No, they didn't.Randy from Boise wrote:Arbcom is the community's sole mechanism to rein in bad actors with tools; they found a history of sufficiently and consistently bad behavior to pull tools and refer the matter to the community.
sub 50% by the time you get back....Randy from Boise wrote:11:30 am in the West.
65 - 58 - 2 = 53%
Downward trend continues.
I'm out the door to work. Somebody else should track the stock market...
Carry on.
RfB
I doubt we need half-hourly updates.Randy from Boise wrote:I'm out the door to work. Somebody else should track the stock market...
You should.Randy from Boise wrote:8:30 am on the West coast of the USA and it's down to 68%.
Fram is fucked.
RfB
P.S. With the strange bedfellows I have made, I'm now feeling more than a little nauseous myself...
Lot of strange bedfellows Carrite has now. If I woke up and found myself in bed with Peter Ex-man, Gamaliel, and the others that have been mentioned, I'd bolt as fast as my legs could carry me.Vigilant wrote:THE CIRCLE IS COMPLETE!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)
START THE ARCANE RIGHTS!
That will be because of Elisa "Ancient Gay People Must Be Notable So I Must Copy Other People's Writing Verbatim" Rolle, whom Fram metaphorically fucked numerous times. Although what is often forgotten is that he Was Not The Only One To Do So.Pudeo wrote:Looks like it will sank for sure. Drmies' numerous pals will be flocking to the oppose section to defend his honour after the failed ArbCom bid, and also the "Women in Red" folks seem to be mobilizing.
Osborne wrote:12:30 PDT
(71/66/3) 52%
stock market analysis
Some distraction:
Nosebagbear RfA
lolwut
Yeah, that makes me want to oppose.When Nosebagbear first contacted me to discuss the possibility of becoming an administrator, I did a quick check of their history and could only ask one thing - "What's wrong with you?".
Yes, well everyone loves Iridescent so it will carry great weight.Jans Hammer wrote:Interesting that Iridescent injected THEIR nomination right to the top. Can only imagine they believe it to be the most significant.Vigilant wrote:Well, I still love you.chowbok wrote:I'm sorry for not being important enough to co-nom.
"nauseated" is a more exacting adjective than "nauseous". Also "strange bedfellows" has been a feature of all wikipedia criticism sites for a decade. I have always been amused at the diverse people who can unite here.Randy from Boise wrote:8:30 am on the West coast of the USA and it's down to 68%.
Fram is fucked.
RfB
P.S. With the strange bedfellows I have made, I'm now feeling more than a little nauseous myself...
That's...pretty normal, actually. Everyone just assumes that since it was oversighted, it must have been bad.el84 wrote:Am I reading it correctly that one of the major opposition points in this RfA something which is currently oversighted, and not available for the normal punter to read and make their own opinion of?
Seems a little Alanis Morissette to me.
This is worth investigating next.Vigilant wrote:
Fram uncovered an undeclared sockpuppet from a serial shithead who is involved in paid COI editing with an external company and university.
Just to be clear, I do believe Fram really should have apologized to Guido, at least once it became obvious that the insult was unwarranted (which it was). You're right in that the Arbcom pussyfooted around that whole situation - it was almost like they were doing the wrong thing for the right reason(s), or something. But he still should have apologized.Alex Shih wrote:I know, it's downright stupid. Unbanning Guido is disgusting on Arbcom's part, and there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, which is what that suppressed diff was.
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)
Oppose per Rosiestep et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Maybe Demiurge1000 can weigh in on the Oppose side and the dark portal will open completely.Just no - Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I expected more of these. Much more. Of course there are also the support votes, that are similarly deep and original.10920 wrote: Several other opposes with the same.
I said this would happen.
The King of AE claims to not be familiar with Fram?Vigilant wrote:More auspicious fellow travelers...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)
Seems rather unlikely. Sandstein's basic position is quite consistent though; whatever ArbCom gets up to is by his definition "right".el84 wrote:The King of AE claims to not be familiar with Fram?Vigilant wrote:More auspicious fellow travelers...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)
Reminiscent of the Eric Corbett issue at AE where Sandstein showed that he was either a corrupt liar or doesn't read the cases he responds to.el84 wrote:The King of AE claims to not be familiar with Fram?Vigilant wrote:More auspicious fellow travelers...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)
... or perhaps both.10920 wrote:Reminiscent of the Eric Corbett issue at AE where Sandstein showed that he was either a corrupt liar or doesn't read the cases he responds to.el84 wrote:The King of AE claims to not be familiar with Fram?Vigilant wrote:More auspicious fellow travelers...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)
link
Hmm, I want to hear more about this.Osborne wrote:This is worth investigating next.Vigilant wrote:
Fram uncovered an undeclared sockpuppet from a serial shithead who is involved in paid COI editing with an external company and university.
Makes you wonder if there's offwiki comms about this.The Adversary wrote:Hmm, I want to hear more about this.Osborne wrote:This is worth investigating next.Vigilant wrote:
Fram uncovered an undeclared sockpuppet from a serial shithead who is involved in paid COI editing with an external company and university.
Gosh, I recognise so many incompetent grifters in the oppose sections.
All those people who get free rides to Wikimeets all over the world seem to have decided to have their next convention in the "oppose" section of Fram2
How now, Tim cow?Oppose Not seeing any sign of remorse for all the trouble caused. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't find him apt to be admin, so it's ok by me, but even so I did not wish him this nosedive.Dysklyver wrote: that's all fine I guess.
Shocking that Hawkeye would oppose, given his strong grifting and LH roots. <rolls eyes>Vigilant wrote:Wow.How now, Tim cow?Oppose Not seeing any sign of remorse for all the trouble caused. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like you're one of those people who can't take criticism unless it's wrapped in civilized language you can't understand.Dysklyver wrote:Regardless of the WMF ban drama there is absolutely no way Fram should be an admin, but it looks like the RfA going to fail anyway so that's all fine I guess.
Seems like I'm not the only to see this.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)
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)
I agree that he's wrong about Mr. Fram, but let's not make this personal. We've seen Mr. Dysklyver handle criticism appropriately despite it being wrapped in all sorts of language.musikaman wrote:Sounds like you're one of those people who can't take criticism unless it's wrapped in civilized language you can't understand.
Plus, Kudpung is in the Support camp.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 6:36 pm, Today (UTC−7)
I've been watching this debacle since it started and have done an intense amount of reading. It's frustrating to see this shit. I've seen it happen over and over again where communities lose their Fram and go in the bin. I truly think this is a turning point for the worse for WP... and I'm not being hyperbolic. The contributions of people like him aren't understood or appreciated. That's all outside of the travesty ARBCOM made of this case.Midsize Jake wrote:I agree that he's wrong about Mr. Fram, but let's not make this personal. We've seen Mr. Dysklyver handle criticism appropriately despite it being wrapped in all sorts of language.musikaman wrote:Sounds like you're one of those people who can't take criticism unless it's wrapped in civilized language you can't understand.
There's nothing stopping him from making contributions. He does God's work getting in WMF's face about their shitty new products... That requires absolutely zero administrative buttons.musikaman wrote:I've been watching this debacle since it started and have done an intense amount of reading. It's frustrating to see this shit. I've seen it happen over and over again where communities lose their Fram and go in the bin. I truly think this is a turning point for the worse for WP... and I'm not being hyperbolic. The contributions of people like him aren't understood or appreciated. That's all outside of the travesty ARBCOM made of this case.Midsize Jake wrote:I agree that he's wrong about Mr. Fram, but let's not make this personal. We've seen Mr. Dysklyver handle criticism appropriately despite it being wrapped in all sorts of language.musikaman wrote:Sounds like you're one of those people who can't take criticism unless it's wrapped in civilized language you can't understand.
Being nasty to Smallbones makes me more likely to support an RFA, not less so. He's always been a barnacle (too incompetent to be a grifter) and his Signpost article on the FramBan was an ethical nightmare. If he were a writer I employed, I'd have either sacked him or exiled him to cover junior varsity badminton for 5 years (and I say that as someone who works as a credentialed journalist).Osborne wrote:I don't find him apt to be admin, so it's ok by me, but even so I did not wish him this nosedive.Dysklyver wrote: that's all fine I guess.
But his temperament comes to the surface again and again on the meta talk page, in his original self-nom, and last in his answers to Smallbones...
Carcaroth warned him not to answer like that, and that wasn't enough. He can't realize, this is not how he should.
That will be one support vote, and there are already a handful of oppose votes referring to Q6.CoffeeCrumbs wrote: Being nasty to Smallbones makes me more likely to support an RFA
Which is really too bad. I believe Eric Corbett has a word for what Smallbones is.Osborne wrote:That will be one support vote, and there are already a handful of oppose votes referring to Q6.CoffeeCrumbs wrote: Being nasty to Smallbones makes me more likely to support an RFA
Indeed. And he already has rollbacker rights, so now there's nothing stopping him from going on a rampage cleanup spree, either.Randy from Boise wrote: There's nothing stopping him from making contributions.
Cool. Just curious, how is that related to, or influences the number of s/o votes.CoffeeCrumbs wrote: Which is really too bad. I believe Eric Corbett has a word for what Smallbones is.
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)−
