User talk:Floquenbeam

MEH

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

RfA

I'd have supported you in a new RfA even if you hadn't indicated that's what you'd insist on, but I really admire you voluntarily choosing that. Hats off. --valereee (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why thank you, Valereee. I'm kind of bemused that RFC is still going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, an actual RfA would have been ending about now lol... --valereee (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RFA for Floq would be WP:POINTY and an utter WP:WASTEOFTIME better spent on writing or curating articles. Floq's historic intervention was an inspiration at least to me and I suspect to many others. Rather than going through a regular RfA, which he declared that he will not pursue, there should be a popular-acclamation RfC/RfA by which Floq would be declared admin emeritus and be given the tools back honoris causa. Dr. K. 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

+1. -Dave (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K., I don't disagree that it's a time waster. I think it's necessary for the community and WMF to see what our 'official' consensus is. I respect other opinions; I just think an RfA would be a net positive. --valereee (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Valereee. I respect your opinion as well, and I see the merits of your rationale. Dr. K. 23:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Completely with you. --valereee (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not quite right, @Dr.K.: I said I would never pursue a simple request at BN for a return of the tools. I said I'm also unlikely to run a new RFA either, based on my current level of disillusionment and a general lack of desire to go through that process again. But if I change my mind, it will be about the RFA, not the request at BN. A "popular acclamation RFC for Admin emeritus status" sounds wonderful, but I don't think there's really such a thing.... If we're going to create new positions, I'd prefer "God Emperor".

Haven't talked to you in a while. Good to see your name on my talk page. Hope all's well with you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm "God Emperor" has a nice ring to it Floq. Here is one of my favorite versions of one of those. I especially enjoy the "Plunder from old Neptune" at the end :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Floq. Thank you very much for your kind words. I am very well, thank you. I hope everything is well with you and yours also. It serves me right to try to paraphrase you and do it wrong. My apologies. But I was a bit careless for a reason. I wanted to express the idea that since we live in historic wikitimes with unprecedented events taking place, declaring someone admin emeritus honoris causa, although not based on any rules, may fit in this particular zeitgeist per IAR. However, having said that, I think admin emeritus may not be such a good idea, because it carries an aura of retirement. I don't want this for you, Floq. The wiki needs you out of retirement, as an active editor and admin. I know one thing, your actions helped me weather this storm. As far as the title "God Emperor", I thought that was reserved for Jimbo. So, sorry for not offering it to you. I didn't think it was available, and, even if it were, I don't think you'd want it. :) Dr. K. 00:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• fwiw, though I'm not sure you value my views much anymore, I would support any RfA you run. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • fwiw, I'm perfectly capable of valuing the views of someone who's judgement I usually respect, but with whom I've disagreed about one thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• I've had a think, and decided an RFA now is the marginally better course. It's live now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

This goat used to be homeless before I sent him here as a token of my appreciation.

Rong Qiqi (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've always wanted a Floquengoat! Thanks Rong Qiqi! --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well there is always that chance ...

• [1]

but hey, if you can risk it, I suppose I could. :-) ... good to see you back too Floq. — Ched :  ?  — 02:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The chance of resysopping me breaking the wiki is actually 3 orders of magnitude larger, but still worth it (IMHO). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Pings

Yo, just as a quick FYI in the RfA, I did indeed get two pings, so pinging from the edit summary worked. (I had no idea.)

For what it's worth, I like "re-oust from sysop role", but it's wordy. Or we could go super poor and have de-de-desysop. I'm sure I'll come up with something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I imagine a de-de-sysop is what ba-ba-Barbara Anne would get around here. In other news: up the non-even-keeled option! :p ——SerialNumber54129 10:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird, I guess the first mention pinged you to then too. I'll wait to see what you come up with. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

numbers

looks like you're heading into dhmo/Giggy or Cullen territory. Stay positive my friend. — Ched :  ?  — 01:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

thanks, but I'm guaranteed not to break 300, and... Giggy didn't work out too terribly well. I think I'll go with whatever is behind curtain 3, Monte. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What gets me is all the votes for or against either the WMF/T&S or Fram. (that's right, I left the "!" off of vote, I did it) — Ched :  ?  — 02:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There was really no way around that. I'm not sure that's good or bad, it just is. Would have been the same if I'd waited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

just look at the support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Already the sixth highest number of supports ever.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder where it ranks in the number of opposes.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Go over to my talk, look for the smile and read "go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Just withdraw

70+ opposes and almost 20 neutral votes for someone who had been an admin for 9 years with an established record is not a good sign. If it weren't for your many admin friends, I doubt you'd have that many supports. Do the honorable thing and withdraw, and maybe come back after a year or so because it's clear you're not wanted around anymore by a lot of people. The RfA might likely head into 'crat chat and you'd put 'crats in a difficult position once more because they'd likely favor promoting due to their familiarity with you making the chat non-neutral and would upset a lot of people. Just withdraw. Also, all the recent drama starting with WP:FRAM might actually make you understand what I meant by "the dirty politics of Wikipedia". Regards. 91.134.2.190 (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold words from someone who won't login, but considering what side of the fence you seem to be sitting on, I can't say I'm surprised. — Ched :  ?  — 10:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of T&S bans, this is 98.94% likely to be Kumioko, in case there are any admins around.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh. SQLBot should have caught that one in its open proxy search. I've hard blocked the range for 3 years, and I'll poke SQL next week about adding new search terms to whatever he's using. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I was going through old edits the other day, God knows why, and ran into a bunch of Kumioko stuff. Such sadness. Almost forgotten, like tears in rain. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

July

... with thanks from QAI for being you

I also went over old edits, why, because of that RfA, and found three things to be mentioned, here's one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry Floq - got my tools back - just didn't know. — Ched :  ?  — 14:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I know, glad to see it. I didn't mean "any admins around, Ched isn't one", but "an admins around now that I've ID'd the IP as a ban-evading troll". No worries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Question on editing for pay at RfC

Floq,

I added an additional question at your RfC."WP:Admin states "Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay." You seem to have missed that requirement. If a candidate were to pass RfC without fulfilling that requirement, would he or she be an admin?"

This is not really a substantive question - it does not state that you would be blocked from becoming an admin if you had been paid for editing, it only says that you should answer the question, presumably so that editors !voting on the RfC can consider that information.

Note that I'm not accusing you of editing for pay. I'm just saying that you missed answering that question. It's quite an important question as it will help prevent our core of admins from becoming advocates or supporters for paid editors. Please correct your omission as soon as possible.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see that you've answered it. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Support

For what it’s worth. My vote wouldn’t have counted for anything, seeing as how I’m just someone’s wife (so not a real person), but pulling for you anyways. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)