and [9]. ——SerialNumber54129 16:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    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)
    Carcharoth, they're being brought up now because I brought them up here. I didn't bring them forward to the committee, for a variety of reasons--one of them being that I really didn't want to get into it, another being that apparently the desysopped admin had harassment charges leveled against them that were specific and serious, but in a process that I fundamentally disagreed with (I agree with Floquenbeam's opening words here). So I figured that the case should be judged on those merits, on the evidence that was already presented to T&S. Once or twice I considered emailing the committee privately but never did. Obviously I can't speak for Kirill, nor do I have any idea what ArbCom discussed privately--or even publicly, because I chose not to pay a lot of attention to the case. I think what I was thinking was that whatever they had done or not done should bury or exonerate them, not what I or others might pile on top of that. You have all the magic glasses, and you can see what's underneath: it's not good, and I am still disgusted that someone would say that. We are asked here not to re-judge what the WMF (foolishly) chose to do, but whether the candidate has the trust of the community, and that is what I am addressing here, as much as I am able or willing to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Hi Drmies. Thank you for your reply. I gave up the oversight and checkuser tools (I presume this is what you mean by 'magic glasses') when I left the arbitration committee. I am familiar with the history of the banned user in question, but have not seen what was oversighted. You will appreciate that it is difficult to form a full opinion on something that can't be seen. I will ping Kirill again here, as I don't think the original ping was sent. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Drmies: The vast majority of participants won't be able to view those diffs. I'm not sure how to move forward - whether your comment can be re-worded to exclude them, or another oversighter could comment on them, but introducing additional unseeable evidence doesn't seem fair to the community. –xenotalk 16:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    If memories serves me correctly, these two diffs were related to this arbitration case filed by Fram ([10]). 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)
    Makes no sense to call it "misleading", the fact that those diffs were *oversighted* is information in itself (if anyone is unaware, please see WP:OVERSIGHT to see what is oversighted, there is a strict mandate). Replying to xeno too, there is nothing about this vote that needs to be refactored, anyone is allowed to include any diffs they want over here (irrelevancy aside) and Drmies is not an exception. Please, let's not muddle things here. --qedk (t c) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Differences can't be viewed, and calling attention to oversighted edits seems counter-intuitive. I've sought advice on the functionaries mailing list. –xenotalk 18:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ha. "The fact that the evidence is secret makes it more damning." To think this whole scandal could get even more Kafkaesque...—Chowbok 18:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Misconstruing replies and throwing in absolutely pointless buzzwords doesn't make your argument any less pointless than it was. WP:OVERSIGHT is a policy that has existed and will continue to exist for a reason, if you think that is kafkaesque, why are you editing Wikipedia? --qedk (t c) 18:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Xeno, I'm sorry, and I see your point, but in this AfD I'm not just going to sit by and watch. Yes, most people will not be able to see these comments of Fram's. I cannot help that. I can hardly say "No not ever but I can't tell you why, but I have really good reaons". I did cite "you're despicable"... (Tryptofish, somewhere here, says they've heard me say worse...) Alex Shih, "misleading" is a bit of a crappy term here. As an administrator (and I assume you're still an oversighter, as a former arb?), you can see them, no? You are more than welcome to provide a summary here that doesn't violate the various policies, if you can. But if you can't do that, or won't do that, don't throw "misleading" in my face. It wasn't my comments that prompted oversight. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Drmies: Alex Shih is not an oversighter. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Alex Shih relinquenshed his CUOS when he resigned (Meta log: (change visibility) 00:21, 5 September 2018 -revi (A/OS/S) ( talk | contribs | block ) changed group membership for Alex Shih@enwiki from CheckUser, oversight and administrator to administrator (SRP: resigned) ) and he lost adminship around SE2019 (Jan-Feb 2019). — regards, Revi 00:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Drmies, you are an oversighter. Could you just characterize the comments, generally, without specifying or repeating the content (which would defeat the aim of oversighting)? I take your word that it was something objectionable but it seems that some editors want more information. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Is there a way to tell us how many edits were oversighted, and over what time frame? Levivich 16:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich and Liz: See my reply to Wugapodes below. I think that's the extent of possible explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose :The inadequate processes we have collectively allowed to develop have led to this entire scenario. Had the community dealt with the behavioral problems extending for many years with Fram, the WMF would not likely have stepped in. Given our own community’s lax rules in civility and acceptance of content creation as an excuse for poor conduct, I understand why they did, but the way it was done is unacceptable and an overstep of the WMF authority. Ironically, however, had the foundation not stepped in Fram would still be an admin and we would not be here re-evaluating their suitability. ARBCOM would, based on past performance, more than likely have continued to give Fram a pass had their hand not been pressed by this unusual situation. But this isn’t about the merits of how we got here, rather it’s about whether Fram should be an administrator.
    While there has been evidence of mistakes in Fram’s use of the tools, for the most part, they are few in comparison to the large number of edits which were correctly applied. They clearly understand the functions of the job, but they are temperamentally unsuited to do the job. For as long as I have edited on WP, I have seen Fram hound and intimidate other editors. Saying one has learned from their mistakes and actually changing their behavior are two very different things and Fram does not seem to have changed much over the years, despite promises. No one should ever be treated with the distain that Fram has shown to some. As an admin, their conduct has been combative, overly aggressive, and a demonstration of someone who is unwilling to accept challenges to their authority. They have been allowed to continue this behavior creating an environment where others feel unsafe to edit or speak up, because they and their supporters have made it clear that they are “unblockable”. Fram has chosen to behave in the manner they have done and should not be rewarded for their poor choices. Their behavior creates disruption and division in the project that cannot be offset by their contributions and under no circumstances should they be given the opportunity to have authority again.SusunW (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  17. Oppose :I've always thought that there are some editors/admins who do lots of good work but, because of their attitude/style, have a net negative value, driving well-meaning editors away. On balance, I think that Fram may be one of those, hence my oppose. Nigej (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per concerns about temperament raised by other users. Admins have a higher responsibility than other Wikipedians to treat users with respect and civility. The candidate's dismissive and contentions responses to the questions posed in this RfA solidify my opposition. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  19. Oppose I had started my own explanation for this !vote, but I note that Leaky caldron and Maile66 have summarised my thoughts more eloquently than I could. I also feel that some of SusunW's comments are so to the point that I will quote them in full: "No one should ever be treated with the distain that Fram has shown to some. As an admin, their conduct has been combative, overly aggressive, and a demonstration of someone who is unwilling to accept challenges to their authority. They have been allowed to continue this behavior creating an environment where others feel unsafe to edit or speak up, because they and their supporters have made it clear that they are “unblockable”. Fram has chosen to behave in the manner they have done and should not be rewarded for their poor choices. Their behavior creates disruption and division in the project that cannot be offset by their contributions and under no circumstances should they be given the opportunity to have authority again." I consider this a rare opportunity to say that I consider that there is a level of misbehaviour which is unacceptable even in admins. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Concerns with their temperament being simply unbecoming of an administrator. Concur with Carrite and GMG. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Changing to strong oppose at the sight of this edit summary. Just what sort of a candidate am I even supposed to be looking at right now?! Drmies and Kirill Lokshin bring more evidence to the table as to why this RFA should not pass. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  21. Oppose -- Basically per Montanabw's reasoning above. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Per many of the reasons brought up by others, specifically Drmies. I believe civility and maintaining a safe and welcoming place to contribute is one of the more important responsibilities of an administrator, and Fram has evidently not done so, instead fueling the opposite. Vermont (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per questions about temperament highlighted above -- long history of being harmful to both established and new editors. Sadads (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  24. Strong Oppose, largely per Drmies. During last year's ArbCom election, Fram—having presumably found Drmies' candidacy to be somehow particularly unpalatable—decided to publicize an alternate account which Drmies had used to support the Wikipedia Education Program, despite Drmies' explanation that doing so would cause "harassment [...] to be exported to [Drmies'] students" ([11], [12]). Fram's actions in the matter were wildly irresponsible, and—done merely as a petty political stunt—entirely unjustifiable; Wikipedia does not need an administrator that deliberately makes one of their colleagues a target for off-wiki harassment because they disagree with their on-wiki conduct or want to sabotage their candidacy for an on-wiki role. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm happy to confirm, for Carcharoth's benefit, that (i) I am indeed a member of the Wikimedia DC Board of Directors; (ii) that Wikimedia DC did indeed make a formal public statement supporting efforts to make Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and gender identities and opposing the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language in Wikipedia discussions; and (iii) that I, personally, continue to embrace and support the principles expressed in that statement. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Kirill Lokshin, I think everybody wants Wikipedia to be welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and gender identities. I'd just like to say that the diversity issue seems a bit offtopic here, and haven't seen any evidence of issues with Fram that relate to their opponents' backgrounds, gender identities, or race; to my knowledge (CMIIW) Fram has criticised various editors (on competence grounds, or based on other disagreements eg. regarding Wikidata) without any discernible discrimination based on racial or gender identity. —Kusma (t·c) 11:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Kusma, I didn't think this was particularly on topic either, which is why I hadn't mentioned it before. However, Carcharoth has suggested that I have an ethical obligation to disclose this here, so I have. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Kusma, see the RfA talk page. The specific concern I have relates to a part of the press release not quoted by Kirill, namely that "Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation." - in my mind, that preamble directly links the WMDC board of directors into the whole matter. They chose to get involved by issuing that press release, and despite the later wording ("We are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process"), it is clear that the views are strongly held, enough in my mind that disclosure was required (to be clear, the concern may well be with the WMF and their treatment of Fram). It is not the direction of the concern, but that the concern was 'deep' (I would ask for the disclosure regardless of what the views expressed were here). It is rare to see a Wikimedia Chapter issuing press releases like that. It is relevant background, and I think Kirill did the right thing here to disclose the connection. I hope other members of the Wikimedia DC board of directors will follow his lead. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Temperement concwerns. I want admin to reduce conflict not escalate it. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Temperament concerns. The comments by Drmies and Kirill Lokshin are especially concerning. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  27. Reluctant oppose, significantly informed by Carrite's !vote. I still believe that adminship should not be a big deal - easily obtained, and easily lost. Fram has done yeoman service to the project as an admin. But there are also enough problems with their actions that I cannot, in good faith, support giving them the tools. My opinion here is totally unrelated to the T&S actions, which I believe were both unjust and horrifically managed. While I think Fram deserves an apology for that, I don't believe that re-adminning them is the appropriate way to achieve this. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. As per Valeree's Support, "Fram has often behaved like a jerk, and admins who behave like jerks are abusing the tools every time they act like a jerk to anyone who doesn’t have the same amount of power they have, and that includes other admins who aren’t as influential. Fram is clearly a super useful admin 99% of the time, but that 1% of the time they aren’t causes drama, wastes others’ time and energy, and likely has resulted in the loss of useful or potentially useful editors. That 1% has a disproportionate effect and cancels out way more than 1% of the good work Fram does. If this had been a fresh RfA, I’d have likely !voted oppose with a recommendation the candidate run again after a period of jerk-free behavior". Battleofalma (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - unfortunately, controversy has consequences. Perhaps it would be best for Fram to wait a couple of years, and then reapply. Atsme Talk 📧 15:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  30. Oppose per many of the above, particularly Drmies. – bradv🍁 15:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Doing the same admin work as before is extremely likely to lead to the same problematic behavior as before. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  32. Oppose There are certain things you just don't do while in a position of trust. Some get it, some don't. Fram didn't get it and so s/he got the boot instead. So far, so good. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. I was going to oppose because of temperament and judgment, but what Fram did to Drmies is beyond any boundaries of decency.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Bbb23: What did Fram due to Drmies? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Fram's behavior falls far below what what we should accept in our sysop corps.--Jorm (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. There are too many long term behavioral concerns for Fram to be in a position of trust and authority in the community. Deli nk (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - Please note that RfA is about whether the community trusts the candidate to use the admin tools. This is not about whether Fram was treated fairly in previous matters, though I believe he has been given a great deal too much rope already and proven that he can't handle the responsibility that goes with being an admin. I personally will never be able to trust his word ever again (see my follow-up to question number 6). Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Since I apparently can't {{hat}} things any more, additional comments were removed about a topic outside of RFA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  37. Just no - Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  38. Nope per Kirill Lokshin --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  39. Strong Oppose Hell no. Letting aside the fact that they are were a banned user, their behaviour in general indicates that they are completely unsuited to be trusted with the admin tools. Bear in mind that I believe in WP:NOBIGDEAL - this is an exception. Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: Fram was unbanned after this decision by ArbCom. aboideautalk 17:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Aboideau beat me to it, but T&S commuted their ban to Arbcom's discretion, and Arbcom overturned it. It happened somewhat recently and pretty quietly compared to the original action, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link - I was unaware of the Arbcom decision, and I can't see it mentioned in the nominations above. I've tweaked my !vote above accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  40. Oppose While the ban was unjust, this whole fiasco has shown that there clearly were underlying isssues. Fram's continued borderline incivility and other behavioral problems show that they just aren't cut out to be a cool, level-headed admin. Now I do however believe in the power of change and reform. I'd give Fram the advice we'd give to any newbie editor who's just failed RfA per WP:NOTYET: improve your skills and contributions, be a positive asset to the community, and try again in 6 months to a year. But before I'd support Fram in an RfA, I'd want to see at least 6 months of nearly perfect behavior. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - I find that I appreciate how Fram is willing to challenge power and fight for what he thinks is right. I hope he will continue to do that regardless of the outcome here. But yes, there are some well-documented problems. A few months ago I had mixed feelings but would've likely landed in the support camp. The framban ordeal was a big, exceptionally poorly handled mess, but in the course of those discussions a lot did come to light that I hadn't seen in the past. What Drmies talks about is just the latest example that pushed me from abstain-leaning-oppose to adding my name to this column. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Sorry, but the answers to the questions don't reassure me. If this is simply a matter of justice, there are other admins who I feel have been far more unfortunate. Deb (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Temperament concerns and many other issues raised above. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Temperament, behavior, incivility, etc; I don't care how technically skilled or brilliant you are if you're a jerk. When even the people supporting the candidate mention how incivil they can be, that's a gigantic red flag. --moof (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  45. Oppose (moved from "Neutral"). Wow, my thoughts in my "neutral" vote were right. The original diff of this RFA is hecka concerning. I don't care to know what happened in WP:FRAM, and never will, but dang, that self-nomination statement is like giving the community and the structure of Wikipedia a rather disrespecting middle finger. And then later down the road, the self-nomination statement disappeared and was covered up by multiple nominating statements by other editors, validating my assumptions/concerns in my "neutral" statement about something being covered up. After witnessing this and the now-validated attempting at bandwagoning support with the nomination statement, I have to oppose this candidate until there is hard evidence Fram gaining at least a shred of humility over this whole situation, which at this time, I do not see any hard evidence to prove. All in all, my primary concern is that if Fram becomes an admin again now, they will go back to whatever tendencies they had which led to WP:FRAM, community issues, and apparently, doing questionable gut-actions "from the hip" the moment after their admin tools are restored. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Dude... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    ...Yep, it's the insurance that none of my words are taken out of context and my points stated clearly. Total red herring there, but s'all good. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Simply too big of a cloud with what has gone on recently, and this could dent editor retention. A case of WP:NOTNOW, and we should see how the next 12-18 months pan out, with an emphasis of trust across the wider community. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  47. Oppose First because I remain concerned about the comportment that Fram demonstrated as an editor, let alone as an admin. Furthermore Arbcom saw fit to support Fram's desysopping. Considering the closed nature of the evidence, I feel we must trust they had good reason. Finally, I don't think it will reflect well on the Wikipedia community to reinstate Fram at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  48. Oppose per Kiril and others echoing temperament concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  49. Opppse, rather strongly. Fram's generally belligerent and aggressive attitude is not suitable in an administrator. They have said on a number of occasions that they are trying to be better, but we haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Their recent shooing away of Geo Swan from their talk page also does nothing to inspire confidence that they have changed. Also is their tendency to cry PA over almost any negative comment made against them, blithely ignoring the vast amount of PAs (considered so by their own standards) they have themselves made against countless editors. When confronted about their behaviour, the typical response is along the lines of "I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across".
    Fram is still a valuable editor to the project; they don't necessarily need the bit for a lot of their work. They can still nominate pages for CSD/PROD/AFD, request copyvio-revdels, report users to drama-boards, create content, all without the admin bit. I would like to see them as an editor for an extended period before they become an admin. Starting this RfA within days of the ArbCom case closing is in bad taste. SD0001 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. I don't wish to empower someone who is prone to behavioral problems. Fram can continue to contribute as a regular user. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  51. Oppose sorry. Administrators are supposed to adhere to higher conduct standards than other editors, and I think there needs to be some evidence of improvement in this regard. If we hand the tools straight back then we are basically saying that they shouldn't have been removed in the first place. I know Wikipedia is generally terrible at enforcement of civility rules but that's a bug, not a feature. Hut 8.5 17:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. Fram seems unable to work with fellow editors in a collaborative and congenial way. I just spent some time going through their talk page archives looking for examples (and found plenty), but ultimately, the oft-quoted "Fuck ArbCom" statement [13] is sufficient to justify being de-sysopped, so I'll leave it at that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. The impression I get from the discussion so far is that everyone pretty much agrees that Fram's behavior is often problematic, but half the people are willing to overlook that because his other contributions balance it out and the other half thinks it matters enough to disqualify him from adminship. Missing from the support, in my opinion, is any strong argument that Fram needs the admin tools to make his positive contributions to Wikipedia. Fram can continue to make the contributions that people value without being an admin, while avoiding the downside to having a poorly behaved admin. Peacock (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Fram has made over 28,000 logged admin actions, that one stat should be enough for most people to accept that by normal standards, Fram has a need for the tools. The vast majority of those actions are deletions, and I haven't spotted a single oppose that says Fram is making deletion mistakes. There have been arguments about two of the blocks Fram has made, but 2 out of 28,000 is not a pattern. The criticism mostly comes from their interactions with other editors, that doesn't go away if Fram doesn't have the admin tools, though there is an argument that admins should be more civil than the minimum that we accept. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  54. 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)
  55. Oppose As per above. He should maybe try in one year's time. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  56. Oppose like Bbb23 I was going to oppose due to temperament among other things but it pales in comparison to Drmies oppose. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  57. Ultimately I cannot support. When Fram thinks that he is right, he uses any means, civil or not, to get what he wants (mainly outlined at User:GorillaWarfare/Fram admin status notes, including some comments that I made). This battleground conduct is unacceptable for an administrator and maybe even for an editor. What also doesn't sit well with me is that ArbCom literally went to bat for him for months against WMF (despite his complete disdain for them) and yet he keeps attacking individual arbitrators on his Meta talk page.

    I want to see administrators who can work collaboratively with other editors rather than saying "I'm right" and bulldozing over everyone else, and who show empathy for other people. If we were all robots devoid of emotion and feeling, then this wouldn't matter at all. But that is not the case (emotions are certainly not a negative - this is part of being human). Wikimedia is all about people working together to build something, and if someone cannot raise legitimate criticisms in a collaborative manner, they should not be in any position of leadership on this site.

    People can change, but I would rather see that happen first before returning adminship tools. --Rschen7754 18:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I have yet to !vote, but I cannot agree strongly enough with this comment about what adminship should be. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "I want to see administrators who can work collaboratively with other editors rather than saying "I'm right" and bulldozing over everyone else, and who show empathy for other people. If we were all robots devoid of emotion and feeling, then this wouldn't matter at all. But that is not the case (emotions are certainly not a negative - this is part of being human). Wikimedia is all about people working together to build something, and if someone cannot raise legitimate criticisms in a collaborative manner, they should not be in any position of leadership on this site." I completely agree with statement. That took the thoughts I've developed after the past few years and worded them succinctly. Just ... wow. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Allow me to be the third to say this is very, very well said. ~ Amory (utc) 20:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  58. Oppose While I acknowledge that the desysop and ban were wrong, and I do not want this oppose !vote to be construed as an endorsement thereof, Fram's answers to Q7 and Q8 bother me., and coupled with his notoriety for temperament I get the feeling that if he were anyone else and there was no "stick it to the WMF" subtext this would be a SNOW closure. My apologies for failing to assume good faith of the supporters. (NOTE:Neither the WMF shenanigans nor the ArbCom stuff have any bearing on my !vote.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  59. Strong Oppose per many of the above comments, including those from @Drmies, Gamaliel, Kirill Lokshin, Montanabw, and SusunW, but also from a few others. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  60. Oppose per Rosiestep et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  61. Oppose I approached this RfA with a "clean slate" approach. I am extremely unimpressed with the answers to the supplementary questions thus far, in particular Smallbones' question no. 6. We need admins who are able to get the job done without bringing a lot of additional baggage and drama. A response to a legitimate question "While you obviously don't like me" is not the approach anyone needs from admins. I am unconvinced that giving this user access to the admin tools will be a net positive for the project and therefore this RfA should fail. N.J.A. | talk 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  62. Oppose per most of the above, especially Drmies. Also, I feel like WP:NOTNOW applies here after all that has gone on. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  63. Oppose, with regrets. I am on record as strongly opposing the actions by the WMF that led up to this, but I find myself agreeing with Rschen7754 and several others about Fram's suitability for adminship. I know it's difficult for anyone to accept criticism, but blanking good faith talk page comments or refusing to answer questions in an RfA are indicative of someone who does not have the temperament to be an admin. I am glad that Fram is no longer banned, as I value their substantial contributions to the project.- MrX 🖋 19:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. The outcome of all of the preceding drama has no bearing on my !vote here but the temperament that Fram showed during the whole process leads me to land here. shoy (reactions) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. Drmies sums it up well. Fram shouldn't have been blocked by the WMF, but he really doesn't have the temperament to be an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. I would like to see actual evidence over the next year of Fram's capability to change before restoring the bit. howcheng {chat} 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  67. Oppose: I rarely participate in RfAs so my vote probably does not matter. However, I oppose this one based on the long term behavioral concerns raised by the commentators above about this user. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  68. Oppose per Drmies, David Eppstein, Peacock, Levivich, Simonm223 and others. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  69. Oppose per Carrite, GMG, Drmies, et al. Conduct does not support a return of the tools. ST47 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  70. Oppose per many of the civility concerns expressed above, including by SusunW, GMG, Levich, Battleofalma and Drmies. (Xeno's suggestion that we should discount personal attacks because they're oversighted is monumentally concerning. I take Drmies at their word that the comments were amiss, knowing them to be a highly trusted and respected user. If another oversighter contests this then ping me and I'll reconsider.) In regards to Fram's comment of introspection in March 2018, they either failed to heed their own words, or made progress that was not substantial enough—they list four of their own mistakes since then here, and though I agree with them on the fourth, Fram has yet to recognise the severity of the second and the third.
    The WMF were wrong to temporarily ban Fram, but Arbcom were also wrong to decline Fram-related cases before that. The wrongs together were the perfect storm to cause a near-endless series of tiresome temper tantrums from much of our community, with almost no introspection on the fundamental issues that lead us to this situation: we are failing to deal with systematically aggressive behaviour by experienced editors. This is partly why we bleed so many newbies and why so many long-term editors storm off forever. Alas, we have failed to take this opportunity to reflect on our community, with many editors in this RfA doubling down on their toxic temperaments, so let's just get back to the matter at hand. Arbcom have decided that Fram should be unbanned but desysopped. I decided a while ago that I would respect their decision, whatever it was. So let's get back to the talk of resysopping.
    I differ from many of the users in this section in that I would potentially support Fram in a future RfA, and my criteria are simple: 18 contiguous months of editing with (a) no severe incivility incidents and (b) no systematic behaviour of hounding, biting, ownership or incivility. For now, I welcome them back to the community and hope that they continue their outstanding content contributions, with a much more careful attitude when dealing with conflicts. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  71. I'm not familiar with this user (apart from the recent drama), but they were recently found to be unsuitable for adminship by ArbCom. And their few, terse and dismissive answers here do not convince me that ArbCom was wrong. So I'll have to go with ArbCom's assessment. Sandstein 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  72. I won't write too much as others have already said this earlier, effectively, and more eloquently, but I must oppose. I find Fram's behavior, ignoring even the recent incident, to be conduct unbecoming, and heartily endorse what is now (effectively) ArbCom's desysop for cause. Relatedly, I think the +sysop argument from a procedural ground is flawed, as ArbCom has now taken ownership of the desysop. I find it impossible to believe anyone writing this screed is temperamentally suited to the tools and responsibilities less than a week after doing so. I try to AGF, but it strains the mind to imagine honestly moving from that to self-reflection or remorse so rapidly; no atonement has been performed. The answer to Q7 in particular sounds like someone ignoring everything that has taken place, and were I to apply the logic from that answer, I'd be forced to oppose. ~ Amory (utc) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. For starters, temperament is concerning and unbecoming of an admin or prospective admin. The other !voters have summed it up pretty well, so I won't reiterate what is already said, but I would expect any admin to heed to the basic policies and not believe they are above the law - whether it be community practice, ArbCom, or even the WMF. It is also troubling that this RfA was drafted almost immediately after the ban was lifted; though it does acknowledge concerns about WP:5P4 and WP:ADMINCOND, the haste of this RfA seems to also suggest too strong of a desire to regain the toolset while downplaying the importance of these concerns.
    I should also note that what is said to culminate in the ban happened after February-March 2018 as described in Q3; the fact that the problem persisted through 2019 (e.g. the comments about ArbCom cited in Q6) makes me question if it will continue should Fram regain adminship. Additionally, it is alarming that some !voters are welcoming back Fram so easily; indifference and undue leniency towards such behavior from established editors is a continuing source of controversy, and the WMF intervened partially because it believed that the community is not holding admins accountable for their behavior. Hence, it is possible that the cycle could repeat should Fram regain adminship, and more users will be negatively affected given the aforementioned leniency.
    However, Fram can still do great work without the tools; there is nothing concerning in this RfA that should prevent them from creating content or doing less controversial maintenance work. That may give some time for the dust to settle and allow us to establish if these concerns may be alleviated in the future. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  74. Oppose per the "pattern of borderline harassment" observed by Arbcom, as the most egregious of several disqualifying factors. Thanks to OxonAlex for pointing out that comment, I did not follow any of the Arbcom proceedings with respect to Fram or the T&S case as it's been my experience over the years that any discussion in which Fram is the focus quickly turns into a shitshow, and because of the numerous editors (many of whom have already edited this page) rallying around excusing harassment because of who has been the target of it. A lot of that actually is not Fram's fault: their enthusiasm for criticism and being observably right (see GreenMeansGo's comment) has earned them a cadre of followers who seem to worship them like a king. Perhaps Fram can't be blamed for having a superiority complex, then, but they certainly do nothing to correct it. See Fram's original self-nom essentially blaming Arbcom for everything that happened this summer, completely failing to even consider the notion that maybe, just maybe, when Trust & Safety stepped in to remove one of the most long-serving and respected editors in Wikipedia's history (Fram certainly is that) there's a very good chance they knew what kind of hornet's nest they were poking and had a damn good reason to do so anyway. Of course, T&S' approach to that whole thing was grossly incompetent (to put it mildly) but two wrongs don't make a right. The incident from last year's Arbcom election (see Drmies' observations and both Kirill Loshkin's and Bbb23's comments on those incidents), digging up private dirt on one's opponents to score political points at the risk of exposing real people to very serious harassment, is despicable, and I can't fathom any "defending the Wikipedia" sort of excuse for that insensitive behaviour. Someone who can't accept (or actually doesn't see) that something might be wrong with all of these things absolutely should not be an administrator. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    This doesn't require a reply and won't change anyone's opinion about the RfA, but I have to say, I can't think of anyone who "worships Fram like a king." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  75. OpposeLol.--Catlemur (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Lol. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  76. Oppose per MLauba and many others. -- KTC (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Per Ivanvector. Arbcom found that there were instances of incivility, not enough to merit a ban, but still that such instances existed. As stated above, Fram appears to not even attempt to entertain the notion that they might be wrong, that their behavior should be modified in any way. Their previous behavior, vis-à-vis Drmies oppose, should give anyone pause. That entire episode was abhorrent and conduct unbecoming of an administrator on any project. Being a long term and productive administrator should not give people a free pass to do whatever they wish. All that does is cause further issues for everyone that comes in contact with them. While Fram's past contributions to this project should be praised, that does not make them immune. And their lack of any reflection on their actions implies that they will continue to act in this manner if given back the bit. --Majora (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  78. Oppose, reluctantly, due to temperamental issues highlighted by Drmies and others as well as AfD stats quoted by Collect. BTW, I am not influenced by the WMF case in the slightest. — kashmīrī TALK 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  79. Oppose at this time. Fram's done great stuff, but has also had real issues in interaction style: bullying, to call it out bluntly. While interpretation of WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINCOND is subject to debate, it's pretty clear Fram's conduct has in past years too often not lived up to them.
    Now, the process leading us here now has been a clusterf*ck, both as far as due process for Fram, but also more broadly due to weaknesses of our processes to recognize and deal with bad behaviour. With all that in mind, I'd be prepared to give Fram the bit back only once we can be reasonably certain the issues won't be repeated. The easiest way would be after several (6?) months minimum of clearly changed behaviour without the admin bit.
    I came to this RFA expecting to have this conclusion, but open to supporting now if Fram's demeanour already showed a marked change. While Fram's current answers to Q3,4,5 are encouraging, Fram's initial versions of this RFA (e.g. from Sept 20) and answers to Q6,8 are not. That combined with the volume of additional concerning past behaviour coming through in this Oppose section reaffirms my view that now is not the time to return the bit. I say all this with a great deal of respect and admiration for how Fram has responded to the misguided process that has gotten here. Martinp (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Returning to reaffirm my oppose, and engage with 2 important arguments referred to multiple times in the support section.
    1) The issues are all old (except for the ban etc); Fram turned over a new leaf after March 2018 --> Possibly, but the interactions with Drmies, and around the GS case (FoF not passed but relevant) aren't exactly encouraging. And it's clear the bad air in the room from earlier issues has not dissipated yet in the community.
    2) The ban and bit removal were illegitimate, and so both must be reversed --> yes, but I'm not willing to put procedural fairness to one individual over the need to ensure a positive community environment. And community members directly in the line of fire of bullying, or just concerned bystanders to it, haven't been treated fairly either. Martinp (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  80. I do not trust the candidate (WMF ban, ArbCom conduct analysis, ArbCom desysop confirmation). Their recent behavior fortifies my view (inability to take criticism, lack of remorse, lack of understanding, dodging questions about their own behavior by complaining about the behavior of others). I do not believe that Fram understands what they have been desysopped for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will perform useful administrator actions instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  81. oppose I honestly do think Fram is getting better at some things. The changes made in the original statement for this RfA involved taking (good) advice and running with it for example. And I've seen acknowledgements of some of the issues they have had. But I haven't seen things improve to the point I'm comfortable moving forward with this--not even close really. I do think the WMF ban was non-ideal. And the secret evidence was not a good way forward. And Fram does do a lot of good things. But I just can't support someone who has acted the way Fram has in the past without a near perfect recent record of behavior. And as others have detailed above, that hasn't been the case. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  82. oppose the mvast majority agree the original ban was handled poorly, to put it mildly. The community called for ARBCOM to deal with the matter rather than the ironically named Trust and Safety team. We got what we wanted. ARBCOM looked at the evidence & decided that Fram shouldbe desysoped as his conduct was not consistent with the standards expected of an administrator. I have an open mind to Fram regaining the mop at some point and would be willing to reconsider when he has had 12 months to show that he can change his behaviour. Find bruce (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  83. Oppose -- There is no doubt that Fram is a great editor and contributor. They are also well-versed on WP policy. However, my support for a candidate's adminship has always been based upon the candidate's ability to interact and collaborate in an even-keeled manner -- especially during times of stress. Everyone can have a bad day, but a continued pattern of aggressive behavior is problematic. The recent examples (provided by others above) show that Fram continues to demonstrate a temperament ill-suited for an administrator. I cannot support their request at this time. CactusWriter (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  84. Oppose - Too much drama, too much incivility. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. Many others have already expressed their views on why, and I find SusunW's reasoning in particular to be persuavive. Fram has no doubt made valuable contributions here, but I do not support this RfA. Clovermoss (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  86. Oppose if it isn't clear enough, not everyone supports Fram's original actions. Heck, I am somewhat skeptical of Arbcom's decision to unban in the first place. E.g. to quote from the Arbcom decision, "The unredacted parts of the materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members". Is this the kind of behavior we want in admins? Maybe some people don't mind, but I am steadfastly opposing. Banedon (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  87. Oppose Not seeing any sign of remorse for all the trouble caused. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  88. Oppose I had an edit conflict last night but it was late so I put a short comment for oppose. I would like to add a proper comment. I suppose the ethical thing to do would be to support the candidate as the rather mishandled and shabby WMF event was unfolding around him, but the question of quality comes up and I don't find the candidate is suitable. On the question of the effort expended, it beggars belief that vast amount of time that I’ve seen wasted on this. It was and is unacceptable. I have feeling that substantial number of folk didn’t know and still perhaps don’t known that we operate in a licensed system that is owned by the WMF and your continued existence is contingent on your good behavior and the continued growth of Wikipedia. Even though the WMF have turned over some of the responsibility of managing the removal of folk who break their license, for whatever reason e.g. bad behaviours, trolling, spamming and so on, to the administration corps, the WMF is still the final arbiter of acceptable behaviour and always will be. Why would you think they would lose control of their own ecosystem when they own it? The fact that they decided to do it, is the clearest indication that our processes, that the community voted on are not capable of doing the job. If they were, the candidate would have been long gone. That fact olone indicates that the WMF will do it again, finessed in their approach no doubt but it will come as no surprise unless we improve our own processes and policies. I’ve seen several supposed offers of a possible future RFA if the candidate could improve their behaviour over time, but folk don’t change. They don't. They say they will, but within weeks or months they would be back to their old bad habits. We really need new blood, new folk with new ideas. scope_creepTalk 12:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with scope creep that the scope creep and overreach of the WMF will continue to spread, emboldened by the end result of this whole debacle. Ends justify the means, after all. –xenotalk 13:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  89. Oppose - prone to willful ignorance & poor temperament. Such qualities aren't deserving of more power.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  90. Oppose The way the WMF handled the situation during the FRAMBAN saga was ridiculously hamfisted. Putting that to one side, a common theme of the resulting discussions was that Fram's behaviour and general demeanour left a lot to be desired. Administrators are held to high standard of conduct and Fram has proven to be well short of that standard. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  91. Oppose - Any admin with as long a history as Fram is bound to have some skeletons in his closet. However, the non-answer to Q6 disturbs me, as do the concerns raised in the opposes above. Fram has proved himself a capable admin. But civility is a must for me, and Fram lacks it. schetm (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  92. I simply cannot believe that giving Fram the tools will be a net positive for the project. Fram has done incredible work, and if given the tools will continue to do great work, but all of that is outweighed by the damage his behavior has caused and will continue to cause. Many people above have given excellent summaries of the problematic behavior that led me to this opinion, but what most concerns me is the amount of time that our community has wasted and will continue to waste on dealing with an administrator who has such clear issues abiding by our fourth pillar. Two editors have been chased away from the project (having exercised their right to vanish, I don't want to name them but the information is easily found), and I am afraid that other less prominent members of our community have or will be hounded off of the project (see WP:BITE). He has been the subject of three requests for arbitration (one accepted case) on this project and blocked on another project for his behavior. Our arbitration committee found, without opposition (7 to 0) that "Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND", and by a smaller margin (6 to 3) found it fit to remove the administrator tools for cause. To think that now, almost immediately after being desysopped, is a good time to request the bit back does not give me confidence that sufficient introspection has occurred, and the early version and edit summary of this page only reinforces that evaluation. If the WMF had never done anything, if there was no arbcom proceedings, if I just had to look at this candidate's behavior de novo I would still be here in the oppose section. One of their co-nominators, literally 4 days ago, said "I think Fram's attitude has been appalling". As an admin he had posted content that was suppressed as potentially libelous. We have wasted enough time on this drama, and I do not want to waste more. I agree with the supporters that Fram always had the project's best intentions at heart, but good intentions are not sufficient. Returning the tools, in my opinion, will be a net negative because of the editors we will lose and the time wasted on resolving his interpersonal problems.There are plenty of tasks Fram has and can help out with that do not involve the administrator tools, and I would prefer evidence that he can do so productively before returning the admin tools. Per Bilorv, I would potentially support Fram in a future RfA, and my criteria are simple: 18 contiguous months of editing with (a) no severe incivility incidents and (b) no systematic behaviour of hounding, biting, ownership or incivility. For now, I welcome them back to the community and hope that they continue their outstanding content contributions, with a much more careful attitude when dealing with conflicts.. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  93. Oppose To be clear, I believe that the one year WMF ban was both unjust and ham-fisted, and I am glad it was overturned by the very ArbCom that Fram despises. But the issue before us now is whether Fram's conduct has been acceptable for an administrator. In several cases, it is clear that he fell short, and in a few cases, he fell very far short. I came here hoping to see self-reflection and contrition. Instead, Fram chose this edit summary when beginning this RfA: "No discussion, no application of logic, no appeal to fairness or demand of actual evidence will change the position of those wanting to desysop. So let's get this started, shall we?" Instead of dissecting this strange and self-indulgent statement in detail, I will simply say that it represents Fram's usual attitude that any chaos and disruption he creates is the fault of other people who lack the ability to recognize and applaud his unique insights. I find the notion that we should only consider behavior in the last one year to be bizarre. Why not 18 months? Why not six months? Fram openly admits that he engaged in a two month spree of hostile, combative behavior less than two years ago, but he has not made a sincere humble apology to the community. I will not support Fram for administrator unless I see a dramatic change in his behavior, and so far, I haven't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  94. Oppose The WMF actions were wrong and an unwarranted encroachment on the English Wikipedia's governance, and I have supported and endorsed the actions that were taken by the people who stood up to the WMF, including Fram's unblock and resysop after the WMF action. However, this RFA isn't, or shouldn't be, a referendum on the WMF, nor can it be a referendum on the Arbitration Committee. We got what we asked for, a return of the matter to our established governance, which though imperfect, is the one we have. Abrasive interactions between Fram and other editors by Fram have been a nagging problem for years. I can't endorse any editor who has been so consistently antagonistic without significant evidence of change. This RFA is premature, and I'm disturbed that it was thought to be a good idea to move so hastily. I'd be happy to reconsider after a year or so of good work and evidence that Fram will take constructive criticism to heart. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  95. ArbCom's decision indicates that even if the case had been handed over to them in the first place they would have also desysopped them. If someone ran for adminship less than two weeks after being desysopped, I don't think I would be able to support it. Nardog (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  96. Oppose Severe, long-standing conduct issues amply discussed by many others in detail. ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  97. Oppose Civility issues, plus the need to demonstrate appropriate behaviour for a year at least before RfA put me here. Fram can contribute in a bunch of areas without the tools. Show you can behave appropriately doing those things for twelve months and I'll reconsider. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  98. Oppose. I have read enough of the FRAMBAN material to see why there are supporters for this RfA, but I feel obliged to oppose. The tenor of some supports seems to be "yes, he's been a jerk and abrasive in the past, but he's improved/improving and he's a good admin". I've no opinion on the "good admin" question; I don't generally read the pages where admin actions are discussed, but I'm willing to believe that's true. However, my own experience with Fram, several years ago, left me wondering if he was temperamentally fit to be an editor, let alone an admin. His vitriolic posts on the Visual Editor feedback page made me unwilling to engage with him in discussion and another editor told Fram that his attitude was ludicrously beyond what was reasonable. I've no objection to strong language, or occasional crusty behaviour, or vigorous argument, but Fram's behaviour was none of those things. I felt he did not consider the other editor to be worth treating as a human being. For behaviour like that, a few months of better behaviour isn't nearly enough. I would want to see years of a clean sheet before I would risk giving someone who is capable of being that unpleasant any power over other editors. If I thought it had been isolated behaviour I might feel less strongly, but the posts I saw on VE/F were too numerous to be the product of a bad day or two, and others above -- even supporters -- seem to have the same opinion that I do, based on other interactions. Please do not give people like this the tools. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)−
  99. Oppose All the ban drama aside, in general I expect admins to model civility and respect for other users as much as possible. Sure, we all have bad days and arguments that get heated, and we should cut people some slack for that, but Fram's past incivility, combativeness, and lack of respect for others goes well beyond that. We need admins who make the culture here less toxic, not more so. Sorry, but I can't support at this time. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  100. Oppose Drmies and everyone else TurboSonic (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  101. Oppose Before we give a user the tools, we must be confident that they will never engage in conduct that would justify an ARBCOM desysop. Given past behavior, I lack such confidence. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  102. Oppose Going with the status quo ante option is tempting given the circumstances behind the de-sysop, but ultimately I can't give a support I wouldn't agree with were this a normal RfA. As much great content and administrative work has been done, I value civility just the same. Desertborn ([14]) summarized my thoughts well; I expect admins (well, ideally any editor for that matter) to lead by example and conduct themselves in an approachable manner. It's vital to creating a healthy, sustainable community. Keeping my scope of analysis to within the last year, the conduct during the ArbCom election as described by Drmies and Kirill is my major cause for concern (the temperment, along with the publicizing and assumption of bad faith of Drmies' legitimate use of an alternate account). Tossing in more recent instances already described by others (e.g. the two-word wonder and the odd and dismissive opening edit summary) don't give me the confidence to support at this time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  103. Oppose - per many others. Regardless of the extent of their contributions, it's really apparent that Fram doesn't have the temperament to be an admin. (I also pretty much stand by the opinion I voiced on day 1 of the Framban saga, which is that banning them was the right outcome done in the wrong way). The Land (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  104. Oppose There are plenty of reasons above, and at the bottom of it Fram is not temperamentally suited to being an admin. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  105. Oppose. Based on all that I have read here, I do not see the balance, neutrality and level-headedness that I expect from an admin. WWGB (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  106. Oppose Fram has done good work but a community also needs collaborative behavior, not gotcha power freaks who grind others into dust. Their belligerent arrogance is not compatible with advanced rights. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  107. Oppose - I've thought about this long and hard, and have considered (multiple times!) !voting both 'support' (based on the manner of the desysop and they way they were treated) or 'neutral', but I have to land here I'm afraid. If Fram had never been an admin in the first place they would not be elevated to one based on the above severe & long-standing civility & behavioural issues pointed out, and that is what I have to make my decision on. GiantSnowman 07:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  108. Oppose - far too much drama, hostility and other negative behaviour — (Redacted) — documented by many editors above. This editor has had many months and even years to change their behaviour but have not been able to do so. That said, I do acknowledge there is a positive and productive side to Fram, which explains why Fram has many supporters and friends on the project, and I appreciate the good work he does and has done as an editor. I can see him being a productive Wikipedian, but just not an administrator for the foreseeable future.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    I've redacted part of the comment here as it can be construed as a personal attack. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  109. Oppose I've found this a difficult decision. I agree with the majority of those in the support camp that the desysop was poorly executed, and that there is a very good argument that it should simply not stand. In that case, Fram would still be an admin. So, by logical extension, if I think he shouldn't have lost his admin rights, surely I should want him to have them back? It makes sense. Despite this, I can not in good faith support this request. Fram's conduct has been unbecoming of an admin, and there are many examples of this described throughout the opposes above. Harrias talk 07:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  110. Oppose I have never interacted with Fram but we have sometimes been involved in the same discussions, usually on the same side. However, I first became aware of Fram years ago when I came across a talk page where their probably legitimate criticism had deteriorated to an extent that shocked me. Fortunately other editors, including administrators, had intervened and Fram had backed off. I found some of Fram's relentless remarks dreadful. The discussion has since been hidden (sic) and I will not be linking to it. The incident was from before any time horizon we would normally consider but it has stuck in my mind. Fram may (or may not) have been desysopped unfairly but I note Arbcom saying "The behaviour shown ... falls below the standards expected for an administrator"[15] so I think this RFA was appropriate. I also note "Fram had pledged to improve their behavior"[16] and I'm glad of that but they still seem to present an attitude of self-justification and self-congratulation to an extent I find worrying. I accept that Fram is a courageous and dedicated editor whose creative work has been admirable but as I see it now they are unsuitable to be an administrator. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  111. Oppose How ArbCom and the WMF handled Fram's case was at best a smorgasbord of cackhanded incompetence, but that's not what this is about. The evidence is clear that Fram is far better at identifying problems then he is at resolving them. Fish+Karate 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  112. I did not trust Fram to be an administrator before their ban and resultant desysop for cause. I do not trust them now. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  113. Oppose: This is not about whether the de-sysopping was fair or not. The examples given of poor etiquette and conduct are alarming to read, especially given the recency of some of them. Not the temperament that an admin must have when dealing with criticism (valid or not). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  114. Oppose. I was leaning oppose coming into this based on the public evidence submitted to arbcom and my own interactions with Fram and my observations of his behaviour over the years, but his answers to Smallbones' questions, and the comments by Carrite, Rich Farmbrough (in part), OxonAlex, MLauba, Montanabw, Gamaliel (in part), GMG, Drmies (in part), SusunW, and others (I stopped noting down names at this point) push me firmly into opposition. I'm not going so far as to say not ever, but certainly Fram should be nowhere near the administrator toolkit (or frankly anything that gives those unfamiliar with the project's internal workings the impression that they have any kind of official status or that his actions are endorsed by the WMF and/or the community) until there is a very long term demonstration that they have actually changed their ways. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  115. While I'm willing to WP:AGF and I'm reassured by Fram's answer to Q4, I'm even more perturbed by the anti-ARBCOM tone to several of the Support votes. The RfA isn't run in isolation from the surrounding drama, as much as we'd all like it to be. I look forward to supporting when the RFA comes around again, the atmosphere has calmed, and the RfA doesn't have an aura of righting great wrongs. But under the current circumstances, Oppose. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  116. Oppose: Based on replies to the above questions which show a lack of willingness to accept that over many years they have caused problems with their behaviour, rather than this just being in the minds of those that have complained and while they remain without blemish and fragrant. To be clear, no Wikipedia administrator should ever believe that dropping the n-word in discussion where it can easily be avoided can ever be "innocent". -- (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  117. Oppose: Got to agree with Rschen7754 on this one. Maybe after a period of proven attitude adjustment, but not now. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  118. Oppose: There is a long history of hostile uncivil behavior with this editor. The nominations, answers to questions, and support votes do not convince me that Fram will become a civil editor from this point forward. If Fram can prove civility and a willingness not to engage in hostile behavior over an extended period of time, then I will support a future RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  119. Oppose: No way, no how. Besides being way too soon since the conclusion of the ARBCOM case, there's just too many outstanding concerns regarding this user's temperament and incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  120. Oppose as ill-advised and out-of-process as the removing of Fram's adminship was, we need to separate that from the essential question as to whether or not we trust Fram to represent the values of collaboration at Wikipedia and to use the tools in an appropriate way. It is clear from many, many posts above, especially (but by no means limited to) the evidence presented by Carrite, Drmies, Mlauba and many others, that Fram does not have the temperment to effectively wield the mop. I can't support granting him it back again. --Jayron32 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  121. Oppose as per the nomination: "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". I know several people who are afraid of running in to the candidate on-wiki for reasons that are well phrased in this nomination. Consistently irascible behaviour should not be rewarded. Wittylama 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  122. Oppose: First off, I don't like that this RfA is turning into a referendum on FRAMBAN; I feel that this should be treated like any other RfA, but recognize that it's difficult to extricate the two (per Cabayi's comment above). I completely agree with Tryptofish's opening comment - it would be best if Fram took a step back from the tools, showed us that truly have turned over a new leaf, and then re-applied for sysop. As things stand, I see an uncivil and occasionally hostile editor to whom I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a mop. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral for now. The tone of the nomination does not do it for me. I don't care what process someone has been through, however unfair; I care about whether them having the bit will be a net positive to the project. From my perspective, the nomination statements aren't doing Fram any favours. There seems to be a general acceptance that Fram has not lived up to the standards we expect of administrators in the past. But Fram himself really hits the mark for me in the answer to #3, which is what lands me here instead of opposing. I'll make up my mind over the coming week, but for now, I'm thinking about it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: It's interesting that you stated "The tone of the nomination does not do it for me." because I have similar thoughts, but came to the conclusion that opposing a candidate due to nomination statements would be in very poor taste, so I put myself here in "neutral". (I may state more under my comment any discussion can happen there, rather than a discussion tangent thread beginning on your comment/vote.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Neutral. (Moved to "Oppose".) Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC) This feels like a WP:NOTYET situation since the dust surrounding WP:FRAM is still in the air. Steel1943 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • ...Okay, so in regards to the nomination statements: I have never in all my years participating in RFA been so disgruntled by the tone of an RFA candidate's nomination statement section. I mean geez, the aura of the WP:FRAM situation happening is still strong around Wikipedia. (Disclaimer: Besides recently using the "find" function on my device to find RFA references, I have never followed or cared to follow the news of what happened with WP:FRAM, other than it involved Fram and by definition what happened: Fram was banned [albeit temporarily, apparently] by the Foundation.) I guess we are now at a point where Fram can run for administrator, because here we are now. Anyways...
    I feel that the sheer number of nominators, as well as the apparently urgency and rush to push this nomination while the WP:FRAM situation is still in editors' minds, is in very poor taste. This RFA seems, in its sense, to be attempting to appeal to emotion since the whole situation is still a bit fresh. It hasn't even been a month since the WP:FRAM situation starting winding down, but here we are trying to essentially force-push an RFA without giving ample time to assess Fram's editing and communication patterns that may have been a result of whatever effect the WP:FRAM scenario had on them. In addition, the fact that apparently this RFA needed five nominators makes me believe that there is some sort of bandwagon people need to get on, and in effect, it may be covering up other issues that may be going on at the moment pertaining to the nominee.
    So, in a nutshell, I think that this RFA is happening too soon after the WP:FRAM wind-down, the amount of nominators can be seen to be attempting to distract from other issues, and there has not been enough time to assess how Fram has been affected or changed by the WP:FRAM scenario. With all that though, I'm in "neutral" since I don't hold any of these issues on the nominee since I both do not believe that the nominee had the larger portion of pushing this RFA to happen at this time (but heck, a nomination is a nomination, so accepting it was totally polite and rather brave), and at the present time, I have no reason to "support" or "oppose" the nominee. Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    ...Just found out I was almost wholly wrong about the stuck-out text in my previous statement, which led to my change "Oppose". (Please see my "Oppose" for further details.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. I tend to support per Fastily but I'm reviewing the admin activity to get a better idea because the opposers didn't give me much to work with yet. I'm especially interested in interaction with new editors. I see both harsh and not so harsh interaction with established contributors and various examples of being ready to admit mistakes. Nemo 16:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. I do not support the desysop nor how we got here. Now that we are here I am not going to support simply because I feel the process was unjust, nor do I believe anyone should. On the other hand, no one should be opposing simply because Fram lost their tools for secret squirrel reasons. I'll reconsider choosing one way or the other after spending some time figuring, de novo, whether I think Fram will be a good admin going forward from here. Jbh Talk 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Like Jbhunley above, I'm on the fence here. I IAR'd my RFA criteria to support Floquenbeam's RFA, and I want to do so here too, but I can't. If civility wasn't an issue, then I'd happily put myself in the Support section, but I don't want to endorse Arbcom's desysop (or the WMF's initial actions) either. So I find myself sitting in Neutral. IffyChat -- 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. Neutral and I would encourage all voters to go neutral on every RfA until the RfC on harassment and the community consultation on this bullshit are closed. It's ludicrous to expect any administrator to make any needed tough decisions if there's a fear that some jackhole with a grudge is going to get them 86'd by T&S. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Fram was railroaded! 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Well-documented civility issues make this candidate fail my RfA criteria, but I will place myself here in order to spite the WMF because of the inappropriate way in which he was desysopped. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I'm sure many people want to support him in getting his tools back without actually knowing the details of what it was he was accused of, and I'm sure many people want to oppose him without actually knowing the details of what it was he was accused of. I'm neither of those, and I feel we should withhold judgment until a time when the facts are available, if such a day ever occurs. Meanwhile, this is premature. If the WMF or ArbCom, who know more of the facts than we do, want to re-sysop him, that is fine by me, but I don't think we should be making a decision while wallowing in ignorance. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I think Fram was a decent admin but Drmies makes a strong case that these issues of abrasive aggressiveness and doggedness are not "old news" but happened as recently as Nov. 2018. And if some supporters are voting for Fram as a way of voting against the WMF/T&S, than I can't support Fram if that means I join his more fervent advocates who spun outrageous conspiracy theories and personal attacks on other editors and on arbitrators in the talk pages of his arbitration case. I haven't seen anyone apologize for causing an editor and an admin to courtesy vanish because of personal attacks and harassment they were receiving. This is causing me to stop from supporting Fram because I think he did nothing to stop these attacks but encouraged this behavior from Meta. But I also can't oppose because Fram was often an effective admin which what this RfA should really be about. So, I am divided. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    After looking at this discussion posted by Mike Christie, I'm leaning to oppose. I realize that this exchange is from 5 years ago but any ordinary editor would receive a block for being this belligerent and insulting another editor. I have a sense this is just a sample of a typical Fram discussion on issues he feels strongly about. Aside from moments of provocation (which this clearly wasn't), all admins should be level-headed and handle disagreement in a fair, impartial and, forgive me, non-jerk-like way. Admins should not go out seeking conflict, especially with WMF employees who are trying to improve Wikipedia technology and, unlike editors, are not able to just log off and ignore feedback. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. Neutral: I shall vote "Neutral" until and unless the issues raised regarding the community consultation mentioned by Bori are properly resolved. Barring that, I will note my total opposition to the removal of administrator rights, which was performed by the Arbitration Committee; and I will also note my distaste for abrasiveness. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - this is a tough one, on one hand the amount of trustworthy and experienced editors who have vouched for Fram is impressive and persuasive, on the other hand the behavior and the drama surrounding WP:FRAM is equally hard to ignore. I have not interacted much with this user or else my opinion for support or oppose would be more concrete. My gut instinct says WP:NOTNOW, and advise the nominated user to take some time off to cool things down and think things through regardless of the result of this RFA. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Neutral I will put myself here; despite having turned in my adminship for some time in a reaction to the actions by the WMF in the WP:FRAM affair, this RfA strikes me as too soon, as the situation just begins to cool down, and the RfC regarding office actions is still open. Lectonar (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. Neutral Have ummed and ahhed about this one. For the record, I feel the way the WMF office handled everything - terrible. I appreciate the work that Fram has done over an extended period of time on Wikipedia, and the many experienced editors vouching for him here, also commenting on his improved demeanour as of recent. However, I also need to consider the overwhelming opposition to this request here. For me, putting aside all the WMF and ArbCom drama, I consider what I look for in an administrator candidate, and for me, I do believe that administrators should be held to a higher standard of conduct than most. If Fram was not a former admin with an extensive history, I would likely be in the oppose column based on civility/conduct concerns, but I’ve considered this in my !vote. Unless this RFA has a significant change in the tally, this is likely to be unsuccessful. Supporters here have mentioned that Fram’s interactions with editors has improved as of late. If that indeed is the case at the next RFA, I would be happy to support - my sole concern here is how Fram has interacted with others at times, apart from this I find their contributions largely excellent, but this isn’t something I can overlook at this time to bring myself to support just now (even if I disagree with how they were desysopped). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 09:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. Uhhhh well the nominator begins with "I've previously... described his conduct as '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', and I stand by [this] opinion." You know, I am busy. I'm not inclined to read past that and spend a couple hours analyzing this guy and trying to figure out if he's such a genius that he should be passed even despite the above. The Wikipedia has no need of geniuses. I'm not a huge of the Great Man theory of building and running a collaborative exercise. I'm not going to vote because I'm not going to take the time to look into it enough to make a considered decision. But it's not a good look as your opening argument. Herostratus (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Neutral. I'm on the fence for much the same reasons Steven Crossin above. I initially wanted to support this on principle, as the way Fram has been treated by the WMF is outrageous, but I am not sure I agree that ArbCom effectively throwing this ball in our court by way of a desysop is wrong - this whole drama was about community autonomy, after all. I think the candidate's editing history shows some good reasons for and against. I note Fram's answer to Q4, and I'm less willing to oppose over incidents that predated the illegitimate WMF ban as I am reluctant to support due to a lack of evidence of how they will interact with the community once the dust from all this is finally settled. After some time I should find it easier to form a clearer opinion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
General comments[edit]
  • I have a general question for anyone who knows more about these processes that I do. Will or are the Bureaucrats likely to disregard !votes that mainly justify themselves upon the FRAMGATE series of events? It seems like this is the thrust of many people's stated rationale for supporting, and they omit other reasons they have for the sake of brevity. If these votes will indeed be disregarded, that should imo be stated in due time to give users time to flesh out their rationale in response Magisch talk to me 12:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Magischzwei, there is a thread on WP:BN roughly along the lines of the question you have. Maxim(talk) 12:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Maxim, was there any Bureaucrat consensus outcome for how it'll be handled? I'm not sure how to read these discussions yet. Magisch talk to me 13:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think it could have an effect. Suppose Fram's RfA ends up at or just over the 75% threshold. Now put yourself in the crats' shoes: on one hand you'd have people demanding a crat chat regardless of the final percentage due to the unique nature of this case, on the other had people yelling that this is clearly a consensus to promote. I don't think a crat chat can be dodged either way, and I don't imagine another week of arguing over an already endless dramalanche is something the bureaucrats will be looking forward to. So the easiest way to get things over with is to find a heap of supports to chuck in the garbage, proclaim no consensus to promote, and head to the pub. In that situation I think the first supports to be shredded will be the ones arguing solely that this was an unjustifiable desysop.
    But it may not come to that. The character assassination section of this RfA is filling up rapidly and the RfA seems doomed. What'll probably happen from here is that Fram will keep his nose clean for the next six months, deal with people subjecting him to passive-aggressive snark in the hope of provoking him into an outburst, run again, and win comfortably. Reyk YO! 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: Did anyone else not get the watchlist notice that this RfA is underway? I only was alerted that it had started by it being mentioned on WP:FRAM. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • ...Geez, that's technically WP:CANVASSING ... Well, that affects my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC) (Response to this was an (edit conflict).) Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) @Rdfox 76: Where on WP:FRAM is/was the start of this RFA mentioned? I see discussion about proposing that another one start, but not a notification that this one started. Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      Steel1943, The RFA and post-injunction discussion about the timing of it has been discussed on Fram's talk page for a while beforehand, it was there the co-noms were hashed out, and naturally, there was a confirmation there that the thing had indeed been put live out of courtesy of co-nominators. That seems only natural imo. As an aside, I actually did get the watchlist notice. The start of the RFA was mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram#Ready! Magisch talk to me 12:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) @Magischzwei: Awesome for finding that ... considering that I found no such notification on WP:FRAM (meaning that the original message in this chain may be ... wrong), and a notification on a nominee's talk page is not WP:CANVASSING, so all may be good ... unless I'm still not seeing the notification on WP:FRAM. Steel1943 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      Steel1943 and Rdfox 76, as far as I can see, the start of the RfA was not mentioned on WP:FRAM, only on User talk:Fram. Fram (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Rdfox 76, yes, I am only here because I got the watchlist notice - I haven't seen it anywhere else. It has only just popped up, so it may be lagging a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rdfox 76, SchroCat, and Steel1943: watchlists notices should be up now. Triggering the WL notice is a manual process for new RfA, by design - to prevent bothering people for non-starter type RfA's. They are normally triggered within half a day of the start of an RfA by updating a parameter at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages. I updated that a little while ago. There are conditions where you will see it early (if your script times out, or if you never dismissed the prior one). This is the routine process, not anything special for this RfA. Hope that answers your questions on watchlists? — xaosflux Talk 13:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Xaosflux, I didn't realise we had a 'lag by design', but I see why now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: My comments had nothing and never had anything to do with watchlist notifications, and my original concern about possible WP:CANVASSING may still be valid (though I believe Fram when they say no such comment was posted on WP:FRAM), so I really do not appreciate this thread being moved to the talk page with no reference to the thread being moved here posted on the main RFA page. (I mean, without Rdfox 76 saying otherwise at all yet, I have to assume that they believed to have seen a notification of some sort on the WP:FRAM page itself, even if I cannot find it myself and honestly think that such a notification doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: Point taken, moved this back to the general discussion. I think the watchlist specific questions are resolved now (They comes up from time to time on RfA's) - if there are any other WL specific questions, please ping me. — xaosflux Talk 14:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943: It's mentioned at WP:FRAMSUM, perhaps that is where Rdfox76 saw it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pawnkingthree: Are you referring to WP:FRAMSUM#List of significant events, point 64? Steel1943 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the only place I've seen it mentioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's where I saw it. Sorry, I hadn't had my morning caffeine and mistyped. (As for not responding, I was picking up a new set of glasses and that took a couple of hours.) Think we can wrap this up now, since I didn't know about the lag-by-design on the watchlist notification. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @Rdfox 76: Thanks for the clarification on where you saw the statement (and I totally get wher you are coming from with the morning coffee!) @Xaosflux: My concern regarding possible WP:CANVASSING has now been answered; due to the apparent nature of the function of WP:FRAMSUM, I do not believe that any canvassing happened. If you feel the need to move this discussion back to the talk page, you will no longer have any qualms from me. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
            • @Steel1943: thanks for the note, since that was specific about something that could have had impact on participants of this RfA it is fine here. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If my count is correct among those who are sysops Fram is currently at an 18-20 ratio. I am not sure what to make of this, but to me it goes against conventional wisdom about reconfirmation RfAs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC) II A


Could someone with access to the oversight logs (@Vanamonde93: since you've commented here already) give some insight on the diffs Drmies brings up? Specifically I would like someone to corroborate whether this information was suppressed for WP:OSPOL reasons 2 or 4 as that is important for figuring which section I end up in. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies/Questions; there are some diffs which were suppressed under OSPOL#2 (potential libel), in which the suppressed content was originally posted by Fram, and subsequently quoted by Drmies. Sandwiched between them is a diff suppressed under OSPOL#4 (attack name), which neither Fram nor Drmies had anything to do with. There is also a diff suppressed in the history of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Coordination, which was a reference to the material on the questions page, and was redacted when the original was. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


I would like to address two issues here, the comments by DrMies and the comments by Smallbones.

  • Drmies: this breaks down into two issues.
    • The first is the unban of a twice banned editor by ArbCom in 2017. The unban was done in private, not announced to the community through normal channels, and the arbs did not even provide a statement about who supported, opposed, or abstained in this discussion (when asked, some arbs declared their personal vote). When it became more broadly known that the editor had been unbanned, a third ban swiftly followed, based not only on the history (including socking after the second ban), but also on the edits since the unban. When I discussed this situation during the ArbCom elections in the questions section for arbs seeking reelection, I not only described the actions of this editor, but also applied a comprehensive label to it, which had to be oversighted. (Drmies claims that I "made a ton of edits that had to be oversighted", but in reality only two I think, not really a ton). It boils down to an editor who has declared themselves the prince of a micronation (not recognised by anyone of course), who edited upon their return two topics: articles about his micronation or competing ones, and articles about young girl models who got " criticism regarding the sexualization of children in advertising. " (to quote one of the involved articles) or got noted as " an example of sexualisation of an under-age model." (to quote another of the articles). They also worked together with one of these models in a movie where they were an "executive producer", and wrote sexualized fiction about the same girl on the website of their micronation. All of this should have been sufficient to set of major alarm bells. But I should have left it at that and not written down the logical conclusion of all this.
    • The second is the "revelation" of an undeclared alternate account of Drmies. They claimed during the ArbCom elections that "I didn't "declare" that one account from this account because I don't want to invite the harassment that I receive here to be exported to my students", but no evidence of such harassment (certainly not beyond the things every admin gets thrown at them now and again) could be produced. They followed with " I guess I will retire Dr Aaij after the semester is over. ", but they are still using that account, so I guess the terrible problems I caused which would form him to retire that account didn't actually materialise. Basically, his complaints about my question at the ArbCom elections were a lot of blustering and had no real merit.
  • Smallbones: When I got the full version of the article to be published, including the claims by Gamaliel and Bu Rob 13 (which eventually led to the Signpost article being deleted as a BLP violation), I replied to Smallbones " I have prepared a reply at My Meta Sandbox which, after publication, should perhaps be copied over or linked to in the comments section under the page."
  • The reply from Smallbones was this:

"Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones"

This is the final post I received from Smallbones. How this squares with "I had to ask you 3 or 4 times to get a comprehendible response from you. " is not clear. My agreement to the posting of the article was with the understanding that my reply would be posted as well, but this suddenly was off the table. The reply to which Smallbones reacted so extremely is still available for all to read. Smallbones now claims "Yet, after publication you started crying that I did not allow you to respond to the allegations." False. I wrote to you, before the publication but after your bizarre reaction above: "If you had promised them anonimity, then you would do better to remove their complaint, as it won't be too hard for others to find out who they are anyway (it's not as if they otherwise kept a low profile in this case, where they have been one of the most obvious WMF defenders). If they fear that others will criticize them for their comment, then perhaps they should have written a truthful account in the first place. But I'm not going to redact my defense because you try to scare me with things which are not applicable at all, and I have to say that it severely disappoints me to see this from you after the fair exchanges we had about this before. "

Smallbones continued claiming that I outed an editor at the rejected ArbCom case about the Signpost article, but didn't explain how giving the onwiki name of the writer of an "anonymous" but perfectly recognisable onwiki complaint is "outing". Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm trying to piece together what the context for Drmies' first oversighted diff was given what you said here, and I guess I have a rather pointed question. During or soon after another editor's successful unblock appeal, did you <redacted> resulting in the diff being suppressed as potentially libelous information? Wug·a·po·des​ 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it was after they were rebanned again, not when they were unbanned. I will not repeat the label I used, but basically, yes, that was the context: I described the edit pattern of a banned editor, and applied a label to that pattern, and I shouldn't have applied the label (I just want to point out that it was a label describing a, let's call it a mindset; I at no point ascribed criminal actions to the editor). Fram (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Wugapodes) Thank you for your clarification of the first point. Let's accept that the way you see the situation is perfectly and unambiguously correct. The comments you made are still not acceptable because they're just inflammatory and attacking. It would make sense for you to (a) ensure that the behaviour of the dangerous user in question was closely monitored and (b) raise concerns about what Arbcom did and how similar decisions could be avoided in future, and I take it that you did both. But writing libel against Drmies is not a means to achieving either of those goals. Using such language makes it less likely that you will achieve what you wish. Xeno, I hope your concerns about Drmies' evidence of libel being useless because we can't read it have now been allayed. Certainly the full unbowdlerised text of one of the oversighted comments by Fram is now obvious.
As for the second point, the answer can be found in a subsequence of Fram's comment: giving the name of the writer of an anonymous complaint is outing. (To make this abundantly clear: the previous sentence is not a quote of Fram, but a reply to it.) — Bilorv (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv, I don't think I wrote any libel about Drmies? The edits were oversighted not because of what I wrote about Drmies, but because what I wrote about a banned editor who had been unbanned by ArbCom (including Drmies) and rebanned by the community by then. As for the outing, yes, that's what Smallbones claims, but nowhere does he indicate how this matches WP:OUTING in any way or shape. Fram (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv, this is precisely why introducing unseeable evidence remains a concern. You’ve made your own assumptions about what is behind the curtain, and you were apparently wrong in your conclusion. –xenotalk 11:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno: A rushed choice of wording which I have struck, and for which I apologise to Fram, but Fram's reply directly above my comment indicates that my understanding of what they wrote is fully correct. They used an inflammatory label invoking the legal-adjacent policy Wikipedia:Child protection, with it implicating Drmies as having failed to uphold it. (Note that the policy has a wider scope than "criminal actions" and includes what Fram calls "a mindset".) — Bilorv (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.