Any member of the Debian community (even just a user) can file an RM bug against ftp.debian.org, if they provide justification. That is the standard procedure. The FTP masters perform the removal, but in the majority of cases someone else (the package's own maintainer, a member of the release team, a member of the "QA team" which is also everybody) files it, and says "request of maintainer"/"QA"/etc.
It is clear from the linked bug that antiharassment requested the removal and ftpmaster performed it. That's normal procedure. And the text was clearer than usual that ftpmaster should make their own independent judgment about whether it was justified (even though they always can).
I stand corrected; I only knew what I had read about it.
Also, I now see that Wikipedia’s T&S committee had a plausible reason for not referring the matter of Fram back to ArbCom: It could be argued that ArbCom might be biased against Fram, considering Fram’s comments on record about ArbCom.
Any member of the Debian community (even just a user) can file an RM bug against ftp.debian.org, if they provide justification. That is the standard procedure. The FTP masters perform the removal, but in the majority of cases someone else (the package's own maintainer, a member of the release team, a member of the "QA team" which is also everybody) files it, and says "request of maintainer"/"QA"/etc.
It is clear from the linked bug that antiharassment requested the removal and ftpmaster performed it. That's normal procedure. And the text was clearer than usual that ftpmaster should make their own independent judgment about whether it was justified (even though they always can).