"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Graaf Statler]

O YEH ERIC?

ME TOO!

It so soul sucking and sick minded.

[CrowsNest]

Wikipedia is rotten to the core. Before he was removed in disgrace, this douchebag actually managed to get elected to ArbCom.

......If poor editors whom repeatedly violated policies and guidelines on purpose are somewhat "distressed" by Fram, it's a good thing that keeps the integrity of the project intact. ..... Alex Shih (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously never going to be good under any circumstances if the leadership of the project are seen to be glad it is capable of causing people distress. At best, in this circumstance, you could say this is an unfortunate side effect of necessary self-protection, something they try their utmost to avoid.

It's absolutely horrific if the intent of this comment is to cast every person who claims to have been distressed by Fram, as a rule breaking faker.

[JuiceBeetle]

It seems Alex tries to lose all the leftover respect he has.
from Swarm
from Worm
from Katie
for this
No-return all-in trolling, or account sold?

[Kumioko]

It seems Alex tries to lose all the leftover respect he has.
from Swarm
from Worm
from Katie
for this
No-return all-in trolling, or account sold?

Most of those people are just Shit stirrirs. WTT is a two faced liar.

[Guido den Broeder]

Carcharoth has never been known to lie or through misstatement or silence allow a falsehood to be believed, in my experience (and memory).

Lol. To allow a falsehood to be believed is his modus operandi.

SilkTork wants to see the desysop over-turned at the same time as the unbanning, and he then wants (freed of the annoying WMF element of matters) to desysop Fram for committing lèse-majesté by not displaying the right level of co-operativeness over on Meta (this apparently is what WP:ADMINCOND is about). I am being very slightly sarcastic here.

That is quite a significant misstatement. SilkTork wanted to see Fram improve his behaviour. He got the opposite, as was to be expected.

[CrowsNest]

It seems Alex tries to lose all the leftover respect he has.
from Swarm
from Worm
from Katie
for this
No-return all-in trolling, or account sold?

Most of those people are just Shit stirrirs. WTT is a two faced liar.

Most? As in two out of three?

You thick bastard.

[CrowsNest]

It seems Alex tries to lose all the leftover respect he has.

No-return all-in trolling, or account sold?

He went all in a while ago, definitely all-Alex. We've got a thread on him.

No vested contributor ever seems to get banned for this sort of thing anymore. They just seem to want to keep them around forever, in some vain hope they will come back into the light.

Stupid.

[CrowsNest]

He's never going to change. NEVER.

Imagine being such an idiot you think this shit is still worthwhile......

Thank you for your kind comments. If there had been a proper, normal case, with a standard evidence, workshop, and PD phase, where I was allowed to participate in a normal fashion, then I would have no problem accepting the result of "do not pass go, go back to RfA".

Bullshit. You'd have greeted it exactly the same way you have approached this, with a ton of bad faith and bucket load of wikilawyering. It is who you are, to your core.

But accepting a result which may be the right one, but which comes from a totally absurd method of achieving it, is not something I can agree on (even though in practice I may have to live with the result anyway).

All I heard was, you can't accept a result even if it is right. Which is you all over. Crucial word here of course was "may", because any result that goes against you, is of course, probably wrong, it's just question of how to persuade people it is wrong. Preferred method being to bury them in angry and largely off topic nonsense.

It is plain for all to see how some arbs are trying to justify a desysop based solely on my sarcastic but hardly excessive reply, on my own talk page, to an editor incorrectly accusing me of following them around (because on the one hand they claim I failed admincond by being incivil, and on the other hand they claim to disregard the "Fuck Arbcom" event, which leaves them with only that single "incident" after March 2018...).

Really? Is it as plain to see as the fact your story has now changed, because you previously claimed it was obvious they were only developing you for the fuck ArbCom comment. No doubt when they provide a third example of your behaviour, it will of course change to Oh my God they're desysoppig me for just these three things! Waaah.

The community evidence was extremely weak and hardly indicates that there is widespread concern about any recent (as in last 18 months!) activity of mine.

So you should stop whining at the very person you are accusing of incompetence, and start preparing your appeal now, right? Idiot.

Yes, some editors still believe, based on actions pre-March 2018, that I shouldn't be an admin. Fine, they are free to start a real case about me once I'm back, so that all parties get a fair chance to present and discuss actual evidence (not some unhappy opinions, these are never accepted as evidence except in this case).

All I heard was a supposed Wikipedia Administrator claiming that this sort of thing is not actual evidence, just inadmissible opinion that would never be accepted in a "real" ArbCom case. There really is no limit to your willingness to lie and cheat your way out of owning up to your own actions, is there? It's right there in black and white, "Fram has indicated that they will accept the criticism in good faith and will use the feedback to improve as an admin." - January 2019. You have already accepted in this supposedly illegitimate case that you do agree the block was excessive, you've offered no explanation for it, instead wasting time on this sort of bullshit, and it has been shown you did not improve as an Administrator as promised. Now you're reaping the consequences.

As for commitments from my side, I shouldn't have said "Fuck ArbCom".

How big of you. It's nothing more than a commitment to abide by the basic policy every editor has to follow, and makes no mention of the implicit higher standard of Administrators, but I guess that's too much for you. And hang on, as it is you, I expect even here, an attempted excuse for such obvious and easily avoided (perhaps only with therapy in your case) misconduct is about to be offered......Yup:

I normally stay away from such language, but then again, I normally don't have to deal with an ArbCom which so regularly makes a mess of things.

Same old Fram. Not really getting it, are you?

But the misbehaviour of others is no excuse for my misbehaviour.

Yup, it would be easier to believe you really mean this, if you hadn't spent the last three months blaming everyone else for your misconduct, and literally just did so again right before this admission.

So in the future I'll restrict my criticism to harsh, direct, precise, but more civil comments.

How big of you. Not being an asshole is just too big an ask, I guess? Aim for something vaguely achievable, given your personal defects, is I suppose the best anyone can hope for, from their Administrators. Oh to have such lofty ambitions for self-governance.

I reserve the right to respond sarcastically to silly statements on my user talk page though

Um, you know you can't reserve rights you don't have, right? What's even wrong with you, that you think sarcasm is ever an acceptable response? Other than you being an asshole, of course. Even now, you just don't see it.

we would without the pressure of T&S breathing down our necks never desysop, block, sanction, even warn editors for comments like the one now used to desysop me.

Oh, we're back there again. What Fram believes to be true, is the truth, right? I guess we can already say that promise to be more civil has been forgotten (knowingly misrepresenting your colleagues is incivility).

[JuiceBeetle]

If there had been a proper, normal case, with a standard evidence, workshop, and PD phase, where I was allowed to participate in a normal fashion, then I would have no problem accepting the result of "do not pass go, go back to RfA".

Tell me, how many blocked/banned user got a chance to "not accept" their sanction?

But accepting a result which may be the right one, but which comes from a totally absurd method of achieving it, is not something I can agree on

When did he forget that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Even "ignore all rules, if you think that's the right thing to do" applies here. He who does not know these policies, wants to be an admin? Nurse, please give him his medication.

[Guido den Broeder]

If there had been a proper, normal case, with a standard evidence, workshop, and PD phase, where I was allowed to participate in a normal fashion, then I would have no problem accepting the result of "do not pass go, go back to RfA".

Tell me, how many blocked/banned user got a chance to "not accept" their sanction?

Or even to comment. I certainly wasn't allowed to discuss my en:WP block on Meta. But Fram can go on and on, displaying the same problematic behaviour that got him banned in the first place.