"Incivil style" can mean anything. To be snarky, this is coming from people who just give out an unprecedented temp ban and say they can't talk about what it's for, and probably consider that civil, too. So who knows, I'd rather see the comments in question than a description of them.

As for that description of an accusation, anyone who naively created stub articles ("this is what I know, hopefully others will add to it", I've been there) might know how quickly having stuff deleted and being berated on your talk page can go. That can "feel" like all sorts of things, but if there was really something undue going on, I would like to hear it from more than one person, because this is more about patterns in the data of WP in contrast to other data on WP (e.g. how admins normally behave), not how it feels for a WP newbie.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t...

> Endorse with an additional request: if and when an editor with an instance of problematic editing such as WP:CopyVio is identified, en-WP admins and editors – including Fram – may scrutinize other edits of that editor. WMFOffice accepts that this is neither stalking nor evidence of hostility or harassment, rather such efforts are in good faith and necessary to maintain or improve the "Quality and Reliability" of the en-WP.

> he would not be misracing a black person by calling them the n-word, only being racist

How is that not true, technically? I mean, without the context of the actual dispute, this is the weirdest form of gossip. from the same WP page:

> I came here after reading some quotes which show a surreal level of straw men and evidence fabrication against Fram: a post where he said writing the n-word is unacceptable was labeled a racial slur! (I hope I dreamed that.)

so I clicked on the link there, and finally found the orginal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No...

Reading comment and the discussion before it... to say this was "an ugly claim" is silly to me, and it only "culminated" in that because the other party didn't respond. Too much spooky language, no meat.

Merriam-Webster defines toxic as "extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful", and I think the disconnect is that in my mind, I associate "toxic" with malicious and harmful, not with "extremely harsh". I mean, was George Carlin a toxic comedian? He certainly was extremely harsh, but he meant well, he actually had a point, and so on. Of course, he wasn't always harsh.

I simply don't know if it's true for said admin, but if he was just a dick to everyone, the community would be relieved, not upset, and the charges wouldn't need to get trumped up like this, how it "culminated in an ugly claim", as if that was him being toxic, rather than being treated in a toxic manner, which would be my reading. Right at the beginning of that thread Fram said:

> The repeated statements you made that people "misgendered" you, that they "declared that they personally hate" you, and so on, from those discussions, are much worse personal attacks than what you are now trying to raise here. As far as I can see, no one adressed you with "Peh" in those discussions either. While yo may prefer "they" and it would be more courteous if people used this, there is no misgendering happening if they instead use "xe", which is explicitly intended to be gender-neutral. Your constant misrepresentation of what others said and constant playing the gender / minority / prosecution card is rapidly growing stale

But it's constant bait and switch from there, and that's not Fram's fault.