Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 24 July 2019 (→‎Support: s++). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Floquenbeam

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (209/43/12); Scheduled to end 19:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)

Self-nom statement: I'd like to request the admin bit back from the community. I don't want to regurgitate everything that happened during the Fram fiasco just to explain to the few people who don't know anything about it, but who are still active at RFA. Just click on that link. So I'll just briefly say that, after getting desysopped by WMF for a month for overturning an office action, asking for and getting resysopped by a Crat because it should be a community decision, I then resigned 3 weeks ago for two intertwined reasons. One was to follow in the footsteps of others protesting the lack of respect being shown to our community by the WMF. Another was because I felt that my reverting an office action was probably serious enough that the community should decide whether I should still be an admin or not, even if the WMF blinked and didn't re-desysop me. I'm aware of the emerging consensus here that the resignation wasn't under a cloud, but it's important to me (and, I think, to the community) that this be via RFA instead of just asking at WP:BN. I won't be able to do anything about opposes based on "RFA unnecessary, just ask at BN", but they will make me sad, and depending on how the Crats weigh them, they might be self-defeating.

On the other hand, opposes based on the belief that it was unacceptable for me to undo an office action are completely legitimate, and I'd beg everyone to please not hassle anyone who opposes on that basis; let's not reignite that particular fire. Of course, people could also oppose because they think I generally suck and shouldn't be an admin; that's cool too; feel free to hassle those opposes (just kidding!).

The WMF's statement came after my resignation; while I'm not thrilled with how far it went, I'm grudgingly accepting about how far it went. I tentatively think the mass resignations in protest did their job about as well as we could reasonably expect. I've never planned or said I was resigning until Fram was unbanned; I resigned until Fram could appeal their ban to ArbCom, which is apparently the case now.

I'm not perfect, and don't expect this RFA to be the cakewalk some people were claiming it would be in the immediate aftermath of the crisis. I knew the reversal of an office action (in spite of having consensus behind me) would cause further disruption, and I did it anyway. I've never really written articles, and contribute to article space even less now than I did before my previous RFA, which was charitably characterized at the time as "uninspiring". I said "fuck you" to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized. I block vandals well before the required 4 warnings of increasing severity. I've probably made some enemies from trying to solve disputes at AN/ANI. I'm grumpier than I used to be. And I haven't even been terribly active in the last year. I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf. What you saw is what you'll get. </softselloftheyear>

I'm not sure how active I'll be in the coming months; I haven't regained the enthusiasm I lost last month. But I'll probably be active enough that this won't be a waste of anyone's time. I kind of hate this process and considered not being an admin anymore. I also considered waiting a few months for this, until I got that enthusiasm back, and out of respect for the multiple admins who resigned and haven't asked for the bit back yet, and the multiple editors who quietly quit working and haven't restarted. But on reflection I think it should be now or never: a resysop request months down the line will likely be more drama than other people's resysop requests at WP:BN. Whatever the resolution between us and the WMF is going to be, however it ends up working out, I think running this RFA months down the road might stir up bad feelings that, by then, might be better left alone. So having intentionally added to the drama when I felt it was the best thing for our community, I'm asking for the bit back now instead of later to intentionally try to decrease future drama - also because I feel it will be best for the community.

Also, if it helps those on the fence: I've reached my lifetime quota for reversing office actions, so if/when another completely unacceptable office action ever gets made, I'll leave it to others to reverse it (or not).

I won't answer the standard questions; everyone probably has a good or bad image of me by now and just wants me to shut up so they can get to the voting. I'll stick my nose in at least once a day to answer any additional questions. Please for the love of all that is holy, don't ask the "which of these following 12 usernames would violate the username policy" questions. I'm too old for that shit, and already saw those last time. I do, however, have a renewed understanding of the difference between a block and a ban.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: See self-nom statement.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: See self-nom statement.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: See self-nom statement.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional Question from Nosebagbear
4. Which of these 11 usernames is least legitimate Notwithstanding anything to do with the Fram saga, do you have any Admin actions/decisions that you actually do regret taking?
A: Surprisingly, there aren't that many admin actions (that I remember) that I've regretted. The one that has always stuck in my mind is from way back in 2013 (I'm surprised; it feels more recent). At the time, I felt a long-term good-faith editor was intentionally keeping a dispute with someone else going when I was trying to resolve it, so I gave one of those "if you reinstate this I will block you" warnings and then blocked him for a day when he reinstated it. While I could probably defend it on the merits if pushed, it came dangerously close to a "Respect Mah Authoritah" block, and it was pretty much a dick move on my part. Especially the part where I made it so that doing what I wanted him to do required him to publicly back down from a challenge. I think that block has stuck in my head because that kind of thing irks me so much when I see it elsewhere. He and I have mended fences since, but I've always been unimpressed with my behavior there.
There are a couple more from so long ago that it isn't worth rehashing the details, where I was probably too rash. Seems to be a common denominator whenver I get into trouble....
I'm sure there are several other blocks that were too lenient or too harsh, or marginal situations where I chose not to block when I should have (and thus wasted the time of people who had to deal with them), or blocked when it could have been solved in other ways, but none so outlandish that I recall getting called out for them. There are no doubt others that I simply don't recall because my memory sucks. If there is one in particular you're curious about, feel free to point me to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Question from Andrew D.
5. The account name "Floquenbeam" has a nice ring to it but its meaning is unclear to me. What is its origin please?
A: This one's easy, as I have a pre-written answer already waiting. If you promise not to MFD it as WP:NOTWEBHOST, I'll point you to User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog#My username. You can ignore the second section if you want; it's unrelated, though entertaining in a "Wow, Floq sure was an idiot as a kid, wasn't he?" kind of way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
6. Does IAR allow An admin to overturn a decision taken by another Admin ( Ex An Admin closes an AFD as delete can a admin unilaterally restore it under IAR) ? Will you consider doing such an action ?
A: Policy doesn't forbid it - it isn't wheel warring - but courtesy and common sense mean it should happen rarely. I've done it before, but mostly in unblocking someone when the block was clearly in error, and the blockee was getting increasingly upset, and the blocker wasn't active at that moment. In that specific set of circumstances, the blockee's feelings are more important than waiting as a courtesy to the blocking admin. In almost any other situation I can think of offhand, there's no real urgency, so the courtesy of a discussion with the other admin first is the obvious choice. FWIW, I had a standing policy of "I'm not online very often these days, so if you think an admin action I've taken in the past is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first" when I was an admin, and will continue that if this passes. I guess the only other time I can think of is when they've clearly made a small mistake - say deleting an article instead of the redirect they meant to - and I'm confident they won't mind if I just admin-gnome to clean up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Iridescent
7. Obviously your edits for this year will be slightly skewed by the events of June, but the fact remains that for the combined period of 2018–19 you have a total of 264 edits to article space compared to 3009 edits to non-article space, for a total of 9% edits to mainspace in 2018 and 7% so far this year. Those are figures that under normal circumstances would cause me instantly to oppose any candidate at RFA unless there was a good explanation to the contrary ("I work in sandboxes so this 15,000 word article I wrote only counts as a single mainspace edit", "I spend much of my time editing images/writing bots/reviewing articles for issues" etc). I'll obviously make allowances for the time that you were on Arbcom as that unavoidably wastes the time of anyone on it, but do you feel it's appropriate for someone who appears largely detached from our supposed primary purpose to be straight back at RFA? (Note that this is not the prelude to an oppose, but I would be interested in how you answer. I assume you're aware that the emergence of a class of professional managers on Wikipedia who have little recent experience of what the wiki is like for ordinary editors is something with which I've long had an issue.)
A: I focus on what I enjoy the most, and what I think I do best. The areas I tend to focus on are useful to the project (IMHO), but aren't creating content. For example, I've done a lot of blocking and warning people at AIV, who have been identified and reverted already by other people, so I have a user talk page edit but no matching mainspace edit. I spend time at WP:ERRORS, so dealing with issues raised there requires edits to WP space and template space, but not to main space (usually it's someone else who's already fixed the article, and is asking an admin to fix the main page blurb/hook/summary). If someone is asking for help at AN/ANI, that's almost always a behavioral thing and won't result in a mainspace edit. And honestly, after more than 10 years on the project, some days I like to chat with friends. I could occasionally make an AWB run to boost my mainspace count, but doing so is over my head and I would screw dozens of pages up. or I could do some recent changes patrolling, but if I do say so myself, I put in more than my fair share of that over the years, and no longer find it fun.
So the question is, is an admin focused exclusively on non-writing tasks a good thing? It depends; is mainspace edit percentage the only metric for whether someone understands "what the wiki is like for ordinary editors"? If doing what I enjoy most was causing damage, then I'd say no, it isn't a good thing. But if it's simultaneously enjoyable for me and making incremental changes that improve the encyclopedia (or that improve the experience of people who are creating content), then I'd say yes, it is a good thing, regardless of my mainspace count. I'll always respect people who oppose adminship based on "not enough article improvement", because I see where they're coming from, but I'll always disagree, because i think it's an imperfect measure of their benefit to the project, and an imperfect measure of the way they'll treat ordinary editors. If a would-be professional manager is causing problems for people creating content, oppose them for that, no matter what their article edit count. If they're helping them, then don't have a minimum mainspace requirement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Levivich
8. In your opinion, what would have happened differently if you hadn't unblocked Fram? – Levivich 21:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: (Trying to find a good compromise between 1 sentence and 10 paragraphs....) I obviously can't know for sure. But I suspect we would have ultimately had a much less acceptable response from the WMF office and board; I don't think we got the response we did in spite of the unblock, I think we got it (in part) because of the unblock. I believed at the time, and am still fairly sure, that by enacting consensus and unblocking Fram, rather than just joining the already-long line of people objecting to the way the ban was handled, I helped change the mindset of some people in the WMF office from "Well, we expected lots of people to whine for a while, but all we have to do is wait this out" to "Oh crap, they're raising the stakes, we may actually have to give in and talk to them instead of at them, lest this make us look bad in public". I 100% guarantee that the threat of the unblock got them to respond in the first place. Bish's re-unblock (sorry Lee Vilenski) was more important than my unblock of Fram in that regard ("Oh double crap, this wasn't just one loon"), as was WJBscribe's even higher-cost action ("Oh triple crap with cherries on top"). I'm not the master game theorist my current president is, so I didn't plan this all out 15 moves in advance. When they finally got smart and declined to reblock, I realized we couldn't win by playing "I'm Spartacus" all day, and thought we were lost. Then the mass resignations started (also more important than my unblock of Fram). So in isolation, I don't think the unblock swayed anything, but it kept the pressure on, and the cumulative effect of that and all the subsequent actions did sway things. I firmly believe I was one part of a chain of events that improved the WMF's response. I firmly believe that if I hadn't done what I did, and Bish and WJBscribe hadn't done what they did, and all the editors and admins who quit/resigned hadn't done what they did, WMF office would have never agreed that ArbCom can review such a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
9. In an extenstion to Q 6.An article has been twice been deleted in AFD 1 and 2 and in DRV and admin restores it with a summary Evidently notable, deletion of the article is a major embarassement for Wikipedia overturning the decision of 2 admins one in AFD and DRV .The article in question is Clarice Phelps .Would you consider this to be an application of WP:IAR or WP:WHEEL and if so why ?If it is not WP:IAR why ?
A: I don't think it was wheel warring, which requires re-doing an admin action that had previously been reverted. It was an attempt at IAR, but it certainly didn't work out. I wouldn't have done it myself, for several reasons. First, it wasn't undoing an admin action, it was undoing the result of two consensus discussions. Second, it wasn't something that couldn't wait for more discussion (although the way Rama worded it, I suspect they thought it was time sensitive because of the press coverage). I think Rama caught more flak for that than was warranted, to be honest, and I don't doubt their intentions, but no it wasn't a wise attempt to use WP:IAR; if nothing else, it should have been obvious in advance that it wouldn't stick. In a bit of "it's a small world-ness", Fram's solution was the wisest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from usernamekiran
10. PREAMBLE: This requirement was foreshadowed on your talk page a very long time ago (somewhere around late 2009), and now comes to fruition.
REQUIREMENT: Please compose and present one Shakespearean form sonnet illuminating something about Floquenbeam in the role of Wikipedia administrator. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Usernamekiran is referring to this question from long ago. I'll cheat and let my answer from back then stand; I think I've lost even the illusion of creativity I had then. I wonder whatever happened to User:Proofreader77. I always found him either harmlessly cryptic, or entertainingly cryptic, but I was apparently in the minority... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cyp
10⅔. Which of these following 11 usernames would violate the username policy — Floq Rocks, Floq Sucks, Floq Meh, Floq Fan, Floq Hater, Pro-Floq, Anti-Floq, Down With Floq, Go Floq!, Yay Floq and Nay Floq?
A: It doesn’t matter, I wouldn’t block any of them. All publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Floq off"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from MJL
11⅔. Why did you choose to self-nominate instead asking another user to do it? It feels like a missed opportunity of potentially giving a non-admin experience with an important RFA. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A:Sorry, that was selfish of me. On the bright side, I anticipate blocking Jimbo in a few years (about the only taboo left for me, since it is now technically impossible to delete the main page); when I get desysopped and ask for the bit back, I’ll check first to see if (a) you’re an admin or not, and (b) if not, whether you’ll nominate me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Usedtobecool
12⅔. In the lead up to your action that led us here, how did you evaluate the concerns (as much of a minority as those that had them were) that there could have been very legitimate reasons for the office action that you undid (however wrong they were in the way that they went about it) and undoing it, armed with only the knowledge a sysop is privileged to, could conceivably have led to real harm to some members of this community?
A:It’s a bit odd to realize that if this had been an indef WMF-wide ban with no talk page access anywhere, I would likely have not acted at all, and assumed that T&S could be, well, T’ed, and that Fram had seriously crossed some line somewhere that couldn’t be divulged. I was comfortable that I wasn’t making a serious mistake due to information I didn’t have access to for the following reasons:
  1. It was en.wiki only. This would make zero sense if there was some kind of ultra-serious stalking/threats of violence/severe directed harassment going on. It also would make zero sense unless all the behavior occurred on en.wiki.
  2. It was one year only. This would make zero sense if (yada yada yada see above).
  3. Fram presented believable descriptions of what T&S told him their rationale was, and their previous warnings, and T&S did not deny it. If they could have honestly said “That is not what we told him”, they would have, even if they couldn’t actually tell us what they had told him.
  4. Multiple people at WP:FRAM had reviewed his contributions this year, and no one found evidence of the kind of harassment that would, on en.wiki, result in a ban with no appeal and no right of reply. As noted above, whatever behavior this was in response to, it had to have been on en.wiki.
If any one of these things wasn’t true, I would not have unblocked. I was confident, and am still confident, that no real harm could occur by allowing Fram to edit en.wiki (while being watched by 1,536 hawks) while ArbCom decided what to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13⅔. You seem to indicate a personal emotional stake on the relevant sequence of events. Would you say that your action then might have had a degree of impulsivity; or that no matter how it may look from a different frame of reference, said action was a well-calculated/thought-out action based on evidence/objective-reasoning? Is there anything you might have done differently or pre-meditated more deeply on, given a do-over (given that you indicate there may be something there that needs an explicit community endorsement via this process)?
A: I can certainly be impulsive on occasion, but this was not an example of that. I didn’t take reverting an office action lightly (I knew what the consequences were, and I knew the seriousness of what a more traditional office action usually signifies), and carefully considered the pros and cons of doing so, and quadruple checked that I hadn’t missed anything that would make unblocking a horrible mistake. This was a well-considered action based on the theory that a certain level of keeping the pressure on was important, and on the consideration that the likelihood of losing the admin bit was worth it. My “emotional stake” at the time was that I regretted having to lose the admin bit, but felt I needed to unblock anyway. My emotional stake now is that I dislike RFA but feel like there’s no other honorable way to get the bit back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from George Ho
14. Why or why not do you trust more Fram, WMF, or equally both?
A: What? --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the vague question. I'll make a better (but probably newer) question: before and after the Framgate controversy, what have been your views about Fram and WMF in any way?
15. What was then and is now your stance on civility policy, especially during your tenure as an admin?
A: That it's important, but when balancing competing interests, it's not the most important. That it is too often used as a tool to get someone you don't like in trouble. That the way it is "enforced" here fcuses too much on people expressing transitory frustration, and too little on people who are relentlessly disrespectful to others, but who don't use bad words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second question from Levivich
16. Thank you for answering my earlier question and the other ones above. Were you surprised by comments at WT:ACN that there were a significant number of reports to T&S, far more ... than I would have expected? What if anything do you have to say to the editors who filed those reports (and who might be reading this)? – Levivich 05:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: What I would say to them: we already have a mechanism for dealing with complaints about harassment, including (if necessary) submitting private information. I would not be terribly surprised if Fram has done stuff that cumulatively is too much to tolerate. The place to make that decision is ArbCom. The way not to do it is a non-transparent decision by a bunch of groupthinking coworkers in an office somewhere with no possibility of appeal, or even contest and answer the accusations in the first place. What I'm curious about: how many of those "complaints" are an organized attempt to get Fram kicked out? Seems surprising that hardly anyone actually knows about the new option of complaining to WMF about people harassing them, and yet multiple people chose it to complain about this one particular editor? But there's no way to tell if the process is not transparent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Anarchyte
17. Why did you decide to unblock Fram and wait for it to be reverted before resigning, given it's arguable that it might have been better, relationship wise, to resign instantly rather than (possible purposefully) angering a portion of the staff and making another group of the community lose a degree of trust in you? I didn't mean to come off as snarky here but I can't think of a way to phrase the question without it.
A: I think I explained this pretty thoroughly above, though admittedly it's getting to be a lot to wade through. Because I felt that it was important to put as much pressure on WMF as possible, and because I do not think anyone at WMF office would care, one iota, if I resigned. They angered me, I didn't anger them. They lost my trust; I didn't lose theirs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18: If your plan was to send a message to the WMF and resigning as an admin was part of this plan, why are you re-requesting the role only a month and a bit later? It's possible this could be perceived as a way to gain recognition as the ones who stood up against the WMF, only to come back when the hype had died down. Again, like with question 17, I don't mean to cast aspersions but I can't think of a way to phrase the questions without doing so.
A: Because, (a) the situation has changed, and the WMF has partially backed down and allowed the ban to be reviewed (and reversed) by ArbCom, and (b) I did it now instead of waiting for reasons I made pretty clear in my initial statement. I cannot help what you, or anyone, choose to perceive as my motivations if you don't believe that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Welcome back! El_C 19:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's do it then. Always noticed you as being one of the reasonable and fair ones. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Going "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...now "Oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think Wikipedia is better with Floquenbeam having the tools than with Floquenbeam not having the tools. With very few exceptions (but they do exist) I think he has the knack for boldness when required, de-escalating behaviour when required, and often both wrapped into one action or series of actions. I actually think he was a very good administrator. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of some of the opposes, I'll expand a little. Some are saying it is simply and unconditionally wrong to act against WMF office actions. But if we accept that, we accept that those in authority are always right and can never be acted against - and that's wrong. Sometimes we just have to do what's right regardless of who's in authority and what they say, and just see how it plays out. The way it's played out in this case is that there's a consensus that those in authority (the WMF T&S team) were wrong, and we are now in a process of rectifying their error. But we wouldn't have made that progress had we not been prepared to stand up when we saw something that was fundamentally wrong - and Floquenbeam and Bishonen played key roles in the process of disobedience. I said over at Bish's talk page that "The actions of Bish, Floq and others were instrumental in forcing a crisis and bringing WMF to the table. In this case, escalation was exactly the right thing to do." It's echoed by Floq's answer to Q8, and and I stand by it. Admins who are prepared to stand up for what is morally right are many times more valuable than simple rule followers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Floq and I pretty strongly disagreed immediately before his resignation, and I think we likely still do on several things related to the fallout from FRAM. That being said, I think he always acted in what he felt was the best interest of the project, and he has also pretty consistently been opposed to harassment in the past. While I would not support an RfA or RfB for WJBscribe (it’s the elephant in the room, so I’ll mention it), I do not think Floq’s actions harmed the community, and thus I am happy to support an administrator whom I have always admired and respected, even in our disagreements. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support specifically because of the WP:FRAM actions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Your nom is mature and fairly considered; you have also shown the community respect, and I also return the gesture. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Floq has long been a big positive to the admin corps and there is no reason to think this will change. Welcome back. GoldenRing (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. support - for sure. Great admin. Although there needs to be a better word for "re-desysop". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do for the Wikipedia community. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support I don't think a rational is needed. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 19:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Indispensable admin. Favonian (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely, and with pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Obviously. Ifnord (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support strongly and with bells on. The kind of editor we need to have as an admin. --bonadea contributions talk 19:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support, per Sluzzelin, Floquenbeam was and will continue to be a great admin, no hesitation here. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, with no reservations whatsoever. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support unreservedly. Floquenbeam is among the select group of editors here whose head nearly always seems to be screwed on straight. I don't find the office-action-reversion kerfuffle to be disqualifying, nor do I find concerns that this means he's going to sympathize with harassers compelling (I've certainly seen no other evidence of this streak in Floquenbeam's edits and actions). That leaves me solidly in the support group. Let's hang onto good editors as long as we can. Ajpolino (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Not that we should be here anyway, but you have my full support (in the non-politician meaning of the phrase). Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support IARing my usual criteria to support this RFA Iffy★Chat -- 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Absolutely. SQLQuery me! 20:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Without question. Kosack (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I think that arguing about Framgate now would only divide people between those who make one set of guesses versus those who make a different set of guesses. I'd rather wait and see the results of the Arbcom case ... that's as close as we're likely to come to finding out what actually happened. So, I don't see anything to be gained by turning this into a kerfuffle. Floq has proved himself many times over. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Oh good, I get to be the first to say "I thought he was one already". But seriously, if there is to be any element of a community referendum about Floquenfram (OK, that part wasn't so serious), I want to come down very firmly on the side of supporting. He did the right thing, period. And he is fully qualified, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Based on Floq's previous admin record. Loopy30 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Si. Kante4 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Floquenbeam is one of our best admins and it would be a huge asset to the encyclopedia for him to have the tools back.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support because Floq's desysop was supposed to be temporary (per the WMF) and as such should have been restored after the 30 days were up (which happened on July 12). SkyWarrior 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. The only reason the WMF and its board are now speaking to us as partners rather than as rulers is because Floquenbeam stood up to them on behalf of the community who said "No, WMF, you've gone too far." The WMF has now agreed not to take these kinds of divisive and damaging actions in the future, so: Thank you, Floq. 28bytes (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Of course. Reyk YO! 20:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support with such pleasure. My esteem for Floq has always been high and came through this incident even higher. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support a very good admin with principles Atlantic306 (talk)
  37. Support 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support It wasn't an action I supported, but I can see the GF behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. After all that, checking in with the community to see whether you still had our trust and support shows courage and good judgment. – bradv🍁 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I'm disappointed by the dreadful reasoning of those currently sat in the Oppose section. Floquenbeam did what they did to ensure the English Wikipedia community, which gave birth to the pathetic spectacle that is the Wikimedia Foundation, realised they come before the foundation. They did what they did to ensure the Foundation hears, loud and clear, that they need to engage and consult with us, and to not treat us with contempt. Their judgement is sound and their administrative record is unimpeachable. Nick (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per Bradv. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Floquenbeam is one of the better administrators I have dealt with on the project. Fair and firm - and not punitive. ! I think the actions taken were regrettable, and I understand why they were taken. Welcome back and keep being fair and firm on the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - because I still believe in 2nd chances, even when it's the 4th or 5th. Some may call me an eternal optimist but I do have a cutoff point and Floq isn't there yet. Am I too lenient? No, because I see it more as being able to recognize the good in people, knowing that no one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Floq was pretty hard on me during my t-ban appeal, but he was up-front about it, and he didn't dally long. As for his actions during FRAMBAN, well...I did not necessarily agree with his actions, but he stood for what he thought was right. Being able to recognize one's mistakes and coming forward to admit them carries weight in my book. I commend Floq's courage to stand for what he believed in and then, to admit when his actions raised question - it's the kind of behavior that shows character...and I see that as a good thing. Atsme Talk 📧 21:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Per SkyWarrior, and Special:Diff/901556031. —Cryptic 21:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Of course. You were always one of the best ones around, and standing up for what you thought was right reinforces my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. The SanFran Foundation is overstaffed with overpaid people. When trying to bypass the regular procedures of self-administration, these people weren't acting as the office of the Encyclopedia we are trying to write, but only as a self expanding bureaucracy. When opposing such an illegitimate move, Floquenbeam was simply fulfilling his duties: he was, and will remain an administrator chosen by this community, nothing else. Pldx1 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, and I never ever participate in RfAs. EEng 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Thanks for taking one for the team, and welcome back! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I expect administrators to enact consensus. Floquenbeam has done that, and only fair that we re-affirm that he continues have the trust of the community. Vexations (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Thank you for going through this process. You have my full faith and support. CThomas3 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Sluzzelin signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - has my confidence. Neutralitytalk 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I wasn't over impressed by the reverting of the office action, but definitely feel that this is an application to celebrate. So let's slay a fatted calf, or beanburger, or whatever. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've always considered Floq one of the best, and that has nothing to do with the recent Fram events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I remain confident in Floquenbeam's judgment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support restoration of tools. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support precious civil disobedience --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A sincere request, and proven contributor. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: I'm so glad that any backlash you may have received for doing what you thought – correctly IMHO – was the right thing has not put you off offering to serve as an administrator again. You have my unreserved support. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Not as a referandum on WP:FRAMGATE, but because I continue to have full trust in Floq.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Because Floq is one of our best admins! :) ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Yes, of course. Cardamon (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Need more admins. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strongest possible support Welcome back, because this place needs you. Miniapolis 22:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strongest possible support Floq's record as an Arb and admin speaks for itself. But that is not the determining factor of my strong support. Over the years, whenever I see Floquenbeam's comments I am always impressed by their astuteness. But even that is not a determining factor for me. The determining factor for me is that Floq delivers his comments in a way that reveals a lightness of spirit. I think Wikipedia needs this type of editor in any capacity but even more so as an admin. As far as his actions during the SANFRANFRAMDRAMABAN, well, he has my support in that as well mainly because I don't think that imposition of opaque star chambers is the best solution when dealing with the en.wiki community. Dr. K. 22:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support as one more step in undoing all the harm T&S have done. (Fram is still banned, though; sigh.) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - a net positive, not a jerk. --MrClog (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I don't see any issues. Masum Reza📞 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. 100% Kurtis (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Should Floquenbeam have reverted that office action? No. Should they have reverted that office action? Yes. Clearly this is what IAR was designed for and an admin willing to invoke it should definitely stay an admin. Sometimes the simplest path forward is also the best path forward. --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. per Addy, Salvio, and 78.26 (spin him!) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have seen Floque around since my early days of editing. I have also been following Fram fiasco since like day 2 or 3. I am not going to discuss it here. But I trust Floque. And as part of the enwiki community, I want Floque to retain the admin duties. Also, regardless the answer to my Q11, I support this request. I had to ask the Q merely for formality purposes. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. An unequivocal support from me.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I like a little bit of radical action now and then.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support — I'm not sure that the time to end an admin strike is now, but respect your decision. No worries. Carrite (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Many times a discussion has been stuck at a noticeboard when Floquenbeam took charge and made the right decision that, in retrospect, (almost) everyone agreed with. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support strongly and without reservations. MastCell Talk 23:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support for demonstrated dedication and good judgment (and I'm not basing that narrowly on WP:FRAM-related actions). Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 00:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Floq was one of the admins that made me feel honored to be one as well. I hope this succeeds. If it does not, there's something rotten in the state of Denmark and I think I won't be the only one to question their loyalty to our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, thank you for that question. It's a fair one, and a tricky one for old timers like Floq and a bunch of others to answer. I suspect a few years from now my edit stats will be very similar to Floq's. As for this particular instance, I think what matters is that Floq's past contributions have given him a good sense of what Wikipedia editors think and what they go through if blocked, if their articles are nominated for deletion, if they get hauled off to ANI, etc. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support and welcome back. Enwebb (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support for all the obvious reasons, plus I admire your gumption in not answering the standard questions, plus the end of your nom made me laugh. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. "the required 4 warnings of increasing severity" – there is no such requirement. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support of course. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 00:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support – Floq has a long record of good judgment as an admin. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support He was a good admin before and him taking a stand against the WMF in order to defend a basic principle of the project that was under attack certainly doesn't change that. An easy support. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. I have not bothered developing strong views about the Fram thing, or about Floq's conduct during it. But the question is whether he has my confidence as an admin going forward, and he does—the Fram thing was, at worst, a single incident of bad judgment. On the question of whether this RFA is unnecessary drama-seeking, he's articulated a principled basis on which he's returning here rather than just requesting the return of his tools; it is not the only conclusion a principled person could reach, but it is the one that Floq's reached, and I'm not going to criticize him for it. Steve Smith (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support – my first reaction was "facepalm" but then I realised that the other way to resolve an action deemed problematic by some would be to.....desysop and undergo a community RfA...which is what we are doing...and here we are. net positive, 'nuff said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Special circumstances, etc etc, welcome back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, took a stance, got punished, wants tools again, welcome back. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support – the sonnet convinced me. – Levivich 01:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: In other words, my question convinced you —usernamekiran(talk) 01:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 20 mule team Support AFAIK Floq has worked in the best interests of the project for years and will continue to do so.
  94. Support Tolly4bolly 01:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - happy to have you back. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Sometimes inflammation is good. It the the natural defense against parasites, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Only because of "I've reached my lifetime quota for reversing office actions". Generally trusted and competent when not reversing office actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Floq has a long history as a productive and fair administrator. He took a stand regarding Fram that I was not sure I supported at the time, but I now find his answer to question #8 quite persuasive. That single action is surely not enough, in my view, to oppose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Meh - I don't care I suppose he won't break that much. /sarcasm. Seriously, 'teh wiki' needs people who use common sense a lot more than folks who can simply regurgitate policy. — Ched :  ?  — 02:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - Just woke up, saw Floq wanted re-adminship, so the first order of the day is 1 support. I spent an unnecessary hour reading through Q's and A's. Wot I was supposed to learn: The qualities of character that Floq has and how they will or will not make Floq a good admin. Wot I actually learned: Floq is a Scooby-Doo fan, failed author, and composer of poetry. ... Close enough. But for real doe, I already knew Floq was a good admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Clearly. No concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Floquenbeam has weaknesses (as alluded to in the statement above) but I'd rather take someone who has an awareness of them than someone who doesn't. As far as the controversial action, while I don't know that I would have taken it myself I can sympathize with the sentiment and believe that some strong action was necessary to get the WMF's attention. --Rschen7754 03:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support I have seen with my own eyes that Floquenbeam is a good admin. The decision that caused some here to think he shouldn't be an admin makes me more convinced that he should. It was the right call and took real courage. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support -although slightly disappointed that you have pushed future unacceptable office actions into the SEP field, as your actions were courageous and correct in the circumstances. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support The community is with you! Λυδαcιτγ 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 03:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support welcome back. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support per User:Ched. I’m glad I missed all that Fram drama, but honestly RFA is in some ways a referendum on whether the community trusts an editors judgment, temperament, ability to gauge consensus and interpret both the rule and spirit of policies sufficiently enough to wield the tools that come with the admin package. All things considered, Floq continues to meet all those criteria for me, hence my support. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 04:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support ultimately, ArbCom will decide the Fram issue, and I trust them to do that, but I believe Floq's actions contributed to us being in the place we are now, where Fram's behaviour will be reviewed by ArbCom. Without Floq (and related actions by others) I don't believe WMF would have taken onboard any of the criticisms or met us halfway. Floq has been an outstanding admin and should be given the tools back to continue that good track record. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support per Rschen7754. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose redundant RFAs and the amount of interrogation in RFAs in general, but support (edit conflict) the candidate. Floq has not to my knowledge performed any controversial actions recently, nor lost admin tools under a cloud. Undoing a controversial action while standing on a cloud doesn't count as either, obviously. It seems that Floq now has a good track record of following IAR correctly, including IAR ch. 65536 § 43046721, which states that IAR should be applied when needed, even against rules with scary potential consequences (the full specification of IAR rules is way too big to fit on Wikipedia, but most people have a copy in /dev/brain/commonsense/docs/rules/iar/0065/iar-ch65536.pdf). Κσυπ Cyp   04:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support per nom statement and without more words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, obviously. Thank you for doing this again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support My first (last?) RfA vote. Has clue, cares and is good egg. Now, when's the return to ArbCom? Scribolt (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Floq has always set standards for judgement in administrative actions and I don't doubt that will continue in the future. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Lectonar (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Did a good job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - as Opabinia regalis said, "obviously". And as others have said, Floq's been an excellent Admin, we need more like him. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Pretty please, quality mod sacked by dodgy WMF-action. The Banner talk 08:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Strong support The opposes show such an egregious lack of judgement that they should a) hand in their tools, b) leave, or c) experience an immediate cessation of chocolate rations.Delete that which does not apply ——SerialNumber54129 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Emphasising my support. This action is brought to you "per User:-revi". ——SerialNumber54129 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Always been neutral about Floq, sometimes good and sometimes not so good. To me, though, the worst – the very worst – thing about the Fram situation was the loss of several truly excellent and helpful admins. Hope Floq's efforts here at RfA 2 will get some or all of them to once again pick up the mop! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  08:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - As I recall, a very good administrator, but please stop going away now... - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Was a good admin before. See no reason why wouldn't be a good admin now. Sometimes doing the right thing is important. Gricehead (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support The candidate seems to have a good admin record. I didn't follow the issue with the WMF but I trust other experienced editors on this. wikitigresito (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, obviously, with gratitude on behalf of the whole project. Also we need more of this: I block vandals well before the required 4 warnings of increasing severity. — JFG talk 10:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support – one of the good ones. Graham87 10:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - special circumstances required special measures, Floq is one of the greatest admins here and their actions with the WMF only reconfirms that for me, and so they have my unreserved support. –Davey2010Talk 10:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Very helpful to other editors. Interstellarity (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Let's keep him occupied with adminship lest he reattempt writing fantasy. No such user (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - ZLEA T\C 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - obviously. GiantSnowman 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support I believe Floquenbeam has their heart in the right place, and is of great value to Wikipedia as an administrator. ComplexParadigm • Talk 12:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Strong support – Teratix ₵ 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Woscafrench (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support per nominator. Seen 'em around. More than meets my standards. Will be a net positive (Alternatively, some people will do anything for a vacation. Your mop awaits.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the Fram thing. User did the wrong thing for the right reason. That is not disqualifying of adminship if not overdone.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Warring over admin actions has always been one of those things that just isn't done. However, the WMF has apparently forgiven all sins, so it seems inappropriate for us to hold that against Floq. I only wish we had gotten to this point with fewer entries in Floqenbeam's permissions log... ST47 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support I believe this editor was doing what he felt was in the best interests of the community. We can never know what would have happened if the action weren't taken, so I don't feel I can judge it in retrospect. I have not lost confidence in this editor's intent. --valereee (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - I thought your behaviour in unblocking Fram was qite inappropriate when you did not know the facts behind the block. However, looking forward, I think it will be beneficial to the project for you to have the admin tools back. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. I disagree with your reversal of the WMF Office block during the saga last month, but I do think it is within your admin discretion to try that and it would not cause me to lose my confidence in you as an admin. Thank you for asking for re-election and I am happy to welcome you back. Deryck C. 13:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. During all these years that I contributed as an IP editor, Floquenbeam was one of the two people that was extremely kind to me. (The other is Jclemens.) I think everyone deserves a second chance, sometimes a third chance. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    CU blocked by Bbb23. -- KTC (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support; willing to give him another chance. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support and willing to give him another chance as a Wikipedia Admin. Kevinhanit (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. You acted on your principles and that's all right with me. Deb (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - This community needs to put this episode behind it. Part of that is restoring those community members who resigned, went on strike, or left because of this episode to their pre-episode status to the greatest extent possible. Let's clean up the mess and move on. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - Net positive, regardless of my opinion of certain specific actions. Unlike the opposes saying this is unnecessary drama, I understand why the candidate wants to confirm the community's opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - Absolutely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support for upholding the policies which actually govern en-wiki. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Ego te absolvo.  Spintendo  15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Return of the mop, action in requesting community feedback convinces me that this admin listens to community concerns. WCMemail 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. Great answer to Question 11⅔. (lol) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good to see you back again. I supported last time, and I might as well do the same here thanks to your incredibly detailed and concise statement. Minima© (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose. Minima© (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support unequivocally. CassiantoTalk 16:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support - I don't fully agree with the unblock, but I trust that Floquenbeam was acting for the good of this project in an extraordinary situation. GermanJoe (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Of course! Floq is one of our best admins. Welcome back. (And I stand behind the "hero" barnstar I gave you at the time.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I'd already indicated everyone should just move on for the good of the community, even in those cases that might be considered under the cloud, keeping in mind that those were unprecedented responses to an unprecedented situation and therefore do not constitute a precedent for future behaviour by admins/crats. Having said that, I can understand why Floq would want to go through RFA rather than just drop by at BN, easy as it would have been. I had to ask the questions that I thought needed answering. (Why go through the RFA seeking approval if not to clarify to community why and how they did what they did?) To be honest, only a lonesome "fuck you" might have gotten me to oppose the RFA. But I was pleasantly surprised by the answers. Answers to other questions aren't half bad either. I don't agree with their choice not to answer the standard three, for reasons made perfectly clear in the opposes, neutrals and the discussion below them. But I don't have a reason to believe that they'd not be a net positive to the project with the mop or that they'd misuse the tools (against the community). So, here I am, adding a drop to the ocean. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - Sic semper tyrannis. →StaniStani 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support I'm so pleased you want to return. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Per Revi. ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support scope_creepTalk 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Strong support: I'm sorry I'm on leave, Floq; otherwise, I'd have been one of the first to accede to your request. All the same, I hope you'll accept a vote of assent now, as I pledged earlier. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support for helping to bring the dispute with T&S to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion. The escalation was a useful and reasonable way to get people to realize the seriously of their attempted over-ride of enWP process. (For what its worth, I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis of the merits of that ban. ) (As for the merits of the WMF process, those who oppose this afd are in effect supporting a process that prevents those accused from defending themselves and prevents appeals. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. Everyone deserves a holiday, but not for those reasons. A highly-valued member of the Admin team, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Absolutely deserving. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - I don't really agree with everything he has done, but the last thing Wikipedia needs is more of a back-scratching echo chamber. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support – thanks for your part in the Fram dispute, and glad that you've put yourself up for RfA to allow wider community input. ‑‑YodinT 20:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - I see no reason to think Floquenbeam will unilaterally unblock any other editors banned by the WMF. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. Clearly the community will be better off with you back on board. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support I promised back when the Fram thing was still active that I'd come here for the first time ever to !vote support in any potential RFA for re-bitting Floq, so it's time to pay up. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support for standing up and taking action against the @WMF's idiocy and total incompetence. You've earned my respect, that's for sure. -FASTILY 22:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support with no hesitation. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support I can completely understand the rationale of several of the opposers, many of whom I have a good deal of respect for. However, on balance I feel that Floquenbeam as an admin is a net positive to Wikipedia. Number 57 22:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support - I don't believe we should be desysopping over this affair, so this is where my !vote goes. Daß Wölf 22:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Kablammo (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support because doing the right thing is what we should be doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support per previous experience as an admin user. TheEditster (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support No concerns. Nihlus 03:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Beyond any doubt, Floquenbeam is a useful admin team member to have. Schwede66 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Now that the FRAM situation is behind us, I think we can let bygones be bygones, no? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 04:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Floq has proved he will defend Wikipedia even at the cost of his own rights. As one of the admins who resigned in protest at the WMF action, and got the bit back once the situation was looking more positive, I entirely support the rights of others to regain their positions.-gadfium 04:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support per OR. Seren_Dept 04:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support Net positive for the project. Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Net positive. The T&S action concerning FRAM was unprecedented and raised questions and issues that needed to be addressed. I think that Floq acted in what was believed to be the best interests of the project. I do not believe that his response to that troublesome situation undermines his entire record and the overall trust we may have in him however we might evaluate that in hindsight after time for reflection. The 30-day "suspension" of his flag was enough time for Floq to reflect and I am confident in suppporting the return of his admin status so that the project can again benefit from his contributions. Donner60 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Wham2001 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Hell yes per everyone above. Net positive who has consistently proven themselves to be a level-headed voice of reason. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support without reservation. -- Begoon 08:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Strong support per my original nomination Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support All support votes are convincing enough. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support the oppose section points out that the Fram debacle included much toxicity, I'd agree, at least one editor was hounded off the project. But I'm not aware of this particular candidate being part of that toxicity, on or off the project. There was also toxicity on the other side of the Fram debacle. Blocking Fram for 12 months for unspecified undisclosed offences where all we are allowed to know is that they weren't as serious as the offences for which people get permanent global bans has put a target on Fram's back and had people making assumptions about Fram's behaviour that the T&S team hopefully didn't intend. A 12 month ban for reasons that are opaque both to the community and the banned person is a toxic action. You only have to consider what would have happened at the end of those 12 months to realise the toxicity of the T&S team's mistake. I see this candidate being at the heart of the drama in ths situation, which isn't necessarily a good thing, and showing leadership which certainly is. I don't see them exhibiting toxic behaviour, which I note with regret was in very different ways shown by elements of both sides in that scrap. ϢereSpielChequers 11:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. The action that lead to the desysop was, per the rules, justified. Nonetheless, resysop by community consensus is also justified per the rules. This was a one-time incident, and I have trust in Floq's performance and judgement in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I might end up supporting but saying that Floq acted within the rules prior to their desysop is blatantly incorrect. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support; longtime trustworthy admin whose non-admin-ness is a detriment to the project. By the way, George Ho, could you rewrite your first question? Neither Floquenbeam nor I can understand what you're meaning. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support without reservation. --NSH001 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support the return of the king, in ringing good fellowship, and without being between two towers. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Seemed like a good admin before, will probably be a good admin again. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Suitable responses to my questions. No reason to believe they'll abuse the privilege in day-to-day adminship. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Of course. This is a no-brainer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Candidate's sysop should never have been removed in the first place. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support mostly per Rschen7754. Jianhui67 T★C 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support I have no concerns. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Scooby Doo Support Let's find out who Floquenbeam really is. *whump* Gosh, it's Old Man Rivers, the fairground attendant! And I've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids! Serious support While I think they were being adventurous unblocking Fram, this seemed to be a one-off event that is out of character; in general I trust them to use the tools responsibly. In particular, I like that their talk page has said for a long time that they do not mind their admin actions being reverted without discussion if they are felt to be incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support Why wouldn't you say yes? TurboSonic (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support, even if for no other reason than to discourage further WMF overreach. Deor (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support, for taking a stand in service of the community, in the interest of the community, at the consensus of the community. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  206. I was going to type "obvious support" and leave it at that; but since there is actually substantial opposition, let me expand a little bit. I trusted Floq's judgement before framgate, and I trust it still. I may not have been willing to do what he did during that mess, but as far as I can tell, every action he took was in the interests of promoting accountability, and was not about protecting harassers, actual or alleged. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support I actually totally disagree with what Floquenbeam did in the Fram case, but that does not mean that he should not be an administrator. He has been a good administrator for a long time, and to lose his contributions because of one incident would be destructive, no matter what view one holds of that one incident. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support Agree in the most part with Ritchie333 above. It was adventurous but it was required at the time. Nothing has changed from before in that they won't break the wiki. Not everyone is required to be a constant editor in the article space. Woody (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support as per the above. There is little risk of a repeat of the conduct that caused the loss of the bit in the first place, which would be my chief concern when considering a re-sysop. As for the rest, well - I'm confident that Flo will comply with the standards of WP:DDMP moving forward. Good luck. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Floquenbeam acted in a way that overturned a decision intended to prevent harassment on the project, without reviewing the evidence for such a decision. This action was out-of-order and potentially opened the door for the harassment to continue, therefore I must oppose this request for adminship. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overturning the office action was not necessary and was inflammatory. Attempting to join as a party to the WJBScribe Arbcom self-reference case was unnecessary. This "RfA confirmation" is unnecessary. I prefer to see things straight on, without a fandom squint. I see 3 unnecessary actions. It shows, to me, a serial lack of judgement. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per StudiesWorld. I think reverting the office action was a massive mistake in judgment. It's nice to see that you're saying you won't revert another office action, more troubling to see that you apparently don't think reverting the office action was inappropriate in a vacuum. Banedon (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose -- As hard as it is for me to do so, I have to agree with Leaky caldron's reasoning. Dolotta (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose- I have to agree with Leaky caldron. And even in general, Floquenbeam seems to do things impulsively as he thinks right, instead of standing back, evaluating the consensus and then doing what is agreed upon. Not the perfect person to be given the ability to block people.—NØ 01:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Creates a lot of unnecessary and distracting drama, and sometimes it's due to poor judgment. It hasn't been long enough since resigning to seek reinstatement. Take some more time for self-reflection and growth. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Leaky summed it up nicely. Legoktm (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per my history with this editor, which may indeed be ancient, but certainly does not seem irrelevant to me based on what little I know of recent events. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sadly, judgment, temperament concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - A history of poor judgment calls. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not really going to matter in the realm of this RfA, but needlessly inflaming situations and reverting office actions is not what I expect, hope for, or want an admin to do. (Also, to go back to one of my usual criterion: Floq has just 16% mainspace contributions, and unless I'm mistaken, has never significantly contributed to any audited content. We need more admins familiar with producing a high-quality encyclopedia from actually producing it, not fewer.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Drama king/queen. Even if we discount the unblocking of Fram, their resysop request to the BN deliberately made in defiance of T&S was a ludicrous move. Even after the community decided that an RfA is not necessary for the returning admins, here we are. Who else but Floq would waste everyone's time by starting a new RfA? And hey, did I mention that Floq requested desysop a second time, as if the drama caused by the first desysop and subsequent resysop wasn't enough. SD0001 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments caused me some concern but I need more diffs if I am going to oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. no, no, no. — regards, Revi 13:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, unless a whole bunch of opposes come out of the woodwork, the community seems to be saying "yes, yes, yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this place was for my opinion on the candidate, not yours or the community's? My opinion might differ from the majority, but I am going to say what I want to say. Thank you. — regards, Revi 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know that the bureaucrats would give much weight to this oppose that does not explain your reasoning. Could you explain? --Rschen7754 00:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rschen7754, is the reasoning not abundantly clear? StudiesWorld (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way could the reasoning behind the unadorned words "no, no, no" possibly be "abundantly clear". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, Maybe to not users not aware of WP:FRAM, but I'm sure it's abundantly clear to the crats. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this mean? "No, no, no, he doesn't contribute to articles?" "No, no, no, he doesn't have a good temperament?" "No, no, no, his username is awful?" "No, no, no, he undid a OFFICE action"? etc. I see this as an oppose without reasoning. --Rschen7754 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose with some reluctance, given so many names I respect in the above section, and absolutely without malice. Things just don't add up to me. Reverting the office action alone wouldn't put me here, and while I never seriously considered joining them, I admire the conviction of my fellow admins who resigned. But requesting the tools so soon after setting them aside makes that feel less like a stand of conviction and more like a stunt. I think your initial thought to wait a few months was smarter. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Much of what was going on at WP:FRAM was vicious, angry, violent, mob rule. Whatever you may think of T&S's actions, pouring gasoline on the flames with dramatic actions is not the behavior I want to see in the leaders of the community. Speak your mind, sure. But, don't abuse the tools trusted to you to help build your soapbox. An important part of being an admin is the ability to divorce your personal feelings from your job responsibilities, and Floq demonstrated an inability to do so with their actions here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. With great respect for Floquenbeam's long and distinguished tenure as an editor and administrator, I feel I have no choice but to diverge from (most of) my colleagues on this issue. I think it's admirable that Floq sought a reaffirmation of the community's trust rather than availing himself of what surely would have been a relatively painless BN reinstatement proceeding. And as to Floq's actions relating to Fram, there are very few among us who don't applaud, at the very least, his motive for taking extreme measures. I have no idea whether the results of those measures were more positive than negative, and I'm not going to philosophize on it; it doesn't matter.

    The issues begin with my assessment that we're cultivating a monumental double-standard in this discussion. Floq chose to file a new RfA, and as such I intend to consider this request against roughly the same standards as any other. Obviously it can never be apples-to-apples when the candidate has already been an admin for a decade, because we don't have to speculate and hedge our bets about how they'll use the tools – we already know with certainty. But there are some fundamental issues with Floq's attitude and editing history that are unbecoming of an administrator and should be disqualifying for restoration of the bit. I find it both overly brazen and highly disrespectful to refuse answering the standard questions, and try dictating which additional questions would be acceptable. It's clearly not the case that everyone was around for the first RfA, and even if they were, policies and perspectives change on decadal timescales. This, I feel, is a symptom of prevailing and palpable elitism; the candidate, in his nomination statement, brags about ignoring vandal-warning policy, proudly asserts his "grumpiness", and, apparently, expresses his disinterest in any on-wiki self-improvement. That pitch may win over the old guard, but I don't particularly like the old guard, and I strongly feel that that institution should not be deciding who gets to be, or stay, an admin. Resting on one's laurels doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when advanced permissions are concerned. As much as I like Floq and fondly remember all of our past interactions, this nomination, as currently framed, is about as cocky and dismissive as it gets.

    To further strain the situation, the candidate has effectively abandoned the mainspace going back many years. Adminship isn't an editing award, and I don't care how many rubber-stamped GAs you have to your name. The fact remains though that the answer to A7, on article contributions, misses the mark by a wide margin. Nobody wants prospective or current admins to artificially inflate their mainspace percentage with AWB, and as far as I can tell nobody is even concerned with the percentage of article contributions. The absolute number, and the net results of those edits, are much more important. I believe that, taken together, these concerns would handily sink a first-time RfA. If there's an implicit understanding that reconfirmation-type RfAs should be viewed through a lens of "Did this user abuse the tools so egregiously that they would ordinarily be desysopped?" rather than one of "Does this person meet the 2019 standards for adminship?", then perhaps I've missed both that memo and the point. But until someone can convince me that I should not use the latter lens – and I'll keep an open mind – I'm quite sound in my belief that Floq does not meet my, or the community's, current expectations for (re)promotion to adminship. I still value his contributions and input, and look forward to working with him in the future, even on the off-chance this nomination does not end with consensus to restore sysop rights. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  17. Oppose Reverting office actions before coming to a clear understanding of what has actually happened does not fill me with confidence about good judgement, nor does requesting readminship so soon after. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (Minor edit 19:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  18. Oppose per BDD seems more like a stunt prolonging this whole affair... and per Juliancolton with the lack of substantial mainspace contributions in the past few years. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... well, then, let's look at the number of mainspace edits last year for some of the admins voting "oppose": I see 62, 156, 260, one with almost 900 and another with over 3,000. Should we desysop those lowballing admins? I don;t think so. It's hardly unusual for an admin's content work to fall off as they get more and more involved with adminning, and it's certainly no reason for opposing someone's re-adminning. But, then again, you think Floq's courageous stand on principle was a "stunt", so... Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, Floq decided to stand for another RfA, which they did not have to do, therefore they will be assessed like any other person standing for adminship at RfA. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, evaluated just like any other RfA candidate, which means looking at their Wikipedia history, which, in Floq's case, just happens to include a long stint as one of the project's best administrators. My advice: think Niemöller and trust the community, not the WMF bureaucrats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Reverted an office action knowing what the consequence would be. This user had his admin revoked as a punishment by WMF. We should not give admin back to this user until that 6 month period is over. Honestly, he should have been sanctioned by arbcom. NoahTalk 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What "six month period"? The desysop was for 30 days.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops... I thought it was 6 months rather than 30 days. Still doesn't change my stance. The candidate lacks the judgment to be an admin considering he reverted an action with only half the story. NoahTalk 18:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Undoing an office action will guarantee that I land in the oppose column every single time and I won't budge from that position. This isn't about the Wikimedia Foundation, Fram, or your unblock of him. You've consistently shown that you don't care in some situations, and then act irrational, using your tools inappropriately. To put my name in the support column would mean that I look at the drama caused by your actions and thought that you weren't going to repeat it. History is showing that we're electing someone to be a repeat offender however, so congratulations on getting your adminship back in a few days time. — Moe Epsilon 18:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per BDD. Seems that in the limited knowledge I have (and care to have) about the WP:FRAM situation, I do agree with the whole "stunt" analogy BDD mentioned in regards to this whole RFA. Yeah, the nominee probably should have either just requested the tools back via WP:BN or waited longer to file an RFA. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Absolutely NOT. He undid an office action knowing full well the likely result. This is is the result. The audacity of coming back a few week later and asking for the bit back is mind blowing. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I really respected Floq for their stance over WMF's actions and for agreeing to resubmit themself to an RfA. It was a textbook case of WP:IAR, and I would genuinely have given them my support. But I struggle with their rationale over timing (I deem it too soon). And then combine this with the disrespectful - almost arrogant - tone they've demonstrated in this re-RfA (best summed up by "I won't answer the standard questions; everyone probably has a good or bad image of me by now and just wants me to shut up so they can get to the voting") and I have to make my own stand against the emerging community consensus from editors/admins I respect, and say that they should come back again in a few month's time, after a longer period as an ordinary editor. In this RfA, adminship is a big deal, and they've misjudged their approach to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - absolutely not, stunt pilot. See RoySmith's oppose if you want more reasoned arguments. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I am concerned about the previous desysops/resysops Special:User Rights Changes for Floquenbeam, WMFLABS rightschanges/en.wikipedia.org/Floquenbeam Reading that, it looks to me like there have been other instances of going back and forth on being an admin, requesting to be desysoped, and requests for re-sysop. I don't know if I've had interactions with this admin - probably, but nothing stands out. I was not involved in any comments at the events that led to this one. But if I'm reading this right - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that there's a lot of indecision about whether or not this individual wants to be an admin for the long haul. Why does this person want the tools, if they're going to change their mind again ... and again?— Maile (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose This is my first ever oppose to an Rfa (as far as I can recall). I oppose solely for their actions in wilfully and actively taking hasty and unneccessary action in the Fram matter that absolutely amounts to improper use (abuse) of the tools. That alone is enough, but one can be forgiven for a mistake. However the actions and attitude thereafter demonstrated a significant lack of patience and judgment. It is impossible for me to think they would not potentially abuse the tools in future. They should not therefore be handed back. N.J.A. | talk 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per self-nomination statement: "I knew the reversal of an office action (in spite of having consensus behind me) would cause further disruption, and I did it anyway. I've never really written articles, and contribute to article space even less now than I did before my previous RFA, which was charitably characterized at the time as "uninspiring". I said "f*** you" to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized. I've probably made some enemies from trying to solve disputes at AN/ANI. I'm grumpier than I used to be. And I haven't even been terribly active in the last year. I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf." – wbm1058 (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose It was irresponsible to ramp up the drama in the wake of the Fram incident. Grand gestures like this are a misuse of the tools. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I don't want to echo many of the other oppose votes, but I do agree with many of them. There was no major rush to take on an IAR action and violate an office action. The community was dealing with this in one way or another and there was no real harm that you had to at this very moment do what you had to do. You stood by your principles, but you now have to live with it. On the other hand, you opened up floodgate of what admins can theoretically do even against an office action, and I don't think that's a good idea. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Per many reasons listed above. I appreciate the sense of letting the community decide and definitely don't want to devalue FB's contributions to the wiki. I think it is way too early. Some time away from the mop would lend more perspective on the events of the last little while. Glennfcowan (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose I don't support the office action. However, any admin who reverts an office action and doesn't regret it, is really untrustworthy. If someone can point me to the line where Floq says that they won't revert an office action again, I'll cut this oppose. Otherwise, giving the bit to such an editor would be asking for trouble. Lourdes 03:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He literally says he won't revert an office action again in his nomination statement. Second to last paragraph. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I reading the "or not" incorrectly? I'm not a fan of double entendres when it comes to making it clear. If Floq can clarify, it would be good. Lourdes 04:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think so. From my reading, he's clearly referring to others making the decision of whether "or not" to revert office actions. It's silly to even think he'd be so arrogant to include "I'd leave it to others (or not)" in a reconfirmation RfA. But Floquenbeam, clarification requested here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes: I read that to mean that "others can reverse the office actions if they like, or not as the case may be". But whether they do reverse ("or not"!) our man in Amsterdam won't be the one doing it  :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what SN said. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per Leaky caldron. Added fuel to the fire. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Admins are supposed to be the adult in the room; everything post-Fram has more suggested an overdramatic teenager. Looking to past success as an admin -and that was real enough, I’d say- it is not enough to make up for what followed. Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Unfortunately, per RoySmith. --MrClog (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Too much drama, and far too little consideration.Tirronan (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose I personally think they did the right in the Fram situation. But I also recall the recent events of the Signpost gender-neutrality article when Floquenbeam edit-warred to insert the a provocative nutshell template. It's fun when he's doing stuff like that when you agree with him, but not so fun if you disagree. On the whole, that's not a good trait for an admin. --Pudeo (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some serious concerns have been raised. Before I decide I would like to hear what the candidate has to say. The comments by User:Juliancolton were particularly distressing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. At the time Floquenbeam unblocked Fram it was obvious that this action would inflame the ongoing drama. Either Floquenbeam knew this and acted anyway or Floquenbeam lacked the basic perception to recognize it. In either case, I think these are qualities that are inconsistent with adminship. Peacock (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Taking a second look at this nomination now, I'm seeing too many negatives brought in to the table, and have finally made my mind up to stick myself here. Lack of content creation and temperament problems are never a good mix for an administrator, the latter of which has been proved at least twice in the same year. Even before casting my support vote I was shocked with the way the nomination statement was written from an attitude point of view, despite the detail, along with the refusal to answer the three basic questions. As much as we like to cut slack from time to time, some things on Wikipedia just need to be done properly. Adminship is absolutely no exception. Minima© (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose The disruption they caused during the whole Fram situation is the main reason for my oppose. Emotion should not dictate administrative action, especially when there are bring line policies in place for that. Rash decisions in a moment of crisis are not helpful or desirable and their actions threw fuel on the fire when it needed it the least. All of that shows poor decision making and a serious lack of judgement beyond what is acceptable for an administrator. Then there are the temperament issues outside Fram as several others pointed out. Past all that is their lack of activity and stating that they will remain fairly inactive is concerning. It speaks to a lack of need for the tools. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per Leaky caldron’s fine job of reasoning, and the astonishing self-nom statement, which I can hardly believe. That 200 people would !vote to restore administration tools in the face of that statement is something I find appalling... and that admins would back it is chilling. I can only hope for a resurgence of reason in the next five days, because this person is clearly unfit for the mop on the face of it. Jusdafax (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose: the reversal of this office action was petty and childish. It was obvious that it would make no demonstrable difference to the situation involving the WMF and Fram, and simply no way to go about resolving the conflict. I am not opposed to reversal of office actions as an absolute rule, nor I am opposed to unblocking someone when you don't understand why they were blocked as an absolute rule, but both require an exceptionally good reason and I do not believe there was one here. And when it comes to their behaviour other than this one incident, I'm not filled with confidence by I'm grumpier than I used to be.
    I was brought to opposition from !voting neutral because of Pudeo's recollection of this diff on the Signpost humour article, in which Floquenbeam adds the mocking nutshell "Also, marginalized, discriminated-against transgender people are fun to mock" to what was indeed a transphobic piece. But there was already an MfD underway, discussion taking place and the sensible thing to do is to establish consensus on blanking or deleting the article, not to go in guns blazing in a way that helped nobody. I'm shocked at the conduct displayed by someone who was at the time an admin in the resultant edit war to reinstate the nutshell, and particularly their edit summary: Now I'm confused; I thought we were making our points today with poorly thought out and poorly executed humor? Why do I need to consider others' offense at my humor, but you don't need to consider the offense this essay has caused for people who are frequently mocked, attacked, and generally shit on? This clear violation of WP:POINT along with the reversal of an office action, flippant tone in the self-nomination and other incidents mentioned by other opposers pushes me to oppose.
    I'm also tempted to agree with Iridescent, though they lie in the neutral section, when they say: were someone who wasn't requesting reconfirmation to post an RFA with a nomination statement that could effectively be summarized as "I have no actual interest in Wikipedia's content and have never made a substantive edit in the past decade, I want the tools so I can be a Wikicop, and if elected I intend to ignore all policies unless they happen to coincide with my personal opinions" I'd undoubtedly be opposing. Wikicops of any tenure should not be in place and when looking deeper than just the Fram case, Floquenbeam's behaviour strikes me as attention-seeking, disruptive and neither conducive to a healthy environment to those with fewer rights nor helpful to the encyclopedia as a whole, on a scale which is thoroughly unbecoming of an admin. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming back to add: I'm absolutely disgusted by the answer to question 16. What I'm curious about: how many of those "complaints" are an organized attempt to get Fram kicked out? is a bullshit conspiracy theory I'd expect to read on the more bitter areas of Wikipediocracy but not by a long-term admin in their reconfirmatory RfA. Floquenbeam continues to know nothing of the situation but wants to keep using their power to broadcast the same kind of thinking that has lead to serious and deeply troubling recent harassment of a few people suspected of being The Fram Saboteur. The rest of their answer, in which they condemn the behaviour of reporting any sort harassment to ToS, is no better. Reporting to ToS has always been an option—a necessary one when Arbcom fail or would not be appropriate to consult (e.g. reporting somebody on Arbcom)—and the only reason it's now controversial is the response of the WMF in giving a temporary ban on one wiki, which is in no way the fault of anyone making a report. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose: Since appropriate response to potential harassment is a key issue that led us here, it is concerning that Floquenbeam seems to misunderstand what harassment is, or at least seems ready to redefine it for political purposes. Indeed, he seems to feel that admins who block users for harassment would be the WMF's "good little sheep".Tyharvey313 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose: per Leaky caldron and many others. I have a great deal of respect for their work over the years, but the disruption to the community and to victims of harassment they caused demonstrates that some time should pass before they employ the tools again. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'll be here, for now, as my initial feeling is that Floquenbeam was the source of a world of headaches for the project over the last few weeks and that's not a good look, in my opinion, for someone wishing to hold the mop. At the moment, I don't feel that that's enough for me to outright oppose, as their intentions may have been good, but I can't quite support, either. StrikerforceTalk 21:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Floquenbeam was the source of a world of headaches for the project" I think T&S take the honours there, but everyone's mileage differs. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but were Flo's actions fuel to the flames that shouldn't have been taken? Perhaps that is more along the line of what I'm trying to weigh here, @SchroCat:. StrikerforceTalk 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, but I think it was a step that needed to be made. The WMF over-stretched themselves and acted like a schoolground bully. Floq showed them that the community wouldn't take a stupid action like that lying down. I appreciate no everyone agrees with that, but it's my take on it, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Okay, since Ajraddatz said what they said, and I don't really know anything about WP:FRAM (and quite frankly don't care to ever), and since I don't have the bandwidth to evaluate any specific resignation regarding this, I'll just ... stay here and stay out. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Moved to oppose... Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: the reversal of this office action was petty and childish. It was obvious that it would make no demonstrable difference to the situation involving the WMF and Fram, and simply no way to go about resolving the conflict. I am not opposed to reversal of office actions as an absolute rule, nor I am opposed to unblocking someone when you don't understand why they were blocked as an absolute rule, but both require an exceptionally good reason and I do not believe there was one here. And when it comes to their behaviour other than this one incident, I'm not filled with confidence by I'm grumpier than I used to be. However, after much consideration I end up in the neutral section because (a) Floquenbeam demonstrates excellent judgement in signing up for a reconfirmatory RfA despite the consensus that they needn't do so to regain the tools and (b) I honestly can't find a convincing reason why they wouldn't be a net positive with the tools in the future. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose (see above). Pinging Ahecht who placed themselves in neutral "per Bilorv", though they are obviously free to remain neutral or endorse former reasoning of mine if they wish. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Unblocking Fram was the wrong move so I can't support but we, as a community, need to move on so I can't oppose. Pichpich (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll consider your request and get back to you shortly.  Done — Ched :  ?  — 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral As per the +1 comment given at this RFC under the section does wikipedia......….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Electoral_Commission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinthonakkara (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Out of respect. Note: Emotion feels good but carries the parasite of instability/irrationality/unpredictability. I've noticed (& experienced) longtime reg editors get punished for rashness & emotionality (under guise of "disruption"). While legacy admins get lauded & protected. (The classic WP double standard. Cementing the division between regs & admins. 😓 ) --IHTS (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Bilorv. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I remember being complained at 10 years ago for saying reconfirmation RFAs were an unnecessary exercise in validation, but my view on that hasn't changed: they are pointless. Just request the bit back at WP:BN and get on with it. Fish+Karate 15:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree, and oppose the RFA as redundant (in the support section), I'm starting to think that this specific reconfirmation RFA might not actually be quite as pointless as all the other warm-fuzzy-validation-reRFAs, since the community showing near-unanimous support might help send some kind of message to WMF, in case they somehow didn't get it already. I don't know whether or not that was the actual intent with this RFA. Κσυπ Cyp   21:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. There are some comments among the opposes that I agree with: I like to see content work from admins, though I wouldn't oppose on that basis; and reverting an office action (I'm only familiar with the outlines of the events relating to Fram) seems to be one of those actions that is far more likely to lead to drama than to a better encyclopedia. I don't know enough about the Fram story to know the rights and wrongs, but resigning the bit, as Boing! said Zebedee did, seems the non-drama way to go, if you're convinced the office action was wrong. However, over the years every time I've read a conversation involving Floquenbeam they have always seemed sensible, and I agree with the comments in the supports to the effect that the encyclopedia will be better off with Floquenbeam as an admin. I'm closer to supporting than opposing, but can't do either with a clear conscience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ive always thought you were a fine admin, and I dont object to your having overturned an office action, I applaud that. You enacted what was a clear community consensus that the block was improper, either in process or in result. But when somebody takes a stand like that they do it with the knowledge that their courageous act can and likely will come with a consequence. I think you requesting to be re-syssoped at WP:BN after you were de-sysopped by the office showed incredibly poor judgment. I think it led to the sequence of events that leaves us without WJBScribe. You took a stand, one that I again applaud, but you decided to pass the consequences of that stand on to somebody else. If some crat had decided that they wanted to, of their own accord, take that same stand and re-sysopped you I probably would have applauded that too. But you should not have, in my personal opinion obviously, asked somebody to shoulder that burden. You said you you could undo an office action as long as (you're) willing to suffer the consequences but then decided to pass those consequences along. I originally wrote this out as an oppose, but like I opened I have always thought of you as a fine admin and I cant see myself voting not to give you the bit as there is already an established record of you being a fine admin. nableezy - 20:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy: The resysop request at BN is the portion of the whole thing I'm least pleased about, and the part I kind of second guess the most. Although I don't quite get to the point of actually wishing I hadn't done it, I do get to the point where I kind of wonder whether I should have done it. It's worth explaining my thought process at the time. First, as I alluded in my answer to Question 8, this was not all part of a seamless master plan; I don't have any experience agitating for anything besides lunch. I did the best things I could think of, not the best that could have been thought of by someone smarter than me. As I mentioned before, I chose to overturn an office action instead of just resigning because I thought it would be more visible and therefore put more pressure on them. Once I was desysopped, I didn't have much of anything left in my quiver; the only thing I could think of to do to keep the pressure on was ask for the WMF's action against me to be overturned too, and see if maybe, just maybe, I could get a Crat to join me (increasing the pressure even more). Perhaps that was unseemly, and I should have either waited to see what happened next, or retired then. If I'm reading you right, you think I did this so someone else would "pay the price" instead of me. It's painful that anyone, support or oppose or neutral, thinks that, and it is not true. If resysopped, I fully expected to be desysopped again by WMF or by ArbCom. But when the WMF finally got smart and stopped reblocking and didn't desyop me again, and it started looking like ArbCom wasn't going to desysop me, I was in a position I didn't anticipate. After a while, I decided to join the line of admins forming at BN to request a desysop, because, again, it seemed like the only thing I had left. Was asking for the bit back at BN a tactical error, or unseemly, or dumb? Maybe. Was it trying to avoid sanction, or worse, pass it off to someone else? No. If you really think that's what I was doing, please switch to oppose. Personally, I would never avoid opposing someone I thought had done that.
    I will say, also, that I did not get WJBscribe in trouble or desysopped/decratted, and I am not responsible for WJBscribe leaving. I might have knocked on the door, but he opened it and stepped through it himself, for 100% noble (IMHO) reasons. He's a grown up, makes his own decisions, and I didn't somehow force his hand. To imply my choices led inexorably to his resignation diminishes the decision he consciously made. WJBscribe can choose to return and request a new admin and crat bit, and I expect he'd be welcomed back with open arms. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt say responsible for what happened with WJBScribe, just said led to. He is certainly a grown up and can take responsibility for his own actions, he did what he felt was right. And if he had been de-cratted for that and then asked a steward to return the bit I would have felt the same about him, that he was ducking out of the courageous part of taking a courageous stand. And no, I didnt mean to say that you intended somebody else to suffer the consequences, that you were shifting blame or anything like that. Just that, it seemed to me, that you were no longer willing to shoulder those consequences yourself. Im really not trying to dog you over this, I said repeatedly I think you have shown yourself to be a fine admin, its just that one part of this story that makes it so I dont feel comfortable supporting. Everything else youve done makes it so I wouldnt oppose. nableezy - 03:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I am torn in between support and oppose. On one hand, Floquenbeam did a good job with the tools and we sorely need more admins, not losing them. On the other hand, Floquenbeam knew perfectly well that they are reverting an office action which only adds fuel to the drama fire. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral -- CptViraj (📧) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Under normal circumstances I consider posting in the "Neutral" section to be prima facie evidence of being a self-important blowhard who insists everyone hear their opinion even though they've nothing to say, but on this occasion I'll make an exception as I asked a lengthy question in the Q&A and don't want to give the appearance of lighting the touchpaper and running away. This is an unusual one; if Floquenbeam were still an admin I certainly wouldn't be calling for desysopping, and if Floquenbeam had requested the bit back at BN I wouldn't be opposing. However, by coming to RFA Floquenbeam is effectively asking me to judge him as if he were a new candidate, and were someone who wasn't requesting reconfirmation to post an RFA with a nomination statement that could effectively be summarized as "I have no actual interest in Wikipedia's content and have never made a substantive edit in the past decade, I want the tools so I can be a Wikicop, and if elected I intend to ignore all policies unless they happen to coincide with my personal opinions" I'd undoubtedly be opposing. (Juliancolton puts all this more eloquently than me above.) Neutral rather than opposing as I don't think Floquenbeam is likely to break things so I can't in good conscience oppose—and I don't consider his part in the chain of events that led us here to have warranted desysop or resignation in the first place so don't feel this RFA should even exist—but supporting would mean applying a massive double-standard and I can't in good conscience do so. ‑ Iridescent 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral I do not know enough about Floquenbeam to know whether or not they would or would not be a good admin, so I'm not going to vote either way on this RFA. However, this process strikes me as a bit of a farce. Just look at the absolute reaming this forum gives to editors who are by any measure valuable community members - examine the opposition votes here for example - when they apply for adminship, yet in this case someone who walked out of adminship in protest at something, a protest that ultimately does not appear to have materially impacted the FRAM case, is simply going to be let back in within weeks of their protest. The impression given is of a community with one rule for a select group, and another for the hoi polloi. PS - it is also clear that many voters are voting solely on the basis of their option of the FRAM case. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • This has already turned into another referendum on FRAM, so I won't be voting. But I will say that I was generally disappointed by Floq's actions regardless of my stance on the issue: admins should be providing calm, orderly and de-escalating contributions in these sorts of discussions and Floq did the exact opposite of that. I also expect that the sysop tools will be returned to Floq and he will use them well. But this really feeds into a number of narratives about Wikipedia: established contributors/admins can really do whatever they want without consequence, and this does not give the impression that we take harassment seriously on this website. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with a lot of what you wrote. I wasn't voting on FRAM, but on Floquenbeam's actions as an administrator they way I have seen and followed them for years. Far from being "the exact opposite", his unblock of Fram de-escalated the behaviour of those who disagreed vehemently with the way T&S blocked Fram, in my view. And I disagree that harassment enters the equation at this point, not because I don't take it seriously, but because I've seen no evidence of harassment, despite taking a hard look. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I disagree with everything that you wrote. The office action has done absolutely nothing to help stem harassment on the English Wikipedia – ask the victims if they feel any less harassed now, if you don't believe me. It merely went some distance in turning Fram into a cause célèbre. The only way that we will make strides in combating harassment is when T&S work hand-in-hand with ArbCom to separate investigation from quasi-judicial decision, and retain a degree of accountability in the system. Floq did us all a favour by moving the debate along and away from the "this is final, unreviewable and unappealable" rhetoric that was prevalent beforehand. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the concern at FRAM was that the community was unable to judge the evidence. I'm saying that from the perspective of a vulnerable person trying to figure out if Wikipedia is a safe place to be the debate doesn't look good. A narrative has built up over years that Wikipedia will tolerate any amount of negative behaviour coming from established users, and Floq's action looks to confirm that narrative regardless of his motivations. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the concern at FRAM was that a seemingly unaccountable body bypassed our normal procedures without any warning and took an opaque action that nobody was able to review. I don't want to see the evidence because passing evidence to a nobody like me would produce a chilling effect on anyone who was considering complaining about harassment. And that's the last thing we want to happen. I take the time each year to take part in ArbCom elections because I think it is important that we elect a group of editors whom I trust to look at that sort of evidence and to evaluate it sensitively, and then to reach a reasoned decision based on it. Personally, I'm all in favour of a vulnerable person having as many avenues to seek advice or relief as we can find for them – and that includes T&S as an investigative body. What I'm not keen on is quite unnecessarily establishing a parallel, unaccountable second "ArbCom" made up of staff. I hope that part is clearer to you now. As for the "unblockables", that trope went out of the window with the creation of Arbitration Enforcement and the consequent removal of second-mover advantage. You'll have to look elsewhere for a coathook to hang your condemnation of Floq on. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your further clarification. I have no doubt that Floq and those who supported his actions were acting in good faith, and that nobody here actively thinks that harassment is a good thing. But the willingness to not only stand with someone who was desysopped and banned after what was publicly called an intensive investigation, but also unblock them without further evidence, reveals something about the priorities that the community has -- implicitly or otherwise. I'm sure we'll disagree on this point and that's fine. I am not here to convince 93 people to change their vote to oppose, nor am I here to oppose Floq's resysop myself. But I really don't think that these sort of actions should be encouraged or reflected on without some critique. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you consider answering the standard three questions for those of us who may not know that much about you? I would be pleased to know what I'm meant to be voting for or against.
    As it stands, my only memorable interaction with you was when you objected to me calling myself a defendant in Cirt/Sagecandor v. SashiRolls (Second Prosecution: 22 June 2017).
    Your edit summary: "AE is often run on a tighter leash than AN/ANI; admins don't usually look favorably on this type of gamesmanship"
    I admit that this left me with an unfavorable impression of you as Sagecandor was already widely assumed to be a sock-prosecutor / deceptive actor and yet you chose to focus on my use of the (entirely accurate) section title "defendant's statement" as "gamesmanship" (which incidentally is not a gender neutral term and could probably stand to be deprecated ^^). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SashiRolls, out of curiosity, what alternative to "gamesmanship" do you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Skilly) gaming? in the specific context of Floq's suggesting that I was gaming, I would submit that I thought I was suggesting structural reform (name the prosecutors & the defendants in Arby(Enforcement)Cases so you see patterns (like they do on fr.wp), don't just name the defendants. But I guess we've still got to get beyond the potty mouth list thing before trying to deal with subtler stuff.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summary that the candidate linked to, says that they were added to the WJB arbcom case by Rob. Yet, a majority of opposes seem to support the comment that implies the candidate was trying to self-nominate themself into it. What did I miss exactly? Pardon me if it's something patently obvious. My language comprehension/ research technique may not be up to the mark. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 07:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Usedtobecool Here is the direct link: [1] Leaky caldron (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, Leaky caldron. I refrained from mentioning you as it seemed like a question anyone passing by could answer. In light of that, I, all the more, appreciate you taking the time. And I see what you mean/t about the case, now. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 07:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2&oldid=907709450"