User talk:Fram

For the ongoing community discussion about this ban, see WP:FRAM.

For Fram's talk page at meta.wikimedia, click here.

If I have deleted a page you contributed as a copyright violation, but you are also the copyright holder for the original text, you can find more info on how to resolve this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online.

Unblocked

I'm assuming you're following the discussion and so knew this was about to happen. I've unblocked, per overwhelming consensus here. I'll remove protection from this page in a minute so you can reply. Don't get too comfortable; there's a non-zero chance the WMF will ignore consensus and reinstate the block. Apologies in advance for my role in what your block log might look like a few days from now. And, of course, I cannot do anything about the desysop (I would if I could). Finally, I do not understand enough about the background of the interaction ban to attempt to rescind that; while it may or may not be valid, I'm not lifting it, and you'd be wise to assume it is still in force until someone conclusively lifts it.

Now is possibly not the right time for this, but I do think you'd be doing yourself, and en.wiki, and me, a favor by dialing back the aggression a couple of notches when dealing with other good faith editors (even Arbs!) with whom you disagree. There's also a non-zero chance that the edits in question will get brought up in a request for sanction at AN, ANI, ArbCom, or somewhere where it actually belongs. No comment, yet, on where I would come down on such a discussion.

I hope this gets resolved in good time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I guess I had an unnoticed edit conflict with WMFOffice; I'd intended to leave this message at the same time I unblocked. Looks like *they* unblanked your page, which was cool of them. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool of them? I dunno. I'm not sure if they even noticed that he's unblocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Shhhh!!! Don't tell them and it may all blow over! --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fram, I suppose it's also possible you're "banned but unblocked", whatever that might mean, and whatever it would mean for you if you edit anyway. I'm just enacting a clear consensus to the limits of my userrights and ability; I'm not marketing this as solved. Exhuberant notes on my talk page notwithstanding, I still suspect this is going to end up with you, me, Bish, and possibly other admins (and maybe even crats, though I kind of doubt it) unhappy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly the case. Indeed, if Fram was to edit at this point in time, he would be evading the office ban, likely resulting in the ban being extended. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Hysterical. I'm so glad you're back editing Rob, you add so much love to this place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A (new) barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Should be obvious enough why you have this... - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Now then, time to get back to your scrupulous checks of a certain main page area. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Despite your past civility issues, you deserve a barnstar because that’s just the state Wikipedia and the WMF are in now. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I've requested arbitration. The details are in the usual place, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Fram

Please don't respond here or there yet. We have to figure out how to let you participate. Maybe email the committee for now. Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: by now, this case was declined, and archived. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom courtesy notice

There is now a third Arbcom case, this time about the disputed Signpost article. You are not named as a party, but the article was about you, as I am sure you are aware. - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

3 July

Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

nb: User talk:Wehwalt#Sanddunes Sunrise

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

Birthday of Franz Kafka today, article written by a now blocked again user, for whom the sunrise was originally designed in 2012 by a now banned user, - food for thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Remove this part "has not been endorsed by the English Wikipedia community". As the WMF is the owner of Wikipedia and obviously endorsed the ban and some WMF employees edit Wikipedia Abote2 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done the "owner" and the "community" are not the same thing. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the WJBscribe case request under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved it by motion as follows:

Community advised Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([1]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.

In response, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ([2]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice (talk · contribs) ([3]). WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ([4]).

Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([5]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 02:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

Arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted a case and the case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. Evidence can be submitted for the next 14 days; see the case evidence page for instructions on how to submit evidence. For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened

The arbitration committee have opened a case on Fram at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. This case is to be held in private, with evidence and workshop proposals to be submitted by email — see the evidence and workshop case pages for instructions. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Fram case opened

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1923 in Bosnia and Herzegovina

A tag has been placed on Category:1923 in Bosnia and Herzegovina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Case timeline update

Please note that the case timeline has been changed. It is now anticipated that:

• Anonymised and summarised evidence will be prepared and sent to you by 14 August. This will also be posted publicly once you have had a chance to respond.
• The workshop phase will be held from 21 to 28 August. It is intended that this be held in public but this may yet change.
• The proposed decision will be posted in public by 7 September.

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary evidence

Fram, this note confirms that the summary evidence has now been passed to you by email. As I said in the email, the delay was on our side, so you can still have up to a week before we post publicly and open the workshop. Worm^TT(talk) 07:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Fourteen years of editing

Hey, Fram. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

The proposed decision has been posted in an arbitration case in which you are involved. If you wish to comment, please ping me at meta and I will copy your comments across, or contact me by email. GoldenRing (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Return?

It may not be the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it might be the end of the beginning. I hope to see you back just as soon as the proposed decision (now with a passing majority) to vacate your pathetic ban is enacted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

The committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1a of this decision and its supporting principles and findings are passing, and so Fram shall be unbanned immediately, without awaiting the close of the case. The remainder of the decision remains pending. As the status of Fram's sysop rights has not been decided, Fram is not to be resysopped during this interim period.

For the Arbitration Committee Worm^TT(talk) 16:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the remainder of the case is still ongoing, but the committee has passed an immediate unban as that decision was unanimous. The WMF have confirmed by email that we can unban through our normal processes, you should be clear to return. Worm^TT(talk) 16:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Welcome back. The puppy is happy to see this. KillerChihuahua 17:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Welcome back. The work goes on, the cause endures. Haukur (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Welcome back. A part of the farce concludes. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Welcome back. I am so very sorry. If they could do this to you, they could do this to anyone. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Welcome back. I imagine a few people at the WMF are going to be made very uncomfortable before this is all said and done. At least, I hope so. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

   I certainly hope so. KillerChihuahua 18:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

   To feel uncomfortable, they'd have to care in the first place. 0% chance that anyone at WMF gives a shit. – Levivich 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

6. Welcome Back!!! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Welcome back!!! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Welcome back! I hope that this long farce hasn't left you too embittered. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Welcome back, Fram! I came to like you more than before over the process, and expect you to keep watching over the quality of the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Welcome back! Although we never crossed paths before this charade started, I was utterly shocked by the lack of due process in enacting your ban, and I'm happy that this bizarre sanction was vacated unanimously by ArbCom. You'll never get your three months back, but you did earn a lot of respect from many community members. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
11. Welcome back. This whole thing has been an insipid farce, but at least it seems to be ending in a relatively sane way. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
12. +1 — Ched (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
13. Welcome back! – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
14. Welcome back. It took way too long to get here. – Levivich 23:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
15. Welcome back! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
16. Welcome back, am glad that this moves the entire issue forward and you are once again released to roam free in the fields of the lord. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
17. Welcome back! You are a valuable asset to this project. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
18. Welcome back! I haven't interacted with you before, but it seems like you're a perfectly competent and helpful if slightly intense editor, and you got done incredibly dirty by the WMF and to a certain extent arbcom. I hope you'll be able to overcome that Magisch ^{talk to me} 14:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
19. Welcome back! KinoCat (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
20. Welcome back! we've never interacted, but I have noticed situations when you have acted to "protect" others. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all (also in the sections below!). I'll compose something for the PD talk page now, and then I can finally look again at my watchlist and start editing (if I'm in the mood). Fram (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

I don't think I know you, and I haven't been around these parts in a decade at least I think, but I ended up finding out about this nonsense. It's crystal clear that you were railroaded by someone with connections, and if the --redacted-- at Arbcom require you to go through another RFA, you've got my vote on general principles.

And any of them who vote not to reinstate your bit will be guaranteeing my votes for literally anyone else, up to and including the proverbial ham sandwich, at the next Arbcom election. Sebthepleb (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I hope you can recover from this experience and return to full editing. You can count on my support at RfA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was very tempted to give you the civility barnstar, but wasn't sure if others would appreciate the irony :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram: I want to suggest that you leave the PD talk page alone. You have plenty of editors there supporting your cause. You are understandably upset about the situation and I don't think you are doing yourself any favours there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but the, let's call it audacity of an arb responding to the calls for actual diffs and evidence with a support for a completely diff- and evidence-free FoF as if that is an actual reply to the concerns is completely baffling. Fram (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This entire proceeding is out of process and more or less a trash can fire, not necessarily due to ArbCom's fault. They too are navigating uncharted waters. It's not like it got more absurd in the last day, but griping about it compromises your moral high ground at least in perception. I'd suggest letting people draw their own conclusions about how you've been treated, as you can probably see, most of us fall squarely on your side for now. Magisch ^{talk to me} 08:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor user rights

While the ArbCom is deliberating, I added autopatrolled and rollbacker flags to your account, so that you could edit conveniently. If you need any other rights (or do not need these), please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I noted (through my watchlist) that you also recently removed a whole bunch of wikidata property links from articles on other-language Wikipedia versions. I did the same for other articles with the same changes, one the same day, but from another IP. Do you know if there is an easy way to find these? Fram (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, and I even opened an ANI request. (I believed I have done it twice, with two different IPs). Concerning the Tuesday IP, I just reverted all their edits, but they might have also edited under different IPs. I do not know any easy way to find all their edits, but if you ask at ANI, probably someone would be able to help. --Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the thread, just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Scanning a database dump perhaps? Welcome back! –xeno^talk 13:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Search/insource:"property:P1448" appears to work, although it produces a few false positives (legitimate uses of Wikidata in infoboxes). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You have mail

• Jbh ^Talk 15:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination statement

Fram, I’m pleased that (on the surface anyhow) it appears you wish to continue to administrate the project. And I think we both know your RfA will become a referendum of sorts. But could I suggest that your current nomination statement instead be moved to an answer to a self-question (or perhaps an answer to question 3?) and your nomination statement instead speak to those RfA participants that will be seeking to decide on the merits, lacking prior knowledge of the circumstances that brought you back to RfA? I’d be willing to co-nominate with someone else if you don’t feel to write a nomination statement proper. –xeno^talk 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 90% of what Xeno wrote. It would be weird if you didn't mention the SANFRANBAN at all in the nomination statement, but certainly all the details and rebuttals would be better moved somewhere else. And ... I know it is not in your nature when you perceive an injustice, but do tone down your language before listing the RfA — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xeno and MSGJ: it would be wiser indeed if some others nominated me (the more the merrier!), and I gave my view as an answer to a question. Sanitized a bit to keep the frustration out and the cogent points in. I'll try to rewrite my bit, feel free to propose a nomination statement. Thank you! Fram (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to co-nominate as well. Please let me know where to sign.—Chowbok ☠ 13:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

My advice, if you will take it: draft the RfA in your userspace (with co-nominators if desired) and wait until the case has actually closed and people have had time to react at the arbitration committee noticeboard. And sleep on it a bit, rather than rushing ahead too fast. This will also stop people !voting before it has actually been transcluded to RfA. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• As I said above, you've got my vote on general principles. Your nomination statement could literally be "fuck Arbcom, and fuck the WMF" and you'd still have it. Sebthepleb (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have reverted a bunch of votes, which have been placed before the RfA has been transcluded. I would have done this regardless of which RfA it was, and have probably done it at least on one I have nominated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (voters, advice and action). I have moved it to User talk:Fram/Requests for adminship/Fram 2, perhaps the redirect needs to be deleted for now. I would do it myself, but, well, you know :-) Fram (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Those who think about power and society have long asked themselves, who watches the watchmen? Who holds the powerful to account? It's not an easy task. It something that tends to get you in trouble. It's much easier to uphold the law when the weak break it and turn a blind eye to infractions by those in power. So, what to do with this old question? In our case the answer turns out to be this: User:Fram watches the watchmen. Who will run a skeptical eye over new pages, even by veteran editors? Fram. Who is willing to sanction anyone who doesn't play by the rules, up to and including issuing blocks to arbitrators? Fram. This is not an approach that leads to universal popularity. But it's an approach that helps us maintain a healthy community. And this is why I will be supporting Fram for a new adminship. Haukur (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, you and others who want to nominate (like Chowbok) are invited to write a nomination statement, as I can hardly write my own nomination statement for you to sign ;-) If you have questions for me, feel free to ask of course. I will be less or not available during the weekend, but will at the latest reply on Monday. Fram (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to pen the co-nomination statement this weekend. I would prefer someone else take first string, as my time will be limited. –xeno^talk 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• For obvious reasons, although I would love to be one of the nominators, I'm going to keep a low profile. However, you can be assured of my support and I will vote as early as I can as soon as I see the transclusion - depending on my time zone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I can do a full article-length nomination statement if you want one; given that (assuming User:GorillaWarfare/Fram admin status notes at least partly reflects the Mythical Secret Dossier) at least part of the supposed evidence against you is based on comments made by me or your replies to me, it might be more significant coming from someone like me than from someone who's always been a paid-up supporter of you. Be aware that my nomination record at RFA is awful (I think only one RFA I've ever nominated has passed). ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Those notes intentionally only discuss evidence that was able to be made public to Fram, that is, the community evidence summarized here. I was not considering the T&S evidence when deciding how to vote on the desysop, nor could I have published any notes on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Late to the party, but welcome back Fram! Let me know you'd like a nom/co-nom from me as well :) -FASTILY 23:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Only if you promise to write "Why not!" in the nom... Lourdes 06:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Challenge accepted :) -FASTILY 07:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve added my co-nomination statement, though may still add or ce and Fram is free to remove if desired. I think the lead nom should do a deeper dive into Fram’s body of work (as I said my time is limited and I was unable to adequately bring this into my statement). Pinging others who expressed an interest in writing nom/conoms: @Iridescent, Black Kite, Fastily, and Chowbok:. I agree that it should be kept to 2-3 noms, not too lengthy statements, and give less focus and attention to the T&S action/AC decision, which has already been thoroughly covered by talk page participants at the PD, ACN, and elsewhere - instead highlighting the benefit Fram’s continued administration brings to the project. –xeno^talk 12:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Per a related thread on my talk, I'll only act as a co-nom if Fram explicitly requests it. My take would be pretty much the diametric opposite of yours—roughly along the lines of Although in technical terms of performing admin tasks Fram is one of the best admins on Wikipedia, I think Fram's attitude has been appalling, but since there have been literally hundreds of people combing his contributions looking for dirt and nobody has managed to find any evidence of anything particularly problematic after he was warned in Copyvio & retaliation last year, the best-case assumption is that Arbcom has desysopped him based on historic incidents rather than on anything he's done recently, and the worst-case assumption is that a corrupt, powerful and well-organized group, some of whose members had taken a dislike to Fram over unrelated issues, concocted a fabric of lies and misrepresentations of genuine events, canvassed their friends to submit spurious allegations on their behalf, and bypassed existing dispute resolution procedures, inappropriate leveraging the personal relationships of one of the people towards whom they alleged Fram had acted inappropriately to push Wikimedia Foundation employees to abuse emergency mechanisms intended for dealing with genuinely sensitive issues. In light of this the only rational course is to return to the status quo ante of June 9, and if anyone has genuine concerns about Fram's suitability for adminship they can present it in the usual way. I can entirely appreciate why Fram might not want something like that in a high-profile position at the top of the RFA. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  The committee has unfortunately marred that course (I would have preferred that as well), because of the potential for double jeopardy, and that a fresh successful RFA will basically forgive all past misdeeds, setting the statute of limitation for examining Fram’s onwiki behaviour to the close date of their RfA. –xeno^talk 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't live in the US; "double jeopardy" is perhaps not as much of a big deal to me as it is to you. Here, "new and compelling evidence" constitutes legitimate grounds for a fresh prosecution. I wouldn't really have an issue in this case with a Year Zero approach of declaring everything that happened prior to 10 June 2019 as water under the bridge. I would certainly hope that if there's only one lesson Fram has taken from this fiasco, it's "your approach even when you're right alienates a lot of people and your refusal to ever admit you're wrong alienates even more". Given that—regardless of whether as an admin or as a vanilla editor—the massed ranks of WMDC and WIR will be watching Fram's every move from now on, I think it's very unlikely that there will be any further issues, and if there are any further issues they'll be picked up on right away. ‑ Iridescent 16:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, but who is to know if the fresh, compelling evidence was already considered? We can’t. –xeno^talk 16:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Chowbok, Xeno, thanks for the co-nom. Iridescent, I would be honoured if you would write the nom statement, even if it isn't the most flattering. Feel free to remove my short self-nom line at the start of the current draft RFA. Black Kite and others, if you want to co-nom, be my guest. If you feel that three noms is sufficient and a simple support will suffice, no problem either. I'm flattered that so many people would not only support but even nominate me. Fram (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First draft

Here's a rough draft of a nomination statement. I'll post it here rather than on the RFA, to avoid it becoming part of the permanent record of the RFA's history if you don't want to use it:

There are circumstances in which I could imagine myself supporting a desysop motion against Fram should this pass, should anyone file one with compelling evidence. 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.

As I say, if you don't want to use this—or want anything added, removed, or changed—I won't be offended. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent, thanks. Just a small point: second line, "you probably comment" should probably be "you probably shouldn't comment"? Apart from that, thank you very much. It's a much more positive nom than I probably deserve, but not one I'm going to refuse, and I appreciate your comments, both the positive and the negative. Fram (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the "probably"; there was a lot of cutting and pasting here trying to get my train of thought in the right order, and to tone down the us-and-them as much as possible (this is RFA, nor RFAR round 2; ultimately it should be a discussion of you, not of WMDC or Adhmfdfmykrdyr). Unless you're planning to send it live right away, I'll leave this off the RFA for a couple of days, to give time for anyone who thinks something ought to be changed to point it out. ‑ Iridescent 08:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)~

That's fine. I just wouldn't start an RfA on Friday or during the weekend, as I should be available to answer questions and most of these will probably come in the first day(s). My editing during weekends is rather sporadic. Fram (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm not Fram's campaign manager but I think mentioning "Fram's previously expressed dislike of singular they" has the potential to derail the conversation into culture war issues. Haukur (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Fram to decide how to handle pronouns. (It's not really a culture war issue as such; I don't think I've ever met a native Dutch speaker who was comfortable with 'singular they' as it has no equivalent in the language.) The alternatives are using singular they regardless, using "he/his" without explanation, or awkward "Fram was warned about Fram's conduct" rephrasing to avoid pronouns, none of which are ideal. ‑ Iridescent 08:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that line can be removed as well? If anyone has questions about me, gender, pronouns, ... they are free to ask and likely to do so of course. Basically (for anyone reading this), I have not and will not disclose my gender onwiki; I have no objection to anyone using any (normal) pronoun to address me, no matter if they use she, he or they; but to me the singular they sounds grating, simply wrong. For some reason, using plural they when discussing one person doesn't have that problem ("this is a note about editor X. They have..." to me is natural, while in that construction "they has" is not). Fram (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflicted, and removed the line in question per the above ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent: suggest removing the first sentence, up to "Despite that". Maybe put it lower down if you like but it sets the wrong tone for the nomination. Fram: I've never seen "they has" used. Even when "they" is used in the singular it must - in this native speaker's opinion (the BFG may disagree) - be used with "have" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ready?

@Iridescent, Xeno, Chowbok, and Lourdes: Is the RfA draft ready to be posted tomorrow? Iridescent, right above this there was a suggested change from MSGJ, have you had the chance to look at this yet? If you would prefer to have more time, no problem, I can wait. I guess 4 nom/conoms is sufficient, everything else that needs to be said can happen in the questions and in the support/oppose sections. Fram (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any changes need to be made to mine. Agree with the suggestion by MSGJ, especially if Iridescent is lead nom (though the same sentiment could go further down). –xeno^talk 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My section is done, unless anybody has any suggestions for improvements.—Chowbok ☠ 21:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Fastily:, if either of you or both still want to conom, feel free (anyone else I may have forgotten as well of course)! Getting the input from different people right from the start (albeit all as supporters) might give less well informed voters some more insight in what happened and why this RfA is happening. Not everyone follows all the drama, luckily, even when it is rather high profile like this time. Fram (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think three is plenty. I've seen RfAs before where you had to scroll about two pages down before you got past the multiple co-noms and it gave the impression of overkill. I'll make a statement in the Support section instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• concur with Black Kite. 3 is more than sufficient. Unless you're going to try to get enough co-noms to outnumber any potential Oppose !votes, which while amusing, might be a wee tad pointy. :-D KillerChihuahua 18:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• I can have a nom ready within the next day or so. IMHO more noms aren't a bad thing, but ymmv of course. -FASTILY 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Fastily, please do! Some people will like it, some will think there are too many noms, so be it. If that's the worst they have to say about my RfA, it will be a happy one. Fram (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a nomination statement, including a slightly modified version of MSGJ's suggestion; I do feel it's important not to gloss over the fact that we've had run-ins in the past, given that anyone familiar with the background here - which realistically will be most participants - will otherwise pop up to point out that it's not that long since I described you as "coming across as a vindictive crank". I've intentionally not put "Nomination by" or "co-nomination by" at the start as not sure whether you want to treat this as a self-nomination with everyone else as a supporting statement, as a nomination by me with the co-noms backing up, or as a multiple co-nomination with everyone equal; you have express permission to modify my post to add "nomination by" or "co-nomination by", to move it below some or all of the other nom statements if you don't want mine to be the first thing people read, and to change the indentation if you want to keep the nom statements as a bulleted list. (I've left the line breaks in html rather than wiki markup intentionally, as that way a single * or # at the start will make the indentation format correctly for all paragraphs.) ‑ Iridescent 22:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  From a reader's point of view: in the version I saw, your nom was not visibly distinguished from what looks like Fram's self-nom. Please find a way to clarify, - like Fram signing, or a bullet point, or whatever. I am no friend of the green colour for quoted text from an accessibility pov, but know it's standard. Can quotes perhaps be shorter, or even avoided? - I'm ready to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  As I literally just said, I've intentionally posted it un-indented for Fram to decide where he wants it to go and what he wants preceding it. (If this is being treated as anything other than a self-nom then Fram's initial text is going to go, anyway.) The quotes are staying, although I'm not attached to the {{tq}} format; the entire point of this RFA is that the belligerent Fram whom participants are likely to have encountered in the past has changed and since 2018 has been something close to a model editor. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Iridescent, I've put your nom as the first co-nom, and have moved my statement to the acceptance beneath the noms. I'll wait for Fastily to post their co-nom, and then I'll move the RfA to the actual live page. Fram (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious

quality comics and control

Thank you for quality articles about comics and their creators, both begun and improved, such as Willy Vandersteen, Angoulême International Comics Festival and Le Petit Vingtième, for service from 2005, for keeping a watchful admin eye over copyright, proper referencing and notability, for "Trying to silence critics and dismiss genuine questions as "trolling" seems to be a rather unsuccesful strategy." (2013) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2285 of Precious, a prize of QAI, the cabal of the outcast, of which you surely are a member, both by what you do and how you are treated. Please survive without looking back too much, and keep statements short. Today's featured picture illustrates KISS ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. You are one of the most caring editors I have encountered on enwiki, a gracious helping hand even when we were sometimes on opposing sides of a debate. Fram (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (blushing). - I worked on Kafka, which helps to survive. I also think that everything about arbcom has been said in the ultimate guide, "Disregard the commandments herein at your peril." ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK that this page receives around thousand views each day? - I think - for the RfA - that things went wrong in recent months, but pointing out what when by whom should not be the focus, but future work and past credits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Spanish painters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Spanish painters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish painters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piramidion 13:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your CSD here [6] and here [7]. It was a bloody terrible idea, I don't know what I was thinking. Cheers, Vitreology talk 14:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, we all have these from time to time. Fram (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrator misbehavior

It would be a shame if somebody went to WP:AN and requested a community sanction against several arbitrators for violating WP:ADMINACCT. On my user page are a list of arbitrators and diffs where I asked them to explain themselves. Those who answered have had their names struck through, regardless of how they answered, because disagreeing is not a wikicrime. However, stonewalling is not acceptable behavior for an admin, and certainly not for an arbitrator. As I said:

if you vote to desysop without explaining the reasons, you are committing a breach of trust. The reasons cannot be hand waving things like "feelings" or "people have concerns" or "secret on-wiki diffs". If T&S won't let you cite the evidence required to vote your conscience, then you must do the honorable thing: tell T&S that they have prevented you from doing your job and resign in protest. [8]

The violation of WP:ADMINACCT is:

Failure to communicate... to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)

Up and down the proposed decision talk page there are requests for diffs of your allegedly improper behavior, yet no diffs are provided. You can see that some of the arbitrators just voted and never attempted to explain the evidence upon which they based their votes. This is unacceptable, and those responsible should be sanctioned for their breach of trust. I believe this should be discussed by the community and we should decide whether some of these arbitrators need to be admonished or removed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope you understand that I will leave this to others? This whole mess needs some kind of evaluation, individually and from a group perspective, but I'm not the best placed person to take any initiative about this. Fram (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm very upset at the unfairness of it, and I'm somebody who came to this thinking that you were behaving badly. But upon closer inspection the case didn't hold up, at least not based upon the sequence of events and the information that was visible. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back Fram! 🎈🎈🎈 -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

Only 2 days late to the party! anyway just wanted to say welcome back to the project,
Your contributions and admin actions are (and were) appreciated here and I hope one day you'd become an admin again and this will all just blow over :),
Anyway welcome back, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRAMSUM

Hi Fram, I just saw the note at FRAMSUM that you're putting together your RfA page. You'll have my support, whenever you decide to run. But I'm concerned that you might just miss passing. How would you feel about doing a quick trip to WP:ORCP and asking the question: how many people would flip to supporting if they saw you going about your normal wiki-work for a while before you do the RfA run? Even voters who might feel kindly toward you might be concerned that you've been bruised by the experience (as anyone would be) and that those bruises might get you into trouble if you immediately pick up where you left off. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it will work out. The bureaucrats have every ability to see through any silliness that might appear. The Arbitration decision was stupid because it has no practical effect and will lead to more sympathy. I recommend that all concerned try to be nice to people (even those who have been so disagreeable). Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, people at ORCP will tell Fram that it's fine to run now. Win-win. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC) ("Win-win" meaning that Fram will be able to point to the discussion at ORCP when (not if) that point gets raised during the RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi Dank, thanks, but I feel that I just had 3 months of editor/admin review already, where all my actions, attitudes, opinions, ... were discussed to death. The RfA will rehash much of this anyway, and to add another layer of people commenting about me inbetween seems like self-flagellation at the moment. Fram (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RFA

If you really want to do this, I woud be happy to nominate/support/whatever you want. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

draft

Hey, Fram. I hate unwanted advice, ignore me if that's what this is. I'm concerned about the drafted answer to question 3, and I hope this will feel like helpful feedback rather than otherwise. You're using question 3 to say, "I've been treated badly." That's not what question 3 is about. The whole answer in the current draft is irrelevant. Question three is asking, "Are you going to be a jerk when you deal with other editors?" And right now, the answer says, "Yeah, probably." Arbcom's process is immaterial to answering this question, and bringing them into it just feels like taking shots from what amounts to a bully pulpit. I would think about answering the question that's been asked. If an additional-questioner wants to ask about your take on the whole mess, fine, you can use this if you want, though I'd actually recommend saying something like, "I disagree with the process and much of what they decided, but I think they were doing the best they could in a terrible situation. I don't think that situation should ever happen again, to any other admin or any other arbcom."

Apologies if this is unwelcome. I know there are many who will disagree with me. It's just my take. --valereee (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You might also say that you were subjected to unfair sanction and talk about how this has formed your understanding of when and how to apply sanctions in your capacity as an administrator. You might reflect on what you have learned from the affair. All experience is valuable, both good experiences and bad experiences. In what way, if any, might this experience change your methods for responding to problematic editors. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve decided that Arbcom got it half right. They unbanned you and now you can make your case to the community. I think a gracious approach will be best. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As gracious as possible - without being fake or dishonest. In the end, Fram is Fram and can't and won't pretend to be anyone else. But there are two basic ways to frame this:

1) I'm asking for the bit back because I'd like to help out with admin stuff again. I think I can do a decent job and I hope you'll trust me with it.

2) I'm asking for the bit back because 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.

I'd recommend to Fram that he focus on part 1) himself and let others make the case on part 2). But I personally agree with both parts. Haukur (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Fram, I agree with all of the advice above. I'm going to support you, and I hope very much that the consensus will be favorable. But I'm pretty sure that it will be favorable only if you present yourself positively, rather than present negatively how you've been treated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The above advice is good, especially the bit about presenting yourself positively (or being presented positively by others in nomination statements, though having too many nomination statements that are too long might be best avoided - you want a short, clear message that is easy for people to understand). If you will consider it, my advice would be to ask for advice here (and maybe elsewhere - a mention at the ArbCom noticeboard thread?) and see what people suggest. The big decision you have to make is whether to continue with your plans for an immediate RfA (which would in some ways bring some resolution one way or the other, rather than leave things hanging) or to take a slower approach. One possibility is to ask ArbCom for clarification on various points that are still unclear, so you have something to point to at an RfA (even if it is only to say "I asked and still did not get a clear answer"). One thing you could ask ArbCom is what exactly is the conduct you need to avoid that got you sanctioned. See if they can actually give you a clear answer. If they still cannot, you can point to that in an RfA. Trouble is, they could take ages to answer you, but they might be a bit quicker than usual here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The other thing I forgot to mention is that you might be able to separate out the issues of: (a) whether the community have trust in ArbCom (maybe best left to the forthcoming elections); (b) whether the community have trust in this specific ArbCom decision (or elements thereof); (c) whether the community have trust in the whole T&S process; and (d) whether the community have trust in you (as an editor and administrator). These are all being mixed up at the moment (maybe unavoidably so) and would all factor into your RfA. If you want it all to be mixed up, then fine (but it may well confuse the result). Some of these issues may be better handled by a well-constructed and well-advertised request for comment/appeal (e.g. explaining the issues with how the case was mishandled and how the process was weighted against you in terms of both the 'secret dossier' and the way you were only unblocked right at the end to participate in the case), rather than as part of an RfA. Normally, the people that turn up to an RfA are different from those who would turn up to an RfC and/or those who would turn up to an appeal or take part in ArbCom elections (or indeed comment at the case pages). In this case, enough of the active community are aware of all this that the differences won't be as great as usual, but the difference will be there (e.g. many people stayed away from the ArbCom case). I'm saying far too much here and starting to ramble. Will leave it at that. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you (Fram) should focus on (d), that is, why the community should trust you to be an admin. As for (a), (b), and (c), the community will inevitably bring those issues up themselves, but it would be best to let them do that, rather than do it yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In any election, you want to ask yourself - what are the swing voters thinking and what might persuade them? In this case, I suspect the persuadable swing-voter is someone who may not have cared for the T&S action but who also has concerns about Fram: "Isn't he kind of ornery? Is he really someone we need on the admin corps?" Long essays on the injustice of the whole thing probably aren't going to persuade voters like that, but presenting positive plans in a conciliatory spirit might. Haukur (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to totally agree with the advice given above. There will be *plenty* of people who will jump at the opportunity to express how unfair the whole process was. In your shoes, I'd keep it short, simple, and straight to the point and make your best case as to why Wikipedia needs you as an admin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I understand why you might be angry. I resigned my adminship in protest over this fiasco. I'd like to see you get your bit back, as I did, and you've gotten really good advice above on how to do that. Jonathunder (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a good look at my responses, and see what I can do. Not discussing the events of the past three months feels strange, as if I don't want to discuss them, but on the other hand there certainly will be questions about it anyway, so it might indeed be better to focus on what I have to offer or what I will change, and keep the discussion of what went wrong otherwise out of my own statements. Fram (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that you should not talk about the injustice at all (co-nominators could do that to a certain extend). What you could consider to ask of people who oppose is to show what behaviour they found problematic in your edits. That gives you a clear path to respond/rebut and improve (especially if this RfA would fail and you'd reconsider to ask for the bit back (or got nominated) in 6 months or a year). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think my draft RfA statement no longer talks about the way I feel about the WMF actions or the ArbCom case, but only about what I did before the case, where I have improved already, and what I plan to do if I would get the bit back. Fram (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think your statement and the nominations are way too long. Even I haven't read them. I'd counsel all parties to chop their submissions by a third. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Fram. If he/she wants me to shorten my part, I can.—Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram

An arbitration case regarding Fram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The Committee decides that Fram's ban was not required, and therefore vacates it.
2. The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
3. A Request for Comment will be opened under the Arbitration space, and managed by the Arbitration Clerks. This RfC will focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram

Fram I disagree with #2, since there was no cause to ban, you should have been welcomed back, bit and all. I read through the case and saw nothing wrong with telling someone the honest truth, even if they didn't like it. It's just who you are. Some people are diplomatic, and some just say it like it is, both types are needed. Just 'sayin! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider applying for administrator powers again.

Fram, I strongly think you should reconsider reapplying for administrator powers.

I think you have shown, over and over again, you are simply tempermentally unsuited to hold authority in a project where contributors are supposed to show one another a basic level of respect, and collegiality.

I know I am far from the only individual who you seem to have put on a Nixonian enemies list, for a trivial slight to your ego. That is an ugly, ugly practice. Your fellow administrators should simply not tolerate that kind of behaviour from you, from anyone, not even from Jimbo Wales. The wikipedia community, as a whole, should not tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Your level of patience for good faith questions, or disagreements? Miniscule.

I looked at the comments, on your meta page. I think you showed a complete unwillingness or inability to consider that there might be any aspect of your own behaviour you should work on.

With regard to Meta:User talk:Fram#Geo Swan (an example of how this is supposed to work?) - I think your comment showed fear of finally being held accountable.

FWIW, I don't think it was right that the WMF wasn't more open about the specific instances that triggered their concerns. FWIW, in my brief submission to the ARB I did not endorse your ban. I did however suggest you should not exercise administrator authority, and I stand by that.

You might argue that the bulk of your inexcusable harrassment of me was almost a decade ago, but you haven't changed your stripes. And your comments at meta and since your ban was lifted strongly suggest you have zero intention of being more collegial, if your administrator powers are restored. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)