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 Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 29 July 2019 ([). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Floquenbeam

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

See /Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Final (326/116/15); ended 19:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: Fram before and after (same views): he's a workhorse, he gets into a lot of disputes, he's very often right about the underlying issue, but he can be really annoying and rude in putting that view forward. Possibly to the point where a transparent ArbCom case would have been appropriate. WMF before: Good and bad; overall they're kind of parasitic, probably usually have good intentions, but have a tendency to think of editors as a bunch of people to be managed, rather than a community to serve. With the exception of T&S: they did a lot of valuable work. WMF after: I've lost respect for T&S too. I'm sure that's an over-reaction, but it's how I honestly feel right now. Betrayed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 focuses 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]
Follow-up, I hope: How serious do you think is violating the civility policy? --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that serious (certainly less serious than we usually treat it) if it's a one-off or rare loss of cool. I think it's a big deal (certainly more serious than we usually treat it) if it's less severe but constant. There are certainly exceptions, but I think we generally overreact to acute incivility and under-react to chronic incivility. The way we handle both is kind of dysfunctional, too, but that's getting too far from the gist of your question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 27 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]
Additional questions from SNUGGUMS
19. Why haven't you apologized for saying "fuck you" to another editor when you know that's highly inappropriate? Being frustrated with others' actions isn't an excuse for such remarks.
A: That's pretty much between me and the person I cursed at. I'm confident that knowing the reason would not be sufficient to cause you to change from oppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Question from Andrew D.
20. Reviewing the candidate's edits for April, I found that they had been blocked at their request for most of the month, saying "I cannot seem to avoid taking a peek at ANI or ERRORS or similar as a procrastination tool. I cannot afford to keep doing this." My impression is that they are inclined to take high-risk actions, such as confronting the WMF, because they are conflicted about their Wikipedia activity. Perhaps we would not be doing them a favour by giving them more tools as this would be more temptation? Please could Floquenbeam comment on this issue.
A: The self-requested block in April wasn't because I was disenchanted; it was because I was temporarily swamped in real life and needed a little anti-procrastination help. I didn't unblock Fram because I'm conflicted about my Wikipedia activity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Smallbones
21. WP:Admin states "Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay." You seem to have missed that requirement. If a candidate were to pass RfC without fulfilling that requirement, would he or she be an admin?
A: Many people in the oppose column would ask "edit what for pay?!" But if it helps ease your mind, I never have and never will edit for pay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from FOARP
22. If you couldn't be an admin, would you still contribute to this encyclopedia? FOARP (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cyp
23. What is your opinion regarding asking last-minute questions at an RFA?
A:

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]
    ..."Neutral" again. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 25 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]
    @Boing! said Zebedee: if they are saying that as a rule we should obey WMF then Floq's actions are totally justifiable as written in marble in this policy document. QED. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 25 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]
    Since this has been more controversial than I (naïvely) thought it would be, and may be going to a crat chat, I feel I should expand on my support, although it is difficult to find anything new and insightful to say. Every single answer Floq has provided to the questions asked has strengthened my support - in particular perhaps the responses to Q6, Q15, and Q16. I think the actions around the Fram debacle were principled and praiseworthy, and I think that's the kind of person that should be trusted - because the encyclopedia and the community are important enough to them to risk things over. Moreover, and more importantly perhaps, Floq's previous track record as an administrator has been good. Wikipedia has been improved by their admin work, and not giving them the mop now would be a net negative to the work of the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 29 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]
    I've come back to reiterate my strong support after reading and considering the opposes so far. I think 78.26 makes a lot of good points in their own reiteration of support. In particular, I disagree with the idea that this should be treated like a first-time RfA and that content work should be decisive. I judge RfA candidates based on everything I know, and as such, I think it's appropriate here to consider past work as an administrator as the best predictor of future work as an administrator. I also find the criticisms of the self-nominating statement particularly unconvincing. This RfA cannot escape being a referendum on Framgate, but it should also be an evaluation of whether or not the candidate will, in the future, be a net positive as an admin. Yes, he will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to strongly endorse what Rschen7754 says at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2#What is right and wrong?. It is an excellent explanation of what, in my opinion, are the errors in the opposes based upon reversing an office action. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 27 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]
    I want to add that this a reconfirmation RfA and consequently Floq should be judged on his record as an administrator, and treating this RfA as if it was a first-time one, is misguided. I just do not see how opposes on the supposed “arrogance” on his nomination statement should carry much weight. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 29 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]
    I've read all the opposes so far, and while I understand most of the concerns expressed there, I remain confident that Wikipedia will be much better off with Floq as an administrator. While I support his bold stand in pushing back on the WMF's actions, I would be supporting this RfA regardless on the basis of his having been a valuable administrator and positive force on Wikipedia for roughly a decade. It's inevitable that this RfA is to some degree a referendum on the Fram ban, but it heartens me to see so many supports from people who are on the opposite side of that issue but nonetheless recognize the long history of positive contributions (administrative and otherwise) from Floq even if they differ on how the Fram issue should have been handled. 28bytes (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Of course. Reyk YO! 20:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I should go into some more detail. Floq has been one of our best admins for a long time, and the desysop was a necessary protest against bureaucratic overreach. Nothing about it makes me doubt that Floquenbeam as an administrator is a significant net positive. My opinion is that this RfA is unneccessary. All the admins who lost their bit over this issue should get it back on request and, if this RfA had been imposed on Floquenbeam rather than self requested I'd actually call it an insult. Reyk YO! 13:35, 28 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]
    Since we're headed to crat chat I figure I should expand on my reasoning. If Floq were a new candidate I would be opposing. But that's because I would be guessing what kind of sysop they'd be and I wouldn't like what I saw. Instead I have a long, distinguished track record to judge. And I very much like what I see. I have a problem with editors who want to become wiki cops as sysops. But the reason that seems like a viable route is at least in part (and I would suggest in large part) because of how well Floq does it. Floq in ways big and small has improved Wikipedia as a place to distribute knowledge and has done so for a long time. We are fortunate when we get such highly skilled volunteers who have displayed such a commitment for so long and continue to be willing to invest in the community.
    So that just leaves us with FRAM. I think knowing what we know now Floq's unblock didn't ultimately help us get resolution - that was because Jimmy and Doc James could point to sysop and functionary resignations and get the board to focus time on the problem. And I think Floq was wrong to ask for their sysop back. That just caused extra drama and tension and issues when we should have been united in our focus. That was a serious and predictable misstep. The thing is, we didn't know how their original unbanning of Fram would turn out or the effect that it would have. We can only make that judgement in retrospect (and even now might be too soon). I said, during the whole mess, that I was, "tired of hearing "passions are high so we need to forgive sysop uses of the toolset against policy/practice"(diff). But that was 2+ weeks later. What Floq did and when they did it was a very different time and I think it's important not to rewrite that history. So instead what I am left to judge on is an editor who saw the WMF attempting to unilaterally change the dynamic between themselves and the en-wiki community and decided to do something about it. Floq made this decision even though they knew it was at some risk - I don't think any of us watching would have predicted the WMF's response would be "only" a temporary ban on sysop and not actually blocking/banning them. It was brave. It was principled. It was an attempt to use their position for the good of the community - all that we can ever ask of sysops.
    It saddens me that there is a narrative to be told that Floq just wants attention. It's not a crazy conclusion to reach given the data we have out there. However, I think it also incorrect. I see Floq's decision to come here not as attention seeking/ego boosting/whatever negative spin you want, but as yet another principled stance. Floq took their action in defense of the community. Because they believe in this community. And coming here rather than going to BN is showing their continued faith in this community. It is important that the many people in oppose and those who are in the support column but have taken the chance to write out their issues at length had the chance to do so. I want an admin who respects community processes, because we got into this whole mess because the WMF (fairly or unfairly) didn't respect those processes. This is why my esteem for Floq has only gone up from the start of FRAM and that includes coming here. I believe that they should once again be given the sysop toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC) And for the record only a small percentage of the time I took to compose this would have been spent on other encyclopedic activities. Most of the time came from when I'd have otherwise been doing my paid work.[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]
    When I initially !voted, it was intended to read as "of course, per nominator", and that remains the TLDR version. However, some significant opposition has arisen which begs further reasoning and explanation. I have always felt that Floq has been an excellent administrator. There is an argument that we should consider this as if this were his first RfA, a new candidate. However, when analyzing a candidate the entire record of Wikipedia actions are reviewed, and therefore his past actions as an administrator by necessity must be accounted for. They are not perfect, but on the whole they are greatly in his favor. This RfA has, unfortunately but inevitably, become yet another WP:FRAM referendum. So. Initially I wholly supported Floq's action, then I began to question it, then I thought it was the wrong thing to do, and now I believe that necessary things came from it. I'm not sure it was the best or wisest action, but it was AN action, and I have no doubt that it came from Floq's principles. I do not believe for an instant that Floq encourages, condones, nor ignores bullying, and a wider lens must be used for that aspect. Regarding this action being rash, emotional response, I don't see it that way. Some circumstances call for "rash" actions. Would the American Civil Rights movement have happened if someone(s) hadn't stood for principle? Some would judge these actions to be rash and emotional. Fine. I'm willing to judge by the principles he stood for, but that doesn't mean I don't also stand for anti-bullying, and the ability to report problems anonymously. Sometimes our principles conflict with one another in a given situation. So, while I accept and expect that highly intelligent, rational editors can/will/won't/might disagree with me, I believe that the project is better if Floquenbeam has access to the administrative tools. and apologies to usernamekiran if it messes up his rationale. Consider me spun. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:40, 24 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]
    Reaffirming my support. It is undeniable that the whole FRAM debacle had a deleterious effect on the community and its editors who protested in various ways what they perceived to be an unexpected display of power carried out with very little explanation and in a rather opaque fashion. In the initial stages of that debacle, Floq's actions gave hope to the community and encouraged editors like me that all was not lost and helped in the belated and so far partial resolution of the problem. Dr. K. 21:58, 28 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]
    Reaffirming my support, though I do encourage Floquenbeam to use the opposes as an opportunity for personal growth. None of the concerns raised outweigh the integrity he has displayed time and again over the years. Kurtis (talk) 22:11, 26 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]
    Reiterating my support. Color me a little shocked to return to this page and see the number of oppose !voters. Obviously they are seeing a different Floquenbeam from the thoughtful, generally polite, but firm one I've seen - all, imo, valuable qualities in an admin. I was surprised enough to take a look at Floq's recent edits and, to me anyway, nothing shows the value they bring to Wikipedia than this exchange on Graham87's talk page. Quite, in my opinion, the opposite of arrogance. --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 29 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]
    In the light of situation as of 23:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC); I would like to expand my support for getting the "due weight":
    I have seen floque's activity since last two years. He was an admin before the Framgate fiasco, so when I supported above, I asked myself following questions:
    • had he misused/abused the tools during his tenure?
    • had he been markedly uncivil (incivil) to other editors?
    • had he made calls where poor judgement was shown?
    • if given back the tools, is there a possibilty he will be disruptive?
    • would he abuse/misuse the tools?
    answers to all the questions above were no. Hence, I supported, and still support without any reservations, or doubts. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:20, 27 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]
    Revisiting and reaffirming my support, having read through all of the the subsequent support and oppose input. It's sort of weird to me that people are opposing because they think Floq acted rashly, or impulsively, or intemperately. I don't see his actions as rash at all—they were well-considered and undertaken with clear forethought as to the likely consequences. I'm more, not less, impressed with his judgement and thoughtfulness, regardless of whether I agree with his specific action in the Fram case. I'm also not worried about his lack of article-space contributions—that would worry me if he were an unknown quantity, but he has a long track record as an admin by which we can judge him. He consistently makes good decisions, particularly in challenging areas where most admins fear to tread. I think Wikipedia is better off for having him as an admin, and worse off without him acting in that capacity, even if he only undertakes a few actions a year. So the short version is that I'm reaffirming my support. MastCell Talk 02:07, 28 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]
    Having followed the discussion and read all the supports, opposes and talk-page notes over the past week, I am happy to confirm my support for Floq's adminship. Opabinia regalis's statement tallies with my observation of Floq's actions as an admin, and I agree with MelanieN's recounting of the circumstances and effectiveness of Floq's participation in the Fram-affair. To me, this direct evidence of how they'll work as an admin is much more valuable than surrogate markers, such as their mainspace contributions or what attitude one senses in their nomination statement (fwiw, I read it as conversational and self-deprecating but everyone, including me, brings in their own cultural and personal biases; so ymmv). Abecedare (talk) 14:07, 29 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]
    Reaffirm support per MastCell, Opabinia and others. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:48, 29 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.(updating) My reasons for supporting are candidate's past record and their stand in Fram case. Several years of admin work is enough to prove "competence", "need for the tools" and "seriousness", some common questions for 1st RFA. Their reversal of WMF action, which was backed by the majority, followed by further protests brought about the change. Without this, there wouldn't have been any ArbCom case. Low edit count in mainspace is no big deal, if they can serve in other capacities. There are many admins with less than 30% mainspace edits. This is of importance only for first RFA to see if the candidate is dedicated to the project instead of interested only in medal collection. As such, this objection doesn't apply in this case, since candidate's previous record shows their dedication. It is interesting to see how conditions, which are not even part of policy, are being pursued like "carved in stone" thing. 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]
    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]
  92. 20 mule team Support AFAIK Floq has worked in the best interests of the project for years and will continue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Tolly4bolly 01:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - happy to have you back. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Sometimes inflammation is good. It the the natural defense against parasites, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. 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]
  97. 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]
  98. 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]
  99. 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]
  100. Support Clearly. No concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. 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]
    I have elaborated more on my reasons for supporting at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2#What is right and wrong?. --Rschen7754 16:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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]
  103. 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]
  104. Support The community is with you! Λυδαcιτγ 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 03:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support welcome back. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some opposes and discussions seem to focus on the unblocking of Fram as being a too quick, too rash an action, or being an unnecessary action. I am rather convinced that Floquenbeam's unblock of Fram, admins resigning their bits, editors going on strike, the open letter from ArbCom, and all editors who actively engaged with (WMF)-people were all factors that combined resulted in the WMF handing over the situation to ArbCom (and hence, @Floquenbeam, I'm not so sure if it really is 'would cause further disruption', I believe it was a factor in ending the disruption [by WMF]). One can argue that a diplomatic approach alone (e.g. only an open letter from ArbCom) would have resulted in the same result, or that all the other factors combined minus the unblock of Fram would have given the same result, but we will never know. I strongly doubt, seen my previous experiences with WMF, that anything less might have had a very, very big chance of failing. Yes, you may be right that unblocking was wrong, you may be right that there is something with Fram that needed this action from WMF, you may be right that unblocking Fram was ultimately not needed to convince WMF that they overstepped boundaries, and yes, you also may be right (well, you are right) that our policies are not effective enough against incivility, harassment, and 'toxic behaviour'. But with this 'support' !vote I stand with the community and hope that from here we can move forward and improve both the encyclopedia and how we treat our fellow editors, and show the respect for what Floquenbeam has, and what all other members of this community have done for Wikipedia (and not what they didn't do, what you expect(ed) them to do, or what they shouldn't (have) do(ne) - which ismay be pretty close to why we ended up here in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 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]
  108. 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]
  109. Support per Rschen7754. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. 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]
  111. Support per nom statement and without more words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming support after reviewing the past few days' !votes and discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, obviously. Thank you for doing this again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to write a long post here; for obvious reasons, I don't want to get too deeply into the Fram situation beyond saying I respect Floq's convictions, and I don't think this should be approached as a referendum on that anyway. However, as it's my long-standing view that Floquenbeam is one of the most effective admins on the project, I do want to address the idea that's coming up in some of the opposes about brash/hasty/dramatic actions. It's hardly surprising that a large project based on consensus sometimes suffers from analysis paralysis (and as you can guess from the length of this post, I'm one of the offenders). Floq does have a reputation for decisive actions that break the stalemate. That's a feature, not a bug, for two reasons. One is that his instincts are usually right. I don't know how he does it - he's one of a handful of prominent and consistent counterexamples to the notion that you need to spend a lot of time writing articles to have an intuitive understanding of how content-writers think - but he does. I'd have a hard time thinking of too many other current admins who have Floq's level of understanding of the consequences of the fact that "editors have pride".
    The second key point here is that Floq is willing to consider other viewpoints and back down when he's wrong. Most of the time, someone who's brash and hasty is doing it out of overconfidence and is too stuck in their own head to see other perspectives. Floq is quite the opposite. In fact, that's how I first crossed paths with him - I thought he was wrong about something, I didn't really expect some random stranger butting in would have much influence, and while I wasn't the only one to disagree on that particular incident, the result was that he took me seriously and listened to my argument and ended up changing his mind. Since then I've seen the same pattern - he's confident in his own judgment, and might not ultimately agree with you, but he's up-front about what he's thinking and willing to listen if you think differently. In the end I think this is one of those cases best judged on observable results rather than theories about "what makes an ideal admin". Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. 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]
  114. 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]
  115. Support Lectonar (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Did a good job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. 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]
  118. Support Pretty please, quality mod sacked by dodgy WMF-action. The Banner talk 08:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. 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]
  120. 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]
  121. Support - As I recall, a very good administrator, but please stop going away now... - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. 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]
  123. 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]
  124. 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]
  125. Support – one of the good ones. Graham87 10:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. 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]
  127. Support Very helpful to other editors. Interstellarity (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Let's keep him occupied with adminship lest he reattempt writing fantasy. No such user (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - ZLEA T\C 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - obviously. GiantSnowman 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. 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]
  132. Strong support – Teratix ₵ 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of the sizeable number of opposes I'll expand my rationale. Floquenbeam has delivered a convincing justification of his FRAM actions in his answers to questions 8, 12 and 13 and it's worth noting he did not have the benefits of hindsight the !voters have now when making his decision. In addition, he has a productive history as an administrator apart from this incident that cannot be overlooked.
    I'm more concerned about his actions in the Signpost humour deletion discussion, when he inserted an unnecessary and POINTy nutshell template on the controversial article in question when there was an MfD in progress. However, he is still a net positive despite this unfortunate behaviour.
    Other issues raised by opposers, such as a lack of content creation, are unconvincing. – Teratix ₵ 14:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to note I'm prepared to overlook a somewhat flippant nomination statement considering the highly unusual circumstances. – Teratix ₵ 01:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Woscafrench (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC) - to explain: candidate who actually gives a shit Woscafrench (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. 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]
    More Framnation. OK. I admit it. I disagree(d) with Floq's unblocking. For all the reasons give in the opposes. But I cant !vote based on whether or not I agree w/ what a candidate has done/not done. Truly, a net positive situation. fram is the single most destructive event in our history. Please let's stop carrying it around with us.  Dlohcierekim (talk)
  135. 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]
  136. 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]
  137. 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]
  138. 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]
  139. Support; willing to give him another chance. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support and willing to give him another chance as a Wikipedia Admin. Kevinhanit (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. You acted on your principles and that's all right with me. Deb (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. 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]
  143. 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]
  144. Support - Absolutely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. 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]
  146. Support - Ego te absolvo.  Spintendo  15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  148. 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]
  149. Support -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Great answer to Question 11⅔. (lol) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:40, 25 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]
  150. Support unequivocally. CassiantoTalk 16:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  151. 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]
  152. 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]
  153. 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]
  154. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Sic semper tyrannis. →StaniStani 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Moved to Oppose.→StaniStani 07:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I'm so pleased you want to return. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Per Revi. ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the Framgate opposes, I wholeheartedly commend his unblock which forced WMF to step out of boilerplate BS. I also note that the BoT (which has reviewed the issue in detail and ought to know far more than every single member commenting over here (esp. Daniel Case)) noted this to be an extraordinary situation and proactively argued for the restoration of mop.
    As to lack of content-creation (and assumed lack of perspective), echo OR in entirety.
    The rest seems like garden-variety IDONOTLIKEYOU arguments.~ Winged BladesGodric 20:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support scope_creepTalk 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. 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]
  159. 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]
  160. 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]
  161. Support Absolutely deserving. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. 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]
  163. 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]
  164. 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]
  165. Support Of course Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Clearly the community will be better off with you back on board. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. 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]
  169. 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]
  170. Support with no hesitation. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. 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]
  172. 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]
  173. Support Kablammo (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support because doing the right thing is what we should be doing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support per previous experience as an admin user. TheEditster (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support No concerns. Nihlus 03:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Beyond any doubt, Floquenbeam is a useful admin team member to have. Schwede66 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. 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]
  179. 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]
  180. Support per OR. Seren_Dept 04:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Net positive for the project. Pavlor (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. 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]
  183. Support Wham2001 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't feel that anybody would care to read a lengthy explanation of my reasons for supporting, but I agree exactly with what xeno writes below. Wham2001 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  184. 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]
  185. Support without reservation. -- Begoon 08:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Strong support per my original nomination Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support All support votes are convincing enough. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  188. 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]
  189. 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]
  190. 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]
  191. Support without reservation. --NSH001 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  192. 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]
  193. 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]
    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]
    I have my reservations again. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Of course. This is a no-brainer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Candidate made the right decision in a heated situation, in my mind, and that's something we should be asking of sysops to do. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97: I hope you don't find this antagonizing, but I have no clue what you mean here. Floq resigned the tools on his own accord. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Of course it's not antagonizing, I've reworded my response. EggRoll97 (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support mostly per Rschen7754. Jianhui67 T★C 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support I have no concerns. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  198. 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]
  199. Support Why wouldn't you say yes? TurboSonic (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support, even if for no other reason than to discourage further WMF overreach. Deor (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  201. 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]
  202. 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]
  203. 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]
  204. 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]
  205. 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]
  206. Support No opposition to re-sysoping, and his willingness (or masochism) to submit himself again to RFA is admirable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support Absolutely! And thank you for taking a stand on behalf of the community. And more to the point, I have every reason to believe that Floquenbeam will continue to be a responsible, mature admin and a positive force on the project. ~Awilley (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support. Good admin. Speaking about his actions with regard to FRAM, they might be disputed, but can not be considered a valid reason for desysopping. Personally, I think his action at the time was understandable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Strongest support for integrity and for regard for community consensus, as well as for all prior admin work. — kashmīrī TALK 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support. One of the very best. After years of excellent work one single action, however significant, and whether I agree or not, cannot, in my mind, undo years of integrity snd intelligent work. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support reverting an office action would normally be a serious misjudgement, but not in this case. The unblock was an act of civil disobedience, and civil disobedience sometimes involves breaking rules. Hut 8.5 21:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 22:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support More like this, please. Dumuzid (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support per User:SD0001, User:Jusdafax, User:Bilorv and others. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Am dissapointed Q10 wasnt answered as "floq blocks socks" But my more cultured friends hav einformed me that isn't a sonnet. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support As I've said to others, doing what's right might sometimes mean doing what's not "right". Floq did what was right. Frood 23:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support When it comes to an RfA, I feel the need to weigh a prospective admin's entire history and character. Though the FRAM debacle has put a lot of weight on recent actions (whether they be rightful or otherwise), I cannot deny the consistent great mop work of Floquenbeam. While looking at the candidate as objectively as I can muster, I can say positively that they will be an excellent admin, as they have been in the past. Full support. AlexEng(TALK) 01:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support I have been following WP:FRAM on and off and have no concerns about your conduct therein. All of our encounters around the Wiki in recent years have been neutral/positive (as in nothing memorable beyond general 'oh right we've interacted on page X', not anything below positive. I see nothing in WP:FRAM or related conversations that makes me think you'd suddenly be bad with the tools. StarM 02:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - with all the facts that have come to light since Floq's action I might not have supported, and indeed there are some now-demopped folks who I will not be supporting should they ask for their rights back. However, at the time that Floq stood up, at great personal risk (and it must be noted: with little risk to Wikipedia) there was every indication that the WMF was acting and intending to continue acting in flagrant violation of community standards and practices, with no explanation forthcoming and no attempt to engage the mechanisms that the Wikipedia community has spent nearly two decades developing. The events since have left very little doubt that had Floq not set off a chain of administrative protest actions (again, with little actual risk to the project) the Foundation would not have responded at all and would have continued picking apart our evolution from their ivory tower in San Francisco with complete impunity, and as such no facts would have since come to light. One of our highest principles states that there are no firm rules, and the related policy reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis in original) Floquenbeam ignored one of the most critical rules we have, and Wikipedia is better for it. I am happy to support. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support. For sure. Érico (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support, because of the WP:FRAM actions. Benjamin (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Overturning the office action was a rash act but i trust that you have come out of this wiser. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support - Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support: It's a sincere nomination. Although undoing an Office action wasn't a good idea, I'm sure you won't do something like that again. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support: The FRAM matter cannot become a permanent litmus test or divide. Flo has been a good administrator and the community needs to heal. Reconciliation is an important step. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support, shouldn't have been desysopped in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support for sure, even without a new sonnet! Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - I proudly supported the user the first RfA, and do so again. I note 30,000 edits and only the single issue that came up. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support - I don't ultimately think that Floquenbeam's unblock of Fram was helpful, but very few parties particularly came out of that teacup storm looking particularly good - I can completely buy that the action was taken with genuine concern and good intentions. Overall a reasonably effective and decisive administrator continues to be a clear net positive, despite the odd inevitable error. ~ mazca talk 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  231. This is rather tiresome: the opposers don't really bother to explain what they think the candidate would do wrong with the bits (apart from a single incident and some concern on content activity), which normally is enough for me to reach a conclusion, but here forces me to spend a lot of time to check myself. From a look at the logs of admin actions, and the recent talk page interactions, I don't see any red light. The answers above made me notice that we probably had different opinions on a few past controversies. While archiving my talk page the other day, I noticed he was the one who briefly blocked me several years ago (and then didn't oppose an unblock), which I had forgotten. Overall, seems to me an intellectually honest and collegial admin. The one thing I didn't like at all: this dance of reflags, resignation and RfA, which smells of MeatBall:GoodBye; I prefer acts of civil disobedience and conscientious objection where one accepts the personal consequences in the short term and then works to correct them in the mid-term. But I choose not too focus on the specific incident. Nemo 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support I didn't bother reading the questions and answers nor the statement because this whole dramafest would not have existed if WMF had respected the EN.WP community so for me it is just going back to status quo and there should be no need to even !vote. This is a no-brainer. Welcome back. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support It's time to put the drama behind us. I'm not sure that reverting an Office Action was a wise decision, but it was a principled one. The candidate has a long history (nearly ten years) as a competent admin and opposing on the basis of this one action is just silly. SpinningSpark 19:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support He stuck his neck out for his principles. SlightSmile 19:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support shoy (reactions) 20:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Building on my previous !vote now that I have a chance. I'm somewhat saddened but maybe not surprised to see a lot of editors whose opinions I greatly respect in the oppose section below. I appreciate that Floq has principles and is unashamed about standing up for them. I think B!sZ has it right, above. I am not usually a big fan of the type of things that WP:IAR gets stretched to cover these days but the Fram block was the exact type of situation it was meant to cover. I don't believe this RFA is "drama" or a "stunt" or anything other than an honest request to continue improving the encyclopedia. Floq is a net positive and the type of admin that we need more of. shoy (reactions) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support. It's pretty much all been said by now. --Carnildo (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support. I've seen their name a lot at ANI, but haven't seen any red flags in passing, so that's already a big plus when it comes to dealing with behavior. Obvioulsy we need admins who know how to craft content, even if it's been years ago as the candidate says, but ability to deal with behavior is maybe more important for the mop. Maybe I'm one of the few that didn't follow the Fram thing closely outside of knowing roughly what happened (though it shouldn't have any bearing on capabilities as an admin again), so I was pretty neutral when initially considering suitability as a admin for this one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Strong support. He did the right thing when reverting the WMF's action, and we need to have more admins like him.—Chowbok ☠ 22:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support While I understand how reverting the office action was controversial, (and I am still unsure if he did the right thing) he is a net positive to the encyclopedia. He's been a good admin for a long time, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Passionate support I am the young barely adult but experienced Wikipedian/reviewer who created the RFC that overwhelmingly states that you are not under a cloud. However, you've decided to go through the full RFA. That's okay, however. You were an amazing admin, and I am more than happy to voice my support. Your actions were done for the betterment of the Wikipedia community, and I love that. Please, get your bit back. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support Per Money emoji WizardKing 01:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support. I couldn't put it better than Sluzzelin did much earlier on in this process. I have some reservations about Floq's hasty course of action with respect to the incident that necessitated this process, but on balance Wikipedia is better served when they have the bit. bd2412 T 01:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support. I weighed the good versus the bad, and the good won. Calidum 02:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support No real concerns. Intothatdarkness 02:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support - while I'm not sure their actions were the wisest, they have an established track record of using the tools well to support the community. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support Not all drama is bad, and civil disobedience is sometimes called for. I am optimistic that the recent events will bring much-needed clarity to the role of the WMF in project governance, and that Floq's actions for better or worse served as a catalyst for serious discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support. I wasn't really planning on participating in this, but the sheet number of participants nudged me. I was leaning towards supporting and the opposes below, all of which I read, did not sway my thinking. Seems like a capable user who has donned the mop well in the many years of volunteer service on the English Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support per WP:ANIFLU. Seriously though, while I haven't had any interactions with Floq, they have gone through enough (as has the entire community) and needs some support. Rollidan (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support per Boing! said Zebedee. I also think that an RfA is an acceptable way to regain the tools, even if it is likely to not be strictly necessary based on this RFC. I do, however, think that Floquenbeam should have waited to put himself and the community through an RfA. At present he is not even sure that he still wants to use the tools. Also, while the fundamentally different relationship between the WMF and the English WP that started the whole mess is under negotiation, we still do not know what the results of that negotiation will be. IMHO Floquenbeam should have waited until he was reasonably sure that he would find the relationship tolerable. But he’s here now, and he deserves to have the tools back.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Per Mazca and Nemo_bis (minus the block part, of course). ansh.666 07:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support Protecting the encyclopedia from flagrant violations of community standards and practices is not all that admins are for but its an important part of the job AlasdairEdits (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support – I don't encounter admins in their admin capacity very often, and I don't recall running across Floquenbeam on pages in which I have been involved. But given recent circumstances – during which Floquenbeam has behaved with dignity and honour – and the supports, above, from several editors whose judgement I particularly value, I am v. happy to add my support. Thumbing the nose at the WMF is an incidental bonus. – Tim riley talk 08:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support - normally we require lots of experience in different areas in order to make a reasonable judgement as to whether the candidate will make good admin decisions. Here we have precedent, which is much more use. So in that sense, I'm not concerned about content creation issues etc. I don't recall having negative experiences with them, nor have a great number been indicated. Now to Fram. The option may have been unwise, in an absolute sense. But I feel many of us forget the stage at the time - the Community was going (I say rightly) apeshit. 85% of the page participants were firmly against the WMF's action, even if Fram himself might have done something wrong. We wrote 100,000 words in less than 3 days. Admins' primary duty must be to carry out Community consensus, and it's not a case of Floq helping us throw ourselves off a cliff. I was staunchly in favour then, and in lieu of other reasons to oppose, it would be rank hypocrisy for me to complain now. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Oppose Clearly not up to the modern standards of obviously smarter and even-keeled candidates. No, wait…
    Support because with the benefit of hindsight there literally was no action or inaction that they could have chosen that would have led to a better outcome for the `pedia and even the movement as a whole (and we're now in a place of healing and growth that looked unattainable just scant weeks back!). And beyond the action itself, their handling of the situation during and after—including the request for resysop, the resignation of the bit, and this RFA—impresses me as just exactly the kind of admin we desperately need. If anybody wants to start a recall process based on something unrelated to FRAMBAN I'd be happy to look at the evidence and entirely open to the possibility of voting against them having the bit if merited: but this RfA is entirely about their actions during FRAMBAN and there my posiition is unequivocal. I would also suggest to the opposers that they go take a long hard look at their motivations: to me it looks like a lot of them judge Floq's principled action related to the WMF—community relationship as if it was personal support and endorsement of Fram and all Fram's actions. If that is the case then you have let your emotions cloud your judgement and you should rethink your position. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support – You could argue that Floq’s action was taking a heroic stand or it was a bit of hasty impertinence. I don’t care. We need good admins and Floq more than qualifies. O3000 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support - Generally one of the reasonable people here. Especially with WP:FRAM. spryde | talk 14:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support I feel that the reversal of the office action was a horribly improper move that set off a firestorm from which I don't believe the community has fully recovered. I strongly urge Flo to stay out of that realm, moving forward. However, the community needs people that are willing to step up and wield the mop, while taking all of the heat that inevitably comes along with it. I am hardpressed to find valid reasons not to give the tools back, outside of the FRAM situation, which has been beaten into a pulp by both supporters and opposers of this RfA. StrikerforceTalk 15:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support, and thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support, Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support, I've had Floq's page on watch for years and have a very good sense of who he is and why I'm casting this vote, grumpiness and all. It's kinda an age thing for some of us, at least it is for me, so I relate to it and don't see it as a negative. Victoria (tk) 15:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support. I've read the opposes and found them unconvincing. They seem to boil down to "not enough edits in X namespace" (which I've never found convincing; all positive contributions are work toward maintaining and developing the encyclopedia, mainspace or not), and "his unblock of Fram was precipitous/impulsive" (it was quite the opposite, he announced it well in advance, gave a chance for WMF and other editors to weigh in, and even delayed the proposed time when circumstances warranted). So far as Floq being blunt, well, sometimes we need someone to be blunt. I see no reason not to give him back the bits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Support. I vaguely recall Floquenbeam siding with a sanction in my regard. I was very impressed by the stand he took in the Fram issue. On both grounds, strikes me as utterly his own man, supported by many people who have otherwise disagreed with him. That is the stuff of a first rate admin.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support per Boing!_said_Zebedee and Opabinia_regalis. Floqenbeam has shown excellent judgement, and is a net benefit to the project in an admin role, although I wouldn't support an RfB. LetUsNotLoseHearT 19:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support - all signs point to a good admin who was caught up in a very unusual circumstance that is unlikely to reoccur. Regardless of what you believe about the Fram issue, that sort of thing does not crop up on a regular basis and Floq is otherwise very solid. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Support Glad I decided to check in while this was ongoing. Floq's actions helped move things in the right direction. Cages needed rattling and he rattled 'em good. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support basic human decency. EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support – good admin, whom we need back, please. DBaK (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  268. A damn fine administrator, one willing to take on complicated issues and thankless tasks rather than just rest on their laurels. Speaks with an extraordinary presence of mind and always willing to reconsider their actions. Humble and kind. The Fram thing was (hopefully) a once-in-a-project’s-lifetime event and Floquenbeam felt compelled to take extraordinary action to protect the integrity of the project as there was emerging consensus that the WMF has acted outside the bounds of their mandate. Anyone who wasn’t tracking the event closely should read MelanieN’s analysis. –xenotalk 22:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support. I know Floquenbeam has had his share of involvements in drama in the last couple of years, especially with Fram-gate. However, it's for this reason that I think he would be suited to take back the tools. He has been involved in sometimes-difficult decisions, but I think that's a good thing, a willingness to take on the tasks no one else wants to do. He also is level-headed despite all the criticism and rebuke of his actions. Though his actions in the Fram incident weren't widely approved, but that was an unprecedented event. Whatever you personally think of Floq, and even though I personally wouldn't have immediately given Fram's tools back in defiance of the T&S actions, it shows his willingness to deal with the complex back end of this project. Even though it seems like drama may be inevitable in regards to his actions, I consider Floq to be more of a net positive than not. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Sure, wish you good luck in your RfA. Mona.N (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Support. Absolutely, Wikipedia needs Floquenbeam. (And he absolutely did the right thing in the face of authoritarian BS.) Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support. We need good admins. Alexbrn (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support - Strong governance and leadership by people who may sometimes not follow convention is needed for any large project to succeed. Floquenbeam demonstrates this and definitely deserves the position Sau226 (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Support I wasted more time than I should have reading the opposes found them bereft of convincing reasons to not re-mop. All actions made on WP are open to question whether they are from first time IP editors or WMF employees. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  276. 'Support. As to the Fram thing, well there's two truths in play 1) Fram's an asshole (let's assume), and fuck 'im. 2) It's up the the community to fuck 'im, not the WMF. It's reasonable to valorize #2 on principle, and Floq did this in the heat of the moment. It was a reasonable thing to do even tho I don't agree (because the community is dysfunctional for kicking out assholes IMO, I personally am OK with the WMF decision; if you can't govern yourself, other people will.) And there's insufficient other reasons given for a desysop. Everybody makes some enemies as they go along. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support - one of the most adept and capable editors on the site in their capacity as an admin, should have the mop returned after being desysoped for taking a principled stand that many deemed necessary. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Support Until recently this user was an admin in good standing. I appreciate this user taking action in advocacy of my rights and the rights of the Wikimedia community. I do not expect anyone in such a position to attain the appearance of diplomatic perfection. When there is a challenge to freedom I want everyone to stand up and advocate for the good side of history, which is governance for and by the people. If there was a misstep here then I would forgive. In all the publication, I am not aware of a misstep which bars re-adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support, I think that the resignation and rfa is a bit of melodrama but I do not believe that Floq needed this to regain the tools. I'm not their biggest fan (nothing against them either, just not on their fanwagon like a lot of people here) but their admin actions have generally been solid. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support Absolutely still qualified for the mop. Had the community backing for their actions during Framgate. Some of the opposes seem like people with personal animosity toward either the candidate or Fram and those shouldn't be reasons to withhold adminship. Valeince (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support probably the only admin to directly swear at me (with impunity, it turns out). But hey, bygones. I think I agree with Floquenbeam 99% of the time, passively or actively, so I see no problem here. I don't believe we'll ever see another Framgate (or at least, if we do, the texture of WMF's projects will be forever fucked) so I'm happy to support the purported transgression. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Support per Black Kite. nableezy - 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support Long history of valuable admin contributions; has provided extensive rationale for prior actions that I believe should not preclude the candidate from regaining the tools. SpencerT•C 22:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support Valuable admin and contributor. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support. Welcome back. -- Ϫ 05:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support. I had been falling towards Juliancolton's excellently stated argument from the outset, and quite frankly have been disappointed at those who fell, with proud chests, on their sword a week ago, and are now at BN when there has been no actual resolution. At least Floquenbeam had the stones to ask via RFA. Support, somewhat begrudgingly, this proven brick of common sense editor. I don't really care about no content, the community thrives because of its diversity and distribution of roles; some are content builders, some eat through admin backlogs, some are calming wise old [wo]men. We all need each other and this support is because I feel a lot better contributing knowing that people like the nominator are adjudicating...as an example when it really mattered...support 100% their actions re FRAMGATE. Ceoil (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support --llywrch (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  288. I shall start by confessing that I drafted an oppose vote some days ago. I think that Floquenbeam acted with poor judgement. Administrators should try to cultivate consensus and lead by example, not mash buttons that are only made available because of the radical model used on wikis. Yet old Floquenbeam's comments and views have always been sound and respectable. Administrators should be forgiven for single bad decisions; I have certainly made one (or several) myself. Refusing this request to resysop may be justifiable. We may even be right to set an example to administrators thinking they should throw the wiki into disorder when we next have a difficult choice. But I think we can do that well enough without punishing this good admin. Support. AGK ■ 10:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support mostly per Boing! way up above but also because I'm not seeing much sense in the oppose arguments, with some, such as those of Bilorv and Jorm, seeming to be more about supporting the office vs Fram than opposing Floq. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: I'm afraid that's not an accurate reading of my arguments. I do not support the office action that the WMF made. You'll note that two of the four paragraphs I posted as reasoning do not contain any argument relating to the WMF or Fram or the office action reversal. In fact I !voted neutral based on the office action reversal, and only later moved to oppose after seeing different incidents involving Floquenbeam, and assessing the editor's long-term pattern of behaviour. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's an... interesting interpretation of my comments as well. However, I expect no less, so this is hardly a disappointment! --Jorm (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support. He took a stand against a WMF power grab and process that had no right of appeal. He got shot down by the WMF for it. Instead of blaming him for getting shot, I prefer to thank him – for helping to bring about a process that I hope will stop other volunteer editors from being blocked/banned by the WMF for unknown reasons and with no right of appeal – and to help him get back up. EddieHugh (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding: Floquenbeam isn't applying for the first time; he's asking to have back what he had a short time ago. Unless there's good evidence that his Fram-related or other admin actions were so bad that he would have been stripped of his admin rights (by the community), they should be returned to him. I haven't seen such evidence presented. EddieHugh (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support. Denisarona (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support. --Michael Greiner 14:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support per nom and answers. Dur..! per history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Support Floq clearly acted in what he sincerely believed were the best interests of Wikipedia. WMF obviously felt diffently. In sucha situation one must be right and one must be wrong; I believe that WMF were in this case wrong, and returning the mop to Floq will go at least some way towards repairing the damage caused. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Support. It's a shame, but it seems that WP:IAR is just too much for some editors to get their head round. zzz (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Support- Having seen this admin in action for many years, I'm certain he will continue to do excellent work upholding the integrity of the project.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  298. My thoughts here can be best expressed as reluctant support. I did not plan to vote at all, to start with, and I only write anything on this page because we are entering the discretionary range (the support was going down after the first day, and currently reached 75%). I sympathize with many opinions expressed in oppose and neutral sections. The unblock of Fram was childish, which I said even before it happened. The nomination is weak, premature, not well prepared, and some answers to the questions disgusting. My personal intersection with the candidate - at least the one I remember - was not inspiring: I called an obvious sock at ANI, well, a sock, and they told me that I should only call socks socks if I know whose socks they are - which, whereas in principle correct, did not help, and the sock was CU-blocked within an hour anyway. I was prepared to bring all these arguments to the oppose section if the candidate were flying through RfA, as it looked during the first nomination day. Because I think it is important that the candidate gets feedback on their actions which deviate from the best practices, and not just passes 300-0-0. But they are so obviously qualified for the job, that it will be a shame if they do not pass, and RfA should not be working like this. This is why I am now in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Support. Floq has served this community well for years. We may not always agree, but I know Floq will always take concerns and suggestions seriously. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Support: thought Floq was one already. Jonathunder (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Support Trusted user. FitIndia Talk 01:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Support I trust Floquenbeam. No need to say anything else as it has all been said by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Support per everyone. J947 (c), at 04:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Support Wikipedia desperately needs good admins with good judgment to at least partially offset the damage inflicted by their abusive/incompetent colleagues and Floquenbeam fits the bill. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Weak support. Don't think I have anything to say that hasn't been said already. Ymblanter put it well. The candidate has certainly made quite a few mistakes, but I think the overall error rate is fine. Terrible self-nom statement, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  306. Support as a matter of principle for sticking their neck out in the interests of the encyclopedia. I have no reasons to have called for desysopping Floquenbeam before the Fram fiasco, and appreciate their principled stand against T&S interference. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Support as Per everyone above. Theyve always been a good admin, and nothing they have done deserves dysopping. Curdle (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Support. Floq is one of the few administrators who has shown the wisdom and analytical ability to determine appropriate responses to problem behaviour in an unusually consistent way. He's one of the few admins who does the work that leads to blocks or other behavioural corrections that stick, even when applied to long-term ("unblockable") editors. Concur with the analysis of a huge number of other supporters including L235, Ymblanter, Opabinia regalis, Newyorkbrad, MastCell, DGG, WereSpielChequers, Seraphimblade, and about fifty others. Risker (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  309. I didn't plan on having an opinion either way here (see my lengthy comment in the Neutral section), but this is about to finish and is very close so I probably ought to get off the fence.

    I do have a lot of misgivings about supporting this. Were an editor with Floquenbeam's editing history who wasn't a previous admin to run at RFA I'd unquestionably be opposing. I consider the nomination statement one of the worst ever written and am genuinely concerned that an RFA to pass with a rationale that boils down to "fuck the rules, I want you to give me the power to do whatever I feel like" sets a dreadful precedent. And, I think the very existence of this RFA is evidence of poor judgement as it's wasted the time of 400 people and rising when if Floquenbeam had just wanted "do you support me?" affirmation he could just have posted "I want the bit back, does anyone have any objections?" at WP:BN (at the time of writing this RFA has >22,000 pageviews, and each of those pageviews is taking time from people who could be doing something useful).

    However, if I'm going to plump for support or oppose I'll come down on the side of support. Having seen Floquenbeam in action I'm fairly certain that the "I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf" stuff is just posturing for an audience, and that he's unlikely actually to break anything, and that if he does do anything problematic he'll be responsive when it's pointed out to him.

    What finally sways it for me is that not just one but all three of the editors on my personal "so consistently clueless that one can safely make decisions based on the principle that doing the opposite of what they support will be the right thing" list are lined up in the Oppose column, so if nothing else an extra vote on the other side of the line will go some way towards cancelling that out. ‑ Iridescent 07:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Your last reason for !vote is a poor one and seems designed more as an insult to unnamed editors. Tacky. --IHTS (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case the crats can discount it if they agree. (Some context for those who aren't aware of why IHTS has such strong opinions about both Floquenbeam and myself.) ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never had any negative opinion re you, Iridescent, never! (In fact, have only had respect for your obvious intelligence, always have enjoyed reading your posts about anything, because of same, their depth & experience & insight on WP. Always thought of you w/ greatest respect in same vein as Corbett. [It is why I've almost never posted to your attention. Too much respect to waste your attention on lowly me.] But your comments below re response what I wrote re cops were shallow, & your last vote rationale was beneath you, so things have taken a notch down today. But not before today. So you err again re that. Not my fault, you seem emotionally bent here, not your normal, & it's too bad, sorry if I contributed to it in any way, not my desire or intent.) p.s. Using someone's block log against someone in a discussion is in general tacky, & I see you've even linked mine, which is really inappropriate. Another thing beneath your norm. You're losing respect & it isn't my fault. --IHTS (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  310. Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  311. Support -- per Sluzzelin.YUEdits (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  312. Support -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Support -- base on Floq’s body of work. We know exactly who he is, and who he is is one of the people I trust most when I see an administrator try to intervene in a knotty situation. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  314. Support -- Still qualified. Acted thoughtfully in the best interest of the wiki. Vadder (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Support - There are people I respect in both columns here and undoing the candidate's actions have some "gunslinger" qualities to them that I both admire and am bemused by. But I see the thoughtfulness on display that I expect from an admin. --Laser brain (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  316. Support. A good, very experienced level-headed admin who stood up for en-WP, and should never have needed to go through another RfA. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  317. Support. I should have supported this RfA at the beginning (sorry Floq), but (a) it never occurred to me it wouldn't succeed and (b) I very rarely vote at RfA. Floq was an unconventional administrator. Indeed, Floq is an unconventional Wikipedian. I don't know what people expect from his nomination statement and answers to questions, but sadly I think many (not all, of course) misinterpret them. It's like they think, well even if he's weird, can't he at least "behave" during his RfA? But Floq would never pretend to be something he's not. He's an honest, offbeat fellow with a very lively and quirky sense of humor. Abecedare's most recent comment about Floq's conduct here being self-deprecating is spot-on. We have all sorts of admins, some good, some not so good, but Floq is one of a kind. If he wants to be an admin again - although I'm not so sure why (smile) - we should welcome him back. Also, do we really want the 'crats to have to suffer through a discussion on this RfA?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how a crat chat can be avoided at this point - but we'll see. — Ched :  ?  — 15:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed at this point a crat chat seems a forgone conclusion. Heck it was a few days ago. Though if he did not want the crats the suffer, like they did with Rexxs, he could tastefully withdraw. PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let the crats suffer: we pay them handsomely for it, for these couple of jobs per year. Bbb23, I appreciate your support of this valued colleague. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Support: I would have done the same with WP:FRAM . Zezen (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  319. Support We need him back --rogerd (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Support. I do not see why he would not still be qualified. As far as I can see he acted with integrity and in accordance with what he perceives to be the principles of his position. Which I think is an admirable act, even if it might be misguided or harmful in retrospect. --Hecato (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Support I ended up here after reading the opposes. Was and will be a solid administrator. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  322. Support I don't think we should lose a good admin because they took a strong stand in favour of due process and against unexplained exercises of power. Kobnach (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user last edited on 17 February 2015. I've inquired what brought them back on their talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Beyond My Ken below. See above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  323. Support – They already have the relevant experience, and after facing this level of scrutiny, their judgement will improve further. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Support – One "oppose" voter said that Floq's statements above demonstrate "sheer arrogance" but, instead, I find myself impressed by Floq's humility: both in his willingness to be talk frankly about what he perceives as his flaws, and his willingness to bring the question of re-adminship in front of the community. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add: I have mixed feelings about both the Fram situation and Floq's reversal of the block. I think we should take harassment and incivility seriously, and so I'm more inclined to be on the WMF's side of that fight than most. On the other hand, Floq was doing what he thought was right, and I admire the gumption of the move. I also appreciate that Floq has said he'll never take an action like that again. (Full disclosure: during a recent dispute, Floq stuck his neck out for me a bit, which does incline me to like him.) WanderingWanda (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  325. Support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  326. Support Floq has my full backing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 29 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]
    I have read the following discussion and !votes and I maintain my vote. I would also supplement it with the behavior around the resysop and the discussion on my talk page. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Edited: StudiesWorld (talk) 11:21, 29 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]
    Also reaffirming oppose. My reasons above stand and I appreciate those in the subsequent discussions who have identified with them. Having watched the hundreds of !votes come in since last week, I cannot see how, based on the evidence, that this candidate is suitable under any past or current criteria. Would they pass as a new Admin candidate given the manner of the self-nomination, the generally antagonistic attitude and the "I am who I am, take it or leave it" attitude? Certainly not - it would have been SNOW closed within a day. Would they have passed the in 2010 when they were first approved? Well, there are 27 mainly solid opposes back then based on various grounds. There was drama, even then. Would they have been successful even back in the Halcyon days of 2006-2008? Impossible to say but with the same payload of issues, even then maybe not. I also note there is much condemnation of the controversial office action reversal amongst the Support !votes. There is no evidence (and likely will be none) that the actions were decisive in opening up a discussion channel with WMF on the Fram matter. Oppose #102 (currently) by Alex Shih sums up the candidate perfectly and saves me the trouble of going into greater detail. Even if you cannot be bothered to read all 100+, please read that one. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See 'Levivich's oppose timeline' on the talk page: "18:58 WMF says second statement forthcoming shortly (2 minutes before Floq's noon deadline)". Was it just a coincidence that the WMF started to move beyond its dismissive first statement and into discussions just as Floquenbeam's deadline for a response expired? EddieHugh (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No one can know for sure "what would have happened if...". One theory is that Floq's noon deadline prompted the WMF to issue a second statement, when they otherwise wouldn't have done so. Another theory is that Floq's noon deadline rushed the WMF to issue a second statement sooner than they otherwise would have, and that's a reason why the second statement was so poorly written. The WMF may have done a better job responding to editors' concerns if they had had a whole business day or (God forbid) two whole business days to consider their response. – Levivich 13:55, 29 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]
    Expanding: The repeated desysop/resysop requests, done as conspicuously as possible, just amount to attention-seeking behaviour. It is not just about the fram-gate, the elitist nomination statement, insufficient mainspace experience, meagre afd stats, aggressive and trigger-happy behaviour, quick to jump to "I'll block you the next time ..." stuff, are all concerning. They appear to be among the growing "managerial class" of people here. They wiped out their talk page with the comment "taking a break" on July 1, and then opened this rfa just 20 days and 12 edits (half of which to own talk page) later. It would be insightful to see this user contributing for a while without the tools. SD0001 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. no, no, no. — regards, Revi 13:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 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))t[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]
    I quite simply want people to understand how irresponsible the actions of Floq were. Firstly, he reverted an office action that he did NOT have the authority to touch even with a 30 foot pole. Did Floq know why exactly Fram was blocked? No, he did not. Overturning this without the proper evidence was an abuse of power. The terms of service were clearly defined and this was a clear violation of them. After Floq got punished, he went and begged the bureaucrats to reinstate him because this was a war with two sides in his eyes rather than a community issue. Most of the bureaucrats wouldn't have accepted this, but one did. Floq's request ended up taking this bureaucrat down as other users were outraged that a bureaucrat would stoop to such a low level and violate the ToS. The bureaucrat's decision to reinstate Floq was in vain as he simply resigned the bit after a while anyways. Now Floq comes crawling back to us acting like he doesn't have to answer the standard questions and should simply be affirmed and given the bit back for "standing up to the regime". He simply came here counting that those who feel the same would get him the 75% he needs. I find this behavior quite appalling for an admin candidate. He rushed and made a rash decision without worrying about consequences or knowing enough facts. He seems to quite simply not care about the ToS in the least since he has basically violated it twice in the last couple months. My mind won't be changed, but I just wanted to say this. NoahTalk 02:46, 29 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]
    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]
    ...Moved back to "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Oppose - absolutely not, stunt pilot. See RoySmith's oppose if you want more reasoned arguments. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
    I would just like to add another issue that casts doubt. It looks like Floquenbeam has only ever created 6 article. 3 were deleted, 1 is a stub, and 2 were redirects. So how can this person be an admin over content on the encyclopedia? — Maile (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have over 5 million articles. It is perfectly OK to have an active Wikipedian who never creates a new article and only ever improves existing ones. There has been a de facto standard at RFA since the unbundling of rollback over 11 years ago that an admin candidate needs to have improved the pedia as well as protected/curated it. But number of new articles can be zero, it just isn't a useful metric at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
    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]
  30. Oppose per Leaky caldron. Added fuel to the fire. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. Unfortunately, per RoySmith. --MrClog (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Too much drama, and far too little consideration.Tirronan (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
    I would also like to add to my point that things like this, which is related to this, are the exact kind of thing that are not helpful. Damaging to everyone that speaks out, it is very disappointing. PackMecEng (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. Oppose regretfully, per the nomination statement mostly, but Bilorv, Leaky Cauldron, and Iridescent make good points I agree with. Given the nomination statement, specifically, 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'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.... 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 am not filled with the belief that giving Floquenbeam the tools will be a net positive. WP:IAR is about improving the encyclopedia---everything we do should be about improving the encyclopedia---and from the nomination statement it's not clear that Floquenbeam will improve the encyclopedia with the tools. They don't write articles so the importance of the additional editorial tools is questionable; they clearly lay out that their temperament is less than cordial and unlikely to improve; they took actions (multiple times as Bilorv lays out) that very obviously would disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, the FRAM incident being only one; and it is not clear that the tools will even be used much given the candidates understandable loss of enthusiasm for editing. None of this fills me with confidence. It's a shame, to be quite honest, because I would have been fine with Floquenbeam getting the bit back at BN and even admire Floquenbeam's belief in their convictions. But everything about this RfA and Floquenbeam's own statement make me believe granting the tools at this time will not be a net positive. I would prefer to wait a bit to see if their enthusiasm for editing returns so that we have better evidence that the tools will actually be used. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose: I have thought long and hard about this. I only occasionally participate in RFAs but needless to say this one is different. The candidate's actions appeared to me to be ill-tempered and impetuous. They underline a lack of the most important qualities of an admin to me, i.e.trustworthiness and judgement. I was disappointed by the dramatic handing in of the mop and the somewhat arrogant and rapid request for it back. They should have had at least the insight to understand the actions of WMF T&S (rightly or wrongly) were carried out in good faith and in defense of the reputation of the project. I acknowledge the years of useful service but in the end it is too soon. Six months down the track my opinion may have altered, until then, no. Jschnur (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose: Reverting an office action, even if you thought you were in the right, was something I would not expect from any sysop on any project. You did not have all the information. You jumped to a conclusion that the WMF was wrong and that you were right. You has already decided to "correct" this "injustice" even though one of the main pillars of all projects is to Assume Good Faith. Even if that assumption required holding out and waiting for things to takes their course. The judgement shown during the FRAM dumpster fire was subpar for all involved and you made the situation worse, not better, by reversing an office action, again without all the facts. I'm sorry, but your actions in this debacle make it hard to support you to get your bits back. --Majora (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per answer 16 ('What I'm curious about: how many of those "complaints" are an organized attempt to get Fram kicked out?'), a conspiracy theory that attacks the alleged victims. This kind of remark encourages intervention from the Wikimedia Foundation. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming oppose. I am disappointed that the candidate has not yet retracted the conspiracy theory in answer 16 despite being rebuked for it by at least 6 opposers. The candidate's answers to question 16, question 15 (where they consider civility a lesser concern than "competing interests"), and question 19 (where they refuse to explain their infraction of the civility policy) show a consistent failure to uphold WP:ADMINCOND, which states that "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors." — Newslinger talk 20:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Exceedingly remorseful oppose - Majora sums up my views fairly well. I don't have any particular interest in discussing the matter further. GMGtalk 00:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Per JulianColton and I basically agree that Floq's attitude is "I intend to ignore all policies unless they happen to coincide with my personal opinions" as Iridescent sums up. While I trust that he won't revert office actions ever again as he states in his nomination statement, that general demeanor (per his statement here, the edit warring on the Signpost humour article mentioned above, and other incidents/comments I have recollections of) means I expect him to still continue to stir up drama in a similar manner through poor unblocks and other hasty admin actions. There's also the conspiracy-theorizing in Q16 that Bilorv points to - I'm unimpressed by the disrespect shown to people who may have been or think they have been harassed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But Galobtter, that process he points to is very opaque, just like everything that came from the WMF in this debacle. And I disagree with you and User:JulianColton, where you boil down an entire career to "ILIKEIT". On the contrary, Floq did a thing he didn't like to do, because he thought it was the right thing to do. That this would enable harassment, as some seem to suggest, seems very far-fetched to me. Finally, I don't know what the plural points to in "unblocks", or what other "hasty admin actions" he's guilty of. If I go through all my years at Wikipedia, there's surprisingly few "hasty" admin actions (I'm guilty of at least one, I think), but I've never seen any by Floq. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per self-nomination statement's admission of intentional disruption, lack of content contribution, rudeness to other editors, lack of activity and lack of enthusiasm to address issues. Llwyld (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. The "community consensus" Floq observed for unblocking Fram was based on (wild) speculation. So, although the T&S action might have been unethical and overriding the office action might have been justified, it is too early for me (or almost anyone?) to know. Since there is no hurry I'll oppose until there is evidence that Floq's actions were administratively appropriate. However, I see some people I greatly respect !voting support so I would be glad of pointers (suggest: on my talk page) to non-speculative information that would let me change my mind. Thincat (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong oppose - I was originally neutral because I don't know Floquenbeam, however from following this page for the past few days I've got a better feel both for what kind of person they are and the kind of process that's going on here. It's clear to me that Floq would not pass if this was a first-time RFA - just go and read the kind of treatment good editors like USER:Daffy123 (to pick one example at random, and nothing specific about them) got in their RFA for a perceived lack of article-space editing activity and you can see that Floq is not even nearly being judged by the same standard (with little mainspace activity, there is simply no way he could). Many of the support !votes baldly state that this is about the FRAM case, which cannot possibly be a good justification for restoring Floq's editing privileges. Finally, Floq has essentially told us that they see nothing wrong with being disruptive, breaking the rules, swearing at other editors, and they do not plan to change at all - all the things that scream "do not support" and in any other case would just lead to a monstering at RFA. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Floq's reversal of an office action was just some of the more significant evidence proving that the enwiki community handled the Fram situation rather poorly. That being said, I do appreciate him being honest about having added to the drama during the fiasco, as well as their rudeness towards other editors and their "grumpiness". I also appreciate him having come to RFA rather than just going to BN to cause drama there. Majora and Juliancolton sum up clearly what I want to say in this case. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Based on his answers to the questions, nominating statement, and the way other editors are voting (and how they are explaining it), I don't think Floquenbeam 2 has the disposition to arbitrate disputes, handle technical issues, and retain a neutral point of view as an admin. Rockphed (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. I thought about this long and hard but in the end, I had to fall into this category. As RoySmith pointed out, the whole Fram-debacle has been poorly handled by a lot of people but Floquenbeam acted without knowing any details that led to the ban or without any need to act at this point. It was the epitome of WP:POINT, using admin tools solely to express their dissatisfaction with the WMF. I considered the argument that this might have been a part of the catalyst that drove the WMF to back down but I don't see it. Mass resignations of admins following their actions certainly fueled the WMF's desire to fix the mess they created but Floq's unblock of Fram most likely did not. What definitely put me into this section though was Floq's answer to Q16. Speculating about some conspiracy against Fram should be beneath any good faith editor but especially in cases of harassment, this has the potential to hurt those harassed again without any reason. Regards SoWhy 13:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some serious concerns have been raised, but not enough evidence to substantiate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Sorry Floq. I generally appreciate your thoughtful approached - but this was so outside of acceptable behavior that I cannot support. SoWhy summarizes my feels.--v/r - TP 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Sigh. I have valued Floq's contributions as an admin whether or not I've always agreed with particular choices, because I think it's really important that we have some people with the disposition to go out on a limb to make the tough calls even when unpopular, even though by definition some such calls will at least make some folks very angry and may sometimes just be the wrong call. Unfortunately the tough call at play here is about safety, and the project has now lost participants out of safety fears, because of the behavior of those who seems to prioritize control over the project ahead of user safety concerns (as SoWhy put it, acted without knowing any details that led to the ban.) NOBIGDEAL notwithstanding, admins set the tone for the project and taking safety with utmost seriousness really matters to me. So no, I wouldn't vote to promote at this time. I'm no less grateful for your past service. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose I expect admins to think carefully and act with full knowledge, not as a knee jerk reaction, especially in unique situations. Floquenbeam should have sought additional information and guidance before acting and contributing negatively to what was already a difficult situation. In addition, I agree with Rockphed that Floquenbeam, based on what is written above is not likely to stay neutral. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. I second (third?) my fellow Hudson Valleyan Juliancolton and Bilorv in that while I appreciate that Floquenbeam decided to ask the community, it is way too soon, and while we should decline his request politely, we should still decline it.

    I would also like to ask everyone supporting this (which seems to be a done deal, so all the !votes in this column are pretty much protest at this point): do you know everything about this? Do you think you do? There may be a lot more to this story than we know about, a lot that hasn't come out, and we cannot guarantee that all of it—or indeed any of it—will put the community's majority response in the same light it is now. I for one do not want to be casting a !vote I may have to distance myself from at some point in the future—a position I fear too many people in the support column will find themselves in. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    which seems to be done deal, so all the !votes in this column are pretty much protest at this point I do not think this is the case at all. The percentage support is already down to 81 and we have four days to go. Six more points and it goes into the discretionary range.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should already be treated as discretionary, there is a clear momentum away from automatic reconfirmation as shown by the graph. It's also notable that many of the people voting in favour are themselves admins. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Note: In case any RFA number count-correctors (such as myself) see this, the numbering will not break with the above comment since a <p> was used instead of a count-breaking new line and :. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. OpposeAfter thinking this over for a while, many good points have been made to oppose, perhaps the most convincing by SoWhy. I would reconsider my oppose in six months to a year. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per the points Bilorv made. Dream Focus 22:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose I only occasionally participate in RFAs, I don't know Floquenbeam and do not think we have ever interacted directly. Up until the last 3-4 weeks, I would have been neutral on his ability as an admin and would not have participated in an RfA. But in light of the ensuing drama, I have weighed the question, returned to it and weighed it again. Having fallen on a sword for principle, it never occurred to me to ask my co-workers to rectify the consequences that I knew would fall upon me. Floq’s actions after overturning the office action lead to the question of whether their altruism was instead calculated dramatic posturing, in his words, he "intentionally added to the drama." Couple that with the disturbing self-nomination, which is both haughty and unapologetic, and incidents noted by Pudeo, Leaky caldron and others, it calls into question his suitability as an admin, based upon his judgment, his inability/unwillingness to deescalate tense situations, and cavalier attitude towards our behavioral standards. I also agree with those who have stated that were Floq a new candidate for RFA, he would not meet our present criteria, failing in content creation, article improvement, AfD participation, etc. but most of all temperament. SusunW (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose on the basis of drama-causing behaviour (shown by the fact that he has resigned as an admin three times already) and a trend of poor judgment (for example, edit warring on the Signpost article). I didn't want to oppose originally based on just the FRAM incident, but his willingness to unblock someone without getting any further evidence combined with past behaviour puts me over my own threshold needed to end up here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose per above, especially Bilorv. Nardog (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose with the user openly admitting a lack of remorse for blatant incivility with "I said 'fuck you' to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized", I cannot in good conscience support this RFA when admins really should know better, regardless of the Fram ordeal and office actions. It only gets worse with the "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." bit, and "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'" is also worrisome. While I don't think it's a prerequisite for users to create mainspace articles or bring them up to FA, FL, or GA prior to becoming admins, the fact that Floquenbeam isn't really even focusing much on the pages that make up the heart of what Wikipedia is known for is a red flag for me when Wikipedians above all else are here to work on those. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose: I have never participated in an RfA before so apologies in advance for any mistakes. I agree with the comments above, including but not limited to SNUGGUMS, Bilorv, Leaky caldron, RoySmith, and SoWhy. Harassment and toxicity should be taken seriously. Boasting about saying "fuck you" to an editor and not apologizing is not a great look. It looks even worse when combined with the "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." statement which implies to me that the individual is not open to taking constructive criticism or having constructive conversations with other editors. The strikethrough joke "feel free to hassle those opposes" is an odd choice with all of this in mind; everyone has different approaches to humor, but this seemed unnecessary given the greater context at hand. Again, I have never participated on an RfA before and my opinion probably counts very little, but I thought I should voice it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose While the candidate's career has obviously benefited Wikipedia in the past, the actions shown during the debacle were extremely rash, heated and emotional reactions, which is not what I would expect is required from an admin. If you disobeyed your boss you'd get fired in real life, so why is it fine for admins to "go rogue"? There are plenty of people waiting in the wings who I'd expect wouldn't be as cavalier in their decisions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to talk. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose No personal experience with the candidate but based on the candidate's editing history i can't endorse the vote. Previous behavior are a reason for concern with this candidate. Also the candidates writing in the RfA is a reason for doubt, as in: "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." Candidate plans to continue not being very active. HM Wilburt (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose I hovered a bit before deciding to oppose. One thing that we as regular editors go to administrators for is conflict resolution and for that to be performed with any sort of efficacy we expect admins to carefully evaluate the situation and determine the best course of action even if it is not necessarily the right one. Floq's actions in the whole sorry Fram saga has a lot of moral support behind it, mine included, however the worst outcomes can arise from the best of intentions and that's what we ended up with. Furthermore, having a self admitted decline in tolerance and an increase in grumpiness is precisely why I can't support a resysop. We want conflict resolution not conflict evolution. Blackmane (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Reluctant oppose there are plenty of reasons to support (1) His history shows a long term editor and admin who has made a major contribution to the project, clearly a net positive. (2) While I don't agree with his judgment re fram, I agree with his apparent motives in what was an unusual factual circumstance that is, I hope, unlikely to recur. (3) I think he has shown good judgment in seeking community approval in the very specific circumstances for him to regain the tools. Contrary to the suggestion above, the WMF is not the boss, but rather admins are appointed by the community through this RFA process, which continues to function despite its obvious defects. If an admin is to be removed, that is a role for ARBCOM, which itself is appointed by the community. What pushed me into the oppose section though was his answers above that show a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the project. While I can understand why that may be, I feel compelled to oppose an RFA put on that footing. Regardless of whether this passes or fails, I would sugggest taking a break & seeing what falls from ARBCOM involvement. Find bruce (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Reviewed editor history. Think we're better as is. →StaniStani 07:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose I think Bilorv stated it best... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak oppose I can see why Floquenbeam (and come to think of it, WJBScribe [sp?]) did what they did - someone compared the unblocks/undesysops to civil disobedience and that seems like a fitting comparison - but I think that more caution was warranted during the Fram business especially since we don't know exactly what has happened and why. I think I've seen these "deescalation unblocks" before and I did not get the impression that they actually deescalate things, rather that they kick cans down the road. More importantly, Bilorv's points about this not being an one off occurrence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose - A rush to escalate rather than de-escalate during the Fram affair, taking immediate action rather than establishing the facts and building consensus, which made this much more of an issue than it might have been. Essentially wheel-warring, which would have been unacceptable in any editor, and even more so in an admin, who are expected to use good judgement. An approach to wiki editing in general that at times is uncollegial at best and combatative at worst. Certainly an approach to this RFA that assumes pretty much unconditional support and doubles down on behaviour that would be questionable at best in an editor seeking their first RFA. Spokoyni (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm, what consensus exactly? @Spokoyni: AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 11:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose per Pudeo’s convincing comment. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose I don't know Floq, so mine is not a personal valutation, only an outside look, based almost on what I'm expecting from a wikiadmin. Is about equilibrium, neutrality, lack of arrogance. I don't really care what happened, who is right and who is wrong in Fram's debacle and the following resignation of the admins as a whole. What I saw was not a reasoned and valued thought, but a hasty gesture, an opposition, a useless arm wrestling as if to demonstrate who decides. For me, this is not a way to protect the community, but an excessive personalization. And an admin is not a "special" user. --Camelia (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. The rash actions that led to Floquenbeam losing adminship are characteristic of Wikipedia's historically worst admins. Deli nk (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - Fundamentally, reversing an office action so quickly, while little information and context is known, is, as others have pointed out, not the act of deescalation we expect from our admins. Recall that even waiting as long as he did was only after several community members rather forcefully contended for him to give some time for WMF to respond, over his initial judgement. I am not necessarily a fan of all the WMF's decisions in the Fram case - particularly the lack of due process - but a unilateral overturning of an office action is not the appropriate way to respond. I recognize the WMF's early responses were frustratingly vague, and many people were upset precisely at the lack of ability to judge context and reasoning. Nonetheless, Floquenbeam's unilateral reversal was not the appropriate course of action at that time. Office actions, like our policies, cannot be overridden because one does not agree with them. I do not think a single action necessarily needs to be the final word on one's overall fitness for adminship, but as long as he stands by it, it must be given its place. Iridescent's comments in the neutral section (currently #12) also capture important thoughts. MarginalCost (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. Temperament concerns worry me. Also, this is definitely one of those things where, if someone was up for an RFA for the first time and admitted to being grumpy, getting into conflicts, and not wanting to change, they would absolutely not get the position. This isn't just a FRAM thing, it's about wanting RFA to do actions that are net beneficial for Wikipedia rather than giving someone the tools back if they made good contributions in the past. Gilded Snail (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose: Sometimes seems to go off half-cocked and play favorites. I was disappointed in his administration prior to FRAMGATE and my oppose vote should not be taken as an opinion on FRAMGATE or on Floq's role in FRAMGATE. pbp 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Two experiences with micro-second retaliations from the nom make it impossible for me to put any credence in the "well-thought out" defenses gloriously presented by supporters. The culture of admins scratching each other's backs in a framework of superiority to reg users even demonstrated in recent edits is stomach-churning and has to end someday, somehow (and *that* is a "principle", too!). With a distaste to edit mainspace I'm wondering if the nom w/ retire if stripped of his bits (he wouldn't be the first admin to do so). Ego explains all. --IHTS (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose – Floquenbeam certainly has a robust record as administrator; the recent Fram incident does not affect my vote. However, the nomination statement is strident, wrapped in a rather dismissive 'I am what I am'-esque framing. Unfortunately, the introspection doesn't appear suggestive of a willingness to improve, but rather as a reluctance to change, and explicitly so: "I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf". I don't equate "grumpiness" with candidness, and the temperament expressed is contrary to what I'd desire in dispute resolution or from an admin in general. Bilorv precisely sums up my other thoughts. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose someone who "intentionally added to the drama". Admins should be diplomatic, level-headed, and good at defusing problems, not proud of inflaming difficult situations. Some oppose votes above have explained other problems with the notorious unblock and the nomination statement as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. While the self-nomination and answers to questions have been entertaining, I had refrained from participating because I did not want to get suckered into becoming part to an ongoing wikidrama time sink which the self-nominee seems happy to have helped generate and prolong. Wikipedia doesn't need this and neither does the admin corps: we're janitors and cops with duties to perform, not status mongers with special privileges. – Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting the irony that any admin who thinks they're a cop is a status monger. ——SerialNumber54129 10:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  83. Oppose. My !vote is not based on the FRAM affair which I followed closely, because I consider that to be such an exceptional case. Whatever anyone did, I don’t think they acted in bad faith and there is very little likelihood of a similar situation arising in future. Also I admire Floquenbeam’s decision to come back to RfA and determine whether there is a consensus on his resuming the admin role. My position is based on his nomination statement. For those who know him it may come across as uncontroversial, but it seems pretty odd to me. He says WYSIWYG, I’m a bit sweary, I’m not that active, and I’m not going to bother answering some of the standard questions. This amounts to little more than writing ‘well you know who I am’. He has said something about where his editing interests lie but overall I’m unclear what he intends to do in future as an admin. When I go to his user page I see a big banner saying ‘Meh’ where some editors post a ‘Retired’ notice, and a userbox saying (humorously?) ‘This user was an administrator, but ultimately wanted not to be one some day.’ Mixed feelings are entirely understandable after the bruising experience of recent weeks, but none of this points me clearly to renewed energy and purpose. Having watched many previous committed and hard-working candidates founder at RfA after trying their hardest to convince us of their abilities, self-awareness, and scope for development, I really don’t feel I can support this self-nomination which I regret to say feels almost casual. Mccapra (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose The responses to questions are disconcerting. cygnis insignis 16:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. (Moved from support.) There have been contradicting statements made regarding the timeline of Floq's unblock of Fram, so I diff'd it on the talk page–that's where the diffs are that back up my statements below.
    • I generally think Floq has been an above-average admin (I gave him an admin barnstar in May). The promise not to reverse an office action again, combined with Q8, was enough to make me initially support. But the answers to Q12 and Q13 shook my confidence. I would have expected something like, "I made the best decision I could have, in an urgent, high-stakes situation, based on incomplete information", but instead, he says he carefully considered the pros and cons of doing so, and quadruple checked that [he] hadn’t missed anything. Well, Floq missed that it was midnight in San Fran when Fram made their first statement, and that it was 5am in San Fran when Floq announced his intention to unblock based on the WMF not saying "more" in response to that statement. Floq gave the WMF only three hours (9am–12pm) to respond, even in the face of over a dozen editors asking him to wait. He asked Arbcom to weigh in, but didn't wait for them to do so, even when an arbitrator asked him to wait to give them time. Floq unblocked 12 minutes after the WMF's second statement because it didn't satisfy his concerns. But AFAIK, he never asked the WMF any questions or ever said what information he wanted from them, besides "to say more". He didn't wait for community input, or ask follow-ups to the WMF. It had been only 26 hours after Fram was blocked at this point. Floq didn't sleep on it. He didn't wait a day. I don't agree that this is "careful".
    • More than what was said in Q12 and Q13, I was concerned by what wasn't said:
      • He didn't say he personally checked Fram's contribs – he said others did so. At the time, Floq said he was unblocking because he assumed everything in Fram's statement was true and the WMF didn't say more. I'm not sure that Floq ever actually investigated Fram's conduct before unblocking.
      • He didn't mention his previous theory that Floq Fram was banned by the WMF to silence Fram's criticism of the WMF [1] [2] [3]
      • He didn't say anything at all about the editors who were hurt by Fram and/or complained to T&S. This is why I asked Q16. I expected the predictable, "There are editors with legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, but by the proper process, and I'm glad Arbcom is looking into it and can take appropriate action." The answer given was unexpected.
    • Floq wrote that he was resigning because of the contempt shown by the WMF [4] [5] [6]. I feel he has shown contempt in his nomination statement and his answer to Q16.
    • Two more Floq quotes that stick out for me: Civil disobedience with no potential cost isn’t civil disobedience, it’s whining. [7] and if I had 20 people I respected telling me "we love you, Floq, but Jesus just dial it down some", I'd listen. [8]. I don't think Floq listened then, and I don't think he is listening now.
    • I agree with Nick's statement on the talk page [9] that whatever one thinks of the unblock, Floq has handled this RfA poorly, and that a future RfA, with a different attitude (e.g., "agree or disagree with the unblock, give me the bit so I can go back to doing admin stuff"), would receive my support. But this RfA, with this nom statement and those answers, I must oppose. – Levivich 19:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that "theory that Floq was banned by the WMF to silence Fram's criticism of the WMF" is not at all an accurate description of what I see in the diffs (I see those comments as focused on the bad optics/process of the block). Levivich might want to consider whether to strike the statement or provide better diffs for it. Nemo 10:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemo, "banned by the WMF to silence Fram's criticism of the WMF" is based on these statements:
    • Be very clear: they singled out Fram, and not one of 5 dozen other rude people. Ignoring other unprovable theories, this is because he is a thorn in their side for opposing a lot of their technical decisions. [10]
    • I think of this as "Mt. Potential Corruption". WMFOffice chose, as their very first target using a dramatically expanded scope, someone who relentlessly criticized WMF actions, who apparently made a friend of a WMF board member uncomfortable, and who was rude to people in power ... this isn't protecting people being harassed; this is removing a gadfly. [11]
    • Complain, and they will find a way to remove you under false pretexts. [12] – Levivich 15:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Levivich, when you wrote about Floq's theory that "Floq was banned by the WMF to silence Fram's criticism of the WMF" did you mean "Fram was banned by the WMF to silence Fram's criticism of the WMF"?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, yes, thank you for pointing that out. Fixed. – Levivich 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose per Levivich and others. I don't feel comfortable handing back the mop now, no matter how well Floq handled it in the past. We need calm, even-handed admins who value WP:CIV, not someone still aggrieved on behalf of his faction. TOOSOON. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Due to Egregious abuse of the tools. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose I simply do not trust Floquenbeam's judgement. It is well known that admins cannot overturn office actions, and attempting to do so in the circumstances here was particularly inflammatory and ill-considered. The arrogant tone they are taking in this RfA is also unacceptable, and suggests that they've learnt nothing from this experience. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Sadly, I must Oppose. Regardless of ones political position regarding the acts of the Foundation, the following two things are true: 1) Floq behaved and reacted emotionally and served to escalate rather than de-escalate an extremely volatile situation, which is the opposite of what we want out of administrators, and 2) Floq broke what is effectively the most bright of bright lines: overturning office actions. Those two things along make them unfit for the role, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose per Levivich and Leaky. The answers to some of the questions combined such as Q16 with the actions Floq took have me doubting their judgement. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this diff which has been mentioned in oppose above. While I understand the intent it seemed a bit pointy. Overall I'm left questioning Floq's judgement. Given that judging consensus is one of the main roles of admins I must oppose. PaleAqua (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I would really to support just can't convince myself to !vote as neutral or support, I think it is important that concerns are heard. While I have concerns to some of the answer a lot of the statement is good. To the closer please count this as neutral if the close is borderline, as the being a sysop is WP:NOBIGDEAL. PaleAqua (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Went looking at contribs from before recent events ( May 2019 and earlier ) and have to reaffirm oppose. PaleAqua (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Rashly overturning an office action is not something I expect admins to do. Creating a giant fiasco, later "resigning" as a ploy to get the WMF to listen to the demands of you and others, and then crawling back to ask for adminship immediately after you get what you want, is being WP:HIGHMAINTENANCE; not a good quality. They say they don't really work in article space and don't plan to anymore; the expanding divide between those who work on articles and those who turn into professional critics/managers on noticeboards is not something I want to encourage. The candidate also says they have little enthusiasm for the project, doesn't plan to be very active, and doesn't explain what area they plan to use the tools in (completely refusing to answer the standard questions). This reeks of WP:Hat collecting and the idea that adminship is a status symbol that is deserved forever after having earned it once before. Modulus12 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Regretful Oppose - I deliberately waited until the last minute to voice my opinion on this. I have seen you around the project a bit, and you seem like a good editor. However, I feel a bit dissatisfied with some of the answers to the questions, especially the last one. That being said, I do see potential in you, so don't take most of these oppose comments personally. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Floquenbeam seems to divide the wiki-world into those who count and those who do not (source: 26 July 2019). At the beginning of this RfA, I asked that he answer the standard questions like everybody else. The lack of response shows that for Floq, anyone who does not know their history is part of the group of those who do not count. I would ask that those who *do* count this vote (i.e. Bureaucrats, who count, by definition) do not discard it out of hand. I suggest Floq' try again in 6 months or 1 year and rethink their philosophy that there are opinions that do not count. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose I'm sorry but this request page doesn't provide enough evidence why the user should be appointed as admin. The Fram event is probably just a one time event and I'd rather not judge Floquenbeam on that, but there is nothing else here to judge this request. I think the onus should be on the user to demonstrate why he/she should be admin, but Floquenbeam doesn't even answer the three standard questions. I disagree with Floquenbeam's statement that "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 don't have any image of Floquenbeam and I do want to weigh evidence before supporting. Without anything presented to support the case, I unfortunately decide to oppose. HaEr48 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @HaEr48: Your comment can be summarised, "I don't know the guy so I will oppose". FYI, Floq has been an admin for several years, his contribiutions as mop wielder are readily available at two mouse clicks, so requiring him to respond to newbie questions like "What do you want to do as an admin" sounds a bit silly to me. If you haven't come across a particular editor, perhaps the best approach would be to research him/her before !voting? — kashmīrī TALK 15:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashmiri: Shouldn't the onus be on the requester to provide evidence or at least an initial point for research, rather than asking hundreds of potential !voters to find that evidence? I don't think those are silly questions - all other admin candidates need to answer them, right? As a comparison, in another current RfA, the candidate did answer those questions and it did gave me evidence of his/her contribution and justification for needing admin tools. HaEr48 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some language included in the candidate's statement or responses to early questions give evidence of over-reliance on autoritah by potty-mouth...
    • I said "fuck you" to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized.
    • I'm too old for that shit
    • it was pretty much a dick move on my part
    • my memory sucks
    • Oh crap... oh double crap, that wasn't just one loon... oh triple crap with cherries on top
    • This would make zero sense if (yada yada yada see above)
    I think this is a problem, in addition to the diff I provided of considering some !voters as being people who don't count. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. If it was just the Fram issue, I don't think I'd be opposing (unique circumstances and all that). But I'm getting a strong sense of 'I do what I do, take me or leave me' from the candidate statement, I'd be happier with some signs of reflection and enthusiasm. The Land (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose reverting an office action was an abuse of power. They have lost my trust that they will in future use their admin tools appropriately. Polyamorph (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Bilorv's statement covers my thoughts fairly well. stwalkerster (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose People who come here to concatenate human knowledge may be scratching their heads as to exactly why untold hundreds of thousands or even millions of words have been expended on Framgate, especially when much has been said already about WMF's disconnect from the communities it hosts. Let's put things in proper perspective. Breitbart's story on Framgate managed to generate only 233 comments. Their story on Alyssa Milano's throwaway tweet about next year's U.S. presidential election, a story which is 10 days newer, garnered 13,620 comments. It's a little too obvious that some people are here just to bloviate about administrivia and could care less about content. What's really appalling is that these editors refer to this sort of activity as "writing an encyclopedia", knowing full well that the real world isn't applying any checks and balances because they could care less (as the above example amply demonstrates). If you honestly believe that we're anywhere near close to being "the sum of all human knowledge" or that the project's maturity in that regard is commensurate with the fact that it's been around for 18 years, you're fooling yourself. Period, end of discussion. I would be a lot more active contributor if not for the attitudes I see: the attitude that Wikipedia is just fine if it looks a certain way and if it happens to have sources of some sort, rather than being a concerted effort to present the most credible information on a topic backed by the most credible sources (including GAs being passed and links to the main page being approved for content heavy on fanboy sources lacking evidence of fact-checking, solely on account of how prettily the articles are formatted); the attitude that plainly notable topics really aren't notable if the basis of their notability is firmly rooted in the 19th or 20th centuries; the attitude that there are really two Wikipedias, with battleground topics being open to vigorous scrubbing"collaboration" and everything else being merely some individual editor's vanity project (as evidenced by the prevalence of this "my article" bullshit, also evidenced by the fact that large portions of the encyclopedia are no longer being properly maintained, enabling the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out"-type deletionists to have a field day); the attitude that those who have done the heavy lifting in content areas are "second-class editors"; the attitude that it's okay for small groups of editors to hijack project areas and in some cases entire namespaces; and so on and so forth. And what is Floq saying here? That's it's all about the admin bit, and that regaining the admin bit is all about the predictable pattern of Wikilawyering in the Framgate affair. Sorry, not buying the notion that all this Wikilawyering justifies a return to the same old same old and staying the course of mediocrity. We have project pages wherein we express a view that no one is indispensible, including one which was just reaffirmed as a valid viewpoint over at MFD, so perhaps it's time to walk that talk. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose - I've had very little interaction with this editor, and to be frank, I didn't pay much attention to the "Fram" issue. So what I know of both has been gleaned through this RfA. Many editors who I respect and trust are in the support group, but Floq's statements in his self-nomination must give any editor pause. The several interactions other editors have linked to show a tendency for Floq to have a knee jerk reaction, which is not something one expects in an admin. Finally, his expected of any RfA participant, after volunteering to put oneself through the process simply cement the concept that he should not be given the mop back at this time.Onel5969 TT me 04:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose - Unblock of Fram, besides being against policy, was not a good idea for what should have been obvious reasons. Fram was re-blocked at their own request because of said obvious reason. Inflaming the situation did more harm than good. Kees08 (Talk) 06:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose- Dismissive attitude and lack of humility in nom statement doesn't bode well for someone trying to regain respect from the community. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose - In a (confirmation) RfA that was originally destined to pass without much concerns, the sheer arrogance expressed in the terrible nomination statement (that are acknowledged by some in the supporting columns as well) is appalling, especially since the candidate appears to have no interest in any introspection.
    The candidate's behaviour in this entire Fram ordeal was explicitly a combination of being pointy, soapbox and righting great wrongs (by the T&S), some of the most common issues that administrators regularly warn ordinary editors not to do. The unblocking of Fram was not only practically pointless, it also exposed Fram to the potential global ban threat by T&S (as they later accidentally made an edit after the threat). All of these unnecessary and disruptive escalation took place while some folks are already following the correct path by getting members of the board involved in this extraordinary situation. What the candidate did was yet again contradictory to how many administrators treat ordinary editors when they are being blocked, telling them to follow WP:GAB regardless whether or not the block is justified in the first place.
    Both of these arguably colossal mistakes took place while the candidate never knew the full story behind the ban (and continues to make wild speculations in answer to Q16), and I don’t really think this is completely out of character. From my personal interaction history with the candidate, my impression is that they seem to operate in their own set of rules (as evident in their repeated joking reference to an eventual desysop), and they enjoy taking the role as a “voice of reason” that has the support of the “community”, when in this RfA it is evident that it is not something they have in their possession. While many of us are unfortunately part of the same hypocrisy (as a nod to Iridescent's previously neutral comment), I think more opposition to this nomination would be a positive thing to do, in the context of deterring more administrators from forming into a group of “super-admin” that can seemingly act with impunity, so here I am. Alex Shih (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex, so the civil population of Honkers would have done better to get Carrie Lam to back down on the extradition bill by using established measures?Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nishidani: Not precisely a relevant example, but the Hong Kongers are better off continuing with their protest and gaining more international attention/eventual intervention rather than having one single elected official in Hong Kong to unilaterally declare Mainland China has no business in meddling with Hong Kong. That's how I would compare in your hypothetical comparison. Alex Shih (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex, the user could not "follow WP:GAB"; the ban/block was unappealable. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex is 100% on-point about the issue of unblockable "super-admins". Just look up this page and you can see: badgering, swearing, insults directed at the oppose voters, "jokes" about hassling the opposition. This is redolent of the idea that there is a sub-set of editors who really "own" Wikipedia and who can get away with bad behaviour that anyone else would be punished for. FOARP (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have either missed what RGW, a content-policy, says by ~ 100% or else is intentionally twisting it to apply in wildly different spheres. Also, the block was un-appealable which seems to have escaped your attention. Also having support of ~75% of the community is quite enough though I agree that folks with around 60% shall be turned town lest they turn out to be your reincarnation. ~ Winged BladesGodric 12:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if it is my phrasing, but I thought I was clearly talking about the necessity of "following procedure" by using the perspective of a regular situation as a comparison. In a unappealable office action like this one, the correct procedure was to get somebody in higher position (the board) involved, which was eventually done and helped us to move forward (in delegating the decision back to ArbCom).
    That unfortunately was not what the candidate did; they decided that they are beyond procedures, and it is my belief that we should not be righting great wrongdoings (by the T&S in this case) by doing wrongdoings ourselves (against policy and procedure) as it erodes the position of the community, and I am being very literal here. If every administrator responds to unjust situations like the candidate did, then we are not far from diminishing into a state of anarchy. Alex Shih (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose - Gave this a lot of thought, but going to have to end up here sadly. The 'Fram thing' doesn't hugely bother me either way because it seems like such an outlier. What bothers me primarily is a nomination statement and answers to questions that appear to show contempt for the process and, to a certain extent, for Wikipedia itself. I don't believe any normal candidate with these stats and this nomination statement would pass, and the willingness to apply double standards concerns me. I am also in agreement with a lot of the well-argued oppose !votes above. Hugsyrup 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose I don't think it's sensible to make somebody an admin to make a point; and I also think that the candidate's self-description of flaws (which I appreciate the inclusion of in the self-nomination) covers why they shouldn't be an admin right now. Ralbegen (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose (moved from neutral). I am never going to support a reconfirmation RFA of any kind but usually stick to neutral, to show that I acknowledge while the attention-seeking may be done with the best of intentions I do not wish to reward it. And I hardly ever oppose an RFA, because I believe a) it's not anywhere near as hard a role as people pretend it is, b) we're all far too precious about it, and c) if anyone does properly fuck up being an admin they can be desysopped. Basically, No Big Deal. In this case the more I read from Floq, the more I am convinced that while in this instance, Floq knowingly reversed an Office action (which is a pretty definitive example of fucking up being an admin and so should be desysopped for a protracted period of time), there is more. To wit, I am increasingly starting to suspect from the attitude displayed in the nomination statement that Floq's unblocking of Fram can be less ascribed to a deep and burning sense of injustice than it can be to attention-seeking. To me, this means that not only should the result be a loss of admin rights but that loss should be very long-term. Fish+Karate 10:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Apologies to Iridescent, but the first half of what they wrote in their reluctant support lands me here (I do not know the basis for the second half). Good wishes to Floq regardless, but this is all a string of poor judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose I did not have a problem with this editor's actions unblocking FRAM. However, if someone is going to ask the community for adminship, then I think they should follow the usual process for doing so. I can't work out, from the self-nom statement, what administrative work they intend to do, except perhaps "block vandals well before the required 4 warnings of increasing severity". I also can't work out what they believe their best contributions were - not writing articles? Not apologising? Making some enemies from trying to solve disputes at AN/ANI? Being grumpy? That's what the self-nom statement tells me. As for "What you saw is what you'll get", that assumes familiarity on the part of editors voting in this RfA, not a genuine intention to participate fully and openly in this process, which any other editor would be expected to do. So this is an Oppose based on a rather 'meh' attitude, and a distinct lack of enthusiasm, for the application process, as other Opposing editors have also said. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose - there are good arguments in both the oppose and support column, and while I appreciate the actions Floquenbeam took during the FRAM situation (which is not over yet), the concerns here (which go beyond just what happened around the block of Fram) are too much for me to support or to stay neutral. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose per the reasoning of a number of others above. Desertborn (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - at least until Floquenbeam answers the question on whether they've ever edited for pay. Note that answering that question is a requirement for becoming an admin according to WP:Admin. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Struck my !vote. He has answered the question. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose - Not the best fit. CLCStudent (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose: I agree that there are good arguments in both the oppose and support column for this candidate. Therefore is a very week oppose. Indeed if their is any consensus it is that of mixed feelins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Unhappy Oppose. Well... with more than 300 supports and 100 opposes, this has certainly been a well attended RFA. I, like everyone, originally assumed this RFA was a forgone conclusion as Floq is a well known admin with a lot of community good will. Well... at the zeroth hour, I feel like I have nothing to lose by actually saying something meaningful.
    Much like valereee have no clue as to whether or not what Floq did by reversing an office action was truly justified in any way. Here is what I do know: I did not feel safe writing anything in WP:FRAM that would mark me as a WMF shill and only wrote there in the vaguest of terms. I saw a lot of users I had come to respect throwing incivility under the bus to protect an admin who once told Arbcom to screw off (problematic to say the least).
    The WMF ban was really poorly communicated, but I don't think the unblock was at all justified. Take a look at Levivich's oppose timeline, you'll see there was less than clear consensus for that move. If this RFA is truely a referendum on that one action alone, then I firmly consider myself with the opposing camp.
    As far as fatal flaws are concerned, let me talk about myself for a bit. A highly respectable user recently told me not to give up on becoming an admin. My response was that I was too impulsive and prone to drama, and until I sorted that out I would only bring the project into disrepute. This is where I feel sympathy for Floq the most. Floquenbeam is capable of acting decisively and rapidly, and nine times out of ten it is justified. That's still a 10% error rate. However, I have no doubts in my mind that the way this RFA was conducted and the decision to unblock Fram are just two examples of him falling short.
    He's a real great admin when it comes to patrolling AIV and AN/I. I know several users who are extremely grateful for Floq's presence on these forums as an important administrative voice. It's no doubt a slight to this project for him to not be present in these tasks anymore, but I think this community can manage. We are all replaceable at the end of the day; even those perceived as the best of us.
    Unlike a few users, I will say two things: (1) this RFA was completely necessary, and (2) the lack of mainspace contributions is still not an issue for me. For the first point, this RFA helped expose a clear divide that is still prevalent in this community about civility. For the second, we all have our roles to play, and Floq's simply just isn't writing good articles or fixing typos.
    I started this oppose off by saying I thought that Floq's RFA was a foregone conclusion. The reason being for this is that he's part of the old guard (or at least been around the block), and I thought that few users would challenge one of our most respected admins in such a public setting. The fact that some support votes (including from administrators) are simply just attacks on these individuals is appaling to me and clearly should be discounted. There are genuine concerns for how Floq just completely dismissed the standard RFA process in exchange for: "You all know me. Let's not waste our time." If you are going to ask the community to reconfirm you, then actually ask them.
    ...And if you want a given candidate to succeed then gosh darn it say the freaking reason why at this point!! Jeez.
    I started off my participation in this RFA asking why choose to self-nom and was very delighted with the response. @Floquenbeam: If this nomination goes south, I sincerely hope that is still on the table. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Edit: appalling not appealing; words are hard 17:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that some support votes (including from administrators) are simply just attacks on these individuals is appealing to me and clearly should be discounted. - Examples, please. ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: Mostly just referring to these two: [13][14] Thank you for the talk back –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The mostly comes from the one user who's only indication of support was per Black Kite. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversation continued at User talk:MJL#Talkback –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose Based a lot on what JulianColton said but also I just can't support this in good conscience. Sysops are human, as we all are, but I expect a higher level of decorum and maturity than has been exhibited during the Fram drama. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose reluctantly. I think the candidate has been a good admin, by and large, but for reasons demonstrated by Juliancolton and Blackmane, among others, i fall here. Darn it. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose - First off, if any crats want this to focus on the Fram issue, please consider this vote back in the neutral section. I don't think Floq helped anything there, but the mishandling of that situation by the office makes it hard to support any long-term penalty on this sort of response to it. This oppose isn't about that. I've continued to consider my vote here after landing in the neutral section below a few days ago. Yesterday I spent far more time than I should have digging through past discussions, trying to make sure my impression of Floq doesn't reflect a skewed sample. I'm satisfied it does not. I also read through the rest of the supports and opposes, both of which raise some pretty good points. At the end of the day, Floq gets things done. He is a competent, active admin whose service I value. I tend to find the outcomes of Floq's adminning desirable far more often than not. The thing is, I also expect to see from Floq, more than I do any other admin I can think of, angry-seeming, sometimes rash, and often profanity-laden comments/decisions. One could argue his actions regarding Fram fall into one of these categories, but again, my oppose isn't specifically because of that. Nobody expects or wants admins to be robotic, so I'm also not saying an occasional emotional response or f-bomb should be a deal-breaker. That it seems so frequent is the problem. If Floq indicated (even now!) any kind of interest to change any of this behavior to lead by example, rather than -- on this page as elsewhere -- seemingly doubling down on it, I wouldn't be in this section. It pains me to be in this section, when I actually really appreciate a lot of what Floq does, and with some many people I like and respect in the support section, but I couldn't get over feeling like a hypocrite if I ends-justify-the-means supported when this behavior would lead me to oppose at any other RfA. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  116. no . Undid an office action and seems to enjoy the drama. Not interested in the project except as being its cop. Arrogant attitude throughout. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user last edited on 26 June 2017. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that the observation on last time editing isn't potential a valid consideration for the 'crats, but have support and neutral voices been checked for recent editing activity as well? N.J.A. | talk 18:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I have not done so in any kind of rigorous way, but I have checked any names I have seen come up with which I am not familiar. I assume other editors have done the same, it's not unusual to do so in a controversial RfA. I have seen no other accounts whicdh raised any flags. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: You must've missed Kobnach, not just the bigger gap but the rather interesting history at RfAs generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be wholly surprised if a single one of them has got away with not being CUd by this stage of the game. ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. ...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]
    ...And back to "neutral". I have an understanding of (and a bit of sympathy/empathy with) the nominee's answer to Q7 (specifically the portion pertaining to their lower article-namespace edit percentage compared to other namespaces) to a point where I cannot justifiably "oppose" ... but still cannot "support" due to the reason I stated in my now-retracted "oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)Moving to Support. StrikerforceTalk 15:29, 26 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]
    Through inertia, indifference, or on purpose, or a combination of these, the lack of a satisfactory response from the WMF caused a quick and unpleasant reaction in the community. I know that it discouraged me from editing. Displays of power are always unpleasant. What makes them even worse in this case is the paid employees/unpaid volunteers dichotomy that exists between the community and WMF. Floq's actions gave some hope to me, and, I imagine, others. Dr. K. 23:00, 28 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 — <b Ched :  ?  — 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    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) will move to oppose --IHTS (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Hard to imagine this RfA passing on any other basis than personal feeling re the nom. It looks like the nom structured it that way since opening statement is essentially: "Don't give a frick re editing mainspace, got a poor attitude, don't care & won't improve, take me or leave me, I really gave the WMF the finger didn't I - hah!" It seems like the RfA is an in-your-face challenge to deny or fail it. When faced w/ a discomforting ultimatum in RL, a good personal policy is always to reject it. --IHTS (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Bilorv's (now struck) neutral !vote. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    Switched to oppose. Fish+Karate 10:44, 29 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]
  4. 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]
    moved to supportIve 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Neutral -- CptViraj (📧) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support 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]
    Neutral (Switched to oppose) 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]
    (moved to oppose) Woefully ambivalent - In general, if I find I'm neutral on an RfA, I just don't vote. In this case, "neutral" doesn't quite capture the extent to which I've gone back and forth, returning to this discussion multiple times over the last couple days.
    I can't bring myself to support because independent of the Framban context, Floq has a pronounced inclination to brashness in the pursuit of what he feels is right. More so than just about any active admin I can think of. I think the ability to lead by example is far more important than a lot of the other things we look for at RfA. We're all human, of course, and make mistakes, but "brash" is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think of Floq. Overturning an office action was seriously problematic, not to mention disruptive to already painful discourse, but the circumstances were so unusual that it's less of a factor for me than it is, perhaps, for some others. There are also several good points made above about e.g. disinterest in mainspace, but that too is less of a factor for me.
    All of this said, I can't bring myself to oppose either because, brash as he may be, Floq is an experienced, highly active admin with typically good judgment, willing to take on difficult cases/people/situations and get things done. Floq is unquestionably passionate and dedicated to this project. So although most of this comment is negative, I actually have a great deal of respect for Floq. Hence, woefully ambivalent. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral – Honestly, I was leaning towards "Support", until I came across some of the concerns posted by other admins and experienced users. While I feel that Floquenbeam is seen by many as a great admin, some of their recent actions are causing me to question whether or not his admin rights should be restored at this time. I feel that unblocking Fram was the wrong move and that Floquenbeam should take this as a lesson on avoiding wheel-warring from that spat; that being said, some of his recent comments (including a couple in this RfA) are seriously concerning for someone seeking the restoration of their admin rights, following the extremely chaotic crisis that was Framgate and their involvement in the matter. Until Floquenbeam addresses the concerns that have been raised above and indicate that he's been able to recover mentally/emotionally from the recent drama that was Framgate, I'll stay in this camp for now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflicted Neutral. There are plenty of people I respect on all sides of this debate. In retrospect, I didn't put as much thought into this discussion as it originally deserved. In all honesty, I would have been better off by not voting. Not !voting? Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0)
    I did the math out, and if I switched to oppose based off the answer to question 16 (AKA. 16⅔), then Floq would go down a whole percentage point. I don't want the guilt of the nomination going down that much. However, by switching to neutral, I safely do not change the current results by much more than 0.1%. I just don't feel comfortable being in the support column after that answer per Newslinger, and this is where I landed.
    Floq does good work for the most part. Honestly, I don't care one bit about the lack of mainspace contributions. Being a great admin means blocking vandals before they get the chance to have revertible mainspace edits (normally because they received a level 4 warning already). Floq does that part of being an admin well in my opinion.
    I'm just concerned about the message it sends to the users who don't feel safe on this project for me to haphazardly cast a !vote before I have all the facts straight.
    Sorry.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)    [reply]
    Moving to oppose –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral and also Woefully ambivalent I find the reasoning and rationale of Iridescent persuasive here as a justification for neutrality. I usually like Floq, over the years he has often been a solid admin, even when I have disagreed with him. I particularly think that some of the opponents who oppose this RfA (and other RfAs) based on something someone did years ago or oppose because they are still miffed that they personally were called on their crap is just silly. Admins have to have a spine; they have to be willing to be unpopular. Floq has that willingness and courage at times. Further, Floq’s “original sin” of reversing an office action can be explained as being caught up in a rush of emotion, and as such is forgivable. BUT...I also see a lot of the supporters weighing in as support for Floq being equivalent to further support of Fram and feeding the whole Framgate drama. As such, I cannot join that chorus. My own views on Fram and the WMF are known and need not be repeated. Here, I am concerned that Floq seems to downplay how very difficult Fram was, and the degree to which Fram abused the power he had as an admin; Fram at times really scared people with his over the top threats. So, for me, what is relevant is the question of how an admin would handle the “toxic” editor; particularly the “sure, he’s often correct, but he’s also positively vicious about it” editor. Until the WP community figures out how to tame these toxic editors so they can still contribute expertise, yet also nurture new editors through their mistakes, and also protect those who are victimized (or “feel” victimized)(a distinction without a difference unless it becomes a legal matter), these dramas will continue. We need competence. We also need compassion. Most of all, we need a fuse-switching circuit-breaker mechanism so that newbie editors whose emotions are running amok can be calmed, and so experienced people who escalate the way Fram did at times can get dialed back before they start swatting gnats with a sledgehammer. Admins, to some extent, need to be that circuit breaker, and too often they fail at this task. The world of WP at times has a Lord of the Flies feel to it, and yes, we DO need some grownups around. I could say more, but I’m tl;dr already, so will close. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I considered sitting this one out. I don't really support giving the bit back singularly based off the Fram action, in part because I think this RfA is a waste of time, the action itself created a lot of time-waste, and no desysopping (voluntary or otherwise) should have occurred in the first place. That being said, I have trust in Floquenbeam to do a good job the vast majority of the time, we need admins generally considering 99.9% of what happens here goes to contributing to the encyclopaedia, and so I don't want to oppose. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - In my experience and with my direct interactions with Floquenbeam, I believe that he/she is very dedicated to the project; he/she is on Wikipedia frequently (at least most of the time that I'm on Wikipedia), truly wants to do what's within their power to help contribute to its growth, expansion, and success, and does his/her best to have the interest of the community in mind when making administrative decisions and taking administrative actions. I also believe Floquenbeam to be a very friendly and likable person (at least towards me). :-) However, what surprised, shocked, and disappointed me, and what ultimately forces me to put my vote here as a 'neutral' instead of a 'support' was the administrative action he/she took that unblocked Fram, and in direct conflict and defiance of Wikipedia's policies (such as WP:CONEXCEPT and WP:OFFICE (revision before the events)) and the actions carried out by the Wikimedia Foundation Office. I understand that the actions carried out by the office were (and still are) very controversial, and that the response to these actions have prompted a high level of subsequent scrutiny, discussion, as well as changes to how the office communicates and handles these kinds of actions. The problem I have with the action that Floquenbeam took in response to the WMF office ban comes mostly from my personal thoughts and beliefs regarding the entire situation. I believe that harassment (including but not limited to the acts of bullying, threats of harm, stalking, outing of personal information, intimidation, etc) are a big problem here, and that it's a major contributor to the gender gap, the reason why people leave Wikipedia and retire, as well as the criticism that Wikipedia and the community receives from the public and those who speak out about it. With all that being said, I also believe that the Wikimedia Foundation office had enough irrefutable private evidence supporting the actions that they carried out against Fram (else they wouldn't have taken the unprecedented step and issued the temporary ban), and the reason that the office is not sharing this private evidence and is standing their ground about not doing so is for good reasons - to protect the identity of those who chose to come forward and report it, and possibly due the information shared in the harassment, and other legitimate reasons. Their actions against those who harass others will help to improve the project, its image seen by the public, and will put the statement out there that harassment is not okay and will not be tolerated. Floquenbeam's unblocking of Fram was without the permission of the WMF office, and performed despite lacking all relevant information and evidence that most likely would have impacted the discussion and possibly their decision to do this. Unfortunately, my vote must stand here and in the 'neutral zone'... I'm sorry. :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: I'm just going to plug this real neat script that Wumbolo made that lets you know an editor's preferred pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral it appears many editors have strong opinions here, but I do not. The encyclopedia will be fine whether or not Floq gets the bit back. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral per above. I am genuinely torn. GABgab 15:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral I was going to oppose because I believe WMF (and now ArbCom) knew more than they could say publicly about the Fram situation and the FRAM pages were a BLP nightmare for several editors who felt like they could no longer edit here in peace without vicious blowback that was completely undeserved. Threats were made, at least off-wiki. I haven't seen anyone apologize for their actions on that page which drove off some contributors. Floq's actions didn't help with this situation (which affected more people than just Fram) although he was hardly the loudest of the lot. I also do not think Floq entered into this RfA with the seriousness that an RfA deserves and his supporters probably assumed this would be an easy Pass. BUT Floq has also been a great asset as an admin with one of his stronger qualities, for good or ill, being his decisiveness and willingness to act. And I while I agree with several of the rationales of Oppose voters, I think, for me, Opposing to resysop a qualified admin seems pointy. So, like GAB, I am genuinely torn which results in me posting in the Neutral section. I just wish that Floq had waited a while longer before submitting himself to an RfA so the dust could settle a bit more on his Fram actions which just happened last month and so are fresh in all of our minds. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. My overall impression of Floquenbeam as an administrator is a good one; he understands our policies and guidelines and always tries to act within their spirit—even if it means that he must violate their letter, as he did in recent events. However, in this case, I think he made the wrong call. The reason why process exists is to instate order in a situation that is conducive to chaos, and I believed that this situation was extremely conducive to getting out of hand: emotions were understandably running high, there was a lot of reasonable confusion, and a lot of incomplete information was being broadcast. Against that context, I believe that his administrative actions created more chaos than order. He solidified the view that the ban of Fram was inherently wrong in a case where he did not and could not have all the facts. It may very well be the case that the ban of Fram was ill-conceived, but that decision is not to be made without access to additional information. As Floquenbeam has indicated he would make the same unblock again if time were turned backwards, I cannot support. Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral - First, I appreciate Floquenbeam bringing their adminship back to the community to review. Now with WP:FRAM, I was not impressed with the pouring of gas on fire. I'm glad that community discussion and action led to a review by the Board and it all being handed over to ArbCom; however, reverting office actions in the middle of it was a poor call in my eyes that did not improve the situation at all. From the nom it sounds like Floquenbeam isn't exactly rushing head over heels to do something of the same caliber anytime soon, and with Floquenbeam's respectable admin work over the years, I'm willing to move beyond all that...but it's how this RfA was handled that's holding me back from a support. I echo the general gist of Juliancolton's concerns with this RfA. I don't like that the first three questions were referred back to the nomination text, and the conspiracy vibe in the answer to Q16 makes me raise my eyebrows. I don't see myself getting mad or glad with either outcome of this RfA, and for that I sit on the fence. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:27, 29 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]
    Thanks Ajraddatz. This Rfa has been most challanging; your insight has been helpful. I also have concern about "the narrative" that Wikipedia will tolerate any amount of negative behaviour coming from established users. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 26 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]
@George Ho: you ruined the pattern lol. We were doing a bit. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a protest resignation? What's the point of it if the resigned admin "grudgingly accept" the situation after a while and then ask for a resysop? Should there be another problem in this future, the community's voice will be lessened because others will be more likely to think "Oh don't worry about those resignation, they will resysop soon anyway". HaEr48 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @HaEr48, there are certainly plenty of recent real-world equivalents of elected office-holders resigning or being forced from office, and immediately or shortly afterwards standing for re-election to see if with hindsight their electorate still retains trust in them. The 2016 Richmond Park by-election in England is a high-profile recent example. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, this is not "accepting the situation". The case has been forwarded to ArbCom, so the objective of protest has been achieved. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HaEr48: Iridescent and AhmadLX explain my own take pretty well. I didn't grudgingly accept the same situation that I resigned over; after many resigned, the WMF backed down. The "purpose of the protest resignation" was to affect change; after that change happened, I don't see how it is self defeating to request the admin bit back. If people in the future learn anything from this, it is that mass resignations did seem to work; no one requested a resysop before that change was achieved. The situation is still not what I think t should be - hence the "grudging", and hence the number of people who haven't come back yet - but for myself, it changed enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      re-signing to fix ping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    no one requested a resysop before that change was achieved. You did - on the 12 June. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, that's technically true, but that resysop request was a protest in the same spirit as all the desysop requests, so the resysop request should count as an honorary desysop request. Κσυπ Cyp   17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stick to the bare facts, thanks. I fail to see how a resysop request can be an honorary desysop request, in any language. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The bare facts are Leaky caldron that that resysop was protest against WMF desysop and that you are intentionally being disruptive. You've opposed and given your reason. Don't jump around everywhere plz. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stop leaving comments when I am good and ready thanks. If commenting in general discussion, or anywhere else for that matter in an RfA is being disruptive perhaps you would show me the guidance on that? Otherwise "plz" mind your own business. I have no doubt that the candidate or Cyp can respond without you chiming in. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AhmadLX: Is it really fair to say Leaky caldron is being disruptive by being outspoken? We're talking about a process that most of the community has silently resigned themselves to accept as a broken mess and glorified hazing ritual that Floquenbeam voluntarily chose to go through. How is it even possible to consider Leaky trying to set the record straight disruptive when this entire circus was theoretically avoidable? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the last time I pinged Leaky was during a disagreement about this very RFA. Just in case people are confused where I stand here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Yes it is. They said "I fail to see how a resysop request can be an honorary desysop request, in any language", knowing the background of that resysop request. They can disagree with the rationale, but it is not that they were unaware of what was being said. And this was not the only incident. Search for caldron's name on this page and talk page. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AhmadLX: I don't see it as reasonable whatsoever to suggest the act of getting the bit back (even under extenuating circumstances) is the same action as remove the bit. I'm fully aware of the events at play here, and I see no reason to call Leaky's interpretation disruptive. If you object, that's fine; but a rationale person given the set of facts available can and should challenge the narrative that +sysop is the same as -sysop even in this exceptional case. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AhmadLX, discuss the merits of the candidate and the RfA, not the participants. If you want a dialogue with Leaky caldron over what they did or did not know, go to their talk page. If this discussion continues as a tit-for-tat, it will be moved over to the talk page to join other offtopic discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm not mistaken, this is now the most participated-in RfA of all time. Is that because of how prolific Floquenbeam is as an editor and administrator, or is it more accurate to describe this as a community response (or "referendum", as Ajaddatz puts it above) regarding the recent WMF drama? Obviously, the correct answer is "a little bit of both", but I for one feel that one aspect is even more of a factor than the other. And I know I'm not alone in saying this. Kurtis (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurtis: Per the numbers, not yet: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 closed with 401 !votes. ——SerialNumber54129 13:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: I note for the record that "participation" isn't synonymous with "voting", but there's no way, if you see what I see with this page, that I'm going to even attempt to calculate attendance. What a delightful script! ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I must've omitted to count our colleagues in the Neutral section when doing my sums. Or the self-important blowhards ©Iridescent as they shall ever be known  ;) [FBDB] ——SerialNumber54129 15:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
292 + 93 + 18 = 403, so Floq has got the record. Another interesting statistic – if this RfA passes, it will be the most-opposed successful RfA (since 2008), with 93 dissenters just beating RexxS' 92 in opposition. It currently has the third second-highest number of supports of all time, the highest for a self-nomination and also the highest for a candidate's second nomination. – Teratix ₵ 13:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
300 supports now! I thought nobody but Cullen could ever do that! Dust off the record book. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, DHMO briefly had 300 supports, but the final tally was at 299 when he withdrew. Kurtis (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, he's passed Cullen! I didn't think any human could do that! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nomination passes by just 76%, one percent away from the discretionary range, that would make Floq promoted an admin again right away. However, the opposing and neutral sides seem to have good points on the nomination, though I've not yet voted. Would bureaucrats instead just disregard the 65~75% range and evaluate the consensus before promoting him? George Ho (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 65~75% isn't some kind of rule, it's guidance to participants on which RFAs are most likely to be contentious and go to a crat chat (just a couple of months ago we had a RFA which was successful despite scoring below the range). In the case of one as contentious as this, I guarantee that unless it had finished at 100% or below 50%, the crats will read every single support and oppose determining their relative validity; this is why we have bureaucrat closes rather than a straightforward ballot with a pass/fail mark. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will certainly go to crat chat regardless of whether it closes slightly above 75% or slightly below - can't imagine a single crat unilaterally closing this RfA considering the amount of controversy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, I would strongly urge any bureaucrat who comes to review this RfA once it is eligible for closure to open a 'crat chat. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see a crat chat being needed here. The majority of the community clearly is fine with the actions that Floq took and his return to admin status. What value would a bunch of barely-active randoms re-hashing these debates again serve? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Democracy? I also take issue with the dismissal of !votes because they're from people who don't typically get involved in these threads. I know that I don't typically get involved in RFAs simply because folk gatekeep.--Jorm (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jorm: I think policy forbids that approach. ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a weird argument to me: "We're upset the Foundation because they weren't democratic or transparent about this one ban, so we are absolutely about democracy! Except when process says otherwise!"--Jorm (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, over 75% is the automatic pass range. I could see a crat chat if participation were low, but given the massive amount of participation here, I think it would be relatively uncontroversial for a crat to say that a >75% rate is a clear "yes". Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, your argument says the exact opposite. The sheer number of people who feel compelled to comment here when they do not normally do so is indicative to me that the entire thing is far from uncontroversial.--Jorm (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for once, agree with Jorm, whether it the approval rate is 74%, 75% or 76%. This RfA may eventually result in a resysop but you can't have an RfA almost 100 opposes and not have a crat chat. This clearly isn't a slam dunk. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "For once."--Jorm (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me remind you that this is only the second RfA to receive 300 support votes. 100 opposes sounds like a lot when you ignore everything else. Nihlus 02:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it ought to end in the same way, then. Qwirkle (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can have a Crat Chat at 64% in RexxS' case, I can imagine it could, and probably should, go the other way at the top edge of the range. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a crat chat is needed here. While crats are expected to implement what is written, closing of RfAs is the only place I believe where they regularly do partake of common sense. Given the sheer intensity of opposing comments here, crats need to weigh in and clarify to the community what would be their stand in such cases. Lourdes 02:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The circumstances of the nomination are exceptional, and there has been a significant level of opposition, with many of the neutrals also expressing misgivings. Definitely needs to go to the crats. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd to mention the levels of opposition and the neutrals while completely ignoring that this RfA is likely to attain the highest amount of support in Wikipedia history. Also, it will be pretty hard to justify promoting an admin at 64% and not resysopping Floq here unless this takes a complete nosedive in the final few hours. And yes, I'm aware of the argument that each RfA should be handled on a case-by-case basis. That's not a good enough argument to justify such a disproportionate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Please Note Floquenbeam did not vanish just abandoned his previous account solely for privacy concerns.Floquenbeam gave his previous account details to 5 senior editors all of whom strongly endorse him.It was later disclosed during the Analysis of prior account during arbcom elections shows that User:Newyorkbrad also endoses Alison's finding and also WJBscribe,Pedro and Majorly who knew his previous account endorse the cadidiate .However refer to Question 18 of the old RFA now a senior editor felt that he had run for a previous RFA and failed it .But they refuse even to merely say that "Never run RFA on my previous account" But that issue is moot. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you're assuming bad faith. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says someone who !voted Oppose. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This RFA is unprecedented. It has the largest ever number of editors voting (446 as of this post) as well as the largest number of supports and probably largest number of opposes. Closing a discussion where editors have !voted is often said to be based on the strength of the argument and not a numbers exercise, so when an unheard of 100+ editors have raised various points about something how does that not merit at least some discussion? Should the crats just dismiss the views of that many editors because a threshold has been met? Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we're heading that way, which should be interesting. Normally 'Crats only recuse if they've participated in the RfA. However, here we have the "should we automatically resysop" chat, all of WP:FRAM and so-on where, depending on their participation, a number of 'Crats could also be sufficiently involved to also trigger a reasonable recusal. But they generally make reasonable calls, though I suspect those remaining will take longer than usual - this must be the most opposes ever in an RfA to make it to CRATCHAT? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very troubled if participation in FRAM required recusal here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: - that's why I noted "depending on their participation". If we barred all participating 'Crats then that we'd probably have no 'Crats and wouldn't make any sense regardless of that. But if, in WP:FRAM, a 'Crat said Floq's actions were the sign of a deluded mind (or something along those lines of unhappiness) then they'd need to recuse, regardless of their participation or lack within this RfA. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Nosebagbear. I agree with you that if a crat called Floq a deluded mind (or something similar) whether as part of FRAM or not they'd be better off participating as a !voter here rather than in a crat chat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously a crat chat is necessary here, and the reason most of the people calling for it are opposers is because certain supporters are still purporting the dangerous lie that Floq's actions were uncontroversial. I understand that many people see them as correct, and I respect that opinion completely, but that does not make the actions uncontroversial. The supporters would do well to have the tiniest piece of respect for the 100+ people (or, if you prefer, 25% of !voters) who have !voted oppose. We show that this is not uncontroversial.
    I will respect the result of a crat chat on this RfA regardless of what it is. I have no intention of attempting to overturn anything or badger anyone if the RfA is successful. Unfortunately I see many people eager to wreak hell upon the crats for doing their jobs if there's anything but an immediate close as successful. But I trust the crats not to be intimidated by these threats. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 17:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2&oldid=908445361"